Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive279

User:Wellreadone

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by WikiLeon

Previous notice on coi noticeboard. User has posted dozens of links to his company, and continued after being notified and warned on his talk page[1][2] [3][4]. Used inflammatory edit summaries and appears to have had civility problems in the past: Requesting block, and possible spam blacklist for his site, since he is not heeding warnings. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked by user:WikiLeon -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

slashes in article titles

Please direct me elsewhere if this is the wrong place but is it not true that an article title should not contain a slash ie / as we use this for temps, sub pages etc. I am referring to North American Man/Boy Love Association which IMO should have the slash changed inot a hyphen or something. Please assist, SqueakBox 23:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• You should avoid putting slashes in article titles if possible. It is not always possible. For example, the article Face/Off is about a movie called "Face/Off". It is impossible to substitute the slash for the hyphen in that case. Shalom ^Hello 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Well I guess this could be changed to NAMBLA but I hear its not a technical necessity so thanks for answering that, SqueakBox 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• That is part of the reason why we don't have subpages turned on for the main namespace - because there are many subjects that need the slash, and we want to have as few 'special characters' as we can. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I didnt know that either and obviously the name is fine then, SqueakBox 00:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and slander

Member Nathansummers has joined this site to begin personal attacks and slander. I will not put up with this. Please delete his attack and slander on me from the Rocky Horror Picture Show talk Page here [[5]]. He is known for Copyright infringment for stealing images and logos (Myspace} to use on another site, as well as stealing a personal blog of mine to post in an attempt to harrass me. I have already e-mailed admin ANIMUM » previously about him and his site and this problem before he even joined this here. His history on this site shows he made is page and then went straight to the Rocky Horror Picture show talk page to do this [[6]]. (Sorry forgot to sign this)--Amadscientist 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that WP:RfC might have been better for this. I would make a suggestion that the two of you cool down a bit. Walk away for a day or so. Both of you guys are new editors here, and I think this might just be a symptom of you needing to learn your way around and getting more practice with Wiki etiquette. While his personal attacks on you are completely uncalled for, you have to remember that slander has a very specific legal meaning. Besides, as J. Jonah Jameson said: 'In print, it's libel' :-p (my weak attempt at a nerdy joke). CaveatLector^Talk 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never interacted with the person on this site. He joined yesterday and I have been here for over 6 months. Slander or libel is exactly what I mean as per your definition and legal action may need to be taken. He has made statements that can be researched on the Internet and proven to be false. However you are correct about walking away. I will not respond to his attack nor comment on his talk page. I want nothing to do with him. I will take this to WP:RfC. Thank you.--Amadscientist 01:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

After checking that particular page and looking through this one, this page seems more appropriate. However a warning has already been issued by admin so I leave this here as "Covering my bases".--Amadscientist 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Block request for user:Lisa-tms

Would somebody please consider permanently blocking this user for persistent spamming?

As you can see from the talk page this user was warned and blocked for two days on July 12, 2007 for link spam. The account was inactive until yesterday, when five more spams appeared: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. In the last example, the user deleted oilfield drilling company Grand Energy's linkspam to insert competing linkspam from Crown Exploration. Although the total amount of spam is not great and it's not clear that they are going to continue tomorrow, it's clear that this is an improper single purpose account for generating spam. As you can see from the user's edit log the sole use of this account from the very beginning has been for no other purpose than to insert spam. There has not been a single constructive edit from this account, ever. The user was warned, and blocked, and picked up again without any attempt to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks, Wikidemo 01:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The account is indefinitely blocked as of a couple of minutes ago, with an explanation on their talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential Socks: Hehe69 and Jacob9897

The editing pattern and edit content for Hehe69 (talk · contribs) and Jacob9897 (talk · contribs) suggest one might be the sock of the other or both socks of a third unknown account.

• Consider the contents of deleted version of "Gareth mills".
• Back to back edits to German Shepherd Dog: Jacob9897 then Hehe69.

Not enough activity to call 'persistant vandals' or 'aggressively active' at this time. Just a notice of observed behavior and one possible conclusion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by an anonymous IP

Resolved

After I gave him a simple level 2 warning for deliberately adding a typo to an article: [7], User:65.32.93.17 has been constantly giving me personal attacks (see here: [8]) and accusing me of vandalizing his talk page, while I gave several WP:NPA warnings for doing so. His user talk also has a consistent offensive remark, which he continually reverts to after additional warnings have been given.--Kylohk 04:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done IP blocked by Raymond arritt and user talk page semi-protected by me. —Kurykh 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, usually you can get a faster response on obvious vandalism by reporting at WP:AIV rather than here. Raymond Arritt 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations following last week's ANI (Epeefleche, also Vidor)

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Vidor (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Last week on ANI...
Epeefleche was striking through lots of Tecmo's old comments and undoing his edits under the guide of WP:BAN (he also modified archives so that they include information on the ban).

While consensus agreed that WP:BAN did not apply to pre-ban edits, actually undoing some of the edits got slightly more complicated as Epeefleche hadn't left edit summaries for all of his edits, and even when he had, he had gone back and undone edits almost a year old (that had stood for almost a year).

So I suggested that we allow Tecmo to e-mail one of the editors undoing the edits (and while I included myself in that, I hadn't actually started undoing anything yet--five or six other editors and admins had taken care of most of the edits) with a list of diffs--because IMO enforcing all of WP:BAN was important, including and especially "it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them." I suggested it and it was shot down fairly quickly and that should have been the end of that. I don't know if anyone else has heard from Tecmo in the time since, (if so, they didn't copy the relevant text to ANI as I'd suggested) but I haven't.

This become a problem when I went through the links in the ANI report to fix whatever hadn't been done. Because while Epeefleche didn't have issues with other people who reverted him, he clearly had issues with me.

Personal attacks post ANI

Dave Matthews history talk
After ANI I went to take care of the few articles and talk pages that hadn't been. But, when I reverted Epeefleche on the Dave Matthews article, he didn't take the ANI recommendation of reverting back to his edit with a content reason--he reverted me with the edit summary "pls do not act as a proxy for a banned user." On the talk page he said that my edits were policy violations and warned me against reverting him again--even though I'd taken the issue to ANI to get consensus before reverting him. He also accused me of disruptive behavior akin to Tecmo's, and said:

"you deleted ELs, such as the ones mentioned below, without any explanation -- presumably only because Tecmo had, and would if he were here -- without any cogent thought." [9]

These types of accusations and personal attacks continued. He left a comment on the Juan Pierre talk page again accusing me of being Tecmo's proxy--a day after someone else had already reverted back for content reasons.

Epeefleche sees his actions not as personal attacks, but as warranted attacks on my actions:

At the same time, when I describe your actions as inappropriate because, among other things, you offer to act as a proxy for a banned users, I am attacking only your actions and not you. Peoples' actions are important. For example, people get banned for disruptive actions--content aside.--Epeefleche 15:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [10]

While his comments haven't been working on most of the pages he left them (users either ignored them (most articles) or chastised for being off-topic (Manzanar) or personal attacks (Naming Conventions (schools))), he has incited Vidor:

From the Shoeless Joe talk page:

..."ban" means BAN, not "Get Miss Mondegreen to edit Wikipedia for you". Vidor 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
(A personal attack and violation of WP:BAN) [11]

From Vidor's talk page

Expect what you like, but I will say what I please. Your protest would carry more weight if you had not directly admitted to acting on behalf of a banned user, which is certainly a more explicit violation of rules than anything you have accused me of. Vidor 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC) [12]

I want this to stop
I'm coming here because I'd just like to be able to edit--on non-baseball pages without Epeefleche following, on baseball pages if I want to without constantly having to defend myself. To participate without having my non-existent affiliations used as a means of dismissing or discrediting my views (an outright violation of WP:NPA). To be able to make minor edits that have already been discussed at ANI without Epeefleche trying to smear my name from here to Timbuktu. (I haven't even bothered attempting to fix the List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters talk page yet). To be able to remove some of the attacks Epeefleche has posted (starting an article talk page with a PA is particularly bad). Miss Mondegreen talk  14:00, July 30 2007 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that neither of the quotes above constitute personal attacks, the explanation of "BAN" is factual, and Miss Mondegreen is explicitly violating policy by acting on behalf of a banned user. Vidor 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Miss M left me a note regarding the return of this issue to AN/I. IN reviewing, I find Epeefleche's attitude truly hostile, and mildly immature. Miss M lobbied aggressively for her ideas during the last AN/I about this stuff, but when it was settled, she turned to doing what had been said during the last one - do not go get tecmo, do it yourself. At Dave Matthews, she removed about half a dozen fan sites. I don't know why such things got removed from the WP:EL policy, but it's usually a good idea to drop them. EpeeFleche's attitude about proxy and so on is uncalled for, and his restoration of such dubious links is questionable, esp. since Isotope also pulled all the same links[13] (He then restored one with justifications on the talk page.) This really seems, in reviewing, like Epeefleche resents Miss M for her pursuit of a reversal of his behavior, and will probably always have an axe to grind for her. He should be cautioned to let it go and move on. I hope that dealing with Epeefleche will make clear to Vidor that this sort of grudge-holding doesn't help the project.ThuranX 14:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking into this as well (during which I made that Dave Matthews edit) and I have to agree with ThuranX... it is time to move on. While WP:BAN allows for removal of a banned editor's edits, there is a point where this stops being a useful function of WP:BAN and starts to become punitive and unnecessary. At this point, Tecmo is gone and if there are any of his edits out there, leave them be; it's creating more problems than it is solving to go through and remove the content. Beyond that, Tecmo's "ban" isn't all that hard of a ban... He was offered a way to come back and edit if he so chooses to accept adoption. Moving forward I suggest that all parties involved her start discussing changes based on the merit of the content and leave the spectre of Tecmobowl out of the discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isotope23. Also, Tecmo's editing isn't what got him banned, his explosive reactions are (and some feel he was driven to such behavior but that's another matter). Redoing Tecmo's edits - esp. his pre-ban edits - are within anyone's rights. Frankly I agreed with at least some percentage of what he edited. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I originally commented as an uninvolved editor in this matter, to a viewpoint I continue to hold; what is it that Epeefleche is doing that is so different to that which got Tecmobowl blocked? As Wknight94 correctly points out, it was Tecmobowl's attitude and behaviour that precipitated the ban and not specifically the edits themselves (although it is recognised that they were disputed). The notion that Epeefleche is using the blocking of the editor he was in conflict with both to retrospectively revise content to his own viewpoint, and to use bad faith accusations of proxy editing or meatpuppetry to dissuade other editors who previously edited as had the blocked editor as a means of reverting edits he has always been opposed to is very persuasive.

I believe that unless Epeefleche is prepared to allow edits that may reflect, in part or in whole, those made by Tecmobowl (providing they conform to WP guidelines, rules and policies) or to discuss why editing policy (not WP:BAN) should not allow the edits he disagrees with, that the best course would be to bring this matter to a WP:RfC. If Epeefleche will not come to consensus then perhaps consensus needs to come to him. LessHeard vanU 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that neither of the quotes above constitute personal attacks, the explanation of "BAN" is factual, and Miss Mondegreen is explicitly violating policy by acting on behalf of a banned user.

Yes, the explanation of a ban is factual, the "not get Miss Mondegreen to edit for you" part is not. For starters, I'm not acting on behalf of a banned user--I made a suggestion, it was shot down, end of story. Second, if you have serious concerns about someone violating policy--whether it's acting on behalf of a banned user, or whatever, then you take it to the appropriate forum. The appropriate forum is not snide comments on a talk page and using the accusations as a means of discrediting the user--the appropriate forum is presenting whatever evidence you do have at a page like ANI and being willing to accept whatever consensus is. I made that suggestion ON THE ANI page--everyone saw it, and no one thought it raised more serious issues. So either represent, or stop. And yes, those a personal attacks, especially in the context. From WP:BAN:

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: (...) Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views

For starters, I can't figure out how any of those comments were intended to be constructive discussion--as I said before, if there's a problem it should be dealt with, not used for fodder. Second, you and Epeefleche in particular are using an affiliation with Tecmo that doesn't exist as a means of dismissing and discrediting me. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:45, July 31 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

As a point of warning (and keep in mind that I have no involvement nor do I care about the tecmo/epeefleche/miss m dispute), I received an email today from epee fleche pointing to this thread on AN/I. I'm inclined to believe that I received it because of a public past dispute I had with Miss M, and because I am not a big fan of her editing. Irregardless of that, though, canvassing off wiki for this seems to be quite inappropriate by epeefleche given his past actions. That's highly inappropriate, to target those who are perceived to be another party's enemies, and try to get them to stack opinion against that person. Perhaps I am wrong and not AGFing, but I have never had any other connection with epeefleche, nor involvement in this thread: I cannot imagine any other reason I would be notified about this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

See my below canvassing re WP:CANVASSING. If you care to, confirm that all you received was the link, coupled with an indication that it was being provided for your information (in the form of the words "FYI" -- rather than a request that you provide any comment or opinions to me or on this ANI or otherwise.--Epeefleche 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester was absolutely correct to report the incident of canvassing. It's the best way to discourage and root out this objectionable practice which turns so many adminspace pages into a sideshow. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem of course with him reporting what he felt might be an incident of canvassing that might not be acceptable. However, as I point out below in my discussion of what the relevant guideline states, it was within what the guideline identifies as acceptable behavior. He was within the discrete group of editors identified as "involved parties" in the Tecmo mediation cabal report that is mentioned in this discussion.--Epeefleche 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, as there has been some mischaracterization, some of which is what editors are responding to. First, I support adherence to wiki guidelines. Among those guidelines, I support the deletion of all Tecmo edits after Tecmo was banned (whatever the substance). Miss M has argued against it, but as admins have informed her, this is what the guidelines call for.

I also support the prohibition against editors inviting Tecmo, a banned user, to contact them by email and use them as a proxy -- as Miss M quite plainly did.

I also recognize that, and here there is no clear Wiki guideline but the consensus of those recently polled is what I defer to, there is not a consensus for the blanket strikethroughs (let alone deletion) of Tecmo edits that preceded his most recent ban. Miss M charges that last week I was engaging in strikethroughs. I think she is misstating the truth again. Though some time earlier, before I discussed this with others, I did of course strike through many edits in accordance with my understanding of the relevant wiki policy. I think it is perfectly fine for people to maintain those edits, to the extent that they are appropriate edits. They at the same time bear examination in that Tecmo was banned in part because of his disruptive innapropriate deletion of many ELs. This does not mean that all ELs he deleted should be deleted, or that all entries he made should be RVd. If one looks at the Dave Matthews history, for example, however, Miss M -- as she has done elsehwere -- took the postion of simply RVing to give effect to all of his mass deletes of ELs. Her deletes went beyond what was appropriate. She deleted whatever Tecmo had deleted, including a Tyepad interview link that Onorem -- an independent editor -- and Isotope agree is fine to stay. She deleted a file sharing site that Onorem and I both think is fine to leave, though Iso has now indicated that he does not see much merit in keeping it even if DMB is fine with sharing, and "it is a bit too advert-y" for Iso. Onorem did not have a problem with the almanac EL, which I supported being included, but Iso has now indicated that though Iso "could go either way on" it, Iso was removing it (as Tecmo and Miss M had done). And as to fansites, they are no longer mentioned at WP:EL, but they are under discussion now on the talk page (where I posed the question) so we can determine whether any of the instant ones warrant inclusion as well. These ELs that Tecmo deleted and Miss M also deleted (after Tecmo was banned; I can't recall whether this was before or after she offered to act as his proxy), are the subject of a discussion with another editor of that site (Miss M appears to have followed me to that site; she has also stalked me at the Manzanar site). I am in discussion with that editor and others, both there and on the wp:el talk page, as to whether other of those ELs should be restored as well. I think that this approach is more thoughtful than the Miss M approach of willy nilly restoring all Tecmo deletions of ELs, much as he would have done.

This differs from the treatment of edits that Tecmo made through his socks after he was banned.

