Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302

Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology

A spammy article. Lots of edits by IPs. Please watch it for the next few days. -- Cat ^chi? 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure the folks at WP:COIN are aware. Shalom ^Hello 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hamilton

Interesting comment: This page (here) comes up on all kinds of NET searches and there are Wikipedia articles on "Paul Barresi" and "Anthony Pelicano" and the Character "Nathan Hamilton" is described in the Book: "Tom Cruise, An Unauthorized Biography" (again there is a Wikipedia article on this book!) "Nathan Hamilton aka: Big Red" is mentioned in the book - see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xob2eZ4v834C&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=Nathan+Hamilton+aka+Big+Red&source=web&ots=QJyKgEBZ_x&sig=iR3oVmYVz9DHWpIpC0FVRVSmbnI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

==============================================================================

NOT TRUE.

• UMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Nathan Hamilton is dead! He died on June 18th 2007 in a waterskiing accident in Monaco. There are public records of this! This is abuse of keeping the hurtful things on here - the family of Nathan Hamilton has suffered greatly by both the exagerations and the lies posted on Wikipedia over the months! It is strongly suggested to remove all references to him. This story is more grave and deeper than anyone realizes. I never thought that an encyclopedia could be the source of such grotesque human suffering and pain! Do you create these articles to torture others or what???76.167.91.119 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD has attracted an unusual number of anonymous editors, apparent sock puppets, and single purpose accounts. Nathan Hamilton is a deceased, gay porn star who allegedly had an involvement with Tom Cruise. There are sources to back this up (such as MSNBC), but the claims are controversial. It looks like this AfD may be subject to a reputation management campaign by those would like to spin Wikipedia for their own purposes. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You reason is here: [1]. The Evil Spartan 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy hell that page is unreadable. I thought The Sun in the UK was bad. That page is a wet dream of conspiracy theories and other cruft. Spryde 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Hamilton is not deceased, according to WP:OTRS. MSNBC's gossip column makes no mention of Hamilton or "Big Red," only indicates that someone claimed an encounter with this famous person. There is no reliable source to connect Hamilton to the "Big Red" who alleged the encounter, and no statement directly from "Big Red" or Hamilton of the encounter. There is only an individual Paul Barresi who claims to have talked to "Big Red," and plans to publish a book about it. -Jmh123 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Since I did this for an investigation, a synopsis of the article's history: The article was started by the newly registered User:Robin Redford on May 30 with the edit comment, "I have researched sites on Nathan Hamilton, Paul Barresi, Anthony Pelicano and have called Westminster Abbey and intereviewed Nathan Hamilton personally."

Editors started to revise and remove unsourced material, and on June 1, 2007 there was this diff [2] with the edit comment from Redford, "If you give me a change to document all the sources and references this is the story that should stand otherwise I will provide you a list of over 700 other stories with problems that I will legally h." Redford also stated here [3], "I can produce the Real Nathan Hamilton and all the documentation to prove this article -- why are you harassing us?" An anon IP from France, 86.217.198.239, began to add Wikilinks and in-line refs. User:DESiegel tried repeatedly to remove the "inline links that look like refs but aren't," Redford edit warred, and was blocked. An anon IP in France, 90.5.208.226, reverted one of DES's revision, commenting on this diff [4] that, "The 'edited down' story is untruthful and Nathan Hamilton will sue Wikipedia if it is posted again!" According to earlier versions of the bio, Hamilton was living in France. After one more reversion by User:Cquan, there was a break of nearly 2 months.

On July 21, a French IP 90.45.142.43 added in the notice of Hamilton's death and began to edit the entry. The French IP added in various elaborations to the "edited down" version, again not sourced properly or just not sourced: such as television appearances, a conversion to Judaism, more on the Pellicano/Barresi story, and an upcoming memorial video.

This continued until the OTRS was informed that Hamilton is not dead, the article was edited accordingly by Somitho on July 31 and the article was protected. Remarkably, while the reference to his death was removed from the lead, it was never removed from the body of the article. Robin Redford then added prod tags and removed them several times, settling for a not verified tag.

User:Phil Sandifer deleted some unreliable material on August 11, and semi-protected the article til August 31.

On Sept. 1 209.244.42.67 deleted reference to the death notice being published in Europe, but not the death, and then started adding in the unreliable sources again. Deleting, adding, deleting. Added a prod tag and the obit tag, exactly as previously deleted. Added a bit more about the sex with famous actor allegations. 71.127.234.96 deleted the prod tags. Redford added a speedy delete tag. User:Haemo removed it as it was an incorrect tag.

Later in September 209.244.42.67 started adding categories, lots of categories. 76.86.105.146 and Redford started building the article again just a little. I did a clean-up, removed the unsourced material, Redford asked for the deletion, and I nominated the article for deletion. -Jmh123 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I dare say the false claims of death further support the hypothesis that somebody is doing a spin job on, or via, this article. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WHAT FALSE CLAIMS OF DEATH - Just cause some says that he is not dead does not prove he is alive - - I would like to see ANYONE at WP prove that this guy is living -- how do you know if he is dead or alive??????????

Suspected sockpuppet manipulation of this AFD, six month block on sockfarm

• LaniMakani
  • first two edits are to this AFD.[5][6][7]
  • Next edit is to agree with Robin Redford at a talk page.[8]
  • Adds a citation flag on fourth edit, which is quite rare for a new user but characteristic of Robin Redford and Roz Lipschitz.[9]
  • Agrees with 76.86.105.146 on fifth edit (another suspected sock from the same drawer).[10]
  • Adds a spam template on sixth edit.[11]
  • Removes a link with a deceptive edit summary.[12]
  • Argues for another article removal on a talk page. Note overuse of capitaliation and punctuation, which is characteristic of other suspected socks.[13]
  • Agrees with Roz Lipschitz and Robin Redford two other talk pages.[14][15]

• Roz Lipschitz
  • Votes to the AFD nine minutes after LaniMakani.[16]
  • A sample comment at a talk page where the others cluster, using the same prose style and voicing agreement.[17]

• Robin Redford
  • Votes to the AFD.[18][19]
  • Posts a very serious personal attack against an article subject. Note similar prose prose style with excessive punctuation and capitalization. There are other similar examples, but this extreme one should make the case. I later blanked it.[20]

• 209.244.42.65
  • Votes at AFD.[21][22][23]
  • Posts to a different talk page in the same prose style as the rest. Different DNS location, but I have reason to suspect that's irrelevant in this case. Interested editors can contact me offline for an explanation.[24]

• 76.86.105.146
  • Votes to AFD.[25]
  • Chimes in with the rest on a talk page in the same style.[26]

---

Also note how several of these !voted at other pornography bios recently.

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Hudson (2nd nomination)
• 209.244.42.65[27]
• Roz Lipschitz[28]
• Robin Redford[29]

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Barresi
• 209.244.42.65[30]
• 209.244.42.66[31]
• 209.244.42.67[32]

• • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jayden_Tyler
• 209.244.42.65[33]
• Tagged by Roz Lipschitz a week earlier.[34]

---

A few other throwaway accounts and roving (but similar) IP addresses round out this sockfarm, but that ought to be enough to establish the case. I'm blocking all registered accounts in this family for six months. Salient factors include persistency over several months, manipulation of multiple AFD discussions, and the extreme nature of the worst BLP violation (this editor habitually violates WP:BLP). Durova^Charge! 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well hedid not die in Monaco; it was port grimaud- don't you read frenchnews or is that too good 4 u americans?

Forked content?

Someone mind looking at Wikipedia blocked by China and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. I am not seeing much difference. People have tried to redirect this but it seems that the creator has other plans. Spryde 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the creator is a sock of ClueBot: [35] ;). The Evil Spartan 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good ole' ClueBot. Sometimes savior, othertimes, protector of the wrong version Spryde 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[36]: According to one of the edit summaries, the latter article is blocked by the Chinese government. Or at least was censored.

Are copy-and-paste "copies" treated the same way as cut-and-paste "moves"? Because even if some part of it is censored, the edit history is not preserved.

Also, the easiest way to get the bytesizes of the articles to be similar seems to be a revert of [37] and previous similar edits - and User:SummerThunder is being mentioned in a couple of them. LegitimateSock 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the summary that says "the other version is protected by the chinese communist party members, many sensitive information were deleted. read and compare.", I think the user is claiming that the other version isn't NPOV. Even if the claim is true, we still don't do POV forks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've indeffed the account that created the page as a probable SummerThunder sock.[38] Durova^Charge! 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

racist & threatening language is in this article below

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_(soccer)_players

sorry, I'm new to this so don't know what to do about it so hope someone who knows what they're doing will pick it up!

respect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simian crease (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just simple vandalism that's been reverted, nothing to see here. east.718 at 18:58, September 24, 2007

COBot gone wild

COBot just blanked User talk:M.V.E.i.! He's not happy about it. --Orange Mike 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, operator notified. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Wikihermit disappeared. Spryde 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The operator of that bot is still active and should respond to notification of malfunctions. — madman bum and angel 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It can be unblocked, I think I have fixed the problem, but can't tell until I run it again :). I'll watch the next few edits for any errors. CO₂ 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - unblocked - see how it goes - Alison ^❤ 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism by user 75.112.133.254

See history Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. Request IP block user 75.112.133.254 or semi-protection of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SooperJoo (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not overuse the V word. This looks more like an edit war of some kind than vandalism. WP:AN3 perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to be as straightforward as the initial post makes out. The edits in question are arguably good faith attempts at removing BLP violations, unsourced or unreliably-sourced text from the article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page. They're dialoging by edit summary and have gone way over 3RR. I've basically final-warned them now and asked them to state their case on that talk page - Alison ^❤ 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555 Violation of numerous policies

Resolved

User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [39]

Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

Removes tags [44]

and has ignored requests to discuss [45] UnclePaco 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the diffs you provided that can be called "violations of policy". The image you mentioned doesn't have a caption, so there's no way to tell what it is and why it belongs in the article. Also, you left your message for the user less than a day ago, so there's a strong chance they haven't seen it yet.

I have two suggestions for you:

1. If you add the picture back in, make sure to include a caption explaining its significance.
2. Bring up the matter at Talk:Dominican Republic. User:BigGabriel555 has been active at that page, so there's a good chance to get their attention there. Other contributors may help you to resolve the dispute and build consensus there.

I hope this helps you out. Caknuck 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Death threat

Resolved

[46] - Corvus cornix 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - by User:Satori Son. Silly vandals - Alison ^❤ 21:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all sorts of nonsense was poured on to that talk page. I wouldn't make too much of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(ECx2)Looks like a moron, not a real threat. If you really want to jam the kid up, report his post to the feds, but otherwise, he got blocked for 72 hours. I suspect he will immediately begin attacking pages again though, so perhaps a far longer block will be needed. ThuranX 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick protection of the talk page too next time. Don't want him to say anything he'll really regret down the line. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

[47]. Corvus cornix 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it, it's crap. Crap with a legal threat = acount ban, in my mind. ThuranX 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

{{db-nonsense}}. :P — madman bum and angel 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - indef. Silly vandals (yet again) - Alison ^❤ 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Reliability

Resolved

I need several admins to clarify something so that there's no confusion over the issue, as there seems to be a few people abusing their admin duties. Where exactly in Wikipedia's TOS does it state (with no confusion) that a site which happens to contain pornographic images and/or links to pornographic websites is automatically deemed unreliable as a reference for content? TMZ.com owns the rights to the infamous "Kramer" video, they've watermarked it, and its used as a source on Wikipedia. A site that I'd like to use as a reference has legal fight videos, the site owns all rights to the videos and has also watermarked them with additional details. According to Alexa.com the site in question ranks in the top 5,000 most visited websites in the world. So where in Wikipedia's rules does it state that this site is unreliable as a reference whereas TMZ.com (a celebrity gossip site) is reliable? Playboy.com contains pornography, why can various wiki articles (including those not related to the magazine) use pages of that site as a reference if pornographic sites are thus "unreliable" in the eyes of Wikipedia? It seems that some contributors and admins are creating their own liberal interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Can someone just show me a rule? KimboSlice 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. --Haemo 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio image uploads

Wriggsey (talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of copyvio photos under apparent fraudulent free license - would someone mind cleaning this up? Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll go through and check out the images. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

It seems that another edit war has broken out at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have tried to mediate and "arbitrate" in some of the previous disputes, but I've given up the hope that I can be of assistance. The article's protection log is massive, and neither side seems willing to compromise. Please review, advise, intervene or anything else you deem necessary. Have we reached the stage of RfC or perhaps even RfArb here? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a full protection is not needed this time since there's been only two reverts or so. I propose we give it a little more time. I know the article has a notorious past of edit wars, but I believe this time we can solve it by discussing it. Regards, Kerem Özcan 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hamroll3

Could somebody who is knowledgeable about rugby please take a look at the edits of Hamroll3 (talk · contribs)? Every single one of them seems suspicious -- like he's creating articles about his school friends and adding them to rugby articles. No reliable sources or Google hits for rugby players with the names he's creating. Corvus cornix 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of Hungarian rugby league, which itself is made up of nonsense and a few WP:BLP issues, it seems he isn't the only user who has participated in this nonsense. Resolute 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't even worth cleaning up. The article is pretty blatantly a hoax at best, and vandalism at worst. I've AfDed it, but really, it could qualify as a G3 speedy candidate. Resolute 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:talk self delete undid...Looks like a bug in the 'bot.

