Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive164

Repeated incivility despite warnings

I'd like to request some kind of intervention by an uninvolved admnistrator for help with a user who is repeatedly uncivil despite warnings. On December 19th, mentioned in a thread above, Argyriou, gave a vandalism test warning ({{test2a}}) to admin Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington for a good faith edit (removing a YouTube link) that he disagreed with: [1]. Nick responded by noting the inappropriateness of the vandalism accusation: your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. Later, on ANI, he again accuses Nick of bad faith: [2]. In response to both of these, I asked Argyriou to remain civil and not make acusations of bad faith: [3]. In reply to this Argyriou again repeated claims of vandalism, this time inserting "Do not remove without first discussing on talk page. Failure to comply will be considered vandalism." into the article itself, commented out. I warned again, but to no avail. Today, Argyriou again placed a vandalism warning, {{test3a}} on Nick's talk page [4]. He has had the reasoning for why calling others' good faith edits vandalism is insulting and uncivil explained to him repeatedly, and he repeats the behavior purposefully. There is an issue which Argyriou is involved in debating (YouTube link deletions), and which I'm sure he considers me involved in, so I'm simply bringing it here for uninvolved administrators to intervene. The problem is that there is a legitimate debate to be had, but when I and others are instead bombarded by accusations of bad faith and demeaning vandalism warning templates, that discussion can't happen. Dmcdevit·t 10:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism templates should be used for vandalism, and not to unnecessarily inflame a complex content dispute -- Samir धर्म 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on Argyriou's talk page. Proto::► 11:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[5], [6], and many bad-faith edits on my talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, let's not reach for blocks. Instead, we do need to mediate. The YouTube removals have general consensus, but the minority is substantial enough and certain enough that some will feel justified in fighting to keep the links. To some degree, removing the link without consensus is wrong. However, everyone here is fighting over invoking the holy words of blocking ("vandalism" and "incivility"). Really, that's not going to help anyone. Geogre 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't blocked anyone; no one has. Was this directed at me? Dmcdevit·t 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the You Tube links removals defintely do not have community consensus. The issue here seems to be a particular link which has been established as not a copytright violation at all, and which Dmcdevit and Nearly Headless Nick keep purposely deleting as if they want to upset people at the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#JSmith.2FDmcdevit_user_conduct_RFC_draft. It seems like pretty ridiculous behavior for admins/a member of Arbcom to be engaging, sorry. It should stop, and Dmcdevit should apologize. Repeatedly removing content without discussion is vandalism. Mumblio 04:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is consensus that YouTube should generally not be linked to. See WP:EL WP:SPAM and WP:COPYVIO. A lot of people don't seem the know that even a independantly-made film link posted can be COPYVIO, see:

“ What's copyrighted? Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source. ”

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's explicitly not vandalism. Read WP:Vandalism, under "What vandalism is not": "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable -- you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism." Even if you accept Cindery's formulation of the dispute, the link removals are clearly not vandalism as defined on the relevant policy page. MastCell 05:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the vandalism policy, bad faith edits which are inarguably bad faith edits are vandalism. I'm overwhelmingly convinced that Nick's edits were in bad faith, and that there is ample evidence--in the user conduct RFC being filed against him, it seems so--a lot of people agree he lied, which is inarguably bad faith, and it was reasonable for Argyiouto point that out, to try to stop it--he was acting in good faith, and brought the issue here himself after issuing the vandal warnings. Mumblio 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only have I not been removing the link "as if they want to upset people at the article" (please read WP:AGF), I think you'd be hard pressed to find a diff of me even removing the link besides the original edit more than a month ago; because I haven't been. These accusations are unfounded and distract from my query, which wasn't about the content dispute at all. Dmcdevit·t 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In the edit history of Barrington Hall, you made an edit on Dec 19--what was that edit? Mumblio 06:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mumblio, are you referring to this? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:20, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Never mind, Mumblio is an abusive sockpuppet of Cindery; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cindery. Dmcdevit·t 01:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Draft RFC deleted by admin

Please note that the draft RFC that Argyiou and Cindery were working on — User:Argyriou/SirNicholas — "has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation" by Pilotguy (talk • contribs), with the comment "nonsense deleted". ("Nonsense"? Rather a POV comment on an RFC draft, isn't it?) I question the propriety of such a deletion; it amounts to denying the right to draft a user-conduct RFC. Argyiou, at least, has never been blocked, yet this seems very much like a disenfranchisement... and seems much too disturbingly similar to the "blanking content" sense of "vandalism", though I'll happily listen to anyone willing to persuade me otherwise. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 17:01, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

While I don't know what the page contains, I would like to say that there is a difference between a RFC draft and character assassination - and far too much of the latter happens in the guise of the former. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I know what the page contained (past tense), since only an admin can see deleted pages. But a draft in progress is not necessarily what will be posted (possibly many revisions later) as a finished product to RFC. If it did contain PA's, wouldn't the procedure be to warn the user to remove them from the document, rather than delete the entire document without warning or notification? Why the rush? Why the absence of communication to the user? Would it relate to the sequence of this and then this? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:22, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Also please note the sheer irony: during a debate about whether admins are improperly deleting others' contributions and improperly using their power in content disputes to protect their preferred versions of pages — an admin deletes-and-protects an RFC draft on precisely that issue from the userspace of the spokesman for the other side. What better example could there be? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 17:28, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

And please note that Pilotguy did not post to Argyiou's talk page: no warning, no request to change or delete anything, and no notification even after the fact. Was this due process? Is Argyiou being treated fairly? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 17:35, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• It is worth noting that blatant breaches of any policy are often not given warnings, simply blocks. I'm really undecided as to the effectiveness of that, but that seems to be the standard. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this issue is also being discussed in a separate thread below. MastCell 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(At "User:Pilotguy's deletion of userspace User:Argyriou/SirNicholas", for the sake of any text-only readers.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:12, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This issue is also up at deletion review. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:09, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• As I said on the DRV discussion, I specifically advised Argyrou to create an RFC in order to resolve this dispute rather than let it get out of hand, as the alternative was the mess going more and more out of control. That it was deleted as an attack page(!) is, frankly, unacceptable. Proto::► 10:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It continues

Thank you Proto for the note to this user's talk page. Unfortunately his response was simply to repeat the same uncivil accusations, saying again "Sir Nicholas is engaging in vandalism." Dmcdevit·t 08:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Stating an opinion, along with the rationale for that opinion, is not incivility. Argyriou (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's your opinion does not change the fact that it is still an unwarranted assumption of bad faith ("My opinion is that you are an idiot" is not substantially different from "You are an idiot".) against a respected member of our community, and resorting to ad hominem rather than addressing the issues. In response to an admin explaining this to you, it's more dismaying. Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring in a content dispute is generally disruptive and frowned upon, but can't be considered vandalism, per WP:VAND. The word "vandalism" carries important policy implications, in a Wikipedia context, and this situation doesn't seem to fit. Luna Santin 09:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted here – [7], and my intent was not revert-warring with the user. I was using AWB and missed noticing the page again. My action was in good faith, and the source is unreliable. However, I do not wish to stir up a content dispute discussion here. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oussma and User:Nostramaroc blocked indef

I had blocked Oussma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week on Dec 15th, 2006 because of copyright issues after a dozen of warnings. I am now blocking his sock Nostramaroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitly for the same reasons and for evading block. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk Comment - If you have evidence they are socks (or there was an unarchived CU request), please lend RFCU a hand and post it so we can archive it for future reference :) On behalf of RFCU, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

At RFCU, it says that we block "obvious, disruptive sock puppet" and that "no checkuser is necessary". So the "obvious" part of that are the contribs (Morocco-related topics), timing, copyright infringement and refusing to communicate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying its required for them to file a RFCU. I am saying it would be useful to note for future reference that they were blocked as a sock (and why). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 14:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of admin powers by Jayjg

User:Jayjg has protected David Irving[8] without giving a justification and despite the fact that he has recently been involved in editing the article. (see history).

User:SlimVirgin has removed the protection tag[9] without unprotecting the article. 87.117.199.132 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Which account were you trying to edit from? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason given by Jayjg was {{sprotect-banneduser}}. This guy is clearly a sock of whoever that banned user is (User:Kgeza67 by the looks of it). I've blocked the 87.177.199.0/24 range. -- Steel 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be User:Wik, who hates Jayjg because he's put some effort into blocking all his sockpuppets. Anyways, I don't think 87.177.199.0/24 is him - according to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kgeza67, the user is currently using a different range. Khoikhoi 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone complaining on ANI about misuse of admin powers shortly after an article is protected due to some banned user sets off the alarm bells for me. If you're confident it's not said banned user unblock the range. -- Steel 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's likely to be the same person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag by mistake when I made an edit. I've returned it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I find no reason to censure Jayjg. He was merely protecting the integrity of the article.Bakaman 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect is not as big a deal as full protection. I would expect an admin to seek outside help for full protection, even in an obvious case such as attacks by a banned user. Thatcher131 13:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:$295,040.16!? I CANT BELIEVE IT!!

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some more opinions on this situation. It doesn't seem clear why this name is blockable under WP:U(i've seen longer names), and WP:AGF wasn't followed since the account didn't commit any vandalism. I'm fairly neutral, but I was wondering if we could have a reason here so this person doesn't become disgruntled and have an excuse to vandalize due to an axe to grind. I have asked for an unblock for this account until then, but if there's a good reason under policy I have no problem removing that tag. Just H 23:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A person/group of persons has been creating usernames with a number that is whatever amount is shown in the fundraiser bar on top of this page at the moment (unless you've dismissed it already). That is being trollish. Kimchi.sg 00:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed my blocked username above, so I thought I'd comment. I see nothing wrong with mentioning how much we've raised in my username along with my sandbox only (cause it is for experimenting) contributions. Last year I did this and had mixed results. Some people simply dont "get" my sense of humor. This I understand. However, to my knowledge there is nothing in the username policy that prohibits these names. Except for having multiple sockpuppets, I dont see the problem. If you want, I could pick a less attention getting name (such as this one) and stay in the sandbox. Deal?TheAnonomousFundraiser 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it as a new user and I thought that it was a vandalistic username thus I blocked I am sorry for not AGF but given that the username was all caps and just appeared to be from a troll /vandal I blocked per Usernames that closely resemble any used by vandals of WP:U Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(You didn't block this guy...) J Di ^talk 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I did block a differnt sock though $301,179.46!!! WOWIE! ZOWIE! KAPOWIE!! and there where others that other admins have blocked. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Username block, I think. To quote WP:USERNAME: "The primary purpose of usernames is to identify and distinguish contributors. This facilitates communication and record-keeping. The username is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement. No one has a right to any particular username. While colorful, interesting, or expressive names may add to the pleasure of Wikipedia, they are not essential." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I blocked one of these too. Socks and trolls, oh my. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A note, User:TheAnonymousFundraiser was blocked by Zscout370 for a username violation with the reason given that it sounded like the user was trying to imply that he/she was an official foundation member. I think this is another example of the growing problem of username blocks being overused, and I can't see how that users name could be interpreted in the manner suggested. I'll take a trout to the side of the head if everyone agrees with the block, but I just don't see it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

TAF is able to pick another username, and I have no problems with it. But this particular one, during this time of Fundraiser, could imply he is a Foundation staff asking for money or running the Fundraiser. On the Username policy pages, names sounding like they are connected to Wikimedia could be blocked, so I excercised my judgement in blocking this one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's one person that has created all these usernames so far - so he can create a legitimate one too. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not creating accounts for comedy's sake. Now remember, WP:DNFT. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic

False edit summary by [User:12ptHelvetica]

As evidenced by this diff [10] the edit summary "I've made some spelling corrections" was an out-and-out lie and an attempt to mislead other editors of this disputed article which this user has done his best to disrupt and make NNPOV. --BenBurch 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Feminine hygiene/energy linkspammer

The following users have all contributed to link spam, in one way or another, to one of Cogeneration, Trigeneration, Sexual dysfunction, Female sexual arousal disorder , or Feminine hygiene:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of these users have made positive contributions (many edits per article -- seems someone needs to learn to use preview). These may be external proxies for an ISP of sorts, I have done no technical investigation. There may be other sockpuppets of this user, please keep an eye out.