As can be seen at [14]], Tecmobowl was indefinitely banned. After he had already been banned 5 prior times in a month. I think that is as long a ban as we have. He was in fact in part banned for his edits; I raise this because above it was suggested that this is not the case. He was banned per the discussion (which focused, inter alia, on Tecmo's "disruptive editing over a long period of time," his misrepresentation of "reliable sources," his "sockpuppetry on a level that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on baseball articles," and on Tecmo's "deletion of 100s of ELs to baseball bios, without consensus, despite 4 weeks of extensive discussion with a dozen editors prompted by Tecmo's deletions, despite a straw poll), and especially the mediator's closing comments (indicated that "It has come to my attention that Tecmo has once again been deleting more ELs.... Telling by the behavior of Tecmobowl, it is virtually impossible to create a compromise"), and for his sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR. Subsequent to his ban, he engaged at least twice more (to date) in sockpuppetry.

I also agree with Vidor's comments above.

And with the editors who addressed many of these points that Miss M made in a prior ANI over a week ago -- where they suggested that she "move on," and that this was "getting tiresome," and that "This is the admin noticeboard and no more admin intervention is necessary here," and that there had been no strikethroughs for a period of time, and that it was absolutely fine to delete Tecmo's post-ban entries, and that "Yes, I see where Epeefleche successfully called for three articles to be deleted. They were all legitimate deletions per WP:CSD#G5 (i.e., post-ban created by Long Levi) and will stay deleted." See [15] Nothing untoward happened since she received that advice a week ago. Rather than accept that advice, she has now started yet another ANI on precisely the same subject. I'm not sure how many ANIs she has filed, or if awards are given out for the leader in this category, but the number relating to defending Tecmo and attacking me and the other editors who thought that this now-banned editor was acting in innapropriate manner is impressive. However, I do wonder whether we would not do better if we were to move on to productive pursuits.--Epeefleche 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) That's an interesting, but ultimately stale, rehash of all that was said in the last thread. Others here continue to agree your wholesale large-scale reversions/strikethroughs of all Tecmobowl's edits is unwelcome. That you're persisting in this matter, when Miss M was told she can do it herself, and you were told to stop, is frustrating to many editors. four above, myself included agree you need to drop it. Stop redacting Tecmo's edits, stop conflicting with Miss M. I'm sure that she's NOT interfering with Tecmo's post ban edits, and if she is, she DOES need to stop. but for you to keep poking at her and ths situation with a sharp stick is not helping the project, nor your relationships with fellow editors. Finally, the off-wiki canvassing, as Swatjester notes, is unethical, and says to me, if no one else, that my theory is confirmed, you're unable to let the issue drop. Please, for your own sake, stop worrying about it. Move on. We all get that you dislike Tecmo and Miss M. Unfortunately, this isn't junior high, where your personal dislikes have to be dealt with for the good of the class. Just walk away from those edits. work on improving the article in other ways, or provide a clear new rationale for the inclusion or exclusion of the links in question. If they can be argued for properly, in or out, then that's fine, they'll stay in or out as the argument calls for. But simply going with 'tecmo bad' isn't going to work as an edit summary or a long term attitude here. Make your WIkipedia experience about YOU and your hobbies, not about those you bear grudges against. Really, man. No one wants to continnue this. Just move on. thanks. ThuranX 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being unclear, so let me understand -- what strikethroughs within the recent past are you referring to? Something since the past ANI? Or are your rehashing old stuff, that has already been discussed at length in the prior ANI, which concluded with suggestions that everyone move on and address productive matters? As to Miss Tecmo's not interfering with his post-ban edits, why are you sure she's not interfering with them? Have you read her offer to be his proxy? Have you read her arguing on behalf of keeping his post-ban edits?

As to canvassing, my understanding is that the guidelines states that "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine," and that "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive," but that "Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not." As the most that I ever did was give a very few editors who had been involved with the subject the link, with the words fyi (and without any other language, such as an exhortation to action), I think that it fits squarely within what WP:Canvassing says is permissible -- this despite your interesting suggestion that it is an ethical violation. Which is especially curious given that you above indicate that you are here because, as you share with us: "Miss M left me a note regarding the return of this issue to AN/I" -- in retrospect, while I am sure there is some explanation as to how this is not hypocritical on your part, it is a bit of a head-scratcher.

I have moved on. I reflected as much in the past, and again in my above comment, in which I suggested that the person who started this ANI -- about already-dust-covered matters -- follow the suggestion she received in the prior ANI and move on. You are preaching to the choir. --Epeefleche 06:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My username is not "Miss Tecmo". If you thought that that wouldn't be noticed or that you could continue to get away with stuff like this, you're wrong.

Have you read her offer to be his proxy? Have you read her arguing on behalf of keeping his post-ban edits?

For the millionth time, did not offer to be his proxy. Arguing on behalf of keeping his post-ban edits? What on earth are you talking about? I never argued against the removal of Tecmo's post-ban edits as you said both here and above "Miss M has argued against it, but as admins have informed her, this is what the guidelines call for." I did argue that some of the post-ban comments should have been struck out instead of removed. In general I am for the preservation of talk pages as archives, so removing a post-ban users comments goes against that vein in me. In particular, I thought that in certain cases, the removal of comments was confusing or misleading. And when I raised this issue, Wknight94, the only editor to respond said that I was free to repair damage if I felt it necessary and to turn to the talk page for assistance. If editors would like to return to this issue, that's fine by me. If nothing changes on this score, these few edits were the only edits I planned to modify

I think what people are worried about in terms of WP:CANVASS is not what your message said, but who it was sent to. Canvassing is deemed a misuse if "the audience is targeted on the basis of partisanship, or other factors favoring a given "side" in a dispute". I don't know who other than swatjester you sent the e-mails to, but I don't think of him as one of the "very few editors who had been involved with the subject"--unless of course the subject is me and you're e-mailing users who have been involved with me before. And if you can't see how that would be canvassing...

I informed everyone who participated at least week's ANI--this is a direct follow-up. I also belatedly informed the new mediator for Shoeless Joe Jackson. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:34, July 31 2007 (UTC)

Miss M, I think its time to move on, so in the interest of that I will simply suggest that we each do so, each in his or her own direction -- rather than clutter this page further with detail and diffs re your offering to be Tecmo's proxy, your position on the post-ban edits, canvassing, etc. This has all been rehashed in the prior ANI, nothing new has happened since that ANI, and this as one admin has suggested is getting tiresome. Sound good?--Epeefleche 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is less of a wikipedia "crime" than is soliciting e-mails from banned users for the purpose of making edits of any kind for any reason. Assuming Mondegreen has figured that out by now, then this issue could be closed. Baseball Bugs 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still waiting for anyone to actually provide evidence that Miss Mondegreen was working with a banned user in any way. Instead, I just see Epeefleche going on and on and on, without actually saying anything (or at least, anything accurate, based on the diffs provided in the beginning of this thread and the prior AN/I thread on this subject) and now saying it's time to move on? The most artistic smokescreen I've even seen. I'll say this, i think Miss Mondegreen has been making very reasonable attempts to actually resolve this dispute. Should it arise again, however, WP:RFC might be a better forum. I wish I was more optimistic right now...I see this at ArbCom eventually. --InkSplotch 23:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreem was soliciting e-mails from Tecmo/Levi for the purpose of editing by proxy. Apparently nothing came of that gross violation of the rules. Epeefleche maybe got a bit over-exuberant in trying to undo the damage that Tecmo/Levi had caused. I am inclined to agree with Epeefleche that this debate has run its course and the whole thing should be dropped. It's apparent that Tecmo/Levi is either not coming back or has come back as such a stealthy sockpuppet that no one has spotted him (yet, this time). This whole discussion is also a reflection of the ill will that Tecmo/Levi generated in his year or so on wikipedia, and reinforces that permanently banning him was the right thing to do. Baseball Bugs 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently InkSplotch has an appetite for this historical exercise that surpasses mine. Here you go, Ink. I could of course have started a whole new ANI about the issue, but thought editors might have better things to do with their time. My suggestion, yet again -- Let's all focus on doing something positive with our time now, if you are comfortable with that apparently novel approach? If Tecmo is watching --Epeefleche 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed your link, it was a bit mangled. So, here's the damning quote:

Unless someone is willing to go through all of Epeefleche's recent edits and see if Tecmo has ever edited the same article and if he has, compare their edits, there's no way to figure out the more complicated edits. The ones where the edit summary alludes to Tecmo should be easier, and the other ones, the best that can be done is to check and see if Tecmo edited the article recently. But the easiest and most complete thing to do, get Tecmo's help--OFF WIKI. Because what I said earlier, I stand by. The people equipped to deal with this are editors with endless amounts of time, editors obsessed with Tecmo and Tecmo himself. If Tecmo is watching, I invite him to e-mail me or another editor's he'd be comfortable contacting with a diff list her articles and talk pages where Epeefleche has undone either his edits or comments. Anyone who receives an e-mail from Tecmo with diffs can post them here and they can be taken care of. Miss Mondegreen talk 09:04, July 21 2007 (UTC)

So, looking over the thread again, looks to me like Miss Mondegreen was looking for a way to undo your attempts to extinguish Tecmo from all of Wikipedia. I think it's a stretch to call this an offer to "edit by proxy." In fact, the amount you seem to keep fighting her over the supposed appearance of a connection to Tecmo versus the actual content in question looks like obsession. So, if you wish to move on, can you work with Miss Mondegreen on talk pages, talk about the content of her edits, and not bring up Tecmo? --InkSplotch 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ink -- I gather you have a problem moving on. Yes -- offering to act as a proxy for a banned user is a clear violation of wiki policy. Not a "looks to me" matter. Not a stretch. As others -- admins -- pointed out on that diff. And no -- moving on as I suggested did not involve me talking with Miss M any more. If you look at my talk page, you will see that I did more than my share of that already. Have a nice night. Sleep tight.--Epeefleche 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's clarify something--I, and many other users had an issue with your edits--they violated, not enforced WP:BAN and were a BIG problem. I suggested asking for Tecmo's help in undoing them by way of getting information. Not necessarily doing anything with it, but getting the information so that we could if we felt it necessary. I said flat out that the e-mail would go to ANI, and then it could be acted on. At any rate, going along with this fantasy that it was more than a suggestion, more than asking for information, pretending it's everything that you seem to think--if we had received any help, Tecmo would have been the one assisting me, not the other way around. I had edits I wanted to make and I was asking for assistance with them. Proxy editing for Tecmo would have been if Tecmo wanted something done on wiki and contacted me and I then went to do it.

What actually happened was a suggestion. Even stretching and exaggerating and assuming the worst, it's the exact opposite of acting as a proxy for a banned user. We're not just talking about stretching the truth here--something you do regularly. We're talking about something blatantly false--either purposefully, or due to your failure to understand what happened. Neither is ok. Wikipedia works by consensus and consensus has spoken. Continuing at this point is harassment. Just because you feel that your statements are factually correct, that your comments on me are not personal attacks, and that discussing the editor instead of the content is ok, doesn't mean that you're right. Maybe consensus is wrong. Maybe I am editing by proxy, attacks on behavior are not personal attacks, and who makes the contribution is as important as what is contributed. But since overwhelming, people, consensus disagrees with you, you're left with the choice to follow consensus or to ignore consensus--the two paths have very different end-points I'm sure, but the choice is ultimately yours. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:07, August 1 2007 (UTC)

The scary part is that you continue to argue that soliciting e-mails from a banned user is no big deal. Until you change your thinking on that point, you're going to continue to get criticized for it. Baseball Bugs 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Miss Mondegreen understands now that she can agree with Tecmo's editing philosophy and independently attempt to reach consensus on making similar edits, but not actually solicit any information from Tecmo himself. Tecmo's input should not be necessary anyway since his edit history is available for all to see. I think she implied a few things that were not kosher - like actually contacting Tecmo for input - but now she understands the impropriety of that (please agree with me, Miss Mondegreen). Therefore, she is going to make independent edits going forward and everyone can treat her as such. Past comments on everyone's part can be left in the past. Everyone agreed? This is seeming more like a communication difficulty than a real dispute at this point. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood all of what you just said Wknight--consensus had already been reached on the Epeefleche edits, my suggestion had been getting help from Tecmo in finding all of them--a suggestion I didn't think would work not because I anticipated that community reaction, but because it would require Tecmo to reach out and work with others and trust them to take care of things (which would be a good step towards good behavior and coming back, but one I thought he was unlikely to take) At any rate, as soon as people thought it was a bad idea, that was that--I respect consensus. Tecmo never contacted me, so it hasn't been an issue, and if he does, I'll do what I said and post anything relevant to ANI. I understood as soon as consensus decided it was a bad idea.

Consensus was loud and clear, and I didn't raise the issue again, except to defend myself.

On another note--I removed a personal attack/accusation on an article talk page--unusual, but since it was the only thing on the article page, I felt that it was ok, and in fact better for the talk page as well as myself. Epeefleche reverted me, with an edit summary implying that there is/was some content dispute and not that I reverted an edit because it violated WP:BAN. I'm not sure if this is further trying to discredit me or if Epeefleche really still doesn't understand what happened at last week's ANI, but something is off. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:10, August 2 2007 (UTC)

Block review of user:Seabhcan

Admin Jersey Devil has blocked Seabhcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for off-wiki "canvassing off-line and violation of WP:MEAT." [16] [17] Seabhcan acknowledges making the comments, so attribution is not an issue. However, I am not convinced that Seabhcan's comments only have one (negative) interpretation, and I am not convinced of the duration either. However, I am also sick and tired of the drama surrounding Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and trying to import more drama is a bad thing. See also block review at User talk:Seabhcan. Thatcher131 16:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought admins block only as preventative measures. Further the ignoring of context in which the statement was made is clearly out of line. Seabhcan specifically stated that people should not engage in actions that violate Wikipedia policy, however I am sure that was ignored and out of pages of conversation, only the out of context message was acted on. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For reference, this is the comment:

"State Terrorism and the United State" has been nominated for deletion 6 times. We won each time and now it stays.

But it will be nominated again - we need new dedicated editors - ones who are respected and seen to be impartial - to argue for this info to be kept.

Basically, we need under-cover truthers to come out and help every now and then. Seabhcan | 07.28.07 - 10:16 am |

Just FYI. Chaz ^Beckett 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• One problem here is that ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that (most recent example) Wikipedia is not a battlegound, and Wikipedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere. As this applies to the Yahoo SCOX noticeboard and Jeff Merkey, or various gaming newsgroups and Derek Smart, I don't see why it also shouldn't apply in reverse. Even if Seabhcan was only asking for unbiased help, his call could certainly be perceived as a call for certain specific actions. Posting to the comments page of Alex Jones' web site that readers should keep an eye on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is likely to attract a very different response than writing a letter to the Washington Post, and I'm sure Seabcan knew that when he made that post. Thatcher131 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First post by Seabhcan:

“ I'm afraid that "votes' for article deletion are not really votes. You must make a convincing argument against deletion. Also, votes by anonymous or new editors (called "single purpose accounts") are regularly ignored.

Best bet to get your voice heard is to edit non-9/11 articles for a while, get to know wikipedia policy and rules. When you feel the need to speak out on 9/11 articles, be polite, reasoned and logical. Argue on points of wikipedia policy, not on the subject matter. For example, argue that the topic is notable and that the material is well sourced. If you blurt out that "9/11 is an inside job" you will be rightly ignored.

Remember, its an encyclopedia, not a forum.

”

To provide some context. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And more:

“ Guys, Please stop just vandalizing Morton's userpage. This only proves Morton's theory that he is victim of "crazy truthers" and wins other people on wikipedia over to his way of thinking.

Stop. It doesn't help.