Well, someone vandalized a page, and got called on it. He erased his own user:talk page....and got called on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.5.235.52&action=history

Interesting. Perhaps a user should be permitted unquestioned edits of their own user:talk page? Or do I misunderstand its purpose? Sean.Roach 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page doctoring (changing what others have said without their consent) or personal attacks are usually not put up with. Talk page blanking, though discouraged, can be allowed although archiving is preferred. In the case of that IP talk page, its the first type of talk page editing I mentioned not the second. In which case its absolutely acceptable to revert and not allow.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see that reading. The way I read it was the user, whose talk page was in dispute, answered the criticism with an apology...then turned right around and gave a pointed attack at the very same people he or she was apologizing to. I did find one "edit", where a letter was cut out, but it looked accidental. More a matter of where the cursor fell than anything else. I say this because while the resulting word is in fact a word, it isn't a rude one. That would have required the addition of another letter.

However, why the user turned around and blanked everything, replacing the whole with a single pointedly rude comment, I can only speculate. When I posted this, I figured "Tiptoety" for a 'bot that mis-parsed the changes, not a human. I suppose on the grounds of it being a personal attack, (although somewhat scattershot in application,) it would merit the editing, as you stated it. I still can't see it as one person putting words in the mouth of another.

In any case, not a 'bot, thus not a bug. My original concern was unfounded. Sean.Roach 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unnoteworthiness and a disambiguation page

After some debate over the deletion of Zeitgeist the Movie, it was decided unnoteworthy and deleted. This has been taken to mean that the disambiguation page should also include no mention of the film, not even so much as a line to distinguish it from the other documentary film of similar name produced a year earlier. Another user is making me discuss this here in order to add this single line. what can I do? Brinerustle 01:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should only include links to Wikipedia articles. If there's no article, there shouldn't be an entry on the dab page. Corvus cornix 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also been fairly aggressive in removing external links to the non-notable movie. Even to the point of archiving the ongoing discussion at both Talk:Zeitgeist and Talk:Zeitgeist (disambiguation) as the discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the article pages in question. I also and semi-protected both, Zeitgeist (disambiguation), Zeitgeist. I don't think that external links need to be on either page when it refers to a non-notable movie, especially the Zeitgeist article. The movie was also taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 19. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. The constant disruption over this film is getting ridiculous. If people want to write a well-referenced article about it, more power to them. However, no one has stepped up and instead there's been a months-long campaign of general annoyance promoting it. --Haemo 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be a tad extreme . . . do you think it'd help if we full protected both pages and semi protect the talk pages? I don't think it would create too big a problem. -WarthogDemon 04:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tareq 50cent (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – indef block + deletions — Scientizzle 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above user apparently does nothing for Wikipedia but upload copyvio pornography (except for a previous short vandalism career for which he got a short block). Could someone please delete the uploads and handle the situation appropriately? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by User:Scientizzle. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User Anwar saadat and TMMK article

Reposted report

• User: Anwar saadat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

• added many inline external links to the TMMK website
• added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen ‘officers’
• removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
• removed citations
• removed the references section

He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

• 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The report above originally posted here on AIV.
• 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Thread among others archived by MiszaBot II.
• 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) User Anwar saadat's next TMMK revert.

(User Anwar saadat's own previous report about reversions of his edits to this and other articles, and npov responses to it, are pertinent — see "Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages" section in archive 299.)

During the approximately 32 hours while the report was on the active noticeboard, the user did not edit the article, but 2 hours after the thread was archived, he again repeated the type of edit reported. I re-added the report in the hope of admin attention for the user. — Athaenara ✉ 12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This pattern goes back several months — the first time user ‘Anwar saadat’ edited the article (which was originally added in February 2007 by user Ayubkhan2020 in the only en.wikipedia edit from that account) he removed {{ad}} and {{npov}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had problems with Anwar saadat editwarring before. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)As an aside, has this user been cleared to use a name very close to Anwar Sadat (and does it have any bearing on articles edited)? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too, and username policy on inappropriate usernames does address it. Today I found that a previous RFCN, with a link to an archived discussion which resulted in "Allow," is listed in the RFCU Index for June 2007. — Athaenara ✉ 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'kay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The persistent reversion to WP:NOT is a problem. It stopped while this report was first on ANI, resumed after it was archived, and stopped again when it was reposted. Will the user again revert after this second discussion is archived?

The subject itself may be the larger problem: extremely thin results of searches for reliable sources ("Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" gets 127 hits; ‘"Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" -wikipedia’ yields 10)—very brief comments in a few newspapers in India—suggest that its notability is marginal or worse. Should it be on AFD? — Athaenara ✉ 13:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The TMMK is notable, that is really not the problem. The problem is that Anwar seems to not want their obvious links to Islamic terror groups noted, which is generally how the TMMK is known. IT is known as a subsidiary group of al-Umma, a terrorist Islamist group in Tamil Nadu.16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs)

Maybe so, but reliable sources of information about it are the proverbial needles in haystacks. I worked on it a bit today for WP:NPOV. — Athaenara ✉ 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And I agree, your work has done quite a bit for the page. However I do believe you are a little too pessimistic about the notability. On a google search I ran, I found no less than 10 mainstream articles mentioning the TMMK in detail, both some charity work and its ties to islamist groups.Bakaman 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User ‘Anwar saadat’ again reverted to his preferred version — references gone, references section gone, instead a wholly WP:NOT WP:NPOV mouthpiece for the organization once again— and this time he didn't wait until the discussion was gone from this rapidly archived board.

My sole aim here (I first heard of the article from a listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion early this month) is the neutral point of view. Admin attention, please: may Special:Contributions/Anwar saadat be blocked from editing the article at least for awhile? — Athaenara ✉ 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a report on WP:AIV. — Athaenara ✉ 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (As per "To report persistent vandalism or spamming" pointer in this project page header.) — Athaenara ✉ 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article. However, it seems Anwar has a lengthy history of disruptive editing, not only on this article but on many others. People have been trying to engage him in discussion for months, but he continues to revert without discussion. I would advocate for a block in this situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also blocked Anwar saadat for 31 hours. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Too soft. It isn't only about one page. A pattern of disrutive editing, revert-warring and showing no interest in discussions on the talk page extends to a significant time period. A 31 hours block might not get the message across. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid, are you sure that you blocked this user? I checked his blocklog, & I'm not seeing that he has been blocked. In response to NHN's comment, this user has been blocked for longer periods up to one month for similar misbehavior in the past, so maybe a longer block is warranted. If he is blocked for more than 24 hours, perhaps the article could also be unlocked -- why make other editors suffer for his misdeeds? -- llywrch 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a longer block is warranted. If the block currently in effect lasts only 31 hours, page protection is helpful. — Athaenara ✉ 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

His response on his talk page, in which he characteristically removed two messages from other editors (Hindu edits and Oh Anwar...), was to claim that edits like this one were "reverting vandalism." — Athaenara ✉ 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

multiply-blocked editor using new IP to evade block

Resolved

This user has been blocked multiple times under his user name and as an IP. He is now active again, edit warring and vandalizing, while evading a current block.

New IP being used to evade current block:

• 219.90.158.81 (talk · contribs)

User name and associated IP's:

• Jun kaneko (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs)

Diff showing newly posted comment by the IP, signed with name of user in the text: [48]

Prior report at WP:AN/3RR earlier today for multiple article 3RR violations and edit warring: [49]

Result of 3RR report: (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP )

This user was also blocked and warned on Sept 19, here: [50]

Just prior to that, his rather extreme three-word response to my uw-3RR warning and WP:CONSENSUS explanation on his talk page: [51]

I thought I should report this here as his edit-warring vandalism is continuing. --Parsifal _Hello 05:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

additional info... Although the two IP numbers look quite different, they resolve to the same area:

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 81.158.90.219.in-addr.arpa PTR 219-90-158-81.ip.adam.com.au.

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 210.175.49.122.in-addr.arpa PTR 122-49-175-210.ip.adam.com.au.

--Parsifal _Hello 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A new IP now added to his list, and he's claimed it by adding a new signature on his prior post at this diff: [52]

• 219.90.229.216 (talk · contribs)

--Parsifal _Hello 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This incident report seems to be resolved for now. The block on the user has been extended to one week for IP block-evasion by the initial blocking administrator. The IP edit-warring seem inactive currently. --Parsifal _Hello 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Photography edit war on model Ana Beatriz Barros

Resolved

 – user agreed to change the restrictions on the usage of his images

We have a photographer who has uploaded quite a few good photos, but he is also putting in his byline on all the pages. For those pages without photos, I figure let him do so until we can have a byline-free photo. But on Ana Beatriz Barros he has violated the 3RR rule with his photo, replacing my (byline-free) image. His photo is not of superior quality, and typically on model pages, since they are paid for their bodies, we should have full-body shots (even physical measurements are given in the infoxbox). I've tried to discuss it with him, but he is edit-warring to keep his by-lined photograph in the lead. If that's okay, I'd like to start including my byline as well. --David Shankbone 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

These aren't freely licensed photographs. User:Sacredhands puts these stipulations on the photographs:
Attribution Rules under Creative Commons license:

1. Use of photo must include a link to my website: http://christopherpeterson.com

2. Use of photo must include the caption: "Photograph by Christopher Peterson"

3. Use of photo must include informing me of your use of the photo

4. Use of the photo must be placed in writing and sent to me detailing your exact use of the photo
--David Shankbone 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I rerverted the article to use the free image with a suitable edit summary, and left a note on User:Sacredhands' talkpage. ELIMINATORJR 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Conditon 1 is acceptable as long as the link is on the image decription page; it should not be on every page the image is used (no credits in captions, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images). Conditon 2 is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images. Condition 3 is a courtesy; however since he is uploading his own photos, he can check "what links here" any time he wants. Condition 4 is not acceptable, in my opinion, because we have no control over how a freely-licensed photo may be used 6 months from now; making written notification a requirement rather than a courtesy creates too great a likelihood that his images will be used in a manner that contradicts the license and therefore makes them unfree. If he is unwilling to modify his licensing requirement then I suggest treating the images as unfree. Thatcher131 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I concur, we can't agree with condition 1 and 2 on the article (but it is okay in the image description), and therefore we can't use his image. I think that 3 and 4 make his image non-free but IANAL. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Following a discussion on his talk page, the user agreed to license his content with the following message:

1. Either the caption "Photograph by Christopher Peterson." and a link to the website christopherpeterson.com must appear below the image, or, if the image is used in an online medium, the image itself may be a hyperlink to a separate page providing this information.

2. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes.