I'm not entirely sure what sort of action should be taken. I've removed all spam from these articles, but I can't comb through all the edits of these users. I have already spam-warned Helloitsonlyme, however, I did not do the ips. Please advise. -- Jmax- 18:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User space violation

I know i it's better to ask personally, but in this case, im not going there... --Striver - talk 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• wow i hate people like u who takes thing as granted. people like u should die right now. PhBot 12:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• What does that even mean? ...not that I think Striver follows an NPOV routine or anything. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• PhBo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should just be indef. blocked for trolling here (combined with the fake "PhBot" sig of a non-existent user). (→Netscott) 13:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Already done. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

He didn't exactly make a threat on the ANI...but whatever. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It is just up there Haizum. I see it :) -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I mean no offense, but are you a native speaker of English? Saying "people like you should die" is not a threat. It's just like saying, "I hope you get cancer and die," it's terribly incivil but it isn't an interpersonal threat of violence. It just isn't. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you aren't a native speaker of English. So, let me just tell you, "you should die" isn't a threat. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"You should die right now" is a death threat, imo. Justified block. You might want to reconsider what you've said, taking into account WP:CIV. – Chacor 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

""People like you should die" is even less direct, and is "merely" a general statement of hatred. It isn't a death threat simply because the words don't convey that message. It's almost too simple to explain. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you can read over WP:CIV if you like, but I haven't stated anything here that would warrant a refresh on my part. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So Haizum, are you against the block? Believing or not you should die is a death threat got nothing to do w/ linguistics but w/ culture. So aren't you a native socio-cultural human? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* You can't just take snippets like that. The user did not say "die," the full clause is "people like you should die." I'm telling you, not asking you: It isn't a death threat because it isn't supposed to be read that way. Do I need to cite legal precedent? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is another reason for an idef block, then by all means proceed. However, no interpersonal threat of violence was made. It was a statement of hatred, etc, but nothing to indicate a future set of events surrounding violence from one editor to another. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

...and now what was wrong w/ the block? I blocked and put Personal attacks involving death + trolling + username as an edit summary; Read dis. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks what is the point of this discussion? This 5 edits to its username account is very obviously trolling and that combined with the fake signature warrants indef. blocking. (→Netscott) 13:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable =). I was looking at the tag left on the user's page which refers to a physical threat. That is all I object to. Indef block for whatever you must, just not a threat of violence - it isn't there. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because there is no apporpriate template for that Haizum. {{Npa5}} is not for indef blocks unfortunately. So i had to use {{Npa6}}. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for pointing out the edit summary. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

... What... the... FUCK is on that user page!? Is that being used as a sandbox? If it isn't, I'm not sure it should stay. – Chacor 13:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, i don't see anything wrong w/ Patchouli's userpage. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really encyclopedic and being used as a sandbox? Otherwise it looks like there's quite a lot of material that would fail WP:BLP. – Chacor 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just can't find any policy or guideline re to the way Pachtouli is presenting those info at his userspace. I'd be glad to know about them if there are. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't being used as a sandbox (even if it was), like I said, there's stuff there that could constitute a violation of WP:LIVING. – Chacor 13:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This user page (at least the "Veil fetishism" part) should be deleted. This user is just spiting the will of the community by recreating (WP:CSD#G4) the deleted article Veil fetishism on their primary user page (if it was a sub user page-ie: a developmental copy- that'd be fine). (→Netscott) 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that now. I've just deleted that according to WP:CSD#G4. Thnaks Netscott. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

After Netscott message on my talkpage, i have undone the removal of content. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The content of the page has to do with this deletion review. I assume that the user wanted to make the contents available for the consideration of reviewers. In light of that, I think that the content should be allowed to stay until the review is finished. Bucketsofg 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is endorsing the deletion at drw, what now? --Striver - talk 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use abuse by user

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently, despite warnings, re-added images that violate WP:FUC to articles that were removed due to the fact that the articles were utterly flooded with completely unnecessary fair use images. He will not respond to warnings, and persistently reverts the removal of the images. jgp ^T_C 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has apparently responded now, but only after being reverted after his warning (which came after multiple reversions). Despite me linking to WP:FUC in my first warning, he appears to be playing dumb. jgp ^T_C 19:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the three images (I would hardly qualify them as a "flood"), they don't seem to me to be useless as they helped identify individual characters that were discussed in the article. The question is, do the images contribute significantly by identify these characters? The answer to that question is, of course, subjective.

Ultimately, this is a content dispute between two editors and probably best handled through one of the dispute resolution processes. On a side note, I've tagged the article with {{in-universe}} tag because of its unencyclopedic tone. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LuisMatosRibeiro using multiple IP socks to evade ban

LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, vandalism, and reintroduction of POV edits (flying in the face of consensus) at Holodomor article, a highly-charged and controversial topic. Ever since, a large number of the exact same edits have shown up from the same range of IP addresses in Portugal (which is where the blocked user was tracked to). See list of suspected socks (all IPs in the same 82.155.xxx.xxx range), except one username believed to also be a sock of this user). [11] User:Sebbeng 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis Vandal Again! (POV template vandalised??)

There is something wrong it seems with the {{pov}} template. It brings up a pic of a guy masturbating. Look at this [12] previous version of the Prabowo article. Don't click if you don't want to see a guy masturbating. I think it might be similar to a case above. Merbabu 07:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the pic and a whole list of articles it links to - the one's i checked have the {{pov}} tag where the pic appears. The pic (don't click if you don't want to see explicit masturbation shots) [13] I hope some one can get rid of it soon. Merbabu 07:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted. alphachimp. 07:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a Commons image... You've only deleted its local description page. :/ And I protected the vandalised redirects since they are widely used. Kimchi.sg 07:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Commons, where everyone can upload pictures of their own wang, which are never used except vandalise Wikipedia. Yet the images stay on there. We should seriously think about changing the way Commons images are used on Wikipedia, like require an image description page to exist on Wikipedia for the image, or it can't be used, as Commons lacks any kind of quality control. Proto::► 10:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can Commons images be overridden? In other words, if you upload an image to enWiki with the same name as a Commons one, that overrides it right? We could come up with some sort of nice, professional looking image that says, "this commons image is not permitted to be used on en Wiki because it violates our policies or has been deleted in accordance with our deletion procedures". That image could then be protected in place. BigDT 17:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now there's forward thinking! You or I or someone else should test that. Grandmasterka 17:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But then we wind up with the override image all over the place. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understan your objection. If you mean that we shall see the "override image" in wikipedia's articles, it is OK. Once it pops up, someone will go and delink it. `'mikkanarxi 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be even easier than that. Presumably we will be sticking the overridden images in a category, so a bot could just patrol the cattegory and remove the image anywhere it could find it. BigDT 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I do know a couple of images at commons which have no place in wikipedia. But this must be elaborated how to do this formally. It is not exactly WP:IFD. I am starting a policy proposal, Wikipedia:Images for blocking. `'mikkanarxi 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just tested it to see what would happen. I get this message - "A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. Please go back and upload this file under a new name." - when I try to upload an image over top of a current Commons image. It's actually good that I am not allowed to overide the image ... otherwise, image overide vandalism would probably be a big problem. I'm going out on a limb and assuming (I don't know, just assuming) that admins can overide images right now today ... that's what's done with images on the main page, right? Aren't they uploaded temporarilly then protected? So the technical ability to do this should already be in place. BigDT 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to find and revert this vandalism. --NE2 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceraurus/Arthur Ellis evading ban

I suspect User:209.217.79.235 is User:Arthur Ellis (which in turn is a sockpuppet of User:Ceraurus) evading his most recent ban as specified at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Arthur_Ellis_banned_for_one_month. 74.12.163.213 19:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked the IP. Looking at the evidence of systematic evasion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, it looks to me as if Arthur Ellis is contemptuous of both policy and consensus. Should we extend the one month ban? Guy (Help!) 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• General arbcom policy is after five blocks the block length for enforcing a ban is extended to a year. You'd have to look up the specifics of the case though. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running feud between Arthur Ellis (probably a Canadian blogger named Mark Bourrie), and his nemesis Warren Kinsella. The only reason Kinsella is not also sanctioned is that he smart enough to have never registered a user name. I would not be at all surprised if the anonymous complaint above was made by Kinsella; certainly every time Ellis' IP range makes an edit to the affected articles, Kinsella's IP range makes a complaint. Look for example at Lotuslander (talk · contribs) and Bowlder (talk · contribs), two brand-new single purpose accounts which have been re-adding negative information to Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after it was stubbed following the arbitration case. The only practical answer is to permanently s-protect the affected articles (Rachel Marsden, Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella), which I have now done, and watching the damn things forever, since these two 40-year old children can't seem to find someplace else to throw spitballs at each other. Thatcher131 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification Thatcher131, it is appreciated. May I inquire where the case was, if there was one? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, as well as the archives of arbitration enforcement, if you really want to know more. One really odd thing about the current IP editor, his edits to Rachel Marsden look like Arthur Ellis, but his edits to User talk:Catchpole, User talk:CJCurrie, and Allegations of apartheid look like someone else. Thatcher131 22:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was aware of the CU cases (though admittedly haven't read over them much other than the sockmaster/puppets) but not the Arbitration case. Thanks for the swift reply, it's appreciated. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kid Sonic (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what to make of this guy. Right now, he is threatening... some form of action against me at Talk:List of Zatch Bell! episodes because I refuse to allow him to add episode summaries. This action was the subject of previous edit wars perpetrated by banned users Myalysk (talk · contribs) and Bobabobabo (talk · contribs) of which I had marginal participation, but it seems to me that those actions make it clear that episode summaries should not be added to this page. He's only engaged in personal attacks once, which is why I'm not at WP:PAIN, but his actions seem over-the-top at best. Danny Lilithborne 20:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your argument against episode summaries. But I do know that your example of has nothing to do with episode summaries because he was banned for vandalism. The last straw being when he attempted to disrupt an AfD on the fanfic Anime Warriors! and randomly placed AfD tags onto other, legitimate articles in protest. Your example of Bobabobabo doesn't appear to hold water either with regard to episode summaries. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess my memory sucks. :( I seem to remember an edit war by somebody based on episode summaries in this article, which was reverted primarily by Geg (talk · contribs). In any case, even if that edit war is all in my head, I don't think summaries should be unilaterally added without the input of other contributors; plus I don't think they're necessary, as most "list of episodes" articles of prolific anime don't have summaries. Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand your beef about Kid Sonic's initial edits other then, "you don't like episode summaries". If that's the case, you shouldn't have reverted Kid Sonic's additions in the first place. Also, I don't think editors need the permission or consultation of other editors in order to add brief summaries to episode listing articles. To say such a thing treads into ownership territory. As for the reason that many anime episode lists don't have summaries, that's because no one has bothered to write them.