”

Context is important: [ You can scroll down to bottom, load comments and see all of Seabhcans defense of Wikipedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support block, as I noted further up the page the quote speaks for itself. Given the tone of discussion on that site, these types of requests have the potential for a great amount of disruption. RxS 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Seabhcan is the only one advocating rational thought and not breaking the rules should be noted. However much you fail to note that. You can even see Seabhcan go frustrated trying to deal with the people there, after they started vandalizing Wikipedia much on their own, and much against Seabhcan's best efforts to prevent them from doing so. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support although shorter duration would be okay too. If the other irrelevant "context" posts are important, there's the one where he calls Wikipeida editors "morons" [18]. Just like the other irrelevant "context" posts, this was neither incriminating nor mitigating as it is just not relevant to Wikipedia. WP:MEAT is relevant however. --Tbeatty 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  Telling people to get involved in Wikipedia is not WP:MEAT. Further, thanks to freedom of speech, people are permitted to insult you off wiki. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

True, you can attack people off-Wiki, but there may be on-Wiki consequences for such attacks. Please see Wp:npa#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. If you're trying to get this whole topic on the radar of as many admins as possible, you're succeeding marvelously. Raymond Arritt 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the points above and the topic. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I definitely do have a problem with Seabhcan's post to a board, and it does seem to violate WP:MEAT. Thatcher131's point comparing this particular message board with the Washington Post is well made. However I do also have a problem with the block; Seabhcan believes (I am in no position to say rightly or wrongly) that he was acting from good intentions. Unless this is part of a pattern, I'd be inclined to believe him. I would also note that there has been outrageous trolling from both sides on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (such that I removed it from my watchlist, something I have very seldom done), and so one can see why this block will be seen as one-sided and unfair by the recipient. I don't see either any warning of or discussion with Seabhcan prior to the block; in the circumstances it might have been better for Jersey Devil to have first discussed/warned Seabhcan, then if necessary brought the matter to a central forum such as this prior to issuing the block. This would have better ensured compliance with WP:BLOCK, and also avoided any hint of perceived unfairness. It seems that both have erred and may usefully learn from this for the future. I'd probably be inclined to shorten the block if Seabhcan shows evidence of having seen why an apparent "call to arms" like this is seen as problematic by most wikipedians. --John 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The post is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the canvassing and meatpuppetry policies by a long-time editor who is obviously familiar with them. We should probably be less, rather than more, tolerant of editors who seek to augment the already-too-prevalent "battleground" aspect of Wikipedia. I think the block is appropriate. If there's some evidence that Seabhcan, as a longstanding contributor, recognizes the problem and has taken corrective action, I suppose the block could be shortened. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To Seabhcan's credit, his posts there were by far the most reasonable, and he did discourage vandalism. He also clearly invited people at a conspiracist forum to come edit and help get out The Truth about What Really Happened. I have no doubt that his beliefs about 9/11 are sincere. Most fringe beliefs are sincerely held. There is a point beyond which good faith doesn't matter - they are still adding nonsense to the encyclopedia, and damaging the project. I support the block, but would prefer a better solution if one were available. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So you support the block because your "truth" is truer (sp?)? If you did not notice Seabhcan also explained how policy works and asked them to find sources for material that would meet our standards, our standards are not your truth, nor mine, but reliability and verifiability. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tom or MastCell, but I'd point out the block is probably merited for the breach of policy, regardless of the content dispute. I do, as I said, have qualms about the length of the block and the way it was enacted, but I believe the block has since been shortened, so perhaps this matter is pretty much resolved now. The larger dispute that seems to have caused it will need to be revisited at some point, but that is outwith our competence to discuss here, I believe. --John 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(response to Sevenofdiamonds) Sorry, but this isn't a gray area. There's no context in which it's OK to solicit new editors who are "seen to be impartial - to argue for this info to be kept", or to ask "under-cover truthers to come out and help every now and then." The specifics of his viewpoint are secondary; it would be equally inappropriate to solicit "undercover anti-conspiracists" to "help out". MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't feel a block against this established and very good editor is called for under the circumstances. First of all, if there is consensus that there was a breach in policy, or any problems, then there is nothing to indicate that a warning would not suffice. A block is overkill here. If the user continued after being told it was a violation of policy, then a preventive block might be in order. However, he was not even given a warning, much less any disucssion about this grey area. Personally, I don't see a problem with what he did in the context. These people already have been directed to WP by the article itself. Thus there were already being recuited for less than desirable behaviors. What he did was intervene and attempt to direct and moderate their future actions with WP in a manner that could be acceptable, and in accordance with the rules. That is a good thing, not bad. He doesn't personally know these people, so there is no meat puppetry. He is merely advising these people of the appropriate norms of conduct, and stop them from doing what the article is directing them to do.Giovanni33 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how we can possibly think that this behavior is not worth a block. Seabhcan is a longtime editor and familiar with the policies around here but has chosen in the comment quoted by Chaz above to attempt to subvert Wikipedia by trying to recruit "undercover truthers" and win deletion debates. This is not a mistake, but an improper attitude, and the block is fully justified: this did more than cross the line - it was telling Wikipedia vandals how to more effectively pursue their goals. Many of Seabhcan's other comments were perfectly okay but that doesn't justify the bad one. Mangojuice^talk 00:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Even if what you say is correct, you igonre my main point that blocks are preventive, and not punitive. How is this block preventive? It already happened, and the user was not even warned, much less told this would not allowed, and given a chance to reply so it could be determined if he was going to comply with consensus on the matter, or continue? If he was and continued, and if you are correct, then you would have a case for this block. This is my main point. As far as the actual violation is concerned, I disagree still. I dont think its fair to charaterize a large group of anon editors on that board as all "vandals." Some may have been, and to the degree that some were, this editors conduct was to mitigate that and warn them not to vandalize. But, instead to teach any serious, potencial good future editor, how WP operates--not so they can better vandalize as you claim (I don't believe that was his intention at all), but how to NOT vandalize, but be good editors instead. Regarding AfD, I note that the editor had asked them to participate in the capacity of offering logical, sound reasoning (something we in WP can benefit from). I also note that new SPA are discounted anyway, so I don't see the harm. Sebhcan certainly is not to be blamed, much less punished, for advocating that new potencial editors who were already being introduced to WP, simply follow the rules. When they do follow the rules, no matter their own personal pov (irrelevant) they are by definition not vandals, but new editor we shoudl welcome, and not bite.Giovanni33 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • While Seabchan may have been acting well in some ways (discouraging vandalism and the like), it's also clear that he's well aware he's soliciting people who are very, very likely to have one opinion, and is indeed encouraging only those with one opinion to come around. In some senses, what he's doing is worse than your garden-variety meatpuppet solicitation, since all those generally result in are SPAs that come around, shout incoherently at a debate or two, are ignored, and go away. Seabchan, on the other hand, is giving detailed advice on how to put up a facade of legitimacy. It's not a question of the fact that he happens to be soliciting "truthers". If someone were caught soliciting meatpuppets to remove conspiracy materials, I'd support coming down just as hard on them. It's just not an acceptable practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support For 24 hours at most, 15 would be best. Anything less than that from a trusted editor for the first time is a little too much cabaal power. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA processes?

It's been ages since I saw the whole "strike through 'em" and "note that they're too new" argument about RFA's. I do not have a dog in the hunt, but the current WP:RFA#Giggy had me puzzled, since I am seeing quite a few very new accounts voting. Is this 'crat land, or do we still, as admins, go through and determine franchise and note the new folks, or is that all considered a Very Bad thing and a form of Glowering? Just wondering. (I'll take my answer off air, thanks.) Geogre 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. No one had an opinion. Well, it is a new day. Geogre 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:AN, the talk page of WP:RFA, or WP:BN are more appropriate places for this thread. Although the request failed to take off, I would like to know the answer. With such impressive bouts of astroturfing, I consider the RfA process to be seriously flawed and occasionally disgraceful. The proliferation of new accounts on this particular RfA does not require mentioning that-which-should-not-be-named. Everyone is free to draw his own conclusion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm an expert on how things used to be more than how they are, in this context. We used to note, politely, when voters were very new. Some people took that amiss, and others took it to the wall, and ... I lost interest in whether it was the height of villainy or s.o.p. or one of those "leave it for the Clerks" things, so I figured I'd check here to see what current consensus is. I don't want to debate it, so I didn't go to the swampier discussion pages. I didn't want to act against consensus, and I was extremely tempted to put the polite notes or wonder why no one else had done so. Geogre 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that if an account is very new, that should be noted. I'd also feel that an account registered yesterday or an account with six edits should be indented, but if others opposed the idea strongly, I wouldn't find it worth fighting. ElinorD (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to do the checking? I'm not against or for the suggestion, but would point out a matter to consider; firstly, the reasons for promoting are (or should be if it hopes to succeed) in the nomination(s), statement(s) and answers to the questions, and the approvals generally echo these sentiments. The Bureaucrat generally simply counts those numbers. It is unlikely that there will be sufficient numbers of new accounts to inflate that figure sufficiently to alter consensus. With oppose votes, the point is the validity of the arguments against - something a new account will unlikely to provide by itself (unless this is a matter of sockpuppety, which is a different more serious matter) and will possibly be a case of endorsing an argument already stated. The Bureaucrat is more likely to consider whether the point is valid in determining the suitability of the candidate, before counting those whose vote were effected by it. Again, I do not see how new accounts will materially effect the outcome of an RfA (or other opinion/vote orientated procedures). Finally, who is going to check? The candidate? The nominator(s) (if different)? The bureaucrat, or some third party? If the suggestion does proceed toward policy or guideline status then it needs to be applicable to every RfA, which will be very time consuming for someone. LessHeard vanU 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In the past, pretty much anyone could check. It doesn't take checkuser to simply see the date of a first contribution. What triggered the checking was most often accounts no one had ever heard of, red link user pages, and particularly unlettered supports or opposes. For example, among the "pro" votes in that particular RFA, I had encountered very, very few of those names anywhere. I'm not the Kevin Bacon of Wikipedia, but the percentage of "who the heck?" was very high. I just casually looked at three of the last support votes and all three accounts had their first contributions at about the same time. Odd. Then I went up a bit, and the next three seemed to have their first edits around the same time.

There is a valid argument for limiting the franchise slightly in RFA. An account less than a month old is unlikely to be a user who knows policies very well (unless an at-long-last registered IP editor or a sock puppet or a reincarnation). A user of fewer than three months probably doesn't know the policies well enough to know whether a candidate on offer is going to mesh well with them or not. Regardless of any of that, though, a peculiar "class of May 2007" vote is really, really curious.

I'm not generally suspicious, but I figured that someone out there would be suspicious enough to want to press the matter, especially since there is a potential hole in our process. Yes, by the way, an even half-industrious person could mess things up, and a half-asleep 'crat could miss it. Geogre 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very true. The idea of suffrage for RfAs was discussed here, on Wikipedia:Suffrage, as well as a dozen other pages. It appears that the majority is interested in preserving the status quo or simply does not care. So much the worse for them. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I trust our current cadre of bureaucrats to go beyond vote-counting in determining consensus to promote. I'm sure they do some checking into the edit histories of those who contribute before deciding. --John 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Insight requested

Numerous personal attacks by a single user who is ignoring the rules. Warned multiple times. Please see Talk:Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II. NikoSilver 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Problematic diffs:

• [19] ("death to Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians" on his userpage, also see the "hate" userbox)
• [20] racial slur
• [21] anon comment on the same tone, most probably his
• [22] calling other editor "moron", ignoring NPA policy
• [23] no comment, see also malakas.

I don't know if further warnings serve any purpose. NikoSilver 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Trolling of the worst sort. I'd propose a community ban if there are no good-faith contributions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• If I'm not mistaken, Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II is a POV fork of National Liberation War of Macedonia created by that account anyway. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• The editor in question declares "I would be more than happy to get banned from wikipedia, permanently would make me even happier so еби се".--Yannismarou 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and in his userpage he declares his pride for being a troll (I'm a flamer... or troll... whatever floats your boat.)--Yannismarou 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, finally we're getting somewhere. Frightner 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing, althought it prolly makes no difference, I didn't write "[65]". Frightner 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll just let you guys do this thing, by the time I log back on I better be banned, I gotta get some sleep. Peace till you cease. Frightner 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Neil ╦ 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban for a period of 3 months, trolling. I don't advocate "Admin power" (read:kabbalist Leninism), but trolling like this needs a big ol' 3 month ban. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at Fairhope, Alabama

I have edited at this article and would like someone else to look at an aggravating situation please. OleFairhoper (talk · contribs · count · logs) continues to make unsourced, improper edits to the Fairhope, Alabama article [24], [25], [26], [27] and [28]. He has been invited to discuss the edits [29] and he has been warned [30], [31], [32]. On one occasion he left this edit on a users talk page who had reverted him. He shows no sign of engaging others or being willing to discuss his edits. A second user, Twizzlesticks (talk · contribs · count · logs) exhibits a similar pattern of editing as well at this edit. Here [33] he is mysteriously able to complete OleFairhopers edit for him just minutes after it is made. I would ask another administrator to take a look and pursue whatever action you think appropriate. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• There's also User:OldFairhoper, as well. The similarity of this (Twizzlesticks) and this (OleFairhoper) are interesting, too. WP:DUCK? ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I had not noticed the slight difference. There is also an IP 205.157.85.3 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 207.157.85.3 (talk · contribs · count · logs) that comes back locally with edits that are similar [34]. Maybe these are DUCKS but I don't think I should be the one to do the blocking. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I could really use some direction here from some of you older admins please. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do not endorse block Be nice and give him chances. Niceness ans willingness do better than abuse of Admin superpower. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Death threats and personal attacks from User:Lord Loxley

User:Lord_Loxley has been making death threats [[35]] and personal attacks[[36]]. This is in addition to disrupting the article on English people with unverifiable nonsense and attempting to sabotage an RfC designed to ascertain whether material should be treated as original research. Repeated attempts to get a meaningful response on the talk page have been rebuffed with increasingly vitriolic personal attacks and racist language [[37]]. I believe User: 68.110.8.21 is the same person. Wiki-Ed 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one month and given a final warning. Neil ╦ 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call, this may be an established editor, but wishing death on a group of people is not acceptable from anyone. Considering the user's block log, the length of this block seems appropriate. Until(1 == 2) 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he continues calling Wiki-ed a racist slavemonger and likens his ideology to that of neo-nazis and white supremacists on his talk page (while demanding his block to be shortened, no less). Protect his talk page for a month maybe?--Atlan (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what he's said on his talk page merits protecting it. --Eyrian 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eyrian, but it sure makes any regret I felt about the length of the block go away. Especially the part about "demanding" a fortnight be shaved off his block. Until(1 == 2) 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block, but please don't call things death threats when they aren't death threats. There is a huge difference between telling someone that you don't care if they die and telling them that you are going to kill them. --Onorem♠Dil 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. "I wish every Wikipedia editor would die" wouldn't even be a death threat, IMO. We weaken the meaning of the original policy by stretching it, and there are sufficient reasons for a block under disruption without watering down what a death threat is. Geogre 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this so speedily. The insults were bad enough, but the death (wish???) was beyond the pale. I hope the now-civilised talk page will assist with balancing the article. Wiki-Ed 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Just fucking die already" isn't a threat per se, but it's exceptionally hostile and incivil. Neil ╦ 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I contest this block. I may be too "liberal", but it seems that a fortnight block would do, a month is too much for two attacks. And don't block the E-mail function. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a month is pretty appropriate. This isn't his first block for this sort of behavior and given his responses I don't see any clear indication he understands what he did wrong... hence no real reason to refactor. He's free to request an unblock if he so chooses.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin using admin powers to gain the upperhand in a dispute?