Sounds good to me. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• The issue in this case is that we already have a freely licensed, high quality image that doesn't require a byline. It is also licensed under the GFDL license, which allows commercial reproduction without permission or notice. His is none of these, and thus goes against our principles. --David Shankbone 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

His revised terms don't require permission or notice for commercial use either. east.718 at 18:22, September 24, 2007

• Not sure to what extent this applies here on En Wikipedia, but Commons licensing policy states, as a restriction that must not apply to a free license, "Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the photo credit, per Wikipedia:Captions (admittedly just a guideline) here, the photographer's name is generally only included if the photographer is notable. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  I guess he meets the first criteria as he is now just requesting notice. And the second does not apply since he is not requiring his name in the caption of the picture. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are self-promotion issues here, as well. All of his photographs include his byline, something I don't do. This isn't about my photo being the lead; anyone can see my Sean Combs photo was recently switched out of the lead and I was fine with the replacement. More, I have an issue with "Photography by Christopher Peterson" plastered all over the articles. I don't have a website, all my work is done for Wikipedia, and I don't include bylines. My issue is with his insistence on self-promotion on multiple articles. --David Shankbone 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

His proposal is to have his link on the picture page, not on the article. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Then should we remove his byline on all the articles? --David Shankbone 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would leave them for now, no point in removing, but check to see he doesn't add them from this point on. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The point in removing them is that we aren't here as a vehicle for self-promotion. --David Shankbone 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith. You place your name in every image you upload, no one is accusing you of the same. By all means do as you please, I have no power to stop you. The issue seems resolved and can end here, if you are willing to leave everything as agreed, the decision is yours. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no comparison between having a User name in a file and putting a name in the byline of an article, and that issue has been discussed to death. I'm not going to chase down his name off the articles, but it sets a precedent. --David Shankbone 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it will. If you ever find others doing it and citing his as a reason you can point them to the above resolution and that situation can easily be resolved I guess. As I said I cannot stop you, nor would I bother to. Also a file name would appear in Google Images, much like yours does en masse, so its debatable, a debate I am not going to participate in. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A Google Image search is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. One can also find my images on the Commons via Google Image search. The issue is what is on our articles, not whether there is no way, no how that a photographer's images can be found via the site, so I think your comment is irrelevant as it regards me. There is a fine line between discouraging contributions and preventing self-promotion on mainspace. The issue has been well-settled, over and over. I'm in no violation; Christopher is. That's all. I won't be doing anything about the other pages, but your arguments above deserved an answer since they are "old news." --David Shankbone 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy all is resolved. I have no clue of your past battles, so I am sorry if I stirred up some past issues. I think you both do good work and take amazing shots, and hope you both continue to do so. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

David, he should not be credited in the caption of the article, only on the image description page. He seems to have agreed to this. Rather than fix them yourself, which might be taken the wrong way (and as you are well aware, Wikipedia has a shortage of good photographers and should not do anything to gratuitously drive them away) why don't you compile a list and ask him nicely to fix them, and give him a reasonable time frame to do so. Thanks. Thatcher131 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

marked as resolved. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues - Thegoodson

User Thegoodson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently added a long partisan screed to the already very long New antisemitism page. User:Malik Shabazz deleted it and reposted it to the talk page for discussion, where I expressed my view that it was comprised almost totally of "original research, highly tendentious and POV claims and overreliance on partisan sources."

However, I became suspicious that it might contain some copyvio material. A google search quickly revealed that the entire edit is a word-for-word copyvio from a partisan website (see section entitled Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1945–2004).

I posted a message regarding the copyvio to the offender's talk page, but while there I noticed he has about ten warnings for uploading images of unknown copyright status to Wiki, including eight since February this year. Along with the copyvio, he also added a couple of new inflammatory images to the New antisemitism article which I suspect are also of questionable status.

It appears that rather than learning from previous warnings, this user is becoming more brazen and diversifying his borrowings to including large chunks of other people's writing to boot. I haven't checked his edit history for further copyvio's but it appears to me there is an established pattern here that is not improving over time. Gatoclass 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Month long edit war on Quicken Loans

I think I would have asked for administrative attention on this before except for the extreme slowness of this edit war. It has been occuring over a variety of issues with the page, first over the inclusion/noninclusion of questionable critisism and details of a class-action lawsuit against the company, and has now gravitated to unreferenced employment information. Those involved include apparent inclusionist 68.40.113.91 (talk · contribs), apparent deletionist 12.165.188.130 (talk · contribs) who is registered to Quicken Loans corporation, 130's apparent sock/meatpuppet Clayc313 (talk · contribs), and Rockfinancial (talk · contribs) who has been on both sides of this extended edit war. I mostly have no opinion over what is being deleted/included except for the now well-sourced info on the lawsuit (which is no longer being warred over). Why I bring this here is all involved parties' abject refusal to respond to repeated warnings and requests to take their issues to the article's talk page. I even requested and received a weeklong protection three weeks ago, yet the edit warring continued almost immediately. I have lost any patience I may have had remaining for these users. The reason I am placing this here instead of requesting protection of the article is that these users have proven their unwillingness to even begin to discuss the issue, except maybe 68.40.113.91 [53]. Someguy1221 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Much edit warring, with a conflict of interest to boot. I suggest WP:AN/COI and WP:RPP for this case. The Evil Spartan 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A nasty grudge holder

I made a mistake accusing Shot info of bieng a Cabal. I try to apologize. But he keeps on telling me to go away. What more can I do?--Angel David 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just leave him alone and hope it all blows over. Corvus cornix 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah just forget about it. I've seen this personality wars where people just get mad over nothing. Just let it go. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I find this slightly odd... an administrator that puts an oppose comment on my RfA 24 hours after is closed. He also hasn't edited since august 6th, and that was his first edit since. Could this be a comprimised account? — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm...seems like a coincidence to me. I suppose he just started editing after a long vacation or something similar. Plus, it just seems like an accident, as the comment was added three minutes after the RfA was closed. Perhaps the user didn't notice this? Also, if someone compromised an admin account, they would be doing much more dangerous things. In any event, I don't think this is a compromised account. Cheers, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually 24 hours and three minutes. — Edokter • Talk • 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, didn't notice that Still, I think we should AGF on this one unless the account starts doing something very serious. Happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note. I just wonder how he would end up on an old RfA. — Edokter • Talk • 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be compromised... this strikes me as strange... a sysop should know such basic policy... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethanol Rules

A several times banned user is operating again under a previously temp blocked username after another indef block last night. Here is a list of all socks so far:

• 76.190.220.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• EthanolRules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JobKelso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BiodieselRocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.79.150.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked for 17 days from 13th Sep )
• CadillacDTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indef blocked from 25th Sep)

As you can see from their edits, they are clearly the same person, consistenly adding racist rubbish about jobs and "foriegners" and using false edit summaries. They regularly edit articles such as Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat, Outsourcing etc--Jac16888 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the links (now I can see... ;)). Use the {{vandal|username}} template Spryde 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

oh sorry, i used the template on my sandbox, and just copy and pasted the code from there to here, didn't realise it wouldn't work--Jac16888 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Make any sense?

Resolved

 – with little or no bloodshed. --barneca (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you express your opinion whether the following sentense make any sense? If not? why not?

The space passengers alighted from the space vehicle and were taking in the surroundings with much enthusiasm.Check My Simple English 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this belongs, but it isn't WP:ANI. My best guess (if I understand your question) is you want to ask here. That said, the sentence makes sense to me, but I don't think it's worded well, and I don't think it's "simple English", which may or may not be what you're asking. --barneca (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Check My Simple English 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership issues on Gibbon related articles

Resolved

 – Both IPs are anon-blocked. Talk pages tagged with {{anonblock}}. Vassyana 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two anons that appear to be the reincarnation of Stevewk (talk · contribs · logs) / Gwilmont (talk · contribs · logs) who was blocked multiple times for edit-warring and sock-puppetry over this family of articles, have turned up to restore his/her prefered version of these articles. – ornis⚙ 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of comments and !votes from an AFD

Resolved

 – Material restored CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants, some comments and !votes were removed, apparently inadvertently, by User:ILike2BeAnonymous [54]. Since that deletion, other !votes have been added, so a simple undo or rollback does not restore all deleted text. What is the fix? Cut and paste from a version where the deleted material still existed, or some other technique with the admin buttons? What both gets all comments and votes restored and is in accord with all GFDL attribution rules? Edison 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by anonymous IP

Resolved

 – IP and a sock both blocked. Please use WP:AIV next time. --barneca (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP 24.224.174.170 has been participating in continuous vandalsim, most recently to Borat. The last post on his talk page is a final pre-block warning. Please block him. Bonus Onus 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually, a quicker way to get action is to report repeated vandalism to WP:AIV. However, at the time of your original post, their final warning was 4 days old, and they hadn't vandalized for almost four hours, so (depending on which admin took the report) it's likely they wouldn't have been blocked. However, they've just now started up again, so I've given a final final final warning, and will report to WP:AIV if it continues. --barneca (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disuptive editing on Children Overboard Affair and talkpage by User:Skyring

In the past few hours, User:Skyring has:

• Performed two non-consensual edits in succession that removed factual and relevant details without clear talkpage substantiation (here & here),
• Sought to justify those edits by misrepresenting my block history and engaging in hand-waving exercises on his, MastCell's and the article's talkpages
• Selectively deleted my reasonable response to the aforementioned on his talkpage (which asked for honesty, good faith and a focus on content)
• Disruptively and repeatedly renamed the talkpage subsection I created and had linked to elsewhere, thus breaking the links (here, here, here, here, here,

here & here.

All the while, I have politely asked him to not misrepresent my actions and stick to debating content and the actual matter under dispute, which he has yet to do, despite ample opportunity. He calls for calm whilst continuing to repeat actions that he knows are the cause of the disruption and discontent. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brendan.lloyd made an edit, without first obtaining consensus, here, which had the effect of casting doubt on facts that were not in dispute. On reviewing the article today, I noticed this and chose a more objective wording. Since then, Brendan has cracked a wobbly and evades my argument here. I cannot characterise his summary above as honest or accurate. --Pete 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, no requirement for consensus was asserted when I made that edit nearly a month ago. The article had been witnessed by other editors without complaint since. It had withstood a certain test of time until you changed it to remove granularity/detail. My summary above, and the Wikipedia record, speaks for itself. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"A certain test of time". By jingo, that's rich. The material to which you objected first appeared in 2004, see here, my friend, as an amplification of one of the very first edits I ever made on Wikipedia. How about we discuss your edit of long-standing material so as to put a personal political spin on it? --Pete 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan, could you help us understand why you've brought this here instead of pursuing our many avenues for dispute resolution? I'm wondering if perhaps you missed them. Thanks, William Pietri 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this not the place to report disruptive editing? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney

I would like to formally complain about this user's abusive comments toward me and evasiveness towards talking to me and generally violating the wikipedia civility policy. The user has deleted any attempt I have made to communicate directly by deleting posts on their talk page seen here: [55][56]. THe user has also taken to going to other users to have them "watch" me as the user "won't be around much longer" the user is also claiming that I am trying to change wikipedia content under Wiki I don't like without providing evidence. The uer is also continually evasive and unnecessarily personal in comments by criticising word use and spelling, which is done in an uncivil way. I would request that action be taken to prevent this user form continuing to hurl abuse at me just because they dislike me. I have tried to end this but have obviously been ignored. the talk page comments can be viewed here [57] [58] The G8 talk page is located here [59] --Lucy-marie 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of this page. You can make an informal complaint here about misuse of administrative power, not a formal complaint about a non-admin (especially since the instances you link to don't seem any too egregious). The places to go for that are mediation and/or requests for comment. It's up to you whether you think it's worth going through either of these processes with regard to a user who seems intent on leaving as soon as the "Troubles" ArbCom case is closed (though it's true that one can never be sure whether intentions to leave will be carried out). Please note that he can delete comments on his talkpage if he wants to. Being ignored doesn't feel nice, but we all have to put up with it sometimes. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

In addition, I should note that there is fairly compelling evidence that User:Lucy-marie has been operating a "bad-hand" sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie. I've asked her for a response. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment What does that have to do with anything?--Lucy-marie 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're playing good hand/bad hand, that can be a reason to temporarily block you or (at the least) bludgeon you with the cluex4 for the disruption caused by the bad hand account. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick look through reveals that One Night in Hackney was removing abusing talk page message from his/her talk page; I probably wouldn't have paid any attention to those comments either. Lucy, if you want to communicate with someone, taking jabs at them is not going to do the job. All this said, despite Lucy's inappropriate behavior, I think she may actually be right in the edit dispute: the EU is only an informal party to the G8, and it certainly wasn't a party in 1978. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Briankwest Numerous WP violations

User is the major contributor to an open source project AND the WP article FreeSWITCH (he is listed as the maintainer of the official FreeSWITCH website) and has joined wikipedia a week ago to promote this project. He is now using multiple identities (in same discussion page) and abusive personal attacks as well. Issues involve sockpuppetry, WP:COI and WP:PA. His contributions and attacks (aside from the actual FreeSWITCH article) are found here:

• Talk:FreeSWITCH
• User talk:Calltech#FreeSWITCH advert tagging

Identities include (all are WP:SPAs):

• User:Briankwest
• User:86.92.134.171
• User:64.149.35.171

I believe an admin warning would suffice. He is a definite newbie, but has an attitude and is on a mission to promote FreeSWITCH and attack anyone who opposes him. Calltech 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest WP:COI/N at this point. The Evil Spartan 18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that should be applied since there isnt a conflict other than the ones documented elsewhere about calltechs bias (as identified by many people in several different projects). Its not a commercial product, its free open source, so the only claim for a conflict would be a close personal relationship, but since there are more than brian posting to the content of that page, it would seem to me that you would have to know something, and thus have a relationship, to be able to say anything informative about the software. I find it ironic that an 'encyclopedia' has requirements that prevent anyone knowledgeable about something is instantly excluded from commenting on it.