Now I'm not saying that Kid Sonic wasn't in the wrong by being uncivil. But you weren't in the right either. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I didn't expect to be right. I guess I'll tell him. Danny Lilithborne 21:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with something like episode summaries. Bobabobabo's issue was fair use images, up to several hundred of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting myself for scrutiny of sock account use

OK, so a month or two ago I created a second account, User:Girondin, with the intent of using it to edit articles that might personally identify me (hometown, high school, college, etc). A few days ago, in the context of a nasty dispute (in which I was uninvolved) at Talk:Barrington Hall, I made a total of 3 talk page comments with the purpose of correcting a misunderstanding - not realizing that I was signed in as User:Girondin rather than User:MastCell. One of my comments, in a moment of weakness, was an uncivil response to this sort of thing. To complicate matters, Cindery (currently blocked for disruption and abusive sockpuppetry), whose misunderstanding I was attempting to correct, is an editor with whom I've had disagreements in the past. She's accused me of abusive sockpuppetry based on those 3 edits.

After seeing this comment on Cindery's talk page, I realized what had happened and responded immediately by claiming ownership of the account, as well as apologizing for the uncivil comment I'd made. However, Cindery seems more interested in a pound of flesh than in de-escalation or dispute resolution, and has repeated a number of unfounded charges she's made against me in the past. Rather than listen to her ongoing accusations, I'd prefer to submit the matter here myself for scrutiny, administrator review, and whatever remedy the community deems appropriate.

My position is that this was an unfortunate and accidental occurrence, but one which I cannot undo; all I can do is take responsbility for it, as I've tried to do. I believe that, even if it were intentional, the edits from the User:Girondin account do not represent abusive sockpuppetry. I've apologized repeatedly for the uncivil comment - it's pretty mild compared to the kind of abuse Cindery routinely dishes out, but that's no excuse. I've already tagged User:Girondin to make it clear that it's my account. The most relevant documents are probably these:

• Special:Contributions/Girondin - contrib history for User:Girondin account
• Talk:Barrington Hall#evidence of bad faith - for the context of the edits in question
• User Talk:Cindery#Who is Girondin? - Cindery's talk page (currently protected by admin Samir), for Cindery's charges, my responses, and the attempts of an admin (KillerChihuahua) to de-escalate
• Talk:Depo Provera and Talk:Emergency contraception, if you're masochistic or interested in the background of my prior disagreement with Cindery

Sorry to bother on the holidays, and for the long post, but I'd rather have this resolved now in the open. Thank you. MastCell 20:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like your remarks here should resolve the matter. I will make a permalink to a state of this page with your remarks and my response, and leave a note on Cindery's talk page. If she wants to reopen the matter, then the burden is on her to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

User:Nnatan keeps re-inserting his original research, cited only to his own self-published work. He has now stated explicitly that he is "not going to discuss with editors who refer to commonplaces and cliches of dictionaries or nomenklature encyclopedias" and he will continue to re-insert the material until he is blocked. Since I have been the main person disputing his citation of himself as a source, I am probably not the one who should act in this matter as an administrator. Given his promise to keep inserting inappropriate material until he is blocked, would someone please indef-block him? And perhaps then semi-protect the article Solomon's Temple? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes: he has been duly warned. In fact, other than an initial welcome, his user talk page consists of nothing but increasingly strong warnings about this matter. - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nnatan looks like a single-purpose account existing only to push his original research. I'm inclined to support an indef block. Beit Or 21:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Pancasila (vandalism)

Pancasila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been given several vandalism and incivility/personal attack warnings, including a final warning for vandalism on 21 December (see his talk page). However, today he committed vandalism and personal attacks yet again [14]—this is the fourth time he has vandalized that user's page [15][16][17]. A block may be in order. —Psychonaut 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters

(Moving this here from WP:AIV, in my opinion the situation is too complicated for that venue Mangojuice^talk 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)):

• Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user was blocked once before for making undiscussed page moves to Holodomor and major undiscussed edits to same page. Continues to press POV edits, deletes images en masse from page and once again is making undiscussed page moves. Blanks pages. Has been blocked 8 times for edit warring, undiscussed moves, and other offenses. Obvious vandalism-only account. User:Sebbeng 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• This topic is also further up the page at #Holodomor is moved again - fourth time. -- JLaTondre 16:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And the reason we haven't blocked him for a month is ... ? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's give him one last chance. The Holodomor article has been move-protected and Sebbeng (talk · contribs) has given him an official final warning. -- tariqabjotu 17:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if he persists, I'd advocate a long block, as I see no sign to this point that he has any intention of following our policies or norms. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this has to be his laaaast chance. I've rarely seen a user more unwilling to compromise on anything. - Merzbow 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a period of two million seconds. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's...555 hours, 33 minutes, and 20 seconds, or a bit over 23 days. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did the math too. It's shorter than it sounds. Newyorkbrad 01:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was familiar with the length of the block. I have a page devoted to satisfying my sadistic needs (as they pertain to block lengths). -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, why seconds? Khoikhoi 06:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. If he doesn't change his beheaviour, a perm block should be discussed, I believe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man 3 - 3RR plus vandalism, incivility, and pattern behavior

(Moved from Admin Noticeboard to AN/I)ThuranX 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Can an admin please help regarding events on this page which happened yesterday and today. Last night, both 222.152.186.32 and Boggydark got into a revert war here. Bignole, Erik, Ace Class Shadow, User:Wiki-newbie, Veracious Rey, and myself have all counseled both editors on things like civility[18], citation, the difference between being bold and a vandal[19], and more[20] for weeks now[21]. Neither makes an effort to change, both call us all names [22], [23] for working hard on the page and not wanting POV edits added, and it's time for it to stop. ThuranX 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional information: One of the posters, the IP user, has also begun to take his issues to another site, IMDb, as seen here[24]. ThuranX 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some help here? The user continues to be hostile and combative. We've recieved no assistance yet. I understand the holidays strain the admin resources, but do not want to see this archived unanswered so I have to repost it. Thank you. ThuranX 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer

24.68.229.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has only been used to make edits to Freemasonry, and the edit summaries show the same style of rhetoric as Lightbringer. Clearly a POV-pusher, most notably this time he inserted an entire article into the main article, and the inserted article is currently under discussion for rewrite. IP address is in the same area as known LB socks. Therefore, I am requesting a block. MSJapan 00:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun Fetish article is nonsense, nomination for speedy deletion removed by IP

I'd like to draw the attention of an administrator to the Gun fetish article.

This article is complete nonsense, covering a non-existant topic.

A request for speedy deletion was added a couple days ago, but an IP address deleted both the nomination, aswell as the points made about lack of sources, and lack of articles linking too it.

I would like to see this article looked at by an admin, thank you. IUJHJSDHE 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the "db-nonsense" tag was removed by User:Quarl and replaced with a prod, which is perfectly acceptable to remove. The article in itself is not patent nonsense. This is a job for AfD. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Always remember: on Wikipedia, utter bullshit is different from patent nonsense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not refering to the change made by Quarl, but by the removal of the tags relating to deletion, lack of links, and lack of sources, by 209.247.22.198 IUJHJSDHE 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; the article has since been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun fetish. In the future you can nominated de-proded/de-speedied articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (this happens all the time and doesn't really need special attention). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 22:05Z

NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views

Hello again everyone. Further to admin Guy’s helpful pointers I understand that some may be scrutinizing the NLP article already. Here is more easy to access information for admin who find themselves far to busy to scrutinize the confounding amount of edits that are occurring on that page every day (on average about 30-40 a day and recently as much as 70 odd). I’m posting this up here because it seems to me that core facts and highly relevant views are still being systematically obscured. Here are a few examples:

• I added straight and representative quotes (with the help of user BenAveling) [25]) and user Comaze seems to have minimized it. [26].

• I added this set of straight sourced definitions to the introduction in order to give the reader some idea of what NLP practicers do (eg assessing eye movements and postures…) – Comaze removed them from the intro to criticisms section adding something more promotional to the intro (what NLP authors say NLP can do for you) [27].

• User 58.178.195.26 limiting controversy to therapy only (not representative of the article at all) [28]

• User 58.178.195.26 obscuring the basic facts again (moving them out of opening) calling them “peacocking”. [29] and again (note) erroneous and unsupportable label- skepticism based psychologists [30]. No idea who added that last point and its too much work to search the edits.