Arthur Rubin has used the administrator rollback on me therefor calling me a vandal.[38] I would like a review of my edit. Is it legitimate or am I a vandal. Judging my his talk page, he has used the delete button to nuke a page he didn't like and has stated that he wanted to remove all links to prisonplanet.com because it's an attack site (yeah right). I may be over reacting, but I never like it when an admin who disagrees with me decides to use anti-vandalism tools against me. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of the use of admin tools. prisonplanet.com is fantasy fiction entertainment, and light years from a WP:RS. Weregerbil 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting. He rolled back the edit, he did not call you a vandal and he did not leave any kind of vandal warning on your page. He restored material, the validity of which can be discussed on the talk page, but did not abuse his powers. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont see him calling you a vandal either? Can you ellaborate on this suppsoed personal atatck on you? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am. Per WP:REVERT rollbacks are used to revert vandals, thus I figured that's what he ment to imply. —

Selmo ^(talk) 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation."}

That website has articles and its forums have threads that publish details about Wikipedia editors, which is why it has been labelled as an attack site. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, so is Wikitruth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selmo (talk • contribs)

Last I checked we don't source from Wikitruth.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget being an attack site. Does prisonplanet.com satisfy WP:RS by any stretch of imagination? I think Arthur has already answered in his talk page regarding what you consider as a personal attack. I suggest discussing the issue with him further. Gnanapiti 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How is that edit even a rollback? It looks like an ordinary revert to me. Am I missing something? Cardamon 05:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are. Rollback is the revert tool that sysops have. 65.102.3.211 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But don't administrators retain the ability to do ordinary reverts? I mean this revert shows up on the page history and on Arthur Rubin's Contributions page. I still don't see how it is a rollback? Cardamon 06:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing special about rollback. It's just a button that appears next to the most recent revision, and if you click it, it reverts the most recent edits back to the last version by a different editor, leaving an edit summary similar to what you see in that diff. It shows up just like any other edit; the only indiciation that admin rollback was used is the formulaic edit summary. It would appear Arthur probably used rollback for that revert, based on the edit summary. Perhaps once upon a time this was a significant convenience, but now one-click revert tools are available to anyone, so it's not so special. Using rollback for non-vandalism is discouraged, because the lack of an edit summary is unhelpful. In this case, I don't see the point of making a federal case about it, though. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Arguably you are right and rollback should probably not have been used. I'd agree though with Arthur's explanation that your edit comprised "...blanking of sourced, relevant information. That's not precisely vandalism, but it's something that can be reverted on sight without further comment". Your edit summary "...You folks say prisonplanet is not reliable, but anything that fits your agenda is" doesn't seem to be helpful in the least, Selmo. This is a case for article talk and then WP:DR if necessary. I'd agree with what was written at User talk:Arthur Rubin#Vandalism? about the subject. This noticeboard is only for when things are still unresolved after discussion. I don't think this falls into that category. --John 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock farm

Per this WP:ANI#User:Vista2010 I received a "Wrong version" complaint this morning [39] and replied to it. However, when I went back later to add another comment, I couldn't find my reply. This was because I found myself looking at User:Vista2010 rather than the User:Vista_2100 I had replied to. There is also a User:Vista_2010 and no doubt many more. (Probably worth looking at User:Hoa Chung Yui too). I've got to go to work now, and it would probably be better if a previously uninvolved admin blocked the socks anyway. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 07:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I indefblocked Vista 2100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sock and left a note for Vista2010 (talk · contribs). There doesn't appear to be a Vista 2010 (talk · contribs) (with a space). I've done nothing with Hoa Chung Yui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) out of a lack of familiarity with the situation (i.e., anyone is free to take further action). —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Application of UK publication ban to Wikipedia

Hi all, A judge in the UK recently banned publication of documents an statements related to the Al Jazeera bombing memo trial. This includes a ban on printing a particular phrase uttered by the defendant in relation to that memo. Is Wikipedia covered by such a ban? [40] 136.206.35.6 08:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has servers hosted in the United States and are a private entity. We would not be affected by any sort of ban like that (as far as I know).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the document (and I'm not in the UK), but is there anything there which isn't already in White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq?-gadfium 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its connected to that at all. This is about a British Government memo which reportedly discussed a US plan to secretly bomb the Al Jazeera TV station in Qatar. 136.206.35.6 09:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It would likely be illegal for British editors to make any edits which violated such a ban, but as neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor its servers are located in Britain, we would not be subject to any British censorship law or order, any more than we would be subject to the censorship laws of Iran or China. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Might we be exposing our UK readers to prosecution? Should we consider putting a disclamer at the top of the article "Not to be read in the UK", or something like that? 136.206.35.6 09:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

British readers should poke their eyes out rather than look at this page? ;-D SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want anyone to be jailed because of something they read on wikipedia, whether they be in China, Iran or the UK. I think we have a duty of care to our readers. Can we prevent UK ip addresses from accessing the article? 136.206.35.6 09:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No. If people in the UK cannot view documents relating to this, then they should not be inviting trouble by looking it up on Wikipedia. There is no way that we can deny access to an entire nation just because of one judge's decision in a case that the Wikimedia Foundation is in no way in the jurisdiction of.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't. It's not our responsibility to save people from themselves. After all we've done to help the Chinese access us, now you're suggesting censorship? --Golbez 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

British law makes it illegal to publish, but not to read, this stuff. The chances of anyone being jailed for reading WP are nil. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. British editors would be risking contempt of court if they added this information, but British readers are risking nothing. Physchim62 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a warning to editor on the talk page would be in order then? 136.206.35.6 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Nothing will happen, no one will be fined, no one will be jailed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) British law forbids publication of obscenity, state secrets, etc. but not the reading of same if obtained in areas not covered by UK publishing laws. Is there still an article on Spycatcher, which examined this in some detail? LessHeard vanU 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything is illegal somewhere, we have to worry about Florida law and our own policies. Until(1 == 2) 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should at least put a warning message on the article talk page - if it is illegal for UK editors to edit this article, they should at least be warned. 136.206.35.6 13:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary; the more UK editors who edit the article, the more unenforceable this farcical ban will be. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that is a different question. Editors should be aware of the (admittedly minor) legal risk, and its easy for us to inform them. 136.206.35.6 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Andy Mabbet, as the law prohibits publication of the material. I can write what I like in private, when I commit it to media is there any question of British law becoming involved - but the datebase I am writing to exists outside of the United Kingdom. I think the UK contributors are safe from a visit by the authorities. LessHeard vanU 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because then we would have to go to all the pages you are not allowed viewing in China and give them a warning, and after that there is a big long line-up of other countries who have made certain information illegal. It is the responsibility of the viewer to know their local laws, we can't be educating them on their laws because we are not experts. We try to avoid content warnings in general anyways. Until(1 == 2) 13:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's get straight what the ban covers. It covers reporting of the parts of the trial that were held behind closed doors; and reporting of one exchange in open court, that the judge thought should have been behind closed doors. As nobody has revealed what that exchange was, nor what was said behind closed doors, it's a bit difficult for us to report even if we want to. Jheald 13:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Some non-UK papers have been reporting what Keogh said: (UK readers look away now) "Keogh, who thought the memo exposed the US president as a "madman," believed it could raise questions in Britain's lower chamber House of Commons and wanted it passed on to US presidential hopeful John Kerry, the court heard." (TaipeiTimes) ... Seabhcan 13:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's all in this Guardian report of 10 May [41]. The words specifically not in that report are "Al Jazeera". My understanding is that, as of the Appeal Court ruling on Monday, newspapers can now repeat the "speculation" from before the trial that the memo referred to 'accidentally' destroying the local Al Jazeera bureau. Thus the Guradian report yesterday [42] refers to "British concerns about ... the killing of civilians in Falluja and President Bush's alleged suggestion that the offices of the Arabic satellite TV station al-Jazeera should be bombed". But what they apparently may not give is any more specific detail about the memo, that may or may not have come out in court -- so they cannot say definitively why Keogh thought Bush was a madman. Jheald 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I'm sure the Foundation will give us guidance should they deem that necessary. Until then, we should just keep following policy to build the encyclopedia. --John 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Italian Sockpuppets?

I have blocked Leopardo Planante Leopardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for being a single purpose account, after the situation was brought to my attention by User:Somitho. Looking at his contribs, all he did was tag several users as sockpuppets. This whole thing needs some looking-in-to, I would wager. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This was confirmed and brought to my attention by User:Nick1915, he seems to do the same thing at it.wp. Somitho 10:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

conflict needs a new watcher

Can someone agree to keep an eye on the conflict between User:Tim Osman and User:NYScholar over Joseph C. Wilson? My basic interpretation is that Tim Osman is an inexperienced user with some legitimate criticisms of the article, who doesn't write that well and isn't fully familiar with Wikipedia policies, and has definitely violated several but at least seems open to input. NYScholar is more familiar, but seems to like escalating the conflict with deliberate provocation (calling non-attack comments personal attacks, accusing Osman of vandalism), and they've made a huge mess of Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. (And both users are appealing their latest blocks.) I'm going on vacation soon and I can't keep watching for a bit. Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot block someone from removing comments from their talk page, or so I was just told so yesterday by User:ElinorD [43]. Am I mistaken? Can anyone clarify. I asked ElinorD to comment hopefully to clarify. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. see WP:TALK#User_talk_pages. Removal of warnings is seen as indicating that the warning was received and read. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a block over incivility and WP:AGF then. Removing a comment and calling it a personal attack when it is not is, at the very least, rude; doing it repeatedly while falsely accusing the other person of vandalism, and while complaining about their removal of your comments that they consider personal attacks is just bald-faced escalation. Mangojuice^talk 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Constantly adding those messages is harassment/trolling when they are seen not to be welcomed. Blocks are not handed out as one thing, and whatever else you can designate it to be later. That seems a bit disingenuous. Perhaps 48 hours for WP:AGF, removing comments, 3RR on User talk:NYScholar is a bit long considering the only valid reason there is WP:AGF, which 48 hours seems a bit high. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My initial explanation of the block was poor: the reason I blocked was because of this escalating conflict of incivility and AGF isues, in which both parties were clearly contributing. The 3RR/comments removal thing, I think, is bad behavior but it isn't the reason I decided to block. I agree, 48 hours would be a bit long for AGF and civility if this hadn't happened immediately after another 48 hour block concerning the same kind of behavior in the same conflict, and after prior warnings before that, not to mention a long block history. Mangojuice^talk 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that more then clears up the issue for me. Considering the prior incidents. I have been a little confused on the talk page issue, still am, about what is permitted and what is not. Enjoy your vacation. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the admin who previously blocked both editors for 48hours on 20th July, and all the above reads all too familiarly. While I do not think that either editor acts to disrupt Wikipedia neither have shown any indication of attempting (or the contemplating of considering attempting) consensus, resulting in disruption. It is my opinion that Wikipedia would be served best if both editors were indefinitely blocked. They would only be allowed back on parole if they agreed to stay away from the article in question and each others pages, and not interact in any other way. With this area of contention removed from their wikilives I believe that both editors could prove to be good contributors. LessHeard vanU 18:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Entropia Universe

Would somebody with a modicum of understanding of the subject please take a look at the history and tell us what the hell is going on at Entropia Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? My first instinct was to wade in, adminprotect, and issue a few blocks—but I'd be unlikely get hold of the right end of the stick, so little as I know of the game, or about any of the (perhaps notorious, and/or perhaps editing-the-article-as-we-speak) people whose names are being inserted and removed in the ongoing edit war. It's even possible that one of the warriors is the hero of the piece, I just can't tell. Somebody? Please? Bishonen | talk 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

I think if you full protect (to the wrong version, of course) then just force them to use the talk page and at least communicate, it would help... Otherwise, I'm not too sure what else you can do. There's already someone on the talk page asking them to stop. Perhaps he can help mediate? Sasquatch t|c 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Double check of edit

DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a confirmed sockuser) and behaviorally evidenced sock RalphLender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are currently mid-arbitration for POV warring. After many warnings and requests to edit conducive to good policy, I finally blocked DPeterson (24 hrs) on Friday for re-re-re-re-re-re adding controversial material with clear identified policy concerns (OR, NPOV, POINT, CONSENSUS, etc). 25 mins after this, RalphLender re-added the same edits, and was likewise blocked. 4 hours after the block expired on Saturday, DPeterson attempted to re-add these quotes multiple times, and was blocked a second time for disruptive editing for another 24 hours. The block has now expired and ... RalphLender has now re-added the same.

DPeterson has made allegations of conflict of interest/admin abuse. Whilst demonstrably false (claims made can be checked by any editor via user contribs for example), they are still allegations, and therefore I would like to pass the matter to other admins to review from a clean start.

• Documentation of requests, warnings, problems with edits, and blocks to date: WT:RFArb/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Blocks_pending_arbcom_case_decision

• Current DIFF reinserting exact same materials already discussed as disruptive and for which warned and requested several times and ultimately already blocked twice already: [44]

I expect drama in response to this (DPeterson/RalphLender have a history of untruthful allegations, claims of admin abuse, and the like). But it feels like this latest edit needs checking and deciding by others, not by myself, to ensure a new set of eyeballs is nvolved whichever way it goes. Please review. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked for one year This looks to be the outcome of the case anyway, and there is no need to tolerate repeated intentional disruption in the mean time. Thatcher131 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Move vandalism

Resolved

 – EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimmypop1994 moved Malcolm in the Middle to Fuckin Malcolm in the Mother Fuckin Piece of Fuckin Shit Fuckin Middle. Someone already restored the good article, but the edit history was lost. So do we delete the good article, then move the bad one back? I'm not sure about the procedure for this kind of vandalism. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The history must be preserved, first and foremost. I've moved the Shit Fuckin Middle article back to the Malcolm in the Middle place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

EVula went and took care of it, plus the rediret is now gone. Wizardman 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I've indef'd the account pending discussion with the individual. Looking into the blanked history this person has been given many vandalism warnings and has apparently avoided a block by vandalizing sporadically and not directly after a warning. At this point I see potential for future vandalism and I don't see a good reason to allow this account to continue editing without some sort of verbal indication they will not continue this behavior.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, everybody beat me to the punches on this one. Ryan nipped the redirect before I could, you blocked the editor just before I was going to... all I got to do was move it back and rollback some of his edits. You guys got to have all the fun. Jerks. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, all I could do was report it. Probably after all you saw it. =P --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of KensingtonBlonde

I have been mulling over this ever since I saw the account show up at the English Wikipedia, and I am tired of sitting idly by. KensingtonBlonde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet being used to evade a block placed on EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was discovered through checkuser to be behind the various Ichträgtkeineschuhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) harassing sockpuppets that were also used to harass me via e-mail which led to the Block e-mail function added to block options.

I am not randomly accusing KensingtonBlonde. In one of the various cross-wiki harassments that led to me seeking a checkuser at meta, Lar had discovered meta:KensingtonBlonde (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:KensingtonBlonde was discovered and revealed to be created and editted from the same IP (not the one listed) at meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#Ichhabevielesocken@meta as well as socks listed at meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#FortHuntington/QuackyQuackDuck @ enwikiversity, and at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ichträgtkeineschuhe.

In private checkusers performed on KensingtonBlonde's account at the English Wikipedia it was discovered that he was solely editting through open proxies after both of his primary IPs that he had used to harass me were checkuser blocked.