Again those listed IP's are NOT me. Please try not to mix me up with various other people contributing to the page. Briankwest 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

-- I am not brian, as stated elsewhere. How can I prove this? Aparently the claim we are the same person can be made without proof, so I ask how do I prove that we arent the same person? 86.92.134.171 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)not brian

Once again User:Briankwest is *NOT* User:86.92.134.171 Calltech appears to be pushing a personal agenda here as the the user at *User:86.92.134.171 is a European FreeSwitch user that can be quite passionate (to say the least) in his arguments at time. I know this first hand as I have had many 'sprited' discussions with him. This whole ordeal is giving both WP and FS a black eye. --Silik0nJesus 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

64.149.35.171 Might actually be me right before I got my wikipedia account... I fogot to login with it. Briankwest 19:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup

WP user User:Trixter ie has now admitted to commenting using 86.92.134.171. This user is also a member of the FreeSWITCH development team listed as the documentation specialist working with User:Briankwest. They both employed sockpuppetry techniques to conceal their association with the FreeSWITCH heated discussions going on here Talk:FreeSWITCH to avoid appearing to have a conflict of interest. Their accusations that I am biased are nothing but a red herring distraction from the discussion issues taking place there. Briankwest's (and others') indignant protests are laughable considering the efforts these two users employed to conceal their identities and the manner in which they commented on my talk page. Briankwest posted under his ID and accused me of being biased against his project. I responded to briankwest directly on my talk page. Trixter used an anon IP and responded to that in the first person, appearing to speak as (or for) briankwest. Trixter then proceeded to post abusive comments on my talk page and on Talk:FreeSWITCH under the anon ID. For briankwest to now plead ignorance of what one his project team members was doing is unbelievable, considering the lengths the two of these individuals went to conceal their identities and their obvious conflicts of interest. If others who have posted here, all SPA's, were aware of 86.92.134.171 identity and affiliation with this project, they are equally complicitous in this deception. Calltech 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a WP:COI/N#FreeSWITCH.E2.80.8E has already been posted by another editor Cryptic involved in these discussion, specifically against these particular users and other SPA's that sprung up on the articles discusssion page. Calltech 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kurrop

The "new" user (I hope is not a sockpuppet) Kurrop (talk · contribs) is making many controversial changes as [60], [61] and the subsequent reversions without having discussed a word in articles' talk pages. I have told her [62] that such changes must be discussed first and even having started a discussion (User talk:Kurrop and User talk:Xtv#Controversial changes), (s)he continued making some edit warring [63]). Her last contribution in my talk page could be clearly qualified as trolling (just read how the discussion follows, they are just a couple of lines).

Therefore, since (s)he is "new" (again, I wonder how new is (s)he), I still don't ask for a block, but I ask to an administrator to warn her that this is not the way to make such controversial changes and talk pages should be used. Then I hope (s)he starts discussing. If not, then I'll ask for a block. Thank you! --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I find complitely astonishing that I have been advised about the three revert rule because I reverted controversial actions made without any explanation in articles' talk pages. The subject is enough controversial -as you can see in the recently closed arbitration- so that any contribution which is likely to be polemical should be discussed first in the talk page. Moreover if some of the contributions made by this user are complitely non-sense. I want to remark I was not the only user reverting the contributions from Kurrop but there was at least two other users reverting his/her contributions. (S)he was pushing for his/her versions without discussing and I asked him/her to discuss first and since (s)he didn't, I came to the administrators noticeboard to ask you to tell him/her exactly to discuss first the changes in the talk page. And then an administrator comes and leaves me a message asking me to use the talk page. Is it a joke?

Anyway, I won't revert anymore any of his/her contributions, but in that case I beg the administrators to look carefuly his/her contributions so that only well discussed changes may be accepted. Thank you very much.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the standard warning issued to editors involved in an edit dispute. You both reverted the article three times; you both get the warning. "I'm right and s/he's wrong" isn't an exception to 3RR. I will, of course, monitor the edits made by the user. -- Merope 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Xtv: please tell us, citing official written Wikipedia policy pages with references, which policy you believe allows Wikipedia administrators to block, or threaten to block, a user for making what you describe as "controversial changes". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If I have broken some Wikipedia policy I apologize but I only want to neutralize that articles, because I think they have no neutral point of view. Kind Regards.--Kurrop 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter: let me read what I said: "I still don't ask for a block, but I ask to an administrator to warn her that this is not the way to make such controversial changes and talk pages should be used". mmm... I read it again: "I still don't ask for a block". Am I asking to block him/her? I think not. I am asking him/her to discuss the changes, think that (s)he did not do. I am sorry but now is too late to search for wikipedia policies, but I am sure there are some of them that encourage editors to discuss controversial topics in talk pages.

If you don't think that adding a second flag to a stub template is controversial when:

1. There has been just some days ago a dispute (arbitration) about the Catalonia-Spain topic and
2. All stub templates I have seen have no more than one image, and in territory stubs all have the flag of this territory, not the flag of a bigger or smaller territory

then I sincerely ask you what do you think it is controversial. If this topic were not controversial I think we wouldn't be here spending our time to discuss about it.

Now, after this two points, I think that if an editor starts to make changes which are reverted from 3 different users and after being asked to discuss in talk pages, the best think (s)he can do is to discuss in the talk page where is the problem. If the answers (s)he gives are a kind of trolling "I have the right to change it because I like it and even if all the stubs of Wikipedia have only one flag, I want that Catalonia stubs have both Catalan and Spanish flag because my POV is the right one" and moreover after being warned (s)he continues reverting before reaching any consensus, then probably I will find also some rule which will allow you to block him/her (as I said, now it's too late to search it, but probably in Wikipedia:Etiquette or somewhere else in the immensity of Wikipedia rules, there is something about disruptive behaviour and trolling). Anyway, I insist, my aim is not to block him/her. I really don't care if you block him/her or you give him/her a barnstar for his contributions. Some of his/her contributions might be acceptable. But I was just asking you to tell him/her what I already told him/her and (s)he ignored when she did again the reversions: discuss in talk page.

Just to finnish, as I said to Merope, I give up. After seing that (s)he continues reverting before discussing and what I get from an administrator is something that I didn't say and to question if some clearly evident controversial matter (Controversial: arousing debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife. Is not by definition the subject of an edit war a controversial matter? are not there opposing opinions?) is not controversial (sigh...), then I give up, I return to Catalan Wikipedia and I don't revert anymore any contribution from Kurrop. Cheers and viel Spaß --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham.

note: the above is a section title, not a comment. --—Random832 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Yidisheryid

Yidisheryid (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately, I have been involved in some heated content discussions with the above user. Concurrently, the user's civility has been further and further lacking. Now we are getting to the point where the user has been changing my edits, as well as being, shall I say, childish on his talk page in terms of name calling.

I would request that an admin review, at the very least, the user's talk page history, and perhaps take appropriate action (or am I really a prankster? [ -- Avi 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ]

Note: He is not calling you a prankster, he is calling the AFD nom a prankster. This is clear from context. —Random832 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to my involvement, I will not take direct action against the user, notwithstanding multiple disregards of what I feel were both valid and civil warnings.

Personally, I believe the user has exhibited a history of unilateral edits against consensus, potentially POV pushing edits, a distinct lack of civility, misunderstanding, or willfully ignoring, basic wikipedia policies, guidelines, and definitions, and am beginning to think that perhaps the user may find it difficult to edit gainfully and in accord with other wikipedians. I also may be wrong and be influenced by my interactions with said user.

Besides comment about these last particular actions, I am requesting feedback on my understanding of the situation here, and whether or not some further measures (WP:RFC, a longer term block, etc.) are in order, or are uncalled for. Thank you. -- Avi 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all i would like to deny that i called him a prankster. the link he provides is definitely taken out of context it talks about an other person. and regarding his request of blocking me i would like to add that he has declared me in the last few weeks a disruptive user a sock puppet, and more accusations which i would now take some time to gather from his history. but until i can defend myself i would like to declare him a sockpuppet that has done every trick on the book to get me blocked. Please let me my make my case that although he is a admin i am a good faith user and should not be blocked. If he wants me blocked our disagreements should be taken to arbitration not to this page, because he has no links where i have done incident that requires emergency admin involvement, it is just one trick of his despicable tirade against me, further more since he has asked to block me in the past for these same accusations and it was rebuffed i would urge all admins to consider that Avi is disruptive here for re-bringing this up without any link but only one that is a lie! Please block both of us or let it go to arbitration.--יודל 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples of changing others' edits from this very page

1. [64] (These links have been refactored to reduce horizontal scrolling —Random832)
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Need I add more? -- Avi 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Those were all explained, and i apologized long before you brought those examples will never do it again.--יודל 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Those were the edits you JUST made, to WP:ANI, changing the headings of the section I added here to WP:ANI, AFTER you had been informed it was improper and AFTER you commented to Yossi about what you did on your talk page. -- Avi 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

U r right i already made those edit into a separate header and i will never do it again in this form as well.--יודל 16:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Other diffs/evidence

OK. user:The Evil Spartan suggested that there may not have been enough diffs. I hope the following will suffice. -- Avi 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous evidence of sock/meatpuppetry

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid (note last edit by YY)

Changing other users' text

1. [68]
2. [69] (this includes calling somebody a prankster.
3. [70]
4. [71]

Removing discussion-specific templates (such as AfD) when discussions are ongoing

1. [72]
2. [73]

Unilateral edits and moves without consensus

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]

Incivil edits and edit summaries

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]

User:Avraham for Disruptive editing

Avraham (talk · contribs)

He abuses this page to beg other unsuspecting Admins to block a user who has expressed concern to him he should behave according to consensus, see the discussion of what triggered this page: [[80]] with a third user, so consensus of non-blocked users should be in his favor. Although my history with Avi is not only on that page.

While he was using this page to block another user, he did not even hide his clear contempt for conflict of interest, he was at that same instant probably not even in 15 minutes, heavily involved to edit 5 ongoing separate issues according to his wish against that users wish; 1. Zionism 2. Baal Tshuva 3. Orthodox Jews about Zionism 4. Jewish Outreach, of my defense which he has all edited within the 15 minutes before this request, which he would have won them all on false and abusive consensus. if the unsuspecting admins would have acted upon those vicious unruly notice from Avi here.

First of all i would like to deny that i called him a prankster. and for him to bring this as his only link to show incident of my uncivilly is saying what kind of games he is up to to get other users blocked.