• Some more by other unaccountable editor [31]

• Use of argumentative writing (claims and other commentary) [32]

• Selective editing (the negative end of the paragraph is omitted) [33]

• User 58.178.195.26 denying that there is a problem and actually encouraging the behavior [34]

I think all that’s required is to find a way to ensure the basic facts are presented without any sort of minimizing – overloading with unsourced commentary – moving out of context – de-emphasizing - or negating science with hyperbole – testimonial - and non-sequitur. Apart from the recent helpful scrutiny of Guy, I get the feeling I’m pretty much working on my own on the NLP article and the relevant facts are just not getting presented properly with due weight. Promotional obscuring of facts seems to me to be an overwhelming problem and part of it seems to be achieved by persistently overloading the article with edits. I know I have more to learn here - so if any admin thinks my assessment needs qualifying in any way – please contact me here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 06:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. User AlanBarnet obviously hasn't read the instructions on this page. Indeed AlanBarnet seems to have trouble following any of the Wikipedia guidelines towards collaboration. 58.179.175.12 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No 58.179.175.12 this is not about content. This seems to me to be evidence of a group of editors who are obscuring relevant views by overloading the article with edits. There are multiple dubious edits that are hard to identify because of the overload. There also seems to me to be a lot of editors making edits based upon their own opinion (eg they think Tony Robbins does not do NLP despite the stated views of researchers). There also seem to me to be a lot of very similar edits going on and people praising each other for insignificant changes that obscure dubious ones. I am presenting this for the benefit of admin and for the benefit of the article. AlanBarnet 12:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please lighten up and use the proper channels, there's no conspiracy. You seem to be under the impression that admins have content resolution authority. This is not the case. Like it or not, the condoned procedure is to put your personal irritations aside and work with the other editors to form a consensus. 58.179.135.173 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm as light as a Christmas fairy. Nevertheless - you are trying to deter me from notifying admin of a problem. I requested admin to reply here or on my talkpage if my assessment needed qualifying and they did not - so I assume that my assessment is at least fairly accurate. Already an admin has raised concern over editors with proven conflict of interests working on the NLP article. I've shown evidence of one of those editors persistently removing valid edits and refusing due weight on the fundamental facts. You (an anonymous editor) seem to be actively encouraging that activity and discouraging the notification of that activity. The presence of so many anonymous editors conducting such activities on the NLP article raises the question -exactly how many editors there could have a conflict of interest? Those anon editors are certainly not telling editors with known conflicts of interests that Wikipedia strongly discourages such activities. I can only assume my notification here is helpful to admin. AlanBarnet 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AB has posted in discussion that I am in violation of WP:COI. I don't think WP:COI applies to me in full because I no financial interest in this topic. I am willing to confirm this by disclosing details to a third party. Althought I have training in this topic which I have disclosed. I will seek to hold myself to a higher level of responsibility when it comes to wikipedia policy. I have already started by working other editors to check facts and remove any sythesis or conclusion not attributed to a verifiable source. This is a difficult topic because there are many competing and disagreements between authors that need to be described. There are also different criteria for evidence in the different disciplines where NLP has been applied. --Comaze 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

More evidence: I think its fairly probable with just a few clicks on Google that the above editor (User Comaze) is either or a close associate, who is in Australia. Even after reminders from admin that there is a proven conflict of interest – user Comaze continues to persistently obscure facts. Now Comaze even denies the conflict of interest despite all the evidence and views to the contrary. User Comaze keeps removing (even today) perfectly clear - reasonable and supported edits and replacing them, minimizing them, or obscuring them with promotional gloss. It seems to me that to sensibly reduce the chance of promotional obscuring of facts it would be advisable to actively stop Comaze from editing articles related to NLP and stop all non-accounted editors from supporting Comaze's promotional obscuring of facts. If Comaze has any desire to help edit Wikipedia it can be done on articles that have nothing to do with NLP. There are plenty of them after all. AlanBarnet 11:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never posted my personal details on wikipedia and wish to keep it that way. I do not wish to disclose my personal details on wikipedia except to a third party administrator. Furthermore I have already responded to this editor on his talk page and the discussion page. I have agreed to write in a more descriptive tone and be very careful with checking facts. I have been working with a number of unrelated editors to restore the article after it was discovered that the banned editors wer every creative with the facts and references. [Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Summary_of_editor_blocks_for_breach_of_Arbcom.2C_sockpuppet_and_meatpuppet_use]. --Comaze 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not posting details - just pointing out Comaze's reluctance to allow a notification of his already known conflict of interest. If anyone thinks I am being unhelpful or erroneous in doing so - please reply here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 05:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPA - Please stop posting my personal details on wikipedia. I said I'd disclose my details to a third party if necessary. --Comaze 05:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Your details are freely available on your own userpage and I stopped posting your name after you admitted those details were yours. AlanBarnet 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More information: Comaze firstly removed all evidence of <refactored user's personal website> from userpage - and states that he is leaving Wikipedia[35]. Then states that he is on holiday due to wikistress (from not being able to edit NLP related articles?) [36]. Then makes a comeback stating "back with a passion" on editsummary[37]. Then presents selective editing on the article (the end of the paragraph reads (Word of mouth, reputation, charisma and neatly packaged seminars seem to constitute proof of NLP's favorable outcome. If such incredible results had truly been achieved, why haven't they been documented and presented to the scientific community and the general). Yesterday Comaze made edits on the main NLP article despite a known COI, even after reminders to stop by admin Guy [38] and multiple reminders on the NLP talkpage by myself. AlanBarnet 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that both users Comaze [39] and 58.178.234.128 [40] are removing key information from this noticeboard. Comaze's information about his company is freely available on his own article [41]. Comaze has a known COI and there seem to me to be far too many unaccounted editors on the NLP article who support Comaze's promotional obscuring of facts. AlanBarnet 06:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pilotguy's deletion of userspace User:Argyriou/SirNicholas

Also discussed previously at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive164#Draft_RFC_deleted_by_admin. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:31, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I'm curious about the deletion and protection of this userspace page. The content was not an attack but a compilation of evidence to be presented in a future RfC. I'm also curious about how Pilotguy became aware of this page. I see no notices on his talk page and there is no listing at WP:MFD or WP:ANI. I get the impression that this was an action taken after discussion in IRC. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of WP:POINT, why do we have to have a user subpage containing stuff that would be discussed/duplicated elsewhere as in WP:MFD or WP:ANI? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The draft was being prepared there, to be posted at WP:RFC when it was complete. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:39, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Indeed Jordan. If the purpose was to prepare a draft than why we want it to be kept after having it completed? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I gather it hadn't been completed. Had the RFC been filed yet? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:24, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Alternatively, someone could look at your contributions and see that you edited the page earlier today. I contest whether the page was truly an attack page. Certainly, some of the accusations were a bit harsh and exaggerated, but I'm not sure I'd call it an attack page. -- tariqabjotu 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an attack page to me. Kimchi.sg 17:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is here here. You have to realize that you do not own your userpages on Wikipedia and if an Administrator (Sysop), in their discresion, deems it to be inappropriate, it may be removed. Your best bet is to approach the sysop that deleted them, and discuss it with them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber discussed the issue with Pilotguy. Of that whole exchange, what I found notable was Malber's "Okay, please illustrate how it was an attack page. Here's your opportunity to do so".... — and Pilotguy's response, "I'm not going to talk to someone as arrogant as you. It's Christmas, and the community has spoken on ANI. Bye bye." What an exemplary willingness to communicate with others and explain his decisions. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:09, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I am contemplating a user conduct RfC over this issue, or combining this with one on Mimsy. It would appear that they were acting in concert off-wiki. There also appear to be other administrative and incivility conduct issues with User:Pilotguy in my review of the above topics. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Should PilotGuy be disinclined to undelete (which disinclination would not be unreasonable), you might also try deletion review. Joe 18:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe, do you think the above quoted-and-linked response was "not unreasonable"? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:09, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I'm curious, why wasn't this sent to MFD? Just H 18:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If it had been an attack page, it would have been speedy deletable (General point 10). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this expressed by "nonsense deleted", as though it had been a collation of Cab Calloway scat lyrics? Why no notification to the user, even after the fact? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:39, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

No, it's expressed by the deletion log. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Compare MastCell's comment below (21:28, 24 December 2006): ..."last I saw Argyriou's subpage (some time before it was deleted), it was primarly a compilation of diffs by Sir Nick, rather than an attack page per se." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:35, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Great, thanks for the clarification. I'm curious though, is there a review for speedy deletions for those who would disagree with that compared to deletion reviews? I cannot see the page, so I do not have any opinion one way or the other. Just H 19:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably right, but I don't know that it's altogether clear that there is a consensus for the application of G10 to userspace pages that be understood as attacking other users with the same stridency with which G10 is applied to pages generally, and mainspace pages in particular, that serve to attack biographical subjects or groups. Whilst the former may tend to be more disruptive than the latter (to be sure, IMHO, the instant subpage was not unnecessarily disruptive or devoid of constructive purpose), they do not tend to compromise the quality of the encyclopedic content. At the very least, I think it fair to say that there are reasonable objections essayed by many in the community to the deletion of pages that serve to compile information for a forthcoming RfC or RfAr (as against those that serve to compile information with which to harass other users or to compile material that will necessarily prove inflammatory), such that speedy deletion is disfavored for such pages; there have surely been several MfDs the disposition of which evidences the breadth and number of such objections. Joe 19:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely such a draft could be done much more tactfully on a local copy of Notepad or in email than on wiki. My opinion, anyways. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on the one hand, such drafts could be composed more privately on Notepad etc. On the other hand, last I saw Argyriou's subpage (some time before it was deleted), it was primarly a compilation of diffs by Sir Nick, rather than an attack page per se. In general, I agree with SAJordan that if the reason for deletion was personal attacks/incivility, a warning before deletion would have been appropriate. Precipitate action by an admin in this kind of situation only feeds into what appears to be an established persecution complex. At this point, I agree that the most appropriate forum, should Argyriou want the page back, would be deletion review. MastCell 21:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't use Notepad to collaborate on a project. The reason you would want it in userspace is when you would like other editors to collaborate on compilation of evidence and to share their experiences with the administrator. By deleting and protecting the page, User:Pilotguy has stifled this discussion. If it were a page where editors were dishing on Mimsy and listing personal attacks I could understand the deletion, but this was not the case. —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's a misunderstanding about the WP:RfC process, then. The idea is that others (including other involved/aggreived parties) chime in after the RfC is filed with their comments on the RfC page. Collecting diffs is one thing (it was my impression that this was what User:Argyriou was doing); creating a subpage in your userspace where a variety of people go to "compile evidence"/complain against one particular editor/admin is different, and blurs the line with an attack page - such a page will inevitably end up as a place where people go to "dish" about Mimsy. Creating such a page also circumvents the existing dispute resolution process. MastCell 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Using userspace allowed compiling a draft over several sessions and then posting a well-formed RFC, rather than typing into a live RFC at the first session and saving the work there while still rough. It also allowed removing any heated or ill-considered comments before the text was posted to RFC. I think we'd have fewer feuds if more people put their posts through such a cooling-off period. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:24, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

The intent of the page was not to create a place for collaboration before an RfC was filed, it was for me to document the abuses of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, in the expectation that an RfC would be filed, so that I could contribute something sensible to such an RfC. I explicitly did not notify any other user of the existence of the page, as I intended it for my own use. Argyriou (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it appeared to be when I saw it... and my feeling is that a user creating a subpage for their personal use, as a place to collect diffs in preparation for an RfC, is acceptable. That's a very different scenario from soliciting users to come to a subpage specifically to badmouth another editor/admin. MastCell 05:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So, all this talk expended and the page has not been restored (and, even more strange, the deleting admin does not even participate in discussion here)? What is going on? Badagnani 06:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been put up for deletion review. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:07, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

It was never a G10. Would it have been deleted if it were Nick preparing evidence for an RFC against Argyriou? No, it would not. The deletion was wildly inappropriate. Proto::► 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Pilotguy's actions were totally warranted. There's no need for hate sites operating on wiki.Bakaman 19:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How on earth could it be construed as a hate site? Proto::► 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems slightly ironic in light of the name and content of this page. Nevertheless, most troubling to me is that a significant number of admins don't see how bad this action appears (regardless of past or current disagreements). I've heard the story, all users are equal, admins just have a couple more buttons, but I've also read the fine print. Tim Shuba 06:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Request advice re Timothy McVeigh ... vandalism, or what?