As I said, I am not randomly targetting this user. I have had strong and damning evidence against this user being a sockpuppet, and I cannot sit idly by while he builds up good hand edits under this account as he did with EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs) and then create several dozen harassing sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the CU requests. They do have some editing patterns in common -- interest in Mario Bros, Wikipedia-space contributions for both are centered on RfA participation and Wikiquette alerts, use of VandalProof. Their first two edits made sure to bluelink both their user and user talk pages (this is obviously the first edit of someone with experience). Compare, if you will, between KensingtonBlonde's current userpage and this oldid from EnglishEfternamn. There's enough in common between those two that I don't feel a particular need to look much deeper. This seems a probable match, I'm afraid. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first accusation I've heard of this. Wasn't there a CU that came up inconclusive? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

One of the first checkusers on the first harassing accounts showed EnglishEfternamn. Subsequent checkusers not at en showed that KensingtonBlonde was registered on the same IP. There was also the same system showing up for the old accounts and this one in a recent checkuser I requested prior to my block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see further evidence in the form of mutual quirks in writing style. Raymond Arritt 05:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Having had quite a bit to do with EE and his various manifestations I recognise the style too. I'd still like ideally to see some technical evidence that he is one and the same, but it certainly looks like it from here. --John 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Update, KensingtonBlonde has altered their unblock request, apparently admitting that they are EE and asking for another chance. The previous sockpuppetry issues with this user were rather intense (several dozen voracious attack and harassment accounts, several hundred spam emails to a few Wikipedians before the blocks were re-enabled with the new email block option), but as I'm closely involved, it seems appropriate to allow further comment before this gets reviewed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How many "second chances" do folks like this get before we put an end to it? We waste far too much time on these ongoing dramas, time that could be better spent on other things. Let's allow the block to stand and get back to writing articles. Raymond Arritt 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, apologies in advance if my question may seem weird: what is/was the purpose of the user EE/KB? Why all those messages sent to a number of ppl? Does she/he really deserve an indefinite block?B J Bradford 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We tend to give out indefinite blocks to socks (determined or strongly suspected or admitted) of already blocked users. If the sockmaster user was not indefinitely blocked, we tend to reset to now so the block runs the original time. As for this particular case, sending a lot of harassing emails is not appropriate behaviour. The underlying user (and admitted sockmaster) is already indefinitely blocked. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I ran checks on Commons and Meta, as Ryulong notes above. As is my usual practice, I will make relevant data available on request to checkusers on en:wp as needed. Call me a softie, I guess, but I'm inclined to give EE (the underlying account) another chance. One last one, and not a lot of leeway!!!! ... but maybe just maybe this user has learned. They did go through a bad patch (getting three short blocks in relatively quick succession in December/January) and then seemed to straighten round before things deteriorated again. On the other hand, maybe it's irredemable behaviour, so I certainly will not overturn. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See also meta:User_talk:Lar#The_English_Wikipedia where KB shares some thoughts and I reply. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

as related there, KB sent me something heartfelt that I (with permission from Ryulong) forwarded on to Ryulong. What Ryulong chooses to do is his to decide. I will not support overturning a block of the original account unless Ryulong does but I do think that here is a user, unlike some, that says that realises that what he has done is disruptive, is sorry about it, and wants to try to make amends, to address the issues with his behaviour, and to be a constructive contributor. That is far more than we get from some users, knowing you have a problem is half way to solving it so I hope that Ryulong finds it in his heart to, perhaps after some considerable time, forgive the egregious harassment he endured. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read over the e-mail, but I still don't know what to do in this situation. He harassed me through e-mail and new accounts before the block was put on the EnglishEfternamn account (the harassment was for my block of User:EastGermanAllStar). The block on EnglishEfternamn occurred after this. I would still like input, as it appears that he is sincere, but I don't want to be suckered in.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said to you on your talk, I'm a softie when someone apparently is being sincere about wanting to change (and a hardass when they are acting like it's the rest of the world at fault) so I'm sympathetic. But on the other hand I've been suckered before. The only way I would think this would have any chance of working would be if someone were to agree to keep a very close eye on this user and their contributions, a mentorship perhaps... I've tried doing that with a previous user and it didn't work out that well so I'm not sure I'm the ideal person for that, if that were where this came out, but I could try. Still, as I said, I really think that you need to be OK with this, since he abused you pretty badly. So the net here is... I don't know either. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:203.87.127.18

Resolved

I don't think I'm being unreasonable to see some trolling tendencies in 203.87.127.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user has a demonstrated propensity to edit war, obfuscate and assume bad faith. Could an univolved admin please examine the user's contributions, particularly edits to their own talk page and Family First Party, and determine whether a block would be appropriate.--cj | talk 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I reviewed the situation anyhow. I would endorse a block. The IP has been blocked already for 3RR two days ago, and it appears that he has violated 3RR again at the "Family First Party" article (see talk page and history). Shalom ^Hello 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The user's behaviour continues. Could an uninvolved admin please step in?--cj | talk 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for continued edit-warring immediately after completing a 3RR block. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, although I find the user's persistent incivility more disruptive than their edit warring.--cj | talk 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked account breaches unblock condition

The follwing account, User:Gnanapiti was unblocked under the condition that the account will not edit the same pages as it's suspected sock account but in number of artcles these two accounts have been used to clearly over come 3rr. They are (latest not complete list big is it is too big:)))

• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• Thiruvalluvar Statue
• SarathambalTaprobanus 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Carnatic music. Look between the edits at 20:12, 3 July 2007 by Gnanapiti and 01:25, 4 July 2007 by Sarvagnya.

The correct link to the unblock message is here. The user is clearly not adhering to this unblock criteria. This would clearly be reason for a re-block ... however, since then, Gnanapiti was blocked on April 3 for the same sockpuppetry season, and then unblocked on April 4 with an unblock message saying that RFCU had cleared them. Comments? ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, CU showed them to be 2000km+ away from each other. The CU definitively showed them not to be the same person. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A question, was the CU done only on one edit or number of edits, because sometimes people share their passwords with friends far way to evade such scrutiny. I think one way to clear this issue is to do a CU on number of edits of both the accounts spanning number of months to see whether paswords have been shared or not to evade WP:SOCK. If Admins are unable to do it based on ANI, I propose that we open a suspected sock puppet case again and request the admins to be through with their CU this time. Thanks Taprobanus 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Remote access, sharing passwords, eh? You guys seem to have first hand knowledge about these things! Good for you. I've always wondered about certain editors who seem to edit sometimes from Texas, sometimes from Arizona and others who seem to edit sometimes from Canada, other times from Brazil. Not to mention edits purportedly 'atleast 30 mins away' from each other and then of course, the bizzare open proxy edits that keep springing from all corners of the world to protect pro-Tamil POV pushing. Somebody really has a well oiled machinery in place! And oh, btw do you have a suggestion what software admins should use to analyse the results? Please let us know. Sarvagnya 22:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Taprobanus has not engaged in that kind of behavior, but both of us have dealt with a user who has. That user does not edit wikipedia anymore.Bakaman 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. i didnt say it was Taprobanus. And also, I'm not talking of only the open proxy warrior that we've encountered. There is an arizona/texas troll and another canadian troll that I think have mostly targeted just me. Sarvagnya 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think admins are that naive or is it that you have a tendency to gift such banal ideas to Wikipedia? Gnanapiti 22:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that the admin had cleared them based purely on good faith, which is fine. I wasn't around back then to give my opinion that it's not too difficult for the same person to use two different IPs that come from two cities (imagine a person editing from home, using their own PC and also connecting to their employer's network whose proxy may be sitting a thousand miles away). In any case, all we can do is assume good faith, which is what the admin did even when previously these two accounts had used the *exact* same IP. That was a red flag, but based on some flimsy reason that one account explained Wikipedia to the other "user", they were let go. The admin did warn them not to engage in edit wars on the same article. Which these accounts are continuing to do. To add to Taprobanus's list also look at Carnatic music that I have added above, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other articles that this dispruption is going on. Lotlil 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are obviously two different people, and neither edited Tamil articles when I filed the checkuser on them. They do not edit from the same IP anymore, and Nick (the blocking admin) admitted he was mistaken in blocking sarvagnya and gnanapiti in April.Bakaman 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about admin User:Dmcdevit, in his unblock message, he clearly states that they have used the same IP once, but then when he ran a subsequent check, the IPs change to different cities. I was pointing out above that this still could've been the same person. But Dmcdevit, had rightly assumed good faith and unblocked Gnanapiti, on the condition that the two accounts don't edit war on same articles (and evade 3RR). I'm sure Nick was assuming good faith too, when unblocking them. I'm fine with that. But, the initial condition that Dmcdevit had unblocked them on is not being followed anymore. Especially on Tamil articles, there could be others. Lotlil 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick was not assuming good faith, he did it because blnguyen pointed him out to the fact that they are two different people. Everyone except those edit-warring with them knows they are two different people. Sarvagnya introduced Gnanapiti to wikipedia in late 2006. Gnanapiti left and began editing wherever he lives now. Its that simple.Bakaman 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And, how do we "know" that? On what basis (other than good faith) do we believe the story that one user initiated the other to wikipedia using the same IP address and then the other user goes off to live in another city ? Lotlil 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because CU shows the timestamp of each edit and the IP of each edit. The IPs used to overlap and they no longer do so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you know english wikipedia is biased against Tamils?.Bakaman 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Boss, if you are even remotely hinting that I posted that message, sorry it wasn't me. My IP has been documented elsewhere and it's not the same as that anon IP. You can probably have that double checked, if you don't believe me. Lotlil 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I know that IP redirects to Germany and may be related to an old friend gone sour. Its about as close to you as sarvagnya to gnanapiti.Bakaman 16:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget about that IP coming from a different continent(!), is there a history of me using the same IP as that user, ever, like the G and S have? Lotlil 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't seem to get the point did you? In fact I am sure I know who our german friend is (not you), he is as much your sock as gnanapiti is sarvagnya's.Bakaman 22:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to EliminatorJR, This issue has been brought to ANI more than once and resolved every time. If you dig upon archives some 3-4 months back, you can find ample of them. I've explained several times why me and User:Sarvagnya can't be hold from editing same articles, mainly because of the interests we share. Evading 3RR is a different issue which we never do. The condition that me and Sarvagnya can't edit the same articles was lifted long time back by Dmcdevit. So there isn't any condition on us anymore. I'm sure even complaining users here know about that but deliberately forget. It's very hard now to find that diff which happened long back, but I'll try to get that diff and will provide as soon as I get that. Gnanapiti 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is trolling and harrassment pure and simple. This has been decided not once, twice or thrice but several times. Blnguyen, Aksi, Headless Nick and Dmc have handled this and they know about it. Nick made a mistake in blocking us and if you see our block logs you'll notice that Blnguyen unblocked us without any protest from Nick. Even User:Sundar, Venu62 and others had trolled about this on ANI just a couple of months ago and they got nowhere with the trolling. All the details are in the archives of several pages - on ANI, on my talk page, Gnanapiti's talk page, the concerned admins' pages etc.,. Sarvagnya 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Before we go too far on accusing editors of trolling, let's get this discussion back on track. Nobody (including me, after reading through archives) is questioning that the two accounts have been cleared of sockpuppeteering before; I'm pointing out the fact that those decisions have all assumed good faith. No problems so far. The issue is, of-late, some clear evasion of 3RR has happened between these accounts as Taprobanus has pointed out above. I'm not even saying they should not edit same articles. All I'm asking admins to look at is whether this 3RR evasion(s) are acceptable, esp. given the history of the blocking and unblocking. Lotlil 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

More trolling. Not that I wasnt expecting it. Lotlil, would you mind translating this into Tamil, I'll paste one on ta.wiki too. And oh btw, one of your buddies might need a French translation too. I think there's some kind of translation dept., on wikipedia. Let me see if I can find them. Sarvagnya 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Tamil, we seem to need an English-to-English translation here !! All the unblocks in the past have been due to the loads of good faith that Blnguyen has assumed. Which, again, if you read my message, I don't oppose. I only have asked the admins to take a note of the history of the two accounts and the recent edits, and decide whether any restrictions are in order. That's all. Ok, enough has been said, I will just leave it to the admins to comment on the issue or ignore it. Lotlil 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There was not any good faith assumptions on my part. It was simply the data.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Tamil? Well, simply because all those who are trolling here are Tamil and seem to have a problem understanding English. Which part of Blnguyen's "...and the two RFCUs after that were negative. The most recent was this February..." sounds like merely 'good faith' to you. Or do you want me to walk you to my RFCU archives too? No less than four admins have looked at this and this has been discussed on ANI too before. Your (and Taprobanus') attempts therefore, must be seen for what it is, as disruption. The next time this happens, I will be reporting you guys for disruption. Happy trolling until then. Sarvagnya 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If speaking up against your vandalism is called disruption, I will be glad to repeat it. You can try reporting or whatever.Lotlil 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, guys. Here it is. It took me about 40 minutes to dig this up! :) With this link, it should be pretty clear that, these two users are not breaching any condition.

As this issue reappearing on ANI more often, may I request Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti to save this link, for future use? Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey KNM, thanks. But I think I beat you to it :). Check my link - it has more details and also a link to your link :) Sarvagnya 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest protection of those pages, not a block of the user. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of content tags on Influenza pandemic

I have attempted to add {{accuracy}} and {{cleanup}} tags to the Influenza pandemic page. These have been reverted 3 times by User:WAS 4.250 despite the inclusion of a discussion of my perceived issues with the page on the Talk page, which may have initially been missed by the user but definitely noticed now.

I was directed to Influenza pandemic page by a RFC notice[45] asking about the inclusion of a section on Strategies to be followed by individuals during such a pandemic. I deeply found this section to be in violation of WP:NOT (an instruction manual) and suggested this on the talk page in teh RFC section.

On closer inspection of the article I found it full of much similar WP:NOT (an instruction manual or depository for indiscriminate information) violations, innapropriate tone, and two very startling and obvious errors within the first sentence. It relies on a few specific sources. The content also fails to reflect the article's title, by focusing on modern planning towards a possible predicted H5N1 outbreak, rather than the history and characteristics of influenza pandemics. I listed my concerns in a rather informal manner, as I felt just sweeping in and deleting modifying half of the article might be seen a bit rude (especially with an open RFC going).

I have tried to tag the article with a view to fix it up this Sunday when I have more free time. I would like the tags {{accuracy}}, {{cleanup}}, {{globalize}} (and possibly {{npov}} and {{tone}}) added to the article, but interference by User:WAS 4.250 means I can't without violating WP:3R rules.

I feel User:WAS 4.250 is failing to Assume good faith and is pushing the line of Article ownership. His comments do not accurately portray a discussion about concerns with this articles content. --ZayZayEM 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a problem with people inappropriately tagging articles that they lack knowledge on. ZayZayEM is an example of that. WAS 4.250 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The tags are really secondary. If there are serious concerns about the article, then addressing them is best. It sounds like ZayZayEm is going to work on the article in the near future; if that's the case, Wikipedia won't suffer too much if the tags are absent a few more days, and it's certainly not worth edit-warring over. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of these particular tags is to warn the readers of the article that there are serious problems with the article. I disagree that allowing something that is seriously problematic to stand for any length of time is a good idea. ZayZayEM is willing to work on it, let the tags stand until the issues are fixed. I should have tagged the article when I first came across it a while ago. KP Botany 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• User WAS is adding information about other flu strains. So the article may seem to have broader scope now (huzzah!). He is however ignoring efforts by 3 independent editors to point out the alarmist and encyclopedic tone of the article (which to me , alarmism is equivalent to innacuracy)--ZayZayEM 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that infects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain, and continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing a leading expert on avian flu to publish an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist. He called for adequate resources to fight what he sees as a major world threat to possibly billions of lives. WAS 4.250 05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If a world renown scientist's claim of a reasonable possibility of a billion human deaths in a flu pandemic backed by billions of dollars in government funding to prevent and/or cope with that pandemic is not cause for alarm then what is? WAS 4.250 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not resposnible for making such a call. Wikipedia can say "Scientist X says "...." and claims this is cause for alarm" or "Scientist X says "...." and Organised Body B/Media Outlet claims this is cause for alarm" - it CANNOT say "Scientist X says "...", this is a cause for alarm". Wikipedia is not responsible for provoking panic, no matter how strong the evidence, we are a tertiary resource.--ZayZayEM 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Insult

I was insulted on the Richmond, California talk page and called an "ass" but the page was conveniantly archived right afterwards and it had allready been archived recently. Who was it archived by? I was called an ass here and this is archived here and it was done by this editor (Lensovet) apparantly. I think he should be warned and I would like an apologyCholga^talK! 05:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not nice, but a passing insult is not worth getting so worked up about. Show that you're the bigger person and just let it go. Raymond Arritt 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[ec]The page was apparently archived by User:Chrishomingtang. If you'd like an apology, I'd suggest contacting Lensovet. There's very little anyone else can do to force him to apologize; at best, an admin could warn him about personal attacks, but so can you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 2)The best first step is probably to approach User:Lensovet on his talk page, explain why you're upset, and try to work through it with him. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ray, EVula, and Mastcell. I will contact Lensovet and ask for an apology. I do think an admin should warn him as it carries more weight. Well I don't think it's a bigger person or not sort of thing. I just think everyone should be treated fairly and this kind of comment is unacceptable for Lensovet as it is for anyone else and it should be reported in case he insults anyone else in the future.Cholga^talK! 05:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion, which did get a bit heated but not unreasonable, it seems that Cholga has again come here hoping for support on a debate she was losing. The 'ass' comment wasn't much of a direct insult, referring to laziness, not that she was specifically an ass. It seems, Cholga, that you need to develop a somewhat thicker skin, people aren't always going to agree with you. --Hayden5650 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hayden you're comments are completely unhelpful and out of line. Its obvious I am not looking for any support with regards to any debate whatsoever. Please tell me which debate I am losing, you won't find one. Lensovet and I never argued over anything. The debate was over IL2BA removing my comments on a talk page. Removing content is vandalism and the vandal always loses and the vandal was not I. Who am I asking to agree with me? and with what?Cholga^talK! 05:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of interest: removing content isn't automatically vandalism. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to remove content. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that this is the place but there is was no legitimate reason to remove my comments from the Richmond, California talk page because he did not like my "mini-shit storms" as he has recently called them with the pretext that you cannot add in comments in small text.Cholga^talK! 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Electrified mocha chinchilla