The link he provides is definitely taken out of context it talks about an other person. and regarding his request of blocking me i would like to add that he has declared me in the last few weeks a disruptive user a sock puppet, and more accusations which i would now take some time to gather from his history. but until i can defend myself i would like to declare him a sock puppet that has done every trick on the book to get me blocked. Please let me my make my case that although he is a admin i am a good faith user and should not be blocked. If he wants me blocked our disagreements should be taken to arbitration not to this page, because he has no links where i have done incident that requires emergency admin involvement, it is just one trick of his despicable tirade against me, further more since he has asked to block me in the past for these same accusations and it was rebuffed i would urge all admins to consider that Avi is disruptive here for re-bringing this up without any link but only one that is a lie! Please block both of us or let it go to arbitration.--יודל 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment YY, don't play this game, you might not like the outcome. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i may not like the outcome bu believe me Avi gives me no other chance, i do not want to see him blocked i want him to stop editing in a disruptive way, that's all, i cannot be selfish here, if Avi does this while dealing with me rest assured he is doing it with other as well, and he must stop acting like this, because the price i pay will never be enough to have such a beautiful encyclopedic medium.--יודל 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can't see anywhere Avraham where has been less than civil towards you even though some of your edits are questionable. Indeed he has been pretty damn courteous to you, he could quite easily have blocked you personally without any trouble, and he didn't need to tell you about this incident report. You should know that the chances are high that of the two of you, you're gonna come out of this worse off than he does, if i were you i'd drop it, do some helpful edits and hope you don't get too long a ban--Jac16888 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen this medium is not about me nor about avi, Avi cannot block me and has said so himself that he is not allowed to block although he wishes to get rid of me, which i do understand him and i forgive him, this is about an incident which i believe a user is breaking policy and requires the attention of other admin in an emergency way, Avi tries to win discussions now by blocking me and he should be stopped. a normal user can not stop him so this is the only page where to bring this incident--יודל 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am only not allowed to block you to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I am allowed to block you if you are in violation of any policy/guideline. I have chosen not to block you at this point to ensure that there is not even the slightest hint of impropriety. I reserve the right to act in the best interests of wikipedia if the situation so demands it. -- Avi 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - after a brief look through this, Avi hasn't provided a lot of diffs, but the one's he has provided are pretty damning. And YY, your responses leave much to be desired (apparently his unhappiness that you changed his comments was "out of context") - and Avi can call you a sockpuppet all he wants, if he suspects it, and hasn't blocked you. Like Yossiea said, you might not want to keep playing this game - you're losing. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK i say to guys wait until i gather all my links. you will all be astound, perhaps my not bringing any links makes the case that i am more guilty here then Avi, so i urge all you guys to wait and not pass judgment until i can gather all the links showing Avi's pattern here of blocking me to win his edit fights with me. this is a long pain staking work and i wish not to start working on it but if avi does not retract his request to block me i must do it for the good of wikipedia and forsake my own good in the process.--יודל 17:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- A review of Yidisheryid's contributions shows a trend of willful disruption. (The claim that he's never edited another person's comments made at the same time as he's doing it is rather amusing, though.) I'm certainly inclined to block. -- Merope 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • All but one of the diffs provided for him changing things on this board have been section titles, which are NOT accepted to be as "inviolable" as signed comments (though he perhaps should have given a visible indication that he retitled it), one additionally added more informational links to the top of the section, before the comments, and the one remaining (which really shouldn't have been cited) was a technical fix to a template he himself had added. Saying someone is in the wrong for "changing other users edits", when the edits being changed are NOT signed comments, is treading very closely to WP:OWN. —Random832 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see what you base this on; heading on talk pages are part of the text that another user edits. Changing it makes it look like someone wrote something he didn't. Besides, this is not the sole cause of concern; his pattern of behavior shows he's intent on disruption. The discussion I've been having with him since his block shows that he has no understanding of some of our core policies. I didn't block based on this one thing alone. -- Merope 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course "heading on talk pages are part of the text that another user edits." All text on all pages are part of the text that another user edits. But insisting that someone not change text you put in, other than for signed comments (a section header is not part of a comment) violates WP:OWN. —Random832 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        • In general, when making changes to someone else's text makes it look as if that person's edits were more attacking, less neutral, or changes the intended meaning, then it is an issue, I believe. -- Avi 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes. What I'm saying is: the section header is not "your text"; it belongs to everyone. It is not part of your comment. It would be no more reasonable for someone to blame you for what it says (without having a diff to see if you were the one who wrote it), which seems to be what you're worried about happening, than it is for you to attempt to control what it says. —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC) For example, when he changed this section header to say you were also being uncivil, he was not trying to make it look like you accused yourself of incivility (as that would be absurd), he was trying to indicate that the discussion found underneath the header is (or, that he wants it to be) about both your behavior. —Random832 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:OWN is more for not letting others edit articles you "own." That is not the same as editing someone else's writings. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Each article I contribute to contains "my writings" - can I forbid anyone to edit the parts I wrote? How is a section header different? —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I can edit the page, but I can't do this: "Each article I contribute to contains "my writings" - can I forbid anyone to edit the parts I wrote? How the hell, you stupid idiot, is a section header different? You're stupid and Wikipedia has no place for you. —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" There's a difference between editing an article and editing someone else's talkpage entries. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
              • A section header is NOT part of someone's talkpage entry - it is part of the structure of the talkpage itself. —Random832 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And his most recent edits to this have pushed me over the edge. Maybe it's Guy's leaving, but I don't want to have to make Avi go through an RFC when one editor is clearly being disruptive. I've blocked for 24 hours for civility and disruption (constantly removing maintenance notices really grates my cheese) and left a message on his talk page explaining how he can become more civil. I'll continue to monitor the situation. -- Merope 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tend to endorse. His behavior is has been willfully disruptive here, and I don't see any evidence he respects or cares about the opinions of other editors. --Haemo 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly endorse the block. I was actually on my over to block YY myself when I saw Merope had gotten there first. User:Yidisheryid is clearly being disruptive; the counter-accusation against User:Avraham only highlights the fact that Avi has remained remarkably civil while dealing with YY's provocation and disruption. Avi is also to be commended for bringing this to AN/I. I strongly endorse the block as preventing further disruption and as being a net positive to the encyclopedia. If YY doesn't make some significant behavioral changes when the block expires, I'd have a low threshold for extending it. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Why is this structured as an "RFAR lite"? —Random832 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because user:The Evil Spartan commented that there were not that many diffs. Thus, I added more, and I placed them in subheadings for clarity purposes. -- Avi 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Anyways, I think this is resolved; YY contacted me by email. He seems contrite about his behavior, and knows he's made a mistake. I don't think we need anymore action here for now; I hope this will be a new beginning for all involved. --Haemo 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He also contacted me by e-mail. Please e-mail me and I can forward you his missive which has a somewhat less-than-contrite tone. -- Avi 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh he has done that before, look for his edits on yi project here, there are at least (thats what he admited to) 100 (yes thats one hundred) usernames he has used on the yi project to edit with and push POV and disruptive behavior. Been there done that, my opinion ban him. It will come to it anyhow. I hope I am wrong.--Shmaltz 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Block for user:Kucu4cocopufzz

Resolved

There is reason to believe that this user, Kucu4cocopufzz, is an account for vandalism only. Looking at this user's Edit History you can see that the user has only vandalized wikipedia since their account was created yesterday. It would be a good idea to block this user from wikipedia. Thank you. Icestorm815 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Next! -- Merope 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User Bromagon multiple instances

Resolved

Came across user bromagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Appears to be a new account. Just about all of his entries are vandalism of one form or another - some subtle some not. In any event all of his entries seem designed to be disruptive.--Lepeu1999 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Next. -- Merope 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks!--Lepeu1999 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

James Hansen / sock puppets

James Hansen has seen a lot of red-user edits recently. User:Obedium has got a 3RR block. Based on edit pattern, I've blocked User:Slaphappie and User:Scibaby as socks of same evading the block. Just letting you know in case anyone wants to review William M. Connolley 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "red-user" is a productive term to use. After all, anyone can create a userpage, and some of our most established users choose not to. —Random832 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, I think you got it right. I'm not sure why anyone would set up sockpuppets in quite this fashion, but the editing patterns by all three accounts - each about a year old, with 30-50 edits including 10+ to Nanotechnology - indicate a common origin. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quack. Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Scibaby ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass-removing links to an article

User 77.102.181.182 is mass-removing links to the article Psychedelic art from where it is linked, without reasoning. Possible biased sabotage needed to be dealt with. ssr 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we just revert? I mean, s/he didn't give a reason. So, it's along the bounds of "revertable material." --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably should, but I'm unaware of any admin measures for tracking possible further moves by this particular remover (and I don't feel courageous enough myself to mass-revert) so I decided to notify. --ssr 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of 74.247.200.254

There is reason to believe that 74.247.200.254 is an account for vandalism only. Looking at this user's Edit History you can see that the user has only made one edit which seems to be using religious intolerance towards an editor. It would be a good idea to block this user from wikipedia. Not sure if it warrants Checkuser as well since they obviously are responding to some comment I made somewhere so they may also be a sockpuppet. Thank you. Benjiboi 20:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A single edit isn't blockworthy. It appears to be an editor using an IP to evade recognition, but for now blocks are preventative and not punative. IrishGuy ^talk 21:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, OK, so we think its a sockpuppet who's abusing an editor and we won't block because why again? They have to do it again so we can verify the body count? Benjiboi 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure your reply over there was very helpful. Just leave a {{uw-npa1}} on their talk but don't feed 'em. -- Satori Son 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivil? Maybe. Abusive...not really. And as noted above, replying with ...It's hard for me to see your pointing out some mystery error as anything but you promoting your twisted mythological Biblical views. As far as I know Jesus was a butch homo who believed in New Testament healing and said something along the lines that love is the only drug. makes it difficult for you to point the finger. You were clearly goading the IP right back. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

An anon IP used solely for the purpose to spread religious-based homophobia - Your comment showed your ignorance regarding the moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Your response acted as if they are on the same plane morally, but the Judeo-Christian belief, upon which the United States was founded, states clearly that anyone who practices homosexuality is going against God's plan for humanity came to my talk page making a vague reference to some comment I made somewhere is clearly abusive, see perhaps spiritual abuse. That aside, you're telling me that if they do it again it's blockable but not until, right? To me it seems they are abusing the rules and it's evident they are a sock of someone and I wish abuse against myself and any other editors who operate in good faith would be stopped in its tracks. I responded to an attack and I know the difference between well-intentioned believers and "Christians" who want to preach that gays are evil. Thank you Satori Son for the template suggestion, I have left it on the IP's talk page. Benjiboi 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't indefinitely block IP's anyways, so any injunction would be temporary. --Haemo 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bramlet Abercrombie, article Bhutan Times and others

User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:24.61.222.132

• Excessive reversions violation on

Bhutan Times by Bramlet Abercrombie Time reported: 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:59, 8 September 2007

• revert: 09:52, 24 September 2007
• revert: 13:38, 25 September 2007
• revert: 15:15, 25 September 2007
• revert: 20:11, 25 September 2007

plus another 50 more in the same article...

• Latest warning issued: 16:39, 25 September 2007

User has a long history of reversion abuse (>50 in Bhutan Times itself plus many others). User did not respond to requests for discussion and deleted warnings place on his user talk page. Bramlet Abercrombie has been blocked before for reversion abuse. --24.61.222.132 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On one hand, he is not giving any sort of rationale in his reversions. On the other, it seems if you look early in the history for the article that he explained that it needs some sort of sourcing and such. He is pretty much treating it as vandalism right now. I suggest finding some sort of reliable sources surrounding the dispute and/or the dot com and post the info with the correct cites. Spryde 00:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just reverting spam. That user has been trying for a year, with a variety of IPs and usernames, to insert links to a non-notable website Bhutantimes.com (Alexa rank 2,153,294) into various articles, including Bhutan Times which is about an unrelated notable newspaper. Bramlet Abercrombie 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bramlet, we just posted simultaneously here. Thank you for responding. As I said, yesterday was my first post to the article. I can see that you have been involved in a protracted edit war with some guy from the web site you mentioned. If you are willing to discuss my edit, then lets do so on the discussion page, okay? --24.61.222.132 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My [first edit] to the article was yesterday and Bramlet has made no edit summary comments in any of his posts since then. There was no discussion page when I made my first edit, I had to create it when he reverted my edit. In the absense of any discussion on his part, it doesn't make much sense to trial-and-error the form of my edits hoping to find a form he likes -- he seems to revert any edit made to the article. --24.61.222.132 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User spamming talkpages with fanficition links

Hi - could someone step in and explain to editor Luigifan that spamming multiple articles with this off-site fanfiction has nothing at all to do with improving articles - I have tried twice with no result and would prefer not to get into an edit war. --Fredrick day 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note. A review of his contribs suggest that there are problems there. If he proceeds further, I'd think a short block would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Might want to keep an eye on this guy:

User_talk:Luigifan#Please_do_not_make_test_edits_to_articles

That sounds an awful lot like a threat to me... 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading his talk page, this guy looks like one of those long term users, who do just enough good edits to keep from being blocked, but overall has a negative effect on wikipedia--Jac16888 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing the good edits. I see lots of talk page abuse, and nearly all of the edits marked as "minor". MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the same user as the report right above this entry. As he chooses to ignore warnings and continue screwing around, he now has a 24 hour block. IrishGuy ^talk 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism in progress

Resolved

Anonymous IP User talk:71.86.185.137 was on his last warning and vandalized Eutropius. Please block this IP. Bonus Onus 23:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That final warning was from last August. I left a {{uw-test}} on the talk page. In the future, if someone's vandalizing past a recent final warning, you can report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cheers, WODUP 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of 137.71.23.54

After several warnings they have continued to vandalize the Discssion and article page at *Stoughton and reverted back to their vandalized versions.

The have continued to alter the discussion page after being warned to stop.