I need advice about how to deal with this. I've written it up on the talk page: Talk:Timothy McVeigh#Infowars video link. I don't mind continuing to revert it, if an administrator will assure me I'm not getting into 3RR trouble myself. I don't see how else to proceed if the person (presumably singular) won't come to the talk page. Thanks! Eleuther 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your comments, I'd say it can be treated as vandalism. If there is no apparent link to McVeigh, then it doesn't belong in the article. No credible source linking the video to McVeigh is given. Even if a good source was found, it doesn't belong in the lead section. The failure of the anon editor to discuss the matter indicates a lack of credibility. I'm happy to keep on reverting its insertion. I doubt that anybody (other than the anon) is likely to commence 3RR proceedings. --Pete 17:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the anon's other contributions, I find some similar edits, such as removing mention that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. His latest contributions include misleading edit summaries such as "cleanup" and "rv", but looking at the edits, they are the same old nonsense. Looking at the character add/delete totals on the history pages, it's fairly easy to keep track of what's going on - it's the same material being added and deleted. --Pete 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pete, thanks for your support. I would call it vandalism too, but when I review the policy, I can't place it solidly in any of the categories, except perhaps Revert Vandalism (which refers more to behaviour than content). That's why I was asking for expert/admin advice. With you and others involved (so far seven separate editors have reverted 14 separate insertions), I'm not so much worried about being sanctioned myself, but I would still like some clarification about the policy. Cheers, Eleuther 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I can't say it fits squarely in any vandalism category, on reviewing the policy, but how else can we deal with it? The anon editor won't discuss his edit, it is clearly inappropriate, and if we leave it in, it violates any number of policies. I'd say that if it comes to talking 3RR the anon editor has racked up several reverts (even if he has used different IP addresses) and we can make a request for blocking on that basis. However, I don't think that you or I are in much danger of being blocked for 3RR breaches, because someone would have to commence the process, and who other than the anon is going to do it? --Pete 06:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean

Hi, I dont know if I came to right place, but this user goethean is accusing me of harrassment, sockpuppetry, etc saying that he wants to try to get me in trouble with wikipedia, what can i do about it? ForrestLane42 03:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Help with a user [[42]]

I was doing a random article reading when I came across an article called the Clammies. In it, a user 130.15.129.40 has inserted a paragraph that seems to be non-sense. Looking that user's contribution list, it appears similar contributions have been made in other articles. Unfortunately the editors, who have reversed the edits, did not warn this user's vandalism insertions. I recommend this user's contributions be reviewed for reverse edits and a block on the user. Ronbo76 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I reread the Clammies article. This may be a changing IP also belonging to 130.15.129.20 Both IPs should be reviewed with their contributions likewise reviewed.Ronbo76 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent spate of disruption from a single editor

Yrgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I had the misfortune of dealing with in the past because of his repeated removals of a single website from Soap Opera characters/actors with another one, has been recently been going on a disruptive editting spree, starting with tagging an article I have on my watchlist with {{notability}} when a cursory read of the article shows that notability is asserted and meets the requirements of notability.

This has then gone onto other areas, such as putting up List of Dune planets for AFD for no known reason, making articles about gay porn actors, and other disruptive activities, including a malformed RFC on User:TAnthony, and extreme incivility on Yrgh's behalf whenever he's encountered about his actions, visible from his contributions to other's user talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Soccerguy1039

I have blocked User:Soccerguy1039 for one week for repeating his actions from before his blocks, and for personal attacks against the blocking administrator. I understand that this is a controversial block, anyone can feel free to revert it without contacting me. Thanks. Canadian-Bacon 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice on Alan.ca's talk page, warning about violation wp:point

Note: This has been reposted here as it seems the relevant location for a block discussion. Alan.ca 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I request you in good faith to cease what you are doing? Let the closing administrator judge which note is invalid and which is not. From what I have seen from you before, it only seems that you are trying to make a WP:POINT – [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. I frankly believe that you are being disruptive. Please assume good faith and be civil. If you are prod'ing articles without checking the verifiability of the articles properly, Chacor and others have the *right* to revert you, in case they think it was not appropriate. Furthermore, please do not make accusations of contrib crawling – [53] – when you are not giving a second thought to what you are doing. Please understand that further disruption from you will warrant a block. Kindly co-operate, we are all here to make a better encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What point are you proposing that I'm trying to make? What policy are you alleging that I would qualify to be blocked under? Alan.ca 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT would be that policy. --Coredesat 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this is a notice to warn me that I am under consideration for a block, it would help if someone would clearly outline how I am disrupting wikipedia. I don't see how advising people about the AfD process constitutes disruption. Blocks are intended to prevent a user from doing something, not simply a punishment. What action is it that the interested admin(s) are looking to prevent me from taking? Is there a related discussion on an admin noticeboard somewhere? Alan.ca 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chime in as I have been a bit unnerved by your actions. For one thing, I can certainly assume that you were going through my edits and contributions, and while that is not something I find wrong, I found it disturbing that you decided to bring a discussion into my editor review page, even after it had been closed. Add the fact, seeing you revert that 3RR warning and calling it "bs" was most certainly something I was not too happy to see. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

#User.27s_overzealous_.7B.7Bprod.7D.7Dding_of_articles, #Harassment and threat, User talk:Alan.ca#WP:V, [54], [55], etc, are all very relevant. – Chacor 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan.ca's edits seem to me to be disruptive, as they must be designed to discourage participation in AfDs. While AfDs aren't votes per se, closing admins look for consensus, and one way to evaluate consensus is to count the relevant "votes" on each side of the discussion. "Stating per user or per nom serves the process no benefit" is inaccurate, and I don't see it as User:Alan.ca's place to make that judgment anyway. In short, it looks to me like an attempt at intimidation, and it should stop. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you may want to review [[56]] as it clearly advises editors to include an argument with their suggested outcome. Alan.ca 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Per nom" means they agree with the argument, which means they have given the argument. Again, WP:POINT. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your trolling has gone on long enough, and this really is the last straw. We know, stop treating us like idiots, you clearly deserve a block if you don't stop, because it's getting old and irritating. – Chacor 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan has also been cited in violation of WP:3RR. If you take a look at Stephen Harper, you'll see a lot of edits in the past week where he violates (alongside others) 3RR over a copyright dispute. The dispute went further with this image, but it has since been removed and re-uploaded, so the discussion is now gone. I had tried to mediate with him, but he seems to be quite stubborn and unwilling to listen. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff where I reverted the 3RR warning and then just gave up on returning it when he gave me this hostile response. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• There was previously two discussions, to my knowledge, where administrators on this noticeboard have agreed that a user is permitted to modify their talk page content as to deletion and archival of content. As for the 3rr, it was a 3h block, that subsequently, the image of which I was re-including the copyright & commons deletion templates has since been deleted from wikipedia. As to the comments in the editor review, I assert the reason a person announces an editor review on their user/talk page is to notify visitors that they are welcome to comment. If you were seeking positive feedback only, you may wish to state this in future editor reviews. Alan.ca 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FOUR admins have now agreed you've violated WP:POINT, and yet you're still saying you haven't? – Chacor 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I care about feedback both positive and negative. However, I do take offence when you are obviously entering the editor review when trying to make a point. It is quite apparent to me that you cannot take criticism well, however, and I am almost spent on seeing stuff from you that I find aggressive and nowhere near friendly. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly seconded. – Chacor 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read wp:point the phrase I would ask you to re-read is disrupt Wikipedia to. The fact is, whenever we express an opinion we are attempting to make a point. Alan.ca 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you appear as aggressive here. Let me demonstrate what I see you in violation of:

• don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
• don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"

Or how about the descriptions of a disruptive editors as defined in Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing?

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Honestly, it shouldn't take four administrators and me ripping stuff from policy for you to understand this. I think you're intelligent enough to understand that you shouldn't go out of your way to be aggressive when this is a project of collaboration, not who's better than who at this. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Colin, the fact that I am engaged in this discussion here suggests that I am open to the point of view of others. However, it does seem when I seek a broader consensus past those complaining on my talk page that often I find my position is supported by neutral third parties whom have no association with me. Conversely, the support of the opposition on my talk page tends to be from editors who have a past with the person who initially filed the complaint. Alan.ca 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite apparent that you're willing to be "open" out here, but as soon as it enters your talk page and it becomes direct finger pointing there, you go right up on the defensive. Quite honestly, you're acting as if there is no wrong in your actions, and I am seeing that there are other people in other situations who have the same thoughts about you. What you say about editors supporting you can be turned around and be said that similarly that there are editors who have no relation to me who have the similar thoughts to what I have about you. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing my open behavour in this discussion. You should note, that, it was me who chose to move this discussion to this broader forum. Alan.ca 03:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You did. However, my comment still stands. Who are these people who back you up? I think if you want to convey your side as correct, I would take those who you cite as these neutral editors should get involved in this discussion and clear what their thoughts are about your actions. Do you feel you are able to make mistakes on Wikipedia? I know make a lot! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So if you're open, why are you taking this discussion out of here? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Noting that Sir Nick actually first posted to his talk page and he moved it here, I find it very hypocritical and uncivil to now go to Sir Nick's talk page and say that he wants to talk without "the others chiming in". – Chacor 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that an accusation of meatpuppetry and incorrect behaviour? If it's anyone whose conduct should be up for scrutiny it's you. What a brilliant show - the second time in two days - of WP:AGF. – Chacor 03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. If you believe this discussion is proceeding in a fair and productive fashion, why not participate? Alan.ca 04:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Has it ever occured to you that the way you respond to people it is as if you're talking down to them? That's where I am getting this aggressive idea from, and honestly, I am not surprised how some people are reacting towards you. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the PRODing activity: In Alan's defense, the section of policy that he is citing (Wp:v#Burden_of_evidence) is severely written and can be interpreted in the manner that he is interpreting it. However, when actions along the letter of the policy are opposed as broadly as they presently are, this is indicative that the letter of the policy needs to be reconsidered to more appropriately reflect current consensus. It is not unreasonable for there to be an injunction on mass actions based on policy that is under dispute. The question here is whether the section of policy being invoked here is actually in dispute or not when taken letter-for-letter. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ceyockey, that is why I started a discussion on WT:V#Verifiability_as_a_basis_for_deletion.2C_Burden_of_Evidence_Section to give the opponents and proponents and opportunity to have this discussion. Alan.ca 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I notice Alan.ca is very rough with people - he appears to want to moderate without due dilligence (see here where he asks me to cite examples which should be flaming obvious, really!) — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We were discussing a merge proposal, I had presented, as an alternative to the AfD I had initiated. You stated a reason for not making the merge and I asked you for an example supporting your reasoning. I cannot see how asking such a question would be considered disruptive. Alan.ca 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be far too keen to implement WP:Policy yet very slow to actually do some reading around yourself, e.g. the fact that the Paris Métro is complex and that one cannot simply merge all stations into one article, and you did not know anything about the Arrondissements either - if you know nothing about a subject, why are you so keen to stick your oar in? — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you recall, I flagged the article for deletion. I realized that there was opposition to this proposal so I have been reading the AfD points. A merge was proposed by another editor and I have been exploring this option while the AfD continues. If we are able to solve the problem with a merge, then I would be able to withdraw the AfD. Alan.ca 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Alan's issues have been brought up here before. It's also very interesting that he won't discuss these problems here anymore and has taken them to another talk page. I find this very distressing. What options do I have here to get this resolved? I don't think Alan is going to change his ways. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Colin, the only other places where I have forked these discussion are the talk page for the verifiability policy, for that related discussion and I posted on to Headless Nick's page because he initiated this discussion. It was my hope, if I could converse with Nick outside of this discussion I could better understand his concerns. Alan.ca 05:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan, you're not being as "open" as you should be. Even your previous edits make me think that you're just archiving things to lessen your accountability when you inflame someone else. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if the discussion is brought here, it should stay here unless there's an agreement to move it elsewhere. There wasn't one, so it should remain here. Also, Alan.ca has been changing other people's subject headers to less-than-accurate titles, and claiming that the accusation of WP:POINT against him is POV (as in, Alan.ca is only violating WP:POINT in others' POV). That's yet another WP:POINT violation. As an uninvolved party, I think a short block (perhaps up to 72 hours) might be a good idea here. --Coredesat 06:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a 72-hour block. I believe that Alan has forgotten that this a community project, not his own. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Coredesat, I have changed the section title to Complaint that I have violated WP:POINT', thanks for pointing that out. As for the 72 hour block, what purpose would that serve WP? Are you trying to preserve the format of my user talk page? Alan.ca 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing others' section titles is akin to changing their comments. This is WP:VAND, even on your own talk page (WP:OWN - no one owns any particular page). – Chacor 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Motion to block Alan for a period of 72-hours