This user and I, along with several other editors, had a long disagreement about his removal of content (several images) from an article. He could cite neither policy nor precedent for removing the content from the article, only the fact that he considers some of the images he was removing to be "poor quality." They are perfectly fine images, insofar as their quality can be assessed objectively (relatively high resolution, no distortion or color problems, illustrate the items in question, etc). After a long debate, no consensus was reached. He had the support of but one other editor, whose only contribution was "I don't really like the gallery." I asked him to please respect the fact that his personal opinion of the images may not be held by others, and that policy and/or consensus is needed to cut content from articles. The debate continued, despite it being fairly clear, until several editors, myself included, decided out of frustration to no longer discuss the issue. He took it upon himself to wait a few days and then remove the content once again (this being at least his fourth removal, and hence violating WP:BRD at least three times by reinstating his changes without consensus/policy support). I added it back and started this thread on the talk page, where I laid it out once again, plain and simple. He proceeded to berate me in a highly uncivil fashion. He then stooped to insulting the entire idea of making decisions based on policy, decided that his deletion of content was justified based on WP:IGNORE, and told me that the content in question and I should "go rub eachother [sic] raw in a corner." Can someone please put this user on notice, not about the editorial issues (as those appear to be resolved, although not in a cooperative way), but about his highly inappropriate conduct? Thank you. --Cheeser1 06:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think his behavior is, in fact, inapprpopriate. IAR, which is an important rule when used correctly, requires that the Consensus be kept. I think the user should be refered to WP:WIARM. Od Mishehu 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my comment(s), but my position on having the gallery removed or changed still stands. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you then to keep in mind that policy and consensus are what make Wikipedia articles. Your personal opinion is important, in that it can be an interpretation of policy or a part of a greater consensus, but until it is, your dislike for a particular image does not dictate that we should remove it, in spite of policy and consensus to the contrary. --Cheeser1 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warring

Note: this is regarding this ANI thread above -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't get anywhere in an edit dispute with Arthur Rubin because he refuses to listen to me. I am guessing it's because he has zero-tolerance for my ilk. He keeps reverting me; I am nothing to him. I can't do an RFC because there isn't another person who agrees with me yet. His edit summary "AGAIN"[46][47] [48]shows that he finds me a big problem, rather than a valid contributor, just like a vandal. — Selmo ^(talk) 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, but article talk pages are generally the place to hammer out content disputes. Also.. if nobody agrees with you, perhaps this should tell you something? You should probably make your case on the talk page, then wait and see if there's any agreement with your position. At any rate, I don't see how this is a matter requiring administration attention. Friday (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Selmo: I just took a few minutes to find out what you're talking about; when you post something like this, it's handy to link to a couple diffs between your edits and his so we can see what you're talking about. That said, whether you *like* what's being said about Scholars for 9/11 Truth, it seems quite well cited, it's not POV; they've been criticized for those issues, and there are links to the criticism. If you'd like to balance it, find their rebuttals or the rebuttals of others proving why the criticisms are invalid, but removing them from the article isn't the way for you to go. --Thespian 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The cite appearts to fail WP:RS though. — Selmo ^(talk) 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of reliability of sources is an interesting and double-edged one on articles like "9/11 Truth Movement". But in any case, this is content issue that you need to hash out on the article talk page. As User:Friday mentioned, if no one agrees with you, then consensus may have gone against you, and posting to AN/I won't get around that. You don't need a co-signer to start a content RfC, which would solicit outside opinions on the sources - you only need a cosigned for a user-conduct RfC, which would appear unwarranted in any case. Also consider asking for a third opinion. MastCell ^Talk 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so User:Pablothegreat85 has taken the liberty to declare a war against me. He resorts to personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=148577943[49] to get me to stop editing. — Selmo ^(talk) 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Improper stance

Resolved

 – Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in an edit war at Human penis size. This is of course unfortunate, however, I have been careful not to breach the three-revert rule, even warning the other party when they have done so. Despite of this, an admin, Ryan Postlethwaite, posts repeated warnings on my talk page, starting with the false assertion that I have broken the three-revert rule. I am of course going to continue attempts to bring this dispute to a close using the talk page, however, by the latest injunction, the administrator has in reality decided which version will remain. __meco 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, you are not entitled to 3 reverts. If you are engaging in behavior that appears to be edit warring, you may be warned and blocked. I will look into this further though. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try requesting semi-protection based on the history, dunno how that would work out though. Wizardman 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You have actually reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours as seen here, here and [50]. THis is an edit conflict and ryan has done nothing innapropriate or wrong here. Please engage in discussion on the talk page and attempt to reach a consensus. On another note, a list like that BETTER have a serious list of reliable sources to back up any claims, should it be determine to be encylopedic. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also warned the IP that you were edit warring with [51] so please don't think I'm choosing the version that will remain. As Chris said above, you are not entitled to 3 reverts in a day, especially when you've been edit warring for a number of days now. I warned you yesterday that you had broken the 3 revert rule, and you have continued to edit war today - hence my final warning that I gave you on your talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated information removal

I've noticed user User talk:217.68.80.50 (contribs) removing sources, mainly transliterations and other informations from articles about Serbian towns. He was warned, however, I was notified by user 124.181.111.17 about continuing vandalisms. He has been already blocked once. He started to vandalize massively on about 10th July. His vandalisms include repeated removal of transliterations as in articles Varivode - [52] or Jagodnjak, [53]. I want to propose editing block for him. --Tomaxer 18:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's still blocked right now. If he vandalizes again, we'll block him again.-Wafulz 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of AfD notice

Resolved

 – Isotope23 speedily deleted the Zinn article under A7. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Knea2006 has reoved the AfD notice for Chelsea Zinn twice once while logged on [54] and I suspect once while logged off [55], as I find it unlikely an IPs first ever edit would be the removal of an AfD notice [56]. The user has obvious ownership problems with regards to the article in question. I don't think action needs to be taken at the moment with the user, but a short block on the IP (to prevent the AfD being vandalised) might be worthwhile. I warned him when he removed the AfD to which he responded on my talk page. I have the article on my watchlist so I will revert again, but could someone tell the user the AfD process cannot be stopped. Darrenhusted 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wanted to expedite the process by speedying the Zinn article as A7, that'd be fine. I voiced my opinion in the AfD and then realized how valid an A7 was (after reading the porn notability guideline) and realizing that the number of films is irrelevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I got beaten to closing this!--Isotope23 ^talk 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what you get for blocking an editor before I could. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha!--Isotope23 ^talk 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Determined edit warrior

Anti-Russian sentiment has collected a number of accusations, some of them pulled out of context. Yesterday, I provided context for some of them. Mikkalai reverted them, leading to discussion on the talkpage, and an apparent consensus. However Kuban kazak has shown intent to force the context out of the article by force, rather than engaging in discussion: [57], [58]. Particularly troubling, especially in light of his ignoring the discussion on the talkpage, is the edit summary "rvt to Mikka, btw Mikka what is Digwuren's counts on reverts? WP:3RR broken yet?" in [59].

What should be done about such behaviour? Digwuren 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actualy I have engaged in discussion, so please don't tattle on WP:AN/I for every time someone sneezes in your direction. Yes I believe that you are making an outrageous WP:POINT violating crusade given the scale and the tone on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible harassment of User:Tilman by User:Misou

Tilman and Misou often disagree on content edits in Scientology related articles. Here is the dif of what I suspect as harassment:[60] Misou links to a scientology sponsored site that personally attacks Tilman. I request that Misou get a warning or other action that an admin would consider appropriate.--Fahrenheit451 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a stern warning; linking to sites such as this to attack and defame other editors is wholly inappropriate behavior. If he continues this sort of behavior towards Tilman or anyone else, he will be blocked. Krimpet 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimpet.--Fahrenheit451 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RL Spillover

Resolved

There seems to be a spillover of a real life dispute playing out at User talk:IsraelXKV8R, including this edit. I don't know whether WP:BLP applies to user talk pages, but it's clearly a personal attack. One neutral editor has asked the attacker to take it off-wiki, but the attacker has declined. I'd rather not get involved personally on an administrative level in this case because I have had a lot of contact with User:IsraelXKV8R (although this was completely on-wiki until I was asked in an email to take a look at the situation) and I don't want it to appear improper, so I'm posting this note so somebody completely uninvolved can review things. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved through WP:BLP here, and apologies for not knowing that BLP unequivocably applies to all WP pages, as would only make sense. -- But|seriously|folks  04:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning an IP not to WP:DISRUPT

Resolved

- IP blocked for 1 week. Miranda

Can someone warn an IP user that his comments can be deleted if they are not on topic on a talk page. See this. Note: The person has done this before. I know what you are going to say, deny, but I really don't want to seem like the bitch, even if I deny this person recognition on which he ignores a valid point. Miranda 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And, now it seems like I am a vandal. Charming. Miranda 06:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And, again. Miranda 06:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [61]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [62]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector^Talk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou ^banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hayden5650

Is creating a negative environment on the talk page with comments that are possibly in violation of WP:CIVIL

• Referring to Albinos as "freaks of nature"

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_people&diff=148473150&oldid=148468951 racialist rant
• diff

Muntuwandi 12:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first diff he doesn't call albinos freaks of nature. He says albinism is a genetic mutation and that the article is not for discussing freaks of nature. You're giving "freak of nature" a way more negative connotation than the word implies here. In the second diff, he's just being sarcastic to get his point across. He's certainly not mincing words though, I'll give you that.--Atlan (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

isn't the use of the term halfcasts uncivil. Furthermore the user has already been noted for abusive editing in the past seeWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nordic Crusader. What is worrisome is the pattern of edits.

• freaks of nature aagin

Muntuwandi 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree his choice of words is quite poor when discussing races. I also agree that his editing pattern and the points he's trying to get across are questionable. I'm still on the fence over whether he's crossed the line or not though.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think he's Nordic Crusader, you should file a checkuser request.--Atlan (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I havn't got time to type much right now, but there already was a checkuser filed which cleared me of the sockpuppetry. --Hayden5650 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read this diff [63]. Isn't it needlessly inflammatory?--Ramdrake 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole discussion. --Hayden5650 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I did. Your point being?--Ramdrake 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That if you take the last few comments from a heated discussion, the ones that are most likely the hottest and post them here then they may look inflammatory. You should all take a good look at Muntuwandi's contributions --Hayden5650 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are likely to be more heated, that's true. I'm not saying they're indicative of the whole discussion (they aren't), I'm just saying that, IMO, at that point you crossed a line you shouldn't have, heated discussion or not. The heat of argument is not an excuse to make that kind of remark.--Ramdrake 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He does this a lot. It's who he is. I personally don't like him, but what can you do?

I would have to say that what was said is a pretty uncivil thing to say. LOZ: OOT 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What worries my is that this pattern of editing is not new and thus it is likely to continue. Almost every edit that was from Hayden5650 on the talk page is venomous. Muntuwandi 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hayden5650 made inflammatory and uncivil comments in Talk:The Holocaust#Positive Effects of the Holocaust for Jews. He seems to have stopped after a warning, but I see that he simply switched to other articles. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of needlessly inflammatory, racially oriented comment a blockable offense for disruption? Can an admin please look into that?--Ramdrake 12:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't! Damn, I get shot down for looking on the bad side, shot down for looking on the good side, what am I supposed to do? Where is the policy that says you can't suggest different consequences of a situation?? There was absolutely nothing uncivil posted on that Holocaust talkpage it was worded as carefully as hell --Hayden5650 12:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's midnight here so better be off, if this discussion is still open tomorrow I'll have more of a constructive input into it --Hayden5650 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GlassFET Maintaining link to disinformation

GlassFET insists on maintaining a link to nyingma.com which is a site belonging to the Aro cult. This cult is invented by a former English truck driver who claims he is a Tibetan Buddhist prohpet (treasure revealing gTerton) being given teachings by buddhas. Of course the high lamas such as HH Dalai Lama have dismissed these claims and a genuine gTerton (Dudjom rinpoche the first whom the person claims to follow) prophesised in the 19th century that a false lineage called 'Aro' will appear! There are more serious controversies raised by former members. GlassFET refuses the largest online community of buddhists (e-sangha's moderators) and says he is a non-buddhist who is the right person to edit buddhist forums!

However the main contention is the article maintained by GlassFET contains fallacies and he/she refuses to erase the link to the misinformation despite being proven to him by simply not addressing the issue raised. In Tibetan Buddhism photos of the tulku recognised by your lama can be used in the altar setup as part of the practices. The misinforming link has captioned wrongly the tulkus.

This is what I raised in the 'my talk' section and GlassFET's response to my point about his/her maintanance of false information:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Secondly the article contains untrue information as the photo of "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche" is in fact the other tulku, Dudjom rinpoche's (II) own grandson not "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche". "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche" is the other boy in the top photo named as Kyabje Dudjom Yangsi. Kyabje is just an honorary title and yangsi just means tulku (reborn) hence its not even a name. The wrong photo was mistitled by namkha.org and picked up by a few plagiarist sites later. There are many photos and documentation to prove this in the official site: dudjomba.org

If you are a person of honor and really mean that you care about not spreading false information then you'll visit "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche" (http://www.dudjomfoundation.org/ )official site and see that the tulku is not as titled in the cult's site. I will be saving a copy of this message and will continue to take this matter up if the false information by the cult is maintained.

GlassFET's response: You are of course welcome to add information to the article as long as it is verifiable and cited. Forums are however, not permitted to be used as sources. Also, you may not add your own personal opinions to the article, but only citable information from other sources. Please follow these policies of Wikipedia and stop edit warring and you will have less of a problem here. You will also want to about our rules about living people. Parts of your post above should probably be removed as the verge on defamation. GlassFET 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3 points:

1- As you see GlassFET does not respond to the point of order that he is persistently reposting the disinformative link.

2- If the article remains, the whole section will be called into question as a disputed reference.

3- I ask that GlassFET not be allowed to administer Tibetan Buddhist sections with false information and that one of the administrators that is a follower of TB to oversee GlassFET's activities in that section.

I await the administrators' decision.

- Thegone

The information is verifiable to the cited reference (and was not initially added by me). Any inter-sectarian squabbles are of no concern to Wikipedia unless they can be similarly documented. That's my position, and I'm sticking with it. I've invited Thegone to supply reliable sources documenting his assertions, but so far he has only referred to an online forum, which is of course not a reliable resource. GlassFET 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I would comment that I am not TB, or any other religion/belief system, inclined - but I will give my opinion(s).

This appears to be a content dispute. This is not an appropriate venue for that. There are other avenues you may wish to explore, and perhaps someone here will be kind enough to suggest one/some.

Wikipedia allows the posting of any reliable, verifiable source. The definition of reliable/verifiable is sometimes open to debate, but the fact it does not appeal to other editors is no reason for it to be removed. If another source can be found to rebutt the viewpoint of the disputed reference then post it. This best provides NPOV.

You should not request review by an admin who is sympathetic to a viewpoint. Admins are (supposed) to be neutral in their application of policy. You should get much the same advice from a good admin whether or not they follow a particular or any belief system.

Please make any further requests much more brief, and provide diffs if possible. I passed this request twice - hoping someone else would answer - before reading, reviewing and typing this.

Short answer. This is a content dispute. Please continue discussing this with GlassFET on the article talkpage. If the references provided are deemed verifiable and from a reliable source then they should stay, but you are at liberty to provide references which counterbalance the first. Please keep any further requests concise.

I hope this is of some help. LessHeard vanU 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The main contention as stated above and proved by the links to the 2 sites I provided is that the information in the linked article regarding the captioned photo is FALSE (important in practices too). Various philosophical sophistries to evade the main point of contention (repeating here for the third time) in spreading disinformation breaks the primary point and principle of Wikipedia.

Supporting a fellow administrator, whether organized or not, in direct opposition to the spirit, law and founding ethical philosophy of Wikipedia by maintaining proven disinformation should be seriously noted by the community of administrators.

Not only my main point of order complaint remains unanswered as all can see, but also I question the level of integrity of the noticeboard. Whence such adamant unaccountability by evading the breaking of such an obvious pillar is so brazenly put forward here, it remains for me to assume the standards are of an alarmingly low level that drastic measures need to be taken. As an instinctively anti-organizational creature I would be against setting up any executive or even advisory grouping whatsoever as in future it could be manipulated. However I propose that the commune of administrators look at the evading responses by the disinforming party and ally and please not allow the basics of Wikipedia (and justice) be so openly disregarded. This does not bode well for Wikipedia's future.