Ratboy37 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP seems to have stopped for now. Please report at WP:AIV if it continues. — Edokter • Talk • 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user 206.213.40.100 and Descent of Elizabeth II from William I

Resolved

An anonymous user keeps on reverting the article for no given reason after listed genealogical relationships were corrected. When a reason was finally given, it hinged on one overlooked error (even though he or she reverted the whole list continually) and the user inserted his or her own opinions or notes in capital letters in the middle of the article. The user will not stop reverting or adding commentary to the article. Here are some diffs:

• 19:40, September 24, 2007
• 15:58, September 25, 2007
• 16:59, September 25, 2007 (note, I found one error, when a relationship was accidentally substituted in the wrong place)
• 18:29, September 25, 2007
• 19:20, September 25, 2007

I feel that this should be dealt with promptly in order to maintain the integrity of the article. I have already posted a terse message at the anonymous user's talk page regarding the matter. Charles 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Anon seems to have stopped for the moment; if it recurs report at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. Carlossuarez46 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much Carlos, I will be sure to do that. Charles 06:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hesperianos is on a copyvio spree

Resolved

We have a user, possibly a bot, adding HUGE chunks of copyrighted material about self-help and healthcare books totally without regard to warnings. Can an admin step in on this? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 00:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: He/she is still at it. I've corrected the username as well. It's "Hesperianos." --PMDrive1061 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Natalie Erin IrishGuy ^talk 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IP adding unsourced content in clay

I and a changing IP address have been in an edit war in the article clay. I have challenged an unsourced definition of clay per WP:V and replaced it with a reliably and authoritatively sourced definition. The editor continues to re-add the unsourced definition. The editor has refused to provide any sourcing or provide details on why he/she prefers that definition. I have tried discussing the relevant policies and reasons for needing verification with the editor on my talk page, but the editor will not listen. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo 4 (Game)

Resolved

Someone made this as a prank, posted at GameFAQs, and now there's a ton of vandalism. I'm edit warring with an anon because he keeps removing the speedy tag. Please delete and WP:SALT. hbdragon88 02:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it G1, not salted - usually 2 re-creations is not enough for salting. Best not to edit war, also, just bring it here - if someone deletes a speedy tag, you should warn them on their talk pages. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that after the third revert and then reported them to AIV after that. Also warned the article creator. Good call on not salting – I forgot that only registered users can create articles, not anons. hbdragon88 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, man, I had my numbering messd up – G2 is test, G1 is nonsense. hbdragon88 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock on User:Vinvinkid

I've reversed an indef block put on Vinvinkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by Moriori (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), although the blocked user has been highly disruptive, and has both a community ban pushed against him and a plethora of sockpuppets, I've unblocked him because the blocking admin was in an edit dispute over events that happened in Eliseo Soriano's life, a subject where this admin has stated he edits regulary. As far as I know, admins are not supposed to use admin abilities in articles they either regularly edit or are in a dispute about. I'm just checking in to see if this was a wise decision. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd look at the picture to see if I felt the block was deserved. If not, I'd have unblocked and left at that; if so (as seems to be the case here), I'd have unblocked and then reblocked so that the action was now owned by an uninvolved admin (i.e., myself). YMMV. Raymond Arritt 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

JzG gone again

The following discussion 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.

---

Trolls have families too, and are delightfully entertaining as illustrations to children's books, but let's be sparing about using the word toward other human beings.

See [81] :( 86.137.127.139 16:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Judging from changes to his essay, something's happened that pushed him over again, and he's asked for desysopping at this point. (Can't figure out if he's received that yet or not.) Sorry to see him go again, but perhaps some time will help him with his concerns, and he'll be back in the future. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's PO'd about the same things that many of the rest of us are PO'd about. Especially the community's insistence on giving disruptive users a second third fourth fifth chance because they might, eventually, someday become constructive users, while holding people who are constructive users to the most exacting standards. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one tired of the Wikiredemption and Reclamation Project? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's waste a bunch of time on jackass editors, and push away the good ones. Jim, I'm very tired of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am all for tightening the screws here. Should we allow trolls to make us lose the most committed editors we have? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am deeply saddened at the loss of Guy. He's been a sane voice and a great member of the project, especially when dealing with trolls who others were willing to give a slap on the wrist. I am tired of people interpreting AGF to mean, "beat us, and the project, with a stick and we'll keep smiling about it because, really, lots of people with personality disorders straighten up and become productive contributors if you let them get away with acting like monsters for long enough." I will miss Guy a great deal, and hope he comes back. *shakes head sadly* - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take me as insensitive to the difficulties our sysops face, but why do we need to have an announcement here every time someone deletes his or her userpage? If they have something they would like to say to the community, they can say it themselves. Broadcasting their departure here seems unlikely to be helpful. Can anyone inform me as to the benefits it could have? Picaroon (t) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because JzG did not suck. A bunch of pathetic POV-losers pushed him out the door. So what do you have? A crappy encyclopedia. I'm going to fight back. This pisses me off.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You can start by helping change the rules at WP:CSN so that the decision to ban a user is made by a consensus of uninvolved parties. WP:CSN gets tons of flak, but it's a very useful way to show long-term disruptive users the door. Unfortunately, by allowing the disruptors to participate in establishing a consensus, it often fails. We really need to be more effective at dealing with bad faith users. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman's proposal is under discussion here. Everyone is welcome to opine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the way that we recompense committed editors? What a pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah no! JzG is such a great guy...a rock of impartiality. I like knowing that an email to JzG will not yield a reply, but rather a fair result. --Zeraeph 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In that essay linked to above, he writes, "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else." Is all of that true? If so, that is extremely unsettling. How much dangerous is it editing this site? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OM: Me too. I tire of the overuse of the AGF nonsense that forces us to extend some semblence of good faith to a user who has shown himself/herself repeatedly to be nothing more than a tendentious, troublesome, user, or a POV-pusher or a troll. Bah.

Jossi: Apparently it is.