• Support - I believe that this will enlighten Alan to not violate WP:POINT and to be less aggressive. This is a collaboration, not a place to bully around using rules. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - how long until Alan wikilawyers that WP:NOT a democracy? I count at least SEVEN different users telling him that his conduct is not appropriate, and he's hit back at every single one with ruleslawyering. Ridiculous, support block. – Chacor 06:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The WP:BLOCK policy clearly states that blocks are not to be punitive. Not that I agree I have violated WP:POINT, but if I had, I am not engaging in any conduct that warrants a block. Alan.ca 06:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There has been no effort on your part to remain civil and stop disruption, even when 7-8 people ahve told you to do so. That most certainly warrants a block since you're not stopping. – Chacor 06:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would someone please step in here? These two are patrolling my contribs, remarking on my talk page archiving and now pushing to have me blocked for 72 hours as a punitive measure. Alan.ca 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What a brilliant assumption of good faith. I believe this comment shows that this user is not here to help contribute conducively. – Chacor 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with me viewing your contributions, just as it is the same for you viewing mine. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't believe the block should be regarded as punitive. Take a "timeout" from the project and think about what you're doing, and come back later. Maybe you'll feel better after Christmas (if you celebrate Christmas, that is.) Grandmasterka 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; Alan.ca definitely needs a break from the project to look over some of our policies (or just sit down and have a cup of cocoa).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by uninvolved admin Alan.ca, please note that your continuing insistence at making comments are only serving to incriminate yourself. I abstain from this vote, as I know not of the circumstances. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours

I blocked Alan.ca for 72 hours, given where the poll is going and the many warnings he's already received. Hopefully this will allow the situation to cool down, and give him time to think about what he's done. --Coredesat 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There's been an unblocking request, which I object to. He continues to wikilawyer while blocked, too. – Chacor 06:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He's just made a totally irrelevant comment about Core having supported my RFA. This is ridiculous, and should not be tolerated! We cannot let this trolling and disruption continue, and I think it may be time to start considering a longer-term block as he shows no signs of improving, even while blocked. – Chacor 07:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it ludicrous what this guy will go to. He finds it offensive for me to view his contributions and then make points about, then he does the same thing to make remarks about situations that he has nothing to do with. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also do not support a longer block. I want his current block stayed, and then we'll see if he reforms. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that he continues to do exactly what he was blocked for while blocked, I don't see the point in waiting the 72 hours. – Chacor 07:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A new ridiculous allegation made in clear violation of WP:CIV and WP:AGF against me. This is driving me nuts, I don't see why we should let such an editor stay. – Chacor 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Do not inflame this even further. Let him stay blocked and serve it out. If he continues with his action, then follow the appropriate steps. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that you're a former administrator, you should understand that there is no need to escalate this further. If he continues to be a problem after his block, then take him to WP:RFC. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I decided to remove my post. And come on, we all know RFC is useless, there's no enforcement whatsoever. That's probably why this came straight to ANI in the first place, without going to RFC. – Chacor 07:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not extend the block further. I think 72 hours could be construed as unfair; Alan overstepped the mark, but he was continually being pushed. Proto::► 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-imposed probation

Alan.ca was unblocked by J.smith after promising not to inflame the situation any further. I agree to the self-imposed probation, and he should be reblocked immediately for 72 hours (same duration as before) if he pursues the issue further (as if it were an actual probation). Hopefully this won't happen and we can all breathe a little easier this Christmas weekend. --Coredesat 07:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he's gotten the message... and I hope I don't end up looking like a fool over this. -_^ ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a much better solution. Alan, the best thing to do for a day or two muight be something else (either not on Wikipedia, or on a different area of Wikipedia entirely). Proto::► 12:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Violation of said self-imposed probation

This probably constitutes a violation of his block probation. – Chacor 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done an independent review and agree. Therefore, I have reinstated the 72 hour block on User:Alan.ca. Миша13 14:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Alan could not set it aside for even a couple of days; see User_talk:Alan.ca#Your_request_regarding_your_block_on_my_user_talk_page, which is my response to a note he placed on my talk page earlier today (about 6 hours before the present re-block). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not pleased he keeps harping on the fact I was desysopped - that is totally irrelevant. His thinly-veiled attack on blocking admin Coredesat should not be accepted, either, and instead condemned. It's not the kind of behaviour we want, surely? – Chacor 15:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

He's now going around meta asking for steward intervention. This is totally inappropriate. I also note the irony in him accusing me of looking at his contribs when he's done the exact same thing to me and others in compiling this. – Chacor 05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One of his notes says he tried to contact via e-mail, I have nothing from him in my inbox. Wait, yes I do. My e-mail forwarding did not work properly and I never received it. --Coredesat 07:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Block shortened to 48 hours

After discussing the situation with Alan.ca and a couple other admins through e-mail, I've gone ahead and shortened the block to a total of 48 hours (includes time already blocked). I am assuming good faith and hoping this won't become a problem again in the future, but his probation is essentially still in effect - if there is any more disruption, and consensus that he is violating WP:POINT or WP:CIV, Alan.ca may be blocked again for any duration plus 24 hours (the 24 hours I removed from this block). --Coredesat 09:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 blocking good users

Hi! I am a mediator with WP:MEDCAB, and I just came across a strange case. It was named Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page, but it seems to reach much further. It appears that Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is fighting people who disagree with him by various actions up to deleting mediation pages and blocking users who, as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong, other than they could be dangerous to him.

Timeline:

time (UTC)	what happened
about 20 December	mediation case was created
21:52, 22 December 2006	SebastianHelm asks Lucky_6.9 if he accepts mediation
01:08, 23 December 2006	Lucky 6.9 blocks SamAndrews indefinitely *
01:12, 23 December 2006	Lucky_6.9 replies to Sebastian with WTF???. Does not reply to question if he accepts Sebastian as mediator.
later on 22 December 2006	Lucky 6.9 deletes the mediation case

* The reason for blocking SamAndrews was given as "Trolling, vandalism". However, I do not see any evidence for this. Here are all edits from Special:Contributions/SamAndrews:

time	article	edit summary	edit as summarized by Sebastian
21:09, 20 December 2006	Regina Peruggi	updated, new position	meaningful edit
21:01, 20 December 2006	Regina Peruggi	started page	created nice page - at least I don't see anything wrong with it
20:35, 20 December 2006	m Rudy Giuliani	link	inserted relevant link
20:34, 20 December 2006	Judith Giuliani		meaningful addition
20:33, 20 December 2006	m Donna Hanover	fixed typo	fixed typo
11:01, 20 December 2006	Kashrut	hyperlink for trafe	hyperlink for trafe
09:42, 20 December 2006	User talk:Lucky 6.9	Please do not revert your own talk page, it is meant to be an accurate historical record.	reinserted long list of alleged reversions