Finally please refrain from subtly insulting my beliefs (everyone has beliefs even if it is that one does not have any!) which by the way I do not regard as a religion. The point of the disinforming party (GlassFET) in portraying the denounced English truck driver as a Tibetan lama(!) and a sect of TB shows his bias which is only surpassed by i) his evasion in answering the main point and also ii) persistence in disinforming. I also question his (and his political ally's) interest in administering TB sections which from their tone it seems quite obvious they are completely hostile to, only made worse by their complete ignorance of the field.

I am shocked by the standards here. Furthermore my main point remains regarding the disinforming party (and ally).

_Thegone

Should I come to your temple (or place or worship / contemplation, etc) then I would follow the practices of that place as a matter of simple courtesy. It is regretable that this courtesy appears not to be reciprocated. I intended no attack, and gave such advise as I consider appropriate in the matter. I cannot, and thus will not, do any more. LessHeard vanU 07:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The main point on persistent disinformative link is still unanswered. Personally, I have opposed any brand of fascist leanings be it neo-con, or even if it is tinted red and in defense of the biggest mass murderer in history (Mao) leaving us hundreds of billions in slave shops (living camps) feeding hundreds of billions to a corrupt elite's Swiss accounts. If you and your friend are antagonistic to TB as all can see, you should be supervised by fellow admins. No take over of Wikipedia should be initiated, be it by right wing creeping coups or by groupings undertaking Gramscian measures. In a non-organized rhizomatic manner, all will prevent this. A third pillar of Wikipedia (apart from persistent misinforming & bias) you are breaking is that Wiki is not yours or anyone's 'Temple' or property.

I hope we all, specially me, grow beyond our current false fictional discourses and conflicting intentions to true non-conceptual non-dual wisdom. Personal gain and negative feelings such as envy or jumping to other extremes are quite natural & understandable. They can even be disguised to oneself as good intentions. For example I detect personal motivations as I type but I hope to outgrow them and acknowledging them is a good first step in a long path. As is compassion which I detect in your tones. I wish you and your friend the happiest of lives.

My point in case is insignificant and can remain unaddressed and this section deleted after some hours. However as a future strategy, I ask the admin community to be vigilant and raise standards overall.

'Measures must always in a progressive society be held superior to men, who are after all imperfect instruments, working for their fulfilment.' _Karamchand Gandhi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegone (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)

Okay – I'll address your "main point of order" again, since you didn't seem to hear LessHeard vanU. I really, really do not like to bite new editors, but this is outrageous. It took me a while to figure out who you are because you don't sign your posts; doing so would be a good place to start working with other Wikipedians.

1. You and GlassFET are involved in a content dispute. This is not the place to deal with content disputes, as it says in big red letters at the top of this very page. You're supposed to use the article's talk page for discussion, and guess what? Talk:Dudjom Rinpoche hasn't been edited since April 2007. What a shock.
2. No one is going to "oversee" GlassFET's activity because you've written a near-incomprehensible essay here. No one is going to oversee anything other than the 3RR rule if this edit war doesn't stop.
3. GlassFET isn't portraying anything. He is citing a source. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Forums are _not_ acceptable sources. Period. If you want to rebutt that source, find another _acceptable_ source and add it according to the Manual of Style..
4. You're trying to pull LessHeard van U into your little conspiracy theory there, but all he did was answer your question. I'm answering your question too, but that doesn't mean I know anything about Buddhism, because I don't. Again, it's about verifiable, reliable sources. Forum topics of discussion and/or posts are neither reliable or verifiable.

I think it's extraordinary to post this long diatribe essay, ask for admin help, then tell us we're insulting you when you don't hear what you want to hear. LessHeardVanU is correct – this is a content dispute that does not require admin action. Resolve your dispute yourselves – the article's talk page is really, really lonely. If you can't come to consensus, dispute resolution is down the hall to the left. Don't call our integrity into question when you don't get the result you want, and stop your edit warring. Now. - KrakatoaKatie 09:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _

KrakatoaKatie, It has been edited many times since April as I have witnessed and all my points remain regarding proven misinformation being allowed, bias by editors hostile to a whole cultural section and your implication to own Wiki. And above all questioning the declining standards here. signed as before:

_Thegone

User:Anonimu, thread ∞

Hi. Can anyone who can speak Romanian translate his userpage? He's just come off a block for inappropriate content on the page, and I'm rather wary of the word "fascist" and "mort-" being in the same sentence (even if it is a quote). Will ^(talk) 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

“ Viermuiesc fasciştii

printre morţi şi tunuri.

” — Theodor Balş, La Fîntîna Mioriţa

Fascists are worming between dead persons and guns - Th. Bals at Fontaine Miorita.

Who is Theodor Balş? Jmm6f488 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A little poking on Google - he appears to be a Romanian government official (b1856 - d1951). I found references to him being a Caimacam, a general (I think), and a railway director (at various times). I think. I don't speak any Romanian but I know people who do - I'll ask somebody next chance I get if this doesn't get figured - and if I don't forget. Fontaine Miorita seems to be a fountain in the Bucharest's Piaţa Unirii.

On the other hand, is it really up to us to police who/what people quote on their userpage (within other guidelines like COPVIO and NPA and so forth)? Do we scrutinize the meaning behind any quotes that might be misconstrued whenever they draw anyone's attention? Doesn't it seem like even if it's a "bad" quote that we're assuming this user meant it in a "bad" way, when s/he might not have? (These are serious questions, not rhetorical - maybe we do do all this stuff normally. I don't know.) --Cheeser1 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not our job to police what people have on their userpages. Some people tend to forget that, but what confuses me is why nobody has asked Anonimu (talk · contribs) about the quote. If I wanted to know the meaning behind something on a user's user page, that user's talk page is the first place I'd go. - auburnpilot talk 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has asked him because he's "banned" all people from commenting on his talk page which is much more troubling then the aforementioned quote. See User talk:Anonimu.--Jersey Devil 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is he allowed to do that? HalfShadow 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some might argue that he has been treated in a somewhat draconian manner, including from yourself, Jersey Devil. I think it would be best at this stage to simply give him space for a while, especially from those whom he views are out to get him. El_C 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, however, considering the circumstances it would not be wise to breach them unless necessary. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, in the long-run it isn't sustainable, but for now, it's best not to antagonize him. El_C 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're actually taking his "Disclaimer" seriously? You can't ban people from commenting on your talk page. If you have a concern, address it there. If he ignores you, move on. If he's violating policy, warn him, block him, and return to your normal editing. It's time to stop coddling people. - auburnpilot talk 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It better be a pretty pressing concern in the immediate future, however. El_C 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are kind of right, since he did say that if you blocked him [etc. etc.] then he would just notice it while editing… — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one can ban everyone from a talk page. It's a dagnabbed talk page, consarn it. Oh, and for mean quotes on one's page, I currently have: "Occasionally...you meet a traveling Englishman who is, as it were, the incarnation of this (boredom) talent -- a heavy, immovable animal, whose entire language exhausts its riches in a single word of one syllable, an interjection by which he signifies his deepest admiration and his supreme indifference, admiration and indifference having been neutralized in the unity of boredom. No other nation produces such miracles of nature..." -- Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or ("The Rotation Method") and that's followed by "The Welsh," said the Doctor, "are the only nation in the world that has produced no graphic or plastic art, no architecture, no drama. They just sing...." -- Evelyn Waugh, Decline and Fall. (Obviously, I mean mine to be funny, but I was just waiting for a hypersensitive to come complain to me about mean Mr. Kierkegaard and unfair Mr. Waugh.) Geogre 13:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

• I have permablocked User:Dballer16 for creation of repeated realistic looking hoax articles about various non-existent sportspeople. There were no useful edits by this editor, so a single purpose vandal acct. My questions: (a) was that too harsh, (b) was the warning sufficient prior to the block. First time I've perma blocked anyone and would like to know if I overreacted (in which case I'd either reduce or unblock as others suggest). BTW, this sort of vandalism is not easy to detect(other editors found them). Carlossuarez46 05:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not too harsh. The problem is that this person will just think of a new username and use that, and until this username is identified his new hoaxes will be a lot harder to find than his old ones. -- Hoary 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a 24h block would have been better, per Hoary. If he then continued to do it, eventually the blocks would be so long that he would start to use sock puppets - and his edits until that point would give us more indications to help us identify the sock-puppets. Od Mishehu 09:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite sounds about right to me. Hoaxes are a problem, because they're hard to detect and they often need to go through AfD to be deleted. An account that creates multiple hoax articles with few or no constructive contributions is an excellent candidate for an indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef, hoax account with no useful edits. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that, given that there are a few similar hoaxes by another SPA a while back my suspicion is that the person has morphed accounts. I don't know how technologically we can get around that, if the person's intent is bad, other than tracking down each instance and identifying the sock puppet. So far all the hoaxes have been in the same vein: non-existent sportspeople from the former Yugoslavia winning various olympic medals for, or playing professional sports in, the US or Canada. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh... that guy. Yeah, it sounds like a repeat offender. Personally, I think an account's first blatant hoax article should also be its last, given the amount of work involved in detecting them and cleaning them up. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:In23065

Continually removing tags from pages, adding large trivia sections and removing infomation from articles without consulting the talk pages. Also splitting off large parts of articles and creating them into new, yet pointless, articles; making the original pages look like a disambiguation page. Evidence-[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73], to name but a FEW. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment

Resolved

Recently, User:Barneca sent me an e-mail regarding some of my personal views. When I replied, I posted personal information on the e-mail. The user didn't like my reply, opposed at my RfA, sent me another e-mail telling me to "fuck off" and threatening to publish the contents of the e-mail on-wiki, and "banned" me from his/her talk page. I am afraid that if the information on that e-mail is revealed, it would be defamation and I would probably be forever harassed by other people. I suggest someone tells the user to not reveal that information and to stop the harassment. --Boricuaeddie 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Boricuaeddie has my permission to publish on-wiki everything I wrote to him via email, as long as he publishes everything I wrote to him, and not misleading excerpts. I'll even extend the courtesy of not asking him to publish his replies. I forgive him for his violation of my privacy, and forcing me to answer this with one hand tied behind my back. All I want is for him not to email me anymore, as I do not want to have to turn off my "email this user" link. --barneca (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unilaterally publishing private correspondence (emails, chatlogs, etc) on Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be dealt with severely depending on the circumstances - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence. However, since User:Barneca has acknowledged this policy and indicated no intention of putting the email on-wiki, I don't think it will be a problem. Barneca's suggestion is probably best: just let it drop. No lasting damage is done. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course the user has no intention of publishing it, now that everyone's watching him/her. But, in the e-mail, he/she explicitly stated that he/she would reveal the content of the e-mail. But, if the user's recognized that she/he should not do that, the problem is solved. --Boricuaeddie 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup question: On my talk page I reserve the right to publish Wikipedia-related emails. I've not done this so far as it's only meant to make people who intend to harass me by email rethink their plans. Am I doing a Bad Thing? Raymond Arritt 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that and was tempted to follow your practice there. Do you think it ever inhibits people from emailing you? And what about an email conversation with another editor which you have initiated? It's a very tricky area and one must balance privacy with approachability I think. --John 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would err on the side of not publishing any off-wiki communication unilaterally. I've sat on some pretty inflammatory emails, though the temptation to allude to or present them on-wiki has occasionally been powerful. If it contains something that requires on-wiki action, it might be worth speaking in generalities (e.g. "Blocked user X is harassing me by email; could an admin please disable the email feature?") or requesting intervention off-wiki (e.g. by emailing an admin about the situation). MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ikonik clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

The article, Ikonik clothing was created earlier this morning (around 9 where I live). It was speedy deleted at 9:30 eastern time (sorry I don't understand UTC), then recreated 2 hours later. It looks like one person under a different name has used three accounts and an IP address to create/edit the page. Is there anyway to stop this.

• The users involved are:
  • Englishman19345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sebastian198026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • (I can't view deleted contributions, so I do not the other user or the IP address that editted the first version of the page).

Thanks, Sasha Callahan Pats Sox Princess 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Salted. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Pats Sox Princess 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move and article delete

User:DustinRamZ has managed to move The Beginning with all it's history to Blood Stayn. He has only made 3 edits and so I can't see how he could be an admin. After moving The Beginning to Blood Stayn he replaced all the information with information about an non-notable band, presumably his own. Could an admin move The Beginning back to it's rightful place and delete the Blood Stayn page. Cheers, Jack 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems someone has already fixed this. Ignore this post. Cheers, Jack 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Page moves are not an administrative function, anyone logged in can do it. (See the "move" tab at the top of every page). - Crockspot 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not if it involves over-writing an existing page. The only way to do that would be copy and paste, during which the history of the moved article would be lost. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yukselgurbuz

This user's talk page pretty well sums up his history of copyright violations, nonsense articles, and vandalizations. Since his user page says that he is 15 and Turkish, it's entirely possible that he doesn't know enough English to understand the rules of Wikipedia, or to understand the various warnings he has received. I propose blocking him from the English Wikipedia, but encouraging him to contribute to the Turkish Wikipedia. Luvcraft 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get a little creative here, and suggest an indef block on en.wikipedia, with unblock conditional on a report from an admin on the turkish wiki that he demonstrates an understanding of WP policy. But that may be a little too complicated to enforce outside of an arbitration. Just a suggestion. - Crockspot 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

edit warring, misrepresentation

Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) repeatedly [74][75][76] removing sourced content and reinstating unsourced and misrepresented content. pointing out the problems with his edits on the article talk page (here and here) has not helped. Doldrums 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

continues[77] , has been asked to stop. Doldrums 08:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums continues to skew the page with non-neutral ramblings, relying on the view of one left-wing journalist criticized already for a predilection against Hindus. Doldrums has consistently sought to remove relevant criticism of biases professed by advocacy groups and left-wing journalists. All of course giving undue weight to isolated incidents of Muslims being burned, as if this was some sort of genocide.Bakaman 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums, this is not the place to discuss content issues. Take it to the article's talk page. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you, Sarvagnya, for the advice. as you can see, i've taken it to the talk page for good fortnight, all i've got in return are wholesale reverts that, among other things, misrepresent sources, without so much[78] as an edit summary. shld i just keep talking to myself on the talk page while the article continues to report, for instance, that Varsha Bhosle criticised Celia Dugger's reporting of the 2002 Gujarat riots three years before the riots took place? Doldrums 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Obviously you are a saint and Bakaman is an evil pro-right wing Hindu troll. Isn't that what you want to hear? I've worked on that page for over a year, and don't take kindly by repeated attempts by biased editors backed up by sockpuppeteers and SPA's to put WP:UNDUE weight on left wing opinions. The article does not state that bhonsale criticized dugger over the 2002 riots per se, but that dugger's reporting has been criticized, which is important because dugger is only one o thousands of journalists covering the story, but is made to be some amazing expert by those in the left-wing.Bakaman 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums, this still isnt the place to discuss this. You can take it to an RfC or to dispute resolution. Sarvagnya 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Sarvagnya and Doldrums, Regarding what Sir Bakasuprman has been writing above there are obvious similarities on Sir Bakamasuprman's edits with what has been the viewpoint of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which represents the Hindu Right wing in India. I am not the first one to point this out..What stands out from the editing of Bakasuprman Sir,is that he tries to promote a particular minority (read Hindu nationalist right) held point of view while labelling the other point of views as minority, leftist or pseudo secularist.Working on these topics has been a challenge for editors since the period he has been editing there as he often reverts, misrepresents some sources and arbitrarily labels the others as insignificant.Many well established editors have left due to such harassments.. Sir, as an example ..I would like you to see the very first topic on his talk page User talk:Bakasuprman where I have marked one such instance where Sir Bakasuprman highlights one side and completely ignores the other side Terminador 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of admin powers, as an involved party to the dispute?