Jehochman: whatever it takes, but see my comment to OM. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alas, hardly a day passes on this noticeboard without an incident of this sort. The current practice of infinitely extending good faith to most odious disruptors at the expense of established editors is a sad testimony to low qualifications of our sysops. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to start fighting back against POV-pushers by adopting the remedies at User:Moreschi/The Plague. That's about nationalism, but most of it applies to all POV-pushing types. Shameless spam, yes. I hope JzG has not given up on WP entirely. There's always the good old right-to-return-via-the-back-door. Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt your love-fest, but my experience with JzG hasn't been particularly great; in fact, over in the attack sites ArbCom workshop he was saying that I ought to be banned. In my opinion, labeling dissident voices as "trolls" does more damage than the trolls themselves. *Dan T.* 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that JzG's one of the large number of people who dislike (or at the least disagree with) you Dan T. That doesn't make JzG's forcing out any less reprehensible. I'm not saying you're one of the trolls, but don't give them the credit of being "dissidents." Stalking fails to impress me as a "dissident." ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think dan was suggesting that stalking JzG was a good idea. Personally I think that if Guy was more tactful with his language, and restricted himself from calling people names in the first place he might not have got himself into the position of pissing off people so much they felt compelled to harras him in real life. (at no point am I condoning that harassment) In at least some cases like this it appears that the abused wikipedian has been frequently less than civil (ie MONGO), and that pisses some more insane people off to the point of turning to real life harrasment to exact their revenge. Guess what people, Wikipedia is high visibility and therefore attracts some less than savoury people. We can't change that, we just have to deal with it. However if you stop calling people names it makes the wikipedia environment a lot easier for everyone to work in, and you are less likely to attract unwanted attention to yourself. Viridae^Talk 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's certainly not acceptable to drive people away by harassment. But think about it. If I had gotten the treatment that some trolls have gotten from Guy, I would have been pretty annoyed. So before we start blaming everything on the evil trolls, consider if it's all their fault. -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• They're responsible for their own behavior: trying out that argument before a judge -- or a high-school principal -- wouldn't get one very far. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, no, it's not that simple. People repeatedly (and, even in my opinion, sometimes justifiably) excused HIS behavior on the grounds that trolls were annoying him. If we're saying "everyone is responsible for their own behavior", then we can't turn around and ignore that when it comes to some people. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about stalkers, who I don't condone... but I'm talking about how everybody who dares to oppose a few favored people gets tarred with the same brush as the worst of the stalkers, and demonized, and this is used to justify ridiculous policies like banning links to entire sites that meet the disapproval of the clique. *Dan T.* 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody? Dan, I'm the sysop who gave JzG a civility block warning in January. I started Category:Eguor admins afterward to promote self-regulation among sysops. I was perfectly serious about that warning and took some heat for it, but the only folks who tarred me with that great brush are the ones who populate the attack sites you defend. This hyperbole of yours is getting tiresome. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No such block on his block log...? Thanks for the cat, added. Viridae^Talk 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that particular axe sharp enough by now? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here. The real problem is not being nice enough to the trolls? Pathetic. Raymond Arritt 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You insult trolls they will become more troll like - what part are you missing? Follow the civility guidlines (like every admin should) and you are less likely to be come a target.. what is so hard about that? Just because someone trolls you doesnt mean you have to stoop to their level and return the favour - that makes YOU a troll too. Viridae^Talk 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Labeling people as "trolls" when you disagree with them is a way of dehumanizing the opposition and getting your way in whatever dispute you're in. People who throw around "troll" accusations are the ones causing the toxic atmosphere here. *Dan T.* 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, this community demands that people speak in the tones Guy uses. I know I'm better off on Wikipedia now that I assume bad faith--it makes it easier for me. Guy's had a few nasty comments to me in inappropriate situations (on his part, not mine, no matter how hotheaded I've been), but it didn't make me interested in him personally in any way--sure as hell not his home life. And when I needed a quick solution to a problematic BLP, I knew he'd do it. I've opposed the Wikipedia favorite stars, and I still do, and I think there are many problematic admins on Wikipedia because other admins are lazy at dealing with problems with other administrators. And I've been called a troll by various administrators, but I can't really be demonized because I'm here to edit--one silly little editor takes a moment to always come up with some nasty comment about me, but nobody takes it seriously, least of all me. She just looks as silly as she's behaving. I'm not a demon, just a hothead--and I contribute well. If you're being demonized successfully you might not be spending enough time editing articles and doing useful tasks on Wikipedia. You might be spending too much time on intrigue. And there are plenty of real demons to be found among the intriguing little intrigues all over Wikipedia. I've never had an interesting troll on my page. KP Botany 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I want to say how sorry I am to see that Guy has left. He was one of our best admins, and people with Guy's common sense and intelligence are thin on the ground. I know that the silent majority on Wikipedia don't support the harassment and toxic atmosphere that causes admins like Guy to leave, and I hope you'll start to speak out against it. Write to Jimbo, no matter how pointless you feel it is. Write to Anthere, the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please make your voices heard. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has had epic battles with Guy, can I just suggest we close this thread and let him be? He's stated his unhappiness with how things are here, let's just respect that and let him decide what is best for himself. This kind of thread can serve no good purpose: those who hated Guy come out of the woodwork to reopen wounds, while those who liked him get all worked up into a frenzy and beg him to stay - neither of which helps Guy or the project. ATren 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Wikipedia's OFFICE doesn't do enough to protect good editors, and bad editors demand we AGF beyond credulity on a weekly, if not daily or hourly, basis. We get absurd POV warriors demanding things no civilized human would demand, and when they don't get their way, they offer to attack our children. We lost H to that, and no one stopped the hostile parties involved; in fact, we welcomed them back with special concessions to their POV. In return, they've bullied all over the place. IT gets ridiculous to AGF when people ignore discussions, notifications, requests and warnings. IF it's on their talk page, they demand it be kept on the article talk, where they can ignore it in the name of WP:BOLD. Guy's loss is a big one to the project. THe threats he's recieved need to be brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales, and frankly, he ought to DO something. The 'This is the internet, it's not REAL LIFE' meme only lasts till some troll takes it to the real world, posting names, addresses and phone numbers, along with exhortations to rape their wives and children, which at least a few offended parties here have done or attempted. Until the OFFICE shows that they will support the good over the bad, this will continue. Wales needs to make discipline a presence here, it's not here now. When the pro-pedophilia tribes coem on demanding we never address Pedophilia as a disease of the mind, or as a crime, and PJ comes on offering to 'out', to the police, and the jobs, of any editor who doesn't cave to their demands, no one except those two dares touch the articles related to that topic. and so on, across many of the religion articles, gun articles, and so on. If it hasn't happened yet, it's only a matter of time till some editor is hunted down and killed for defending core principles of NPOV and Citation on Wikipedia, by some deranged extremist(s). The OFFICE and the Bureaucrats can do more, but don't, instead insisting 'the community can handle this'. No, when editors are harrassed off jobs, leave the project, and find harrassments continuing despite their abdication of the project, what else can be done? This is becoming an untenable situation. I hope soemthing can be done to resolve the attacks on Guy that led him to this; he's a strong admin, and a much-needed one, as he's long been willing to take on hard topics here. ThuranX 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But ThuranX, surely you should know that if someone threatens harm, it's only because they were driven to it because someone called them a troll. Anyone can see it's the so-called victim's fault.</end sarcasm mode>. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Don't get me started on the similar abuse of the CIVILITY policy. CIVIL and AGF get invoked by the biggest trolls with a frequency appraoching a Godwin proportion, that it, as one can perceive, if not factually derive an algorithm regarding the parallels of Naziism invocation and futility of further discussion, so can one find a relationship between the frequency and immediacy in any conversation of AGF/CIVIL and the trollish nature of the invoker. CIV and AGF are good principles to keep in the back of one's mind, but the difference between bluntly calling a fool or jerk what he is, and calling anyone you don't like the ideology of a troll are different, and the project and community both would do well to have a far stricter policy on both. Possibly a policy called WP:CRYWOLF, which can be invoked during incident reports, mediations and arbitrations to ban someone who repeatedly brings frivolous 'violations' to admin attention. Even Good Faith reporters who are just too sensitive should be subject to the brief blocks CRYWOLF would demand, thus ensuring that people too milquetoast to be here leave, and that those who still want to be here start thinking twice. 'Fuck You, [minority slur]' is a violation, 'you're too liberal/conservative to understand what I'm saying and can't look at this from any view but your own' is 99% of the time here a fact, not an insult. (well, maybe both, but deserved). Such a 'don't waste our time' policy might help us all. ThuranX 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually said that everything here is his fault for not being nice? -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, noone is suggesting that it was all Guys fault. We are suggesting he and certain other people who have been harassed have exacerbated the situation to the point it got to by being extremely incivil. Nor is anyone suggesting good faith should be taken with regard to these said trolls - if they clearly are here to do ahrm, so be it abandon good faith. However civility should NEVER be abandoned regardless who you are dealing with. Viridae^Talk 05:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The loss of civility is the loss of effective communication that can possibly lead to a resolution of dispute etc.. Remember that, even when dealing with trolls. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, your use of sarcasm above plainly demonstrates the problem here. Never consider an balanced response, simply heed your emotions and witty sarcasm to remedy all situations. HydroMagi 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry; believe it or not, that was out of character for me. I'm just getting more and more disgusted at the insistence on giving near-limitless chances to trolls, POV-pushers, abusive sockpuppeteers and outright lunatics while refusing to stand up for the highly constructive (if imperfect) editors who are their targets. Raymond Arritt 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The lunatics are definitely running the asylum these days.--MONGO 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to the fullest. People who research and continuously add information to the project should not be driven off or harassed by people who come here to disrupt the encyclopedia or do naught for the encyclopedia. It's a waste of time for all parties involved. M.^(er) 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of admins and experienced users who have put their careers, their reputations and good names, in some cases their personal safety and privacy on the line fighting for and defending this Project. When has this Project ever defended us? The arbcom is out of touch, the board is a joke, the foundation, toothless and inept. This is endemic of much larger issues, mainly that the hippie peace and love bullshit Jimbo espouses DOES NOT WORK, that AGF is broken, and that maybe, just maybe, letting anons edit, and putting so many restrictions on administrative discretion is not a good thing. This project treats us like shit, yet we fight for it tooth and nail. We are lucky we haven't lost more like Guy, and unless something is done, we will lose more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the project needs more admins like me, who have absolutely no career, reputation or good name. Edison 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to help! Secretlondon 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffrey's every word here, including "and" and "the". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You have the choice to leave or attempt to change it. Viridae^Talk 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A rock and a hard place? You're too kind! :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well making a choice is better than just bitching about it. Viridae^Talk 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the problem is that punitive actions against editors are often based on specific actions rather than intentions. A seemingly well-meaning editor who accidentally goes over 3RR shouldn't be treated the same way as a POV-pusher doing the same. Policy doesn't seem to make any distinction at all. Perhaps if those who spend the majority of their time on Wikipedia distruptively editing a specific point of view into a single group of articles were treated more harshly, the program JzG describes would not be as big as it is now. If someone comes to Wikipedia to push a specific POV, they should not be treated the same as someone who comes to improve the encyclopedia. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 09:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark Shikari has got to the heart of the problem. We're fine at dealing with vandals and drive-by trolls but the persistent POV-pushers and other determinedly obnoxious characters take ages to remove - and they're the very people who are the biggest threat to the encyclopaedia. --Folantin 12:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Typical situation: I find a COI, POV pushing or spam-only account. It's never made a productive edit. It's purpose is mischief and nothing else. I ask for a perma-block at one of our boards, and get the typical, "we need four separate warnings in a week" response. Long ago I learned to go to specific admins who understand how to deal with persistent troublemakers. We need to educate our admins how to deal with these situations, because a majority of them don't understand, and that's extremely frustrating to ordinary editors on the front lines. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, well I am not even a good editor though I try my best to do the best I can with my disabilities but has anyone tried to contact JzG via email to see what is going on in his mind about things? I have been following this thread from the beginning and find it quite disturbing to see people blaming this administrator about things including his behavior. For the record, as far as I can remember I have not had any contact with this administrator. I just feel I needed to comment because of the back and forth of trying place blame. Would, could someone email this person and see what is going on? I think the least we can all do is let him/her know that this discussion is going on. But more important, I think everyone first should see if he blanking his page means he left (maybe he plans a redo?) and then maybe see what is going on and see if he can be helped to resolve the situation (s). If my comments are inappropriate, please feel free to remove. I just feel that something is missing here in the details of things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no point calling a troll anything other than a troll. It solves plenty of problems. I agree with both Folantin and Dark Shikari. We are not flexible enough when dealing with POV-pushers. Single-purpose accounts who are also obvious socks, like MatthewHoffman below, need to be kicked into touch permanently, and straight away. Single-purpose accounts who are not socks (just morons recruited off forums, and yes, this does happen) need to be brutally topic-banned to within an inch of their lives and told in no uncertain terms to get away from their area of manic obsession ASAP. Good content contributors who do the invaluable work on the ground, and who are not POV-pushing, need to be rewarded with sysop buttons. Nationalist, pseudoscience, whatever - the two are often linked - the plague needs to be eradicated. If we do not adequately protect Wikipedia and those who seek to maintain it, we will pay a bitter price. Moreschi ^Talk 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help sympathizing with JzG's predicament. It is no secret that I have lately been more active in Russian Wikipedia than here, and the reason is that apathy sets in when you see the same fights persisting for two or three years without any prospect of resolution. Two days ago, I was called "a troll without a specific gender" and the same person demanded on this noticeboard to have me blocked from editing indefinitely. Once an admin reproached him for abusing the noticeboard, all the hell broke loose on him for not extending good faith to the block shopper. A week earlier, an unfamiliar editor referred to me as a "paranoid goon" but, once I asked for an explanation from him, my message was deleted from the talk page and replaced with a Piotrus-presented barnstar for "good deeds". I don't want to continue this screed here, but all the signs are not encouraging, to put it mildly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The general rule of nature is that the larger that population, the less time one can afford to give people to disrupt the whole. I think we need to continue to assume good faith, but take a very hard line when it becomes unreasonable to do so. People think "Assume good faith" means to give someone with bad motives another chance. That is not what it means. It means to assume good motives till it is unreasonable to do so, it has nothing to do with "second chances", only with judging motivations. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How does judging people's motivations fit in with WP:NPA's "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? *Dan T.* 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

People who are disruptive due to inexperience or accident are not a problem, these people can be reformed and help out, no harm done. People who are disruptive due to malice are unlikely to be reformable. The failure to distinguish between the two is why we put up way too much with jackasses who are only here to be shit disturbers. WilyD 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, our RfA process doesn't seem to favor good editors, nor those who fight to protect Wikipedia. Instead, it favors those who go along with the group and don't make waves. Elonka was denied adminship because she took positions on contentious issues and made enemies who harbored grudges. One of them is stalking the articles about her family members right now. People, we need to understand that honorable folks can have lively disagreements, but that's not a valid reason to deny sysop rights, nor is it a reason to persecute an administrator. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I share the ethos of this comment, truth be told, I feel that Elonka is herself engaged in a campaign against such a productive editor as User:PHG, unjustly accusing him of original research and fringecruft across multiple venues. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the first step here is to propose a rewording of policy. Perhaps a bit of the spirit of WP:DUCK should be combined with WP:AGF. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The sheer tediousness and waste of time / digital ink involved in getting obvious troublemakers banned means that we need productive editors like Guy, and to keep them a bit less tolerance of disruptive editing is needed. One improvement might be redefining WP:TROLL – by stating that "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts" we have to be a mind reader to use the designation, when actions make it obvious per WP:SPADE. Trolling is behaviour, not a state of mind. ... dave souza, talk 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • • Excellent point and well put. I've been bold; let's see what happens. Raymond Arritt 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I've reverted. I'm not sure this is the time and place, but though I am sad that Guy has left again, this is a lousy excuse for starting to form up a vigilante committee to label a bunch of good-faith editors who happen to hold dissenting opinions as trolls and drive them away. We have to find the middle ground between burning out our experienced active admins and driving away new and positive but honestly disagreeing editors. Either exteme is disaster. Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Holding a good-faith dissenting opinion is not trolling. Be wary of tainted fish. Raymond Arritt 03:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, once again, as a user who JzG recently said ought to be banned, I need to object to any such proposal as a possible target of it, once policy no longer distinguishes between intentional troublemakers and people like me who hold strong views and stand up for them. *Dan T.* 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Someone who has not established themselves as a Wikipedian here to help Wikipedia who pushed against BADSITES the way *Dan T.* has would have been banned by now, and that is how it must be given our extreme openness to anon editing. But even an established editor like Jon Awbrey was able to get himself banned by pushing too hard too fast too unsuccessfully even after repeated warnings; and that too is how it should be. Good faith gained by lots of effort should require lots of effort to dissipate. WAS 4.250 05:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another staunch defender of the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has been lost. Their ranks are shrinking by the day. I no longer have much hope for this project. FCYTravis 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He was a great editor and administrator, and his roles in defending the quality of Wikipedia users and articles was greatly appreciated. It's a shame that it has had to turn out this way, much like many others, and it gives me little faith in the administrative roles when they are be-whittled in this manner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not find User:JzG on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. He seemed to often stick his nose into conflicts with an us/them attitude rather than looking for reconciliation (that seems to be what got him on Mr. Brandt's list). His comments were often banal. My advice: do not give him sysop bit back. Let him go through another RfA if he wants it. Really, he should just start a new account, start fresh and create some featured-quality articles and keep his nose out of other people's disagreements. He was a busybody and he should strive for change within himself. My prediction is that he will be back, but when he does come back, he should focus on creating quality content, on his lonesome if he cannot collaborate. There are still plenty of dead British nobles from centuries ago that deserve FA articles. Emsworth did not get them all. Let the man be non-political and productive for a while and see how he fares then.--RidinHood25 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... It's like field of dreams... if you open a section, trolls will come. JzG is/was an invaluable mem ber of this project. those that think otherwise seem mostly to be of the sour grapes variety, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is more articles about the English Noble relatives of editors, like all those Arbuthnot articles. really. We need more FA's on varied topics. ThuranX 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we need more FA's in a variety of subjects. But what did JzG accomplish in his tenure? He deleted some stuff and blocked some users. Anybody can do that. Did he create anything? Did he write policy? What did he do? It is a sincere question. BTW: I do not personally value specialized vandal fighters because everybody is a vandal fighter after a certain point. Did he just pal around with you guys and that made you feel good? That does not count. What did he produce? Where is his name on some text that is valuable and relevant?--RidinHood25 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you have not been here very long. And judging by your extremely short contribution history and tenure, I am correct on that. Unless you had some prior socks or IPs engaging in some edit war with Guy, which your first comments seemed to indicate, you really have no idea what kind of contributions that Guy produced. He was invaluable to Wikipedia, and did much more than "deleted some stuff and blocked some users." An administrator has many roles that expand far outside of that, and often go unnoticed or unappreciated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your enumerations of JzG's scholarly legacy to Wikipedia to be vague to the point of being insufficienct and unacceptable.--RidinHood25 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as Guy not being involved in policy you may want to reconsider that remark. Guy did all the things you and I would never do. He took the flack when he had to so that we wouldn't have to worry about it, he spent a considerable amount of time dealing with spammers over e-mail etc. - stuff you really can't tell from his edit history alone. I for one can easily understand why he lost his temper sometimes. EconomicsGuy 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am curious, what have been your contacts RidinHood25 to be so down on JzG? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else."