Please also take a look at WarthogDemon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who often works very closely together with Lucky 6.9. — Sebastian 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will investigate this matter. If these claims reveal themselves to be true, I recommend immediate desysopment. With all due respect, of course. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Immediate" desysopment is for emergencies. I see no evidence that this is an emergency, and I am not confident that it is even well-founded. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to overre4act, messedrocker. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SamAndrews is clearly a sockpuppet of someone; his first edit is to start up on Lucky 6.9's talk page referring to previous discussions. At least some of these reverts are reasonable, the latest user's comment ends with "Maybe Lucky should go get a life." Leaving a message "WTF???" is not cool, calm, and collected, though it would be an understandable response to a mediation request by a disruptive user being taken seriously. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Working closely? I offered to help him get rid of the abusive comments from his page. I've tried to be selective and not remove legitimate comments (and on those where I noticed I had, I either replaced them or apologized to the user who's message I deleted). I've stated it was because of Lucky's request so it people would know I wasn't wikistalking or whatnot. Seriously, if this is against policy or something, an admin need only tell me on my talk page and I'll stop at once. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see nobody had even bothered to let Lucky know that he was being attacked and threatened with desysopping. I have taken care of what I am sure was merely an oversight. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Zoe. We were all the victims of a calculating and very knowledgeable troll who is familiar with this sites inner workings. I hope we can all continue on trying to make this crazy site work. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested by Zoe that I just let this thing run its course and refuse mediation. This is a non-event by an extremely clever troll who threw in a few legit edits to cover his tracks and whose very first edit was to my talk page, folks. If you wish, I can restore the complaint, but it's pointless IMO. - Lucky 6.9 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, impersonator just appeared at the WoW wiki. His name? Lucky 6.9. He did try and impersonate me. Coincidence? I don't think so. Besides, I spell better.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the countering viewpoints, thank you for pointing out I overreacted, let me do the investigation though and I will come to a conclusion as an uninvolved administrator. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the user's first edit and Lucky's explanation I am inclined to believe that this block is valid and no wrongdoings is involved. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see this. Are admins now allowed to give out blocks because they think that someone's a troll? Things seemed to have been changed in the couple of months I've been away. Looking at Luck's Talk page, and following up some of the exchanges, it's clear that he has a very odd notion of what counts as insulting language and behaviour, that he overreacts regularly, and that his judgement as to who is and isn't a troll is far from dependable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the "OMG admin abuse" complaints on AN/I are bunk. I agree that we can never let that blind us to the ones that aren't bunk, but those usually come with corroboration, usually from long time users. Lucky 6.9 is a pest hunter as well as an editor, and he regularly does the brave and time consuming business of swatting the vandals. For that reason, a complaint against him requires extra time and care. In the past, Lucky has been accused of every crime in the laws of nature or man, but I've never seen him be guilty of anything worse than a salty word. This looks like just another newborn account with amazing knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and processes. That should sound alarms. Geogre 03:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky seems like a decent person, but I am someone whom he has offended not once, but twice. In both cases, I had done about 15 minutes of sincere, well-meaning work (first, trying to improve a squirelly article about "Alaska cruises", then second, trying to comment on this apparently hoax-driven mediation), which Lucky decided to unilaterally delete, without really checking to see if anything valid was in progress. Then -- and I think this is the worse thing -- he deletes any criticism of his actions on his Talk page, then threatens the critic to "ease up" or risk being blocked. The guy merely needs a break; some time for self-examination. --JossBuckle Swami 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that this is a familiar story; I had exactly the same experience a few days ago: I'd followed up a speedy notice, found that the article wasn't speediable, took of the notice and did some tidying, only to find when I tried to save that the article had been deleted by Lucky. I recreated it, left a message at his Talk page, went back, and he'd deleted my recreation (without contacting me). When I left another message, I received an intemperate reply, but when I went back to respond to it, he'd deleted my first two messages from his Talk page.

My impression is that he's sometimes much too eager to speedy-delete articles, and is too short-tempered and defensive to accept legitimate criticism — though in my case, after an exchange of messages, he did finally calm down. I'm sure that he does a great deal of good work, but pulling back a little wouldn't hurt. This isn't anything like grounds for de-sysopping, but it would be nice if people who create articles in genuine good faith (as was clearly the case in the example with which I was concerned) could be treated with more courtesy by admins. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Investigation so far... I am not going to jump to conclusions about trolling or not, but the mediation page was not really... needed. Blocking of SamAndrews may or may not have been warranted... and page deletions seemed pretty cromulent. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please restore Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. It is common sense that a party involved in a mediation case should not delete the mediation case without reason. — Sebastian 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this page as per WT:AN#Linked subpages for discussions? (We could either create a subpage of this page or of the mediation page. Or does anyone have a better idea?) While we're at it, I would also like to change the title which currently only expresses one of the dubious actions I listed. (If this is to become a subpage of this page then I'd propose to call it simply WP:ANI/Lucky 6.9.) — Sebastian 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• As some one with both unpleasant and pleasant interactions with Rallph (AKA Lucky9.6) for parts of the last eighteen monts, I dacn say that his heart is in the right place, although he might be a bit sensitive. Vive Miami! Wikkibrah 20:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky6.9 deleted an article I wrote about a local zoo because I started it with only a few sentences. I restored it three times without going through whatever mysterious channels he wanted me to ("the community" is mostly not populated by Wikipedia geeks), and he blocked me. I have hated Wikipedia ever since. This guy and other power-mad admins like him are a real problem for Wikipedia. Jamidwyer 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Jamidwyer

User:YuRiPa

YuRiPa (talk · contribs) has done the following:

• Created a article (Singapore Girls (Singapore Airlines)) which basically was a cut and paste copyvio from two websites in its first revision (see Talk:Singapore Girl).
• Since there was no clean revision I tagged it as {{copyvio}} and after User:YuRiPa removed the tag a couple of times as {{db-copyvio}}. It was deleted here.
• After that User:YuRiPa reposted portions of the copyrighted article, which made the idea of creating a clean page history without material derived from a copyright infringement difficult. I tagged the article as {{db-g4}}.
• I also replaced two fair use images (Image:SIA Girl.jpg and Image:SIA Stewardess.jpg) uploaded by User:YuRiPa with a free image (Image:Singapore Airlines flight attendants.jpg).
• User:YuRiPa then created a sockpuppet, IanFuller (talk · contribs), in order to impersonate a account at Flickr (Ian Fuller) and to create the impression that the copyright holder has released the copyright to a image uploaded by the sockpuppet: Image:SIA Cabin Crew.jpg (diff).
• User:YuRiPa also seems to assert ownership over the article in question and does not seem to fully grasp the concept of copyright and fair use, but those are common newbie mistakes. However asserting permission to use copyrighted text and images for which that user is not the copyright holder is fairly serious --Oden 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, it is. Can you prove he is not the same Ian Fuller? Proto::► 10:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you have evidence of a sock, please post it in WP:RFCU. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser confirmed that IanFuller (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of YuRiPa (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YuRiPa and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YuRiPa). The puppet account was blocked indefinitely and the puppet master was blocked for 24 hours. --Oden 12:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Request infinite block on old username

I was originally Rctxtreme. Please permanently block that old username so I won't get impersonated by the bullies at school... anger2headshot 04:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't block without some evidence that this isn't just somebody trying to get somebody else blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the name change log then anger2headshot 21:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That user name does not currently exist. You can re-register it yourself and scramble the password. It won't have to be blocked because no one will be able to use it. Thatcher131 08:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I reregistered it, and posted this with this account. Well can't it be blocked because that's what they said in the name change requests page. Rctxtreme 10:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Verdict

This user has been blocked twice for vandalising Brock Lesnar and Facebuster, yet he continues add his changes to them. He has also vandalised User:Paulley as a personal attack[57]. It's getting tiresome to revert his edits, could he please be blocked indefinitely?
↪Lakes (Talk) 11:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting 'endorsments' for a recall 'vote'

StuRat (talk · contribs) has been inviting users to 'endorse' a recall motion for User:Friday. Is this cool? Anchoress 14:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The recall process is unofficial, but Category:Administrators open to recall suggests that five endorsements are needed. Now, since there is no centralised 'requests for recall' page, the only way to find endorsers, apart from solicitation, is to expect users to stumble across Friday's talk page randomly, which doesn't make much sense.

Frankly I think Friday shares part of the blame by inviting others to troll him in this way - which is all it is. Look at the 'petition' - it only needs one more endorsement and yet it's so flimsy a dragonfly's breath would blow it out of requests for arbitration, the real forum for serious cases of sysop abuse. (There are more opposers, but they don't seem to subtract from the support under the supposed 'process'.)

What we should do about the solicitation, I don't really have an opinion. What Friday should do is make it clear that he will not be risking his ability to help the project for the sake of an insignificant spat and a stillborn pretense at accountability, and withdraw himself from the admin recall category. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say an RfC was the way to go, but given the egregious trolling by LightCurrent on StuRat's Talk I'm tempted to simply go and nuke the entire thread there. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zomg admin abuse, and too temporary for my liking. To be truly rouge we should remove Friday from the recall category ourselves, protect the page in The Right Version and use the electric fence to stop Friday adding himself back in :o --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This will work best if we can gather a posse from the Cabal to tag-team it, of course... Guy (Help!) 20:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who does not think it the best idea to be open to recall through a process that has not been formalized yet? You won't catch me adding my name to that list. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the process is voluntarily, it's entirely up to Friday to decide how to handle this. He might decide the solicitation makes the petition invalid, or he might not. He might decide to listen to users who are so substantially misrepresenting his actions and intentions, or he might not. There's no need for intervention on anyone's part. Personally, you won't find me anywhere the recall list either; sometimes doing our jobs makes people mad, and I know good admins who would be recalled in a hot second if they were on it. -- SCZenz 17:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Regardless of our process or lack thereof regarding recallable admins, vote stacking is disruptive. >Radiant< 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Vote stacking" only applies to votes where the ratio of support to oppose matters, with the fear being that one side gets more votes because they can garner more supporters. Since "oppose" votes simply do not matter here, there is no possibility of "vote stacking". StuRat 10:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It applies just the same when a certain number of support votes are needed. It just means that the votes are being stacked against a fixed target rather than opposing votes. --Cherry blossom tree 11:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your argument, exactly ? That the proper process would result in fewer votes in favor because most people who have been angered by Friday's tactics should never have been informed of the recall petition ? I can't see how keeping users in ignorance about recall petitions is either a Wikipedia goal or policy. StuRat 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Has any admin ever stood for re-election as a result of an "open for recall" petition ? Given that Category:Administrators open to recall says that six editors "in good standing" have to request the re-election; it seems to be up to the admin themselves to determine what "in good standing" means; and no admin will admit that an editor who requests their re-election can possibly be "in good standing", this would seem to be a Catch 22 situation. Isn't this whole "process" just a cosmetic canard ? Gandalf61 17:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a possibility, the rules should be more clear - see how I specified 'good standing' on my talk page to get rid of this problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I dont think we should 'duck' this issue now.--Light current 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Crzrussian resigned his adminship following such a petition (and then went through RFA again some time later). Kirill Lokshin 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

THat of course is an option open to Friday if he wishes to cut short the process.--Light current 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another option open to any uninvolved administrator is to indefinetly block you, StuRat and THB until you stop harassing people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Off topic.--Light current 18:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Filing a petition to recall an Admin, who is willing to stand for recall, is absolutely the normal Wikipedia process, and definitely not abuse or harassment. Falsely accusing others of harassment, on the other hand, may very well qualify as harassment. StuRat 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an admin has stood for re-election as a result... Crzrussian did so, as pointed out above. I've looked at the petition in this case, and I offered to clerk it for Friday if so desired, it seems a bit disorganised right now. I'm not sure whether Friday will accept my offer. (BoG did a little informal clerking already which helped in my view) It is not clear what Friday's "in good standing" criteria are yet. I suspect that if the petition DID succeed, the resulting RfC (if that were what Friday chose to do) would come out resoundingly in favour of his retaining his adminship but might have some constructive feedback for Friday to consider. This system can and does work if allowed to. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with advertising various issues, but I think that a line should be drawn before advertising a vote (ok) and asking a person to vote in a specific way ('uncool'). In this case (as an admin open to recall myself) I'd certainly support asking others to look at one's behaviour - the larger the sample, the bigger the chance 'six editors in good standing', whatever the critiera, can be found. This also works in the favour of the defendant: if majority considers him innocent, then they are notified and waiting for a chance to cast support votes (or whatever they can do in a procedure that is initated).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go farther and say it is OK to ask that people vote a certain way, if it is done decorously. It happens all the time via email, I am certain of it. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal information posted

Personal informationw as posted in 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy, specifically, the name address and phone number of one of the perpertrators. I have deleted that revision but I was thinking of getting oversight to remove it properly. Having not had to do that before, I was wondering wether that was the best course of action. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for information on how to request oversight. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More asking for a consensus as to wether it needed oversight or not. 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Without question it needs oversight. Personal information, whether of users or of subjects of articles, has no place in Wikipedia. That is especially so here given the nature of the article. --bainer (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Viridae has evidently handled this himself.--Kchase T 05:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that selectively deleting that kind of personal information is good enough. The same information was added to this article on December 3 and it was also selectively deleted. Then when Viridae selectively deleted the most recent edit, he accidentally restored the December 3 version of the same information. I deleted it again and I've emailed oversight-l, but I think it's worth mentioning here because it seems that if people don't ask for these kinds of edits to be oversighted, it will happen again and it could stay in the history for a long time before it's noticed. Sarah 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A solution to the problem Sarah Ewart mentions is to move the offending revision(s) to a different name (e.g. Foo/bad), then delete it there. (Unfortunately this requires multiple steps to execute.) I agree that Oversight is better. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 22:03Z

linkspam, possible self-promotion: Boogie Street Guitars

Boogiestreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding the URL for a guitar store to various famous guitarists' articles. See contribs for details. Single purpose editor. {{spam0}} has been added to Boogiestreet's Talk page.