I refer to this: [[79]] The Admin, Alkivar, participated in this title move war between the parties, favoring one version and changing it, but then used his admin power to protect the page in his version, right after changing it. But that is not all. He then blocked his opponent for one week--but no one else. From what I know of use of admin actions, this is not allowed as one is not allowed to use administrator tools to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. I agree it should have been protected, but 1. he can't protect it right after moving it to his version as he then became a party to the dispute, and 2. he can't block the editor with whom he is in the content dispute with. He did both.

I sent a message about this to the admin, but he ignored it. Then, after a couple of days, he simply reverted my message from his talk page with the comments, "removing groundless acccusations" which is not terribly civil. If he simply replied, I would not have felt a need to bring it to others attention for comments. I know this admin has been the subject of discussion in some recent questionble admin conduct on this board.

Notice he protected the page one minute after he changed it himself to his preferred version:

(cur) (last) 23:39, 29 July 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) m (Protected U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals: stop the edit war via page move [move=sysop]) (undo)

(cur) (last) 23:38, 29 July 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) m (moved U.S. Army and CIA torture manuals to U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals over redirect: move to npov title) (undo)

This is the editor (a newbie), who he blocked, without warning for one week: [[80]]. I feel its an unfair block btw, since he was singled out, even though he did not start that title move confict, and was restoring it to the long term title. Again, I agree there should not have been edit waring going on, but: 1. there were several editors involved in this, and only one was singled out; 2: week a long time for a newbie; 3. the admin was involved in the diputed and issued a week block to his pov opponent (a big no no);3. the admin protected the page himself to his version;4. asking him about this yielded no response, and then an uncivil comment.

I think the block should be undone (he has already served several days), as he is a good editor, did not receive a warning, and is a newbie---but also because the admin had no bussiness doing the block himself since he was a pary to the dispute (nor should he have been the one to protect the page, right after he moved it to his version). Using admin tools to gain an upper hand is, correct me if Im worng, not allowed?Giovanni33 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the above closely (yet), as it's rather lengthy; but why did this admin move the page and then protected the page from moves? El_C 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The log states a move to an NPOV title. Looking at the admin's contribution history, I would say this charge is unfounded. Looks like standard action. - Crockspot 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The admin in question was not involved in the dispute, did one move, and a protect, then left this rebuke to Ultramarine after blocking Bmedley. Alkivar was just the admin who was unfortunate enough to pull this detail. Nothing to see here. - Crockspot 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Undoing an aggressively POV pagemove and then protecting sounds like a good call. Raymond Arritt 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But the admin moved to the new title. The user he blocked simply was restoring the long time established title. The admin made a move to a title he thought was more NPOV, and then protected it in his version, favored by UltraMarine, and then blocked (for a week!), the other guy, who I point out it new and learning the norms and policy. A first time block a week? If its protected, why the need for a block, and why only one side of this content dispute?Giovanni33 05:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the actions of the admin. I would have done the same thing. Calling him an "involved party" is a fabrication. Perhaps the week long block length was a bit too long but it has since been reduced to 4 days.--Jersey Devil 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It almost looks as if one side is getting favourable admin treatment over the other, including from yourself, Jersey Devil. El_C 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It more than almost looks like one "side" was violating NPOV (not to mention WP:POINT, with this very section as evidence). - Crockspot 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by there being a POINT issue here, with this section? I was not an involved party to this content dispute, and am only pointing out what I think are some irregular and unfair admin actions against only one side of this dispute, and that the edtior who got blocked for a week should be unblocked since the page was protected from moves (although I think done improperly).Giovanni33 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is a history of attempting to disrupt Wikipedia by bringing unfounded accusations to various noticeboards. This particular one is a pretty poor excuse. The admin you have made accusations against did nothing wrong, and was in no way involved in this dispute. The accusations you make above are fabricated. This seems to be a common thread within your small clique of editors. - Crockspot 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain? I am not aware of any history to distrupt WP that you speak of. That is a serious but rather unfounded accusation, that also violates assume good faith no? This is my first time making a post on any board here that I can remember. And, I do not know what you are talking about when you say "within your small clique of editors." Care to explain what you mean by that? I know you have a close network with extreme right-wing editors on here, but that does not mean that others have likewise formed some kind of "clique" nor do I see the relevance of making this kind of false accusation here. Now, to address your relevant point, you are wrong: I did not fabricate anything, an the admin in question as soon as he reverted to his favored version, became a party to the content dispute. Note he wa not restoring the title (the other editor he blocked restored the long term title). So, the only fabrication here is your accusing me of a fabrication. I provided the diff's above. Are you claiming I fabricated those diff's above, too? Must be a conspiracy theory?Giovanni33 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The other side of the overall dispute is User:Ultramarine which I have been giving significant warnings to as of late. If no other admin wants to deal with it that isn't my fault.--Jersey Devil 03:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Alkivar should have used a summary making specific reference to reverting trolling rather than moving to an npov title, so that it didn't appear that he was involved in any kind of content dispute. :-) However, I do think the block duration is a bit more than it should have been. --Nearly Headless Nick 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A 4 day block for moving a title back for a new user is a bit overkill. Especially since admins are suppose to block on a preventative nature, however after protecting the page, there was nothing being prevented in the block. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like Bmedley is a pure innocent. He has been involved in a number of questionable incidents since the first day he started editing, and he has been warned before. I happen to think that he has the capacity to become a good editor, as long as he is not lead down the wrong path by bad influences......... His block expires later today, so maybe he will learn something out of this, and move forward. But having him come off a block being encouraged to believe that he was blocked improperly by some eeevil reich-wing cabal will only tend to make him bitter. You and Giovanni are not helping him. I hope that he's bright enough to realize this, and will shun the both of you in the future. - Crockspot 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can read my statement again. The reason for the block was moving the page, a page that it is not possible for them to move again, hence a block on the grounds of moving the page as disruption is not preventative, its punitive. Where the rest of your ranting comes from is better left to a talk page perhaps, your personal issues here or bitter resentment are not at issue. I did not mention any cabal, simply stated the block was too harsh, I thought you were against "conspiracy theories" why do you spout them so often then? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My block is over now but it was wrong. Ultramarine made the first POV act by moving the article after it had a long time name. If he wants to change from a long time name he should discuss it. Plus my name matches the Wikipedia rules where they use Qu'ran desecration not Qu'ran handling. Next I will look to see the 'waterboarding' article named to 'waterfun'. PS. I read the 'Prison Planet' article. Bmedley Sutler 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So an admin drew the short stick, and stopped a POV fight? What should be done? Reduce an overlong block? done already. Warn the other side? Already done. Nothing to see here, move on. ThuranX 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Request sanity check: Attack page or valid use of userspace?

I'd like some outside opinions about User:Mnyakko and User Talk:Mnyakko. This editor has apparently pretty much stopped editing Wikipedia, but retains his userpage and user talk as a "journal" of his Wikipedia experience. This "journal" consists of attacks on admins and editors he doesn't like. I brought this up with him here; he declined to remove the attacks, comparing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to Plessy v. Ferguson (oh, snap!) Anyhow, I view this use of his userspace as inappropriate:

• It's essentially an attack page
• It violates the injunction, in WP:USER, against "polemical statements" in one's userspace
• "Using userpages to attack people... is a bad idea."

I'd like outside opinions. I'm generally in favor of allowing fairly wide latitude in userspace, but using it as a blog to attack other editors seems unconstructive. On the other hand, I'm not entirely objective, as I've found this editor quite... challenging in the past, so I'd like a sanity check to be sure I'm not being oversensitive. MastCell ^Talk 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought we weren't supposed to link to ED. Oh, that user talk page is on WP? I thought I was reading a different website. Seriously (hence the name), it's clearly an attack page. It also mischaracterizes and misrepresents others' comments and assumes bad faith. There are plenty of places on the net where disgruntled editors can post unproductive critism that violates most of our fundamental ground rules for user conduct. There's no need for us to play host to that sort of expression here. -- But|seriously|folks  04:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly an attack page. - Crockspot 04:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A statement of one's experience can never, in itself, be "attack page", no matter how disagreeable.

In this case, it seems to be a disgruntled former editor. A knee-jerk response would be to censor him, to throw out his experience, and pretend nothing happened. A rational response would be to analyse his "exit interview", to figure out what happened and/or what irked him, and whether anything needs to be done. Even if only a few people are ever going to actively do the second route, going the first route is bad for at least two major reasons: first, it would deny these few peoples this option, and second, it would create an image of Wikipedia as a community that shuns dissidents. This, in turn, would harm Wikipedia in a number of ways, and from very pragmatic viewpoint, is thus, undesirable. Digwuren 05:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the content and pointed the user to dispute resolution in my edit summary. El_C 05:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call El C. Until(1 == 2) 05:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I elaborated on the user's talk page that the problem isn't with expanding on grievances related to specific editors, but rather, to having such an exposition remain on the user page, in stasis — as opposed to an approach which actively seeks to bring the disputes to resolution. Hopefully, this will encourage dialogue toward that end. El_C 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable. Thanks for the input. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP? HalfShadow 05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's clearly a soapbox, and one aimed at attacking other editors. My question was, really, what if anything should be done. I think El C's approach makes a lot of sense. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. [81] [82]. MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mnyakko" (or "Tony G." as his Wikipedia profile indicates) also posted an entire "attack blog" against an ex-girlfriend whom he apparently worked with. She filed two restraining orders against him. I would caution Wikipedia to keep this individual on as a user. [83]

Really odd threats

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• diff 1
• diff 2

Please note this ANI report does not concern itself with the content of the edits made to the article, but rather the disturbing language used in the talk page post. Examples:

• "now I'm off to the spain article to edit that it rightfully belongs to the jihad"
• "should I go to the U.S. page and mention that soon it will burn and its whores will be raped as rightful spoils for the righteous"

Not sure what should be done, but I find the language and the implications disturbing. /Blaxthos 15:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While they are certainly over dramatic responses. I would not label them as terrorist threats. Unless they went to the US page or Spain page, and edited them in that matter, I would just give them a warning to tone it down and relax. It seems they are getting overly angry and the posts above are responses based on a tangent in response to others arguments. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he needs a refresher Dale Carnegie course. There are no specific threats against individuals, so there's no grounds to block that I can see, but creating a hostile environment is inimical to the purpose of Wikipedia. I'd suggest reminding him of WP:CIV (and maybe WP:NPA for good measure) and keeping an eye out. Raymond Arritt 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a job for the boys at Homeland Security. But then, I'm sure the Crays flagged those edits right off the IRC bots. ;O - Crockspot 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Those edits appear certainly blockworthy as disruptive, and indicative of an intent to further disrupt. Blocking. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User preventing development of new service

Pages marked with {{coord}} can now be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:

http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/geo/get-geo.php?type=kml&uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherton_Tunnel_Branch_Canal

The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map

I have just created {{kml}} to produce such links, for pages with lists of coordinates, with the assistance of the good folks at WP:TR.

Paradisal (talk · contribs) has taken to blocking any innovation with regard to this development. His reasons for doing so have been spurious, and have resulted in him reverting my edits on a number of articles today, at the same time insisting that an alternative, but currently only hypothetical, solution be used. His edits have included references to me as a troll. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Spamming Wikipedia with links to your favourite map service is not acceptable. Others will have to clean up your mess. Template:GeoTemplate exists for listing geographical information services. To make this KML export work with GeoHack, all that needs to be done is to have all uses of coordinates pass the name of the Wikipedia page to GeoHack, from which it can easily concatenate the required link. It is not hypothetical at all, as the editprotected request for {{coord}} allows just that. I am glad Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is on revert parole. --Para 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:GeoTemplate (like GeoHack) is for single waypoints only,. {{kml}} is for collections of waypoints (as I've already explained to Para more than once today; and have just done so again after he nominated it on WP:TFD. There're not the same thing at all. Oh, yes, and there's been lots of ad hominem. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GeoHack (which uses the GeoTemplate list) exists to help people "find maps and data about the location", which covers locations defined as both single or multiple points. You can start thinking of a good description to put in GeoTemplate to make that clear to readers. The script is just another service to add to the list, and your personal preferences have no special status to make it so prominent on Wikipedia. Now, can we please have this discussion at a single location somewhere? I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Export_points_of_interest_as_KML.3B_see_them_on_Google_Maps. --Para 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the appropriate place to discuss your inappropriate behaviour. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• This sure looks like a content dispute, which wouldn't require admin intervention.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a content dispute (there is such, but I've been making relevant point son appropriate pages elsewhere); it's a complaint about an editor's behaviour, including, but not only, his use of a fallacious and contra-policy "troll" allegation. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid

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

Please protect. --Ideogram 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

AfDs can't be protected, they have to be open for people to comment, and there's hardly any "edit-warring" going on. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my comments is edit-warring. Don't do it. --Ideogram 18:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested regarding this general topic at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. That's probably the way to get this resolved. --John Nagle 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has now decided he has the right to refactor other people's comments. His arrogance is unbelievable. Please intervene. --Ideogram 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved major standalone comment blocks to the bottom, and given them titles, for easier navigation. Must everything be a battle with you? Must you always assume bad faith and make uncivil comments about me? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, there is no need to refactor the page. It may end up removing meaning that was present in chronological continuity. And now it seems like Ideogram is talking to me at the bottom of the page (as of this post). I'm not saying change it back, but just leave it as is now. —Kurykh 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh, I was quite careful to ensure that I only moved comments that were not chronologically dependent on previous comments - that is, they were standalone blocks, not specific responses to anything else. I didn't actually move your comments, though, and Ideogram seems to have placed his comment there pretty much randomly. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram is adding his own personal template disqualifications of a number of comments. I'm not sure why they shouldn't be removed, as they exist solely as an allegation of bad faith on a number of established editors in good standing, and are essentially a disruption of the AfD discussion. Tewfik^Talk 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You would say that, since you are one of the sixteen editors voting Keep who is involved in Allegations of Israeli apartheid and has never contributed to a China-related article. --Ideogram 20:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus he's a Jew, right? Come on, Ideogram, that's a classic "attack the speaker" tactic. Please focus instead on people's arguments, not on who (you think) they are. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I did address their arguments. It's all there on the AfD. They have not made any substantive reply.

But there is another issue here, besides the argument, which is that there is, in fact, a clique of editors from Allegations of Israeli apartheid who are all showing up to vote Keep on "Allegations of X apartheid" articles in areas they previously had no interest in. Why is canvassing not allowed? --Ideogram 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is a mess. There's no way to make it truly tidy, but the refactoring by Jayjg is an obvious improvement. I think if someone were to look at the changes Jayjg made without knowing who made them, he/she would almost certainly be grateful for the improved organization. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

People are arguing right now on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Allegations of American apartheid that the AFD was closed improperly because the closing admin was involved in the debate, regardless of whether an objective admin would have made the same decision. The same principle applies here.

Furthermore, the debate is a historical record, and should be kept in raw form, not "tidied up". The debate was (and is) messy, and obscuring that fact is a misrepresentation. Of course, it's too late now. --Ideogram 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're arguing that the closing admin was involved, and that an objective admin wouldn't have made that decision. Your theories are lovely, but they're about personal animus, nothing more. I cleaned up a messy page that was hard to use. You're welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop antagonizing people. No wonder your involved in so many disputes on this page. If people are asking you to leave their comments alone, why not just leave them be? If you want to move everything that is not a vote!, then that is fine. This animosity is quite annoying. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

One person demanded that I not re-factor the page while I was in the middle of doing it, and I didn't see his comment until after I had already done so. I didn't move "everything that is not a vote", because that would have left various responses as essentially meaningless. I did my best to make the page easier to read, and you're right, this animosity is quite annoying, which is why I'm hoping it will stop soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Then stop contributing to it "Your theories are lovely, but they're about personal animus, nothing more." is not going to lower any sense of animosity. Who cares anyway how many people asked? Is one person asking you annoying but 4 asking legit? Is that one editor not worthy of some respect? --SevenOfDiamonds 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"and I didn't see his comment until after I had already done so." Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what are you guys arguing here? —Kurykh 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I posted here, both times, to try to get Jayjg to stop messing with other people's comments. As is typical for these kinds of disputes, it drifted. --Ideogram 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Quadell and I'm sure that if it wasn't Jayg refactoring the page, there wouldn't be an issue here. He didn't delete anything, it's just a better organized heated discussion :P How about everyone just dropping it? Kinda unnecessary drama doncha think? <<-armon->> 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ElinorD (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.