Please let me know if I'm reporting prematurely or inappropriately. — edgarde 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That same link spam was added in other places using IP addresses, I just removed a couple that were still in articles. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed some as well, a couple of weeks back. Spam blacklist, anyone? Guy (Help!) 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Newbie biting

Can someone take a look at [58] and [59] and talk to StuRat (talk • contribs • count) about it if appropriate? He's appears to me to be wrong on policy, and using his incorrect impression to harass an anonymous user who's trying to contribute—and it's not his first such comment. Since he and I butt heads on the ref desk so much, it may be that I am wrong about this, and certainly he won't listen to me... but I am loath to let it pass when it looks to me like he's biting an anonymous user based on assumptions of bad faith. -- SCZenz 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the previous incident... see this edit, which I did attempt to talk to him about on his userpage. -- SCZenz 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah smells like a sock to me as well! Sturat has a very good nose for them. No action required!--Light current 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF says we need evidence, not a "good nose." -- SCZenz 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, 'good nose' is fine—to a point. Wikipedia necessarily handles a lot of stuff using 'sniff tests'. If StuRat – or anyone else – puts forward some diffs that support the notion that this (these?) IP is a sockpuppet of another editor, then it's a snap to request a Checkuser to confirm the identity. I'll even help write the CheckUser request. (Heck, I'd write the damn request myself; the Ref Desk talk page has gotten so touchy lately that I'll personally bludgeon to death anyone who's playing games with socks to screw with discussions.)

On the other hand, if the only reasoning at work here is of the form 'An IP editor on this page disagrees for me, therefore it must be a sockpuppet'...well, that doesn't smell fair. At some point, you have to put up or shut up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid point. "Similar editing styles," which is the most difficult evidence of sockpuppetry to accumulate, does require a "good nose." But that's not the kind of "good nose" we're talking about above, is it? -- SCZenz 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when is either one of you a checkuser? Does either one of you have any evidence, or are you just trying to discredit the poster? Since when are anonymous posters automatically sockpuppets? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sure evidence will be forthcoming! StuRat is the early warning radar 8-)--Light current 01:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be. I contributed extensively under an IP myself, including in various non-article-space discussions. IP addresses change, and a lack of contributions should not be held against this user. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, would you please stop being the RD police and the attack StuRat monitor? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by making suggestions on the reference desk. And I never tolerate newbie biting anywhere I see it. -- SCZenz 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm gathering evidence now, this while take a while, be back in a bit... StuRat 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To start, he doesn't appear to be a newbie at all, he seems well versed in Wikipedia editing, Ref Desk policies, etc. He apparently has a dynamic I/P address (I didn't know this initially), which means he has a different I/P each day. I know of at least 3 of the I/Ps, but there are probably many more. They all seem to start with 87.102. The three I know about are User:87.102.4.34, User:87.102.4.227, and User:87.102.22.58.

Here is where he admits to having all three I/Ps: [60].

First, he made this charming contribution: [61]:

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, he followed up with this: [62]:

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the nature of his contributions, I think I've been more than patient with this dynamic anon I/P. He also is firmly in the "deletionist" side on the Ref Desk debate, and makes it appear that there are many people on that side, as he has a different I/P every day and they all, of course, support the same deletionist POV. I don't happen to think that's right, to use multiple anon I/Ps to make it appear that the consensus is different than it really is.

As for SCZenz's motives in filing this AN/I, you will notice that, just 3.5 hours before, I signed a petition to recall his fellow Ref Desk deletionist Admin buddy User:Friday, and this is apparently SCZenz's attempt at retaliation: [63]. StuRat 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been keeping track of this for a while, so here is an incomplete supplemental list...:

• 87.102.4.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 23 December 2006
• 83.100.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 22 December 2006
• 87.102.4.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 20 December 2006
• 87.102.5.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 19 December 2006
• 83.100.250.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 18 December 2006
• 87.102.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 17 December 2006
• 87.102.4.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 16 December 2006
• 87.102.8.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 15 December 2006
• 83.100.174.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 12-14 December 2006
• 87.102.37.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 8 December 2006
• 83.100.174.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 7 December 2006
• 87.102.32.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 5 December 2006
• 87.102.32.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 4 December 2006
• 83.100.253.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 3 December 2006
• 83.100.253.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 December 2006
• 83.100.138.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 30 November 2006
• 83.100.158.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 28 November 2006
• 83.100.138.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 26 November 2006
• 87.102.36.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 22 November 2006
• 87.102.20.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 21 November 2006 <-- [64]
• 83.100.138.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 19 November 2006 <-- [65]
• 87.102.13.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 17 November 2006
• 87.102.18.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 17 November 2006
• 87.102.1.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 16 November 2006
• 87.102.23.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 15 November 2006
• 87.102.19.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 14 November 2006
• 87.102.6.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 5 November 2006

This is likely the same single user operating out of two IP ranges, 87.102.*.* and 83.100.*.* - there are two links where this user follows up on the same thread on the reference desk which establishes this. This user has been editing Wikipedia for some time, and most likely discovered the reference desks around mid-November. In fact, this person has been a daily contributor to Wikipedia for around 2 months - it's possible to extend this time even further back, but it's difficult to show as conclusively as the links below. Essentially, it's necessary to go through each of the IPs and their edits, and over time, you will see a general drift from gaming topics on Wikipedia, to those related to the reference desk. The diction, vocabulary, grammatical structure, and style of the posts is reasonably uniform, with a few exceptions which can be explained either contextually, or assuming that there is another unrelated user in the same range (which I consider to be somewhat unlikely). It's more difficult to establish that the IP is a sockpuppet of someone participating on the reference desk talk page with this information, so my inclination is to conclude for now that this is not the scenario we are dealing with here. --HappyCamper 05:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Both ranges, 83.100.138.0 – 83.100.138.255 and 87.102.0.0 – 87.102.7.255 are registered to the same ISP; Kingston Communications. It may be worthwhile to refer this matter to WP:RFCU if there are any additional suspected sockpuppets. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy on dynamic I/P usage ? I find it quite unacceptable that they can say or do whatever they want, then, even if they get banned from Wikipedia, they have only to log out, log back in under a new dynamic I/P, and continue the abuse. I would ban all use of dynamic I/Ps without a screen name. StuRat 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We allow it. -- SCZenz 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we investigating someone when no reasonable evidence has been provided that they did anything wrong? Ok, yes, perhaps the IP has been uncivil, which I'm not saying is ok—but it was in response to harassment by StuRat. Maybe we should just drop the entire matter, and be nice to anonymous users from now on? -- SCZenz 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So you would not have a problem with one of the regular editors telling you:

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems extraordinarily lenient. Would you have let me get away with even one thenth of that? I think not. please act consistently SCZ.

--Light current 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, "uncivil" doesn't begin to describe his behavior. And there was no harassment by me, I merely suggested the possibility that these numerous accounts are socks of a registered user, which certainly is, indeed, a possibility. StuRat 00:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Uncivil" doesn't begin to describe your behavior either. Seen any WP:KETTLEs lately? >Radiant< 10:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I never use that type of abusive language. Furthermore, any accusations of a lack of civility on my part have no part in this discussion, unless specifically related to the incidents with this anon IP. StuRat 15:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of StuRat's other activities and snidey kettle remarks aside, StuRat, that is indeed unacceptable abuse. If any more takes place, let me know, and I will block the entire IP range to anonymous users. Proto::► 10:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Are two instances insufficient to justify this ? This wouldn't keep him from contributing, after all, but would only require that he contribute through a regular account, with the full accountability that goes with it. StuRat 14:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Rangeblock abusive user on dynamic anon I/P ?

I'd support rangeblocking this range to anons (requireing account creation), with the attendant fallout on the block list, regrettably, for abusive behaviour. The evidence supports it. Issues of other editors should be dealt with separately. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I, of course, also support this action, based on these two edits: [66], [67]. StuRat 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. THis sort of behaviour and offensive language is orders of magnitude worse than that for which some editors have been blocked.--Light current 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning and block threat ?

I received this inappropriate warning and block threat, apparently related to the above discussion, even though no consensus has been reached that I've done anything wrong: [68]:

Witch hunting and harassment such as this and this is grounds for a block if you keep it up. This is a formal warning. Ashibaka tock 20:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What does everybody else think about this ? Are there any actions to be taken against Admins who threaten editors without cause ? StuRat 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The first step in all disputes is to talk with the other user about it to try to resolve the issue rather than escalate it, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I don't see that you've tried to resolve this directly, but after doing so a reasonable next step would be to raise it here. Filing an WP:RFC/ADMIN about the issue would be perhaps the ultimate course of action, but only after exhausting all other alternatives. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the anon I/P, there would be little point in leaving a message on his talk page, as he would have a different I/P, and therefore talk page, the next day. StuRat 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Failure to control use of acct

I am not Bobsaget1333, but its owner left it logged on at a public terminal, permitting me to make edits in their name. I am reporting this situation at WP:AN. After doing so, i will log the acct off. --Bobsaget1333 -- NOT! 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocked as an inappropriate username (per well-known living or recently deceased people). -- JLaTondre 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the block regardless of the comments above. Vandalism-only account. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of abusive language

The user 69.233.215.204 Keeps adding abusive word 'dolt' in the context of someone who pronounces a word differently. I have reverted his changes but he continues to change the discussion part back, a permanent ban would be required on this member, i have gave 5 warnnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11Ryan (talk • contribs) )

I have issued a warning on their talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!