This sort of garbage is why I don't do much involving disputes other than newpages patrol. You never know when someone's going to contact their internet h4x0r friendz and have them call your job saying you do all sorts of nasty things on the clock, or 5000 people ordering you pizzas, hookers, and hookers holding pizzas 24 hours a day, harassing you at your house, plastering your personal information all over the internet, over something that happened on a website. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

user:RidinHood25

User:JzG is the real-life operator of http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ and is living out loud on the Internet. His real name is and will be well-known on this Earth for the rest of his life. He has created for himself an ample public forum for his opinions. If he has a wife and kids who perceive that they suffer because of the level of publicity he garners for himself both on the Internet and via Wikipedia, then he should find the correct balance of publicity vs. privacy by discussing the matter with them. If he is concerned about making new enemies via his Wikipedia admin actions, then he should follow the advice I gave earlier: start a new Wikipedia account and remain anonymous. Anyone who has examined the Usenet activities of Mr. Wales and David Gerard (who have done a large amount of flicking of the "OFF" switch on others) and such (see Mr. Brandt's list if nothing else) knows that the Internet is populated by a lot of teenaged-minded people: optimistic but immature. The occasional idle death threat simply comes with the territory. It is akin to a video game. Verbally blast away, game over and start again. Here is a recent example: User:Husnock, US Naval officer and historian gets frustrated with User:Morwen and types in something. Morwen contacts the US Navy's equivalent of the FBI (http://www.ncis.navy.mil/). See his RfAr. JzG pipes in and labels the matter "farcical". My opinion: Morwen is not a nice person and JzG should mind his own business. JzG and Morwen have stopped participating in Wikipedia. Let them both come back via new accounts. As far as Husnock is concerned, I would rather he come back via a new account, but I expect that he is so burned by the matter that there is no chance of him ever returning (at least while he remains married). He is a officer of the U.S. Navy and has more important matters to deal with. The rest of us who remain should focus our ample disposable time and energy on creating quality content in the encyclopedia.--RidinHood25 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I find Ridinhood25's comments in general, and his total restatement of everything that pushed JzG off to be more than just sour grapes, he's into full on harrassing troll territory now, and I for one would like to see him blocked for restating the very same information that helped intimidate JzG off the project. His casual dismissal of the threats and attacks suffered by Wikieditors shows him to sympathize with, if not fully be complicit in the attackers actions. This sort of 'JzG got what he deserved' attitude, dismissal of his contributions, and selfish justification attitude are bad enough, restating all JzG's info for all to find is way past the line. ThuranX 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment, and concur with the course of action proposed by ThuranX. Some people say the word troll is overused and often deployed in situations unecessarily - not in this case. He's crossed over the border from the Republic of Polite Criticism via Sourgrapeville into Troll Country. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You know the adage: Give somebody a hammer, and suddenly everything that sticks out starts looking like a nail. Give admins the ability to block others and... Geez, look at JzG's input on that Husnock thing. He starts out by deprecating what Husnock and Morwen were probably feeling and then goes straight into suggesting that blocks will solve the problem. Mature people understand what happened: human feelings happened. Husnock is GONE is and he is NEVER coming back. Morwen pulled some huge and unecessary power moves. When was the last time any of you suggested "Let's just let this guy have his turn to provide input to the collaboration process." I just ignore idle death threats. Blocks also. You should try it sometime and liberate yourself from self-defeating patterns of thought.--RidinHood25 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Please note that Wizardman closed this, but upon request for a resolution to RidinHood25's behavior, self-reverted the archiving. He stated on my talk that he believed that the user had already been blocked, and had mis-read the last couple lines. He opted not to enforce the block himself, but I infer from his re-opening that he felt it's worth review and follow up. ThuranX 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also endorse a block on this weak trolling attempt and weak wikistalking attempt. The user, RidinHood25, has relatively few edits for his short tenure, and it makes me wonder if this user is evading another block elsewhere, perhaps from an IP address. For such a new user to come thrusting out with comments regarding Guy/JzG is quite unusual. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if he's evading a block or not but for someone who created his account 6 days ago, makes a bunch of essentially null edits and then comes here I would say this is an obvious sock. Why is he so consumed with the whole Husnock case? That was back in 2006, not the first thing one would stumble across if reviewing Guy's edits here as a new user. EconomicsGuy 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He also made nearly 100 edits to Lyndon LaRouche, which is another favorite article of a few banned users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RidinHood25 is obviously a returning user, familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia referencing and bureaucracy. He also appears to be impatient, demanding that editors, including myself, stop "hogging" an article by ceasing editing it for six months.[82] (I've edited that article on three times). Whatever the deal is with this user, he appears to have a chip on his shoulder and doesn't seem to understand the nature of collaboration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I was just going on what http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Patrick_M._Byrne reports (it was mentioned in WP:SIGNPOST this past week). I think what it attempts to measure is who are the people who wrote the greatest percentage of the current verion's text. Will Beback did not make many edits, but he showed up as #4 on the list (ignoring the IP user) and suggested that they buzz off because they have obviously had their turn at that article. I just listed the top four users based on that tool and emphasized that reverting by some of them was going on. My point was that the article probably says what these four users want it to say, but others should be allowed to collaborate. I have made many edits to that article (which were summarily reverted) but I have (currently) not altered the text at all: I've only worked on cleaning up the shitty references, many of which were raw or unlabeled or undated links. I am doing a lot of scutwork but I have yet to have any editorial input. Anyway, at least the references on that article no longer obviously suck, and I have made some editorial suggestions on the talk page. Enough about me: back to JzG now unless the matter is all talked out.--RidinHood25 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A new user does not jump to the signpost within days of signing up. You are also not subscribed to it judging by your small talk page history, so I highly doubt you saw it "mentioned" on the signpost. Usually, a new editor is more concerned with the editing basics and doing some general cleanup, not taking themselves in on the history of a topic from last year. Furthermore, I can't find any mention of Patrick in last week's (or the week prior) Signpost.

As for "shitty references", that's a pretty poor choice of words. Per WP:CITE, it is still a valid citation, although it encourages other editors that are more familiar with the citation method to come in and fill them out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been caught out, Ridinhood.. now how about that block? Anyone? DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:RidinHood25 indefinately as a sockpuppet of a banned user. I don't know who they may be a sockpuppet of, If anyone wants to unblock, I will not reblock.-gadfium 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess, but this edit may be a clue? Also wondering about notability of the related article. WikiMapia has had a bit of activity by the user as well. - jc37 10:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

His proposed edits in Patrick Byrne (see the talk page there) were the same as those carried out by Onomato about a week ago. --Samiharris 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the oft used argument that users who are familiar with Wikipedia's intricacies while also have little to no contributions is a very poor stretch of logic. I have hardly contributed, but I am fascinated by this discordian project, so I have ample ability to quote policy and delve the deepest depths of information contained here in. HydroMagi 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydro: Logic is low on the priority list of these Wales-wannabes. For these teenagers, blocking first and thereby winning is what matters to them. Wales started it all by axing Sanger and then promoting himself as the sole founder of Wikipedia® when obviously Sanger created Wikipedia's initial exponential growth, but since these teenagers have the attention span equivalent to a small fraction of the length of a TV commercial, Wales is prevailing in promoting his big lie.--Simongar 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Another pretty obvious sock. Templated as such and awaiting a visit by an admin with a block hammer. EconomicsGuy 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. HydroMagi (talk · contribs) has eight edits total, and Simongar (talk · contribs) has just slightly more. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Hydro is another user. His edits are spread over several months. He may indeed just lurk a lot and only edit occasionally. Simongar is beyond doubt a sock. Created after the others were blocked, using the same arguments (the Sanger argument is also found in RidinHood25's edit to the Essjay controversy article. EconomicsGuy 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're proving my point Seicer. I seek not attention or even discourse with any of you. I find this project fascinating for my own reasons and I follow it intently. That I choose not to contribute is not a rationale for my being a sockpuppet or a ban evader, I am neither. What I represent is a dissenting voice that you can so conveniently pigeon hole because of my level of contributions. My opinions will control less clout because of this, but my words are not any less true. HydroMagi 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

HydroMagi I don't believe that you are another user. You are right that the duck test should be used with caution. However, as for Simongar there are too many things that do not add up. The order in which the accounts have been used today and the simular arguments regarding issues that aren't known to a new user. The rant about the Husnock case is the strongest evidence in that regard. EconomicsGuy 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a particularly good reason why this thread shouldn't be marked for archiving? At this point it appears to be descending into a trollfest/philosophical debate that doesn't particularly require any admin action.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections. There is nothing here we can't eventually deal with at WP:SSP. EconomicsGuy 17:26, 26 September 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.

Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random

Mrs random (talk · contribs), Yeshivish (talk · contribs), Truest blue (talk · contribs), LAZY 1L (talk · contribs), Miamite (talk · contribs), AmerHisBuff (talk · contribs), and Macallan 12 (talk · contribs) are all the same, demonstrated by CheckUser. All have have at some time of another been used for double voting and/or reverting to each other. Administrator action is requested. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposed. MER-C 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't fork discussions, again, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrs random has admitted in an e-mail to me that he/she is behind all of those usernames, and "[He/she doesn't] really have a problem being banned because [he/she is] wasting too much time on WP." The only thing is that he/she has requested that the userpages be deleted, but I don't think that is the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Request is in to ArbCom for ruling. -- Avi 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I've been e-mailed by one of the above (LAZY 1L) claiming that he/she is not involved. I'm not sure what to think - on my RfA this user did vote in the opposite way to two of the other suspected socks. I guess it is possible for it to be a shared IP address, such as at a Yeshiva or Kollel. Anyway, just thought I should bring it to your attention. Number 57 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrs random said that they were all her.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. Oh well, I shall report if I hear any more from LAZY. Number 57 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction with a partial quote from a recently received e-mail: "[Mrs random], personally, have sockpuppeted, but there is an actual person behind each username. The other usernames may be guilty of, at the most, meatpuppetry." I'm not sure how checkuser evidence showing the same person is behind the accounts counts for that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shared computer in a dorm room may be the most likely explanation. -- Avi 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've had another e-mail from LAZY, saying that all the "users" know each other and did request votes on AfDs - though LAZY points out again he/she voted the other way in at least one discussion. Number 57 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Being that the above users do seem to have learned from this, and, I believe, are unlikely to sock/meat again, I think we can extend m:Right to vanish here. While it "does not necessarily" extend to socks; it is not forbidden either. I believe there are enough of us who frequent the articles that were affected that we would recognize an illegal return of sockpuppetry. -- Avi 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions with no warning

I don't think it's fair for an admin to delete an image without explanation, and then threaten me with blocking when I upload it again due to the lack of any such explanation. Specifically, User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, whose attitude when I questioned him about that courtesy was "Deal with it". His viewpoint (now archived or deleted from his talk page) is that unless I get all the facts exactly right the first time, he has the right to zap it without explanation. I'm used to attitudes like that from users, but not from admins. It's as if User:Tecmobowl had been reincarnated as an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. If you still feel the image should remain despite the policy points I kindly pointed out to you, you may go to deletion review. The content from my talk page is of course not deleted: here it is. In the history. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My complaint is not about whether it meets or fails to meet deletion criteria, it's about deletion with no warning or explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the specifics of this particular situation, but all across Wikipedia, there has been a sudden increase in NF image zapping going on due to concerns over what constitutes fair/minimal use. This might be a part of that. You Can't See Me! 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm glad Jeffrey provided a link to the discussion of the deletion. Your claim of his high handed, rude behavior would have been hard to believe, otherwise. I am amazed that such arbitrary, peremptory behavior is acceptable from an admin, when it would be considered incivility on the part of any other user. And it amazes me he actually told you to reconsider your participation in the project if you don't like the way he dealt with this situation. Jeffrey owes you an apology, at the very least. Jeffpw 06:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell at Image:Wrigley1945composite.JPG, it is a collage of three images. The first license chosen was related to US Stamps. The third image is a stamp, but the first two images were a problem. They came from Google Images and they didn't identify what URL they came from. So, it was deleted for not identifying the source. Then, the user who started the topic restored the image and added a pd-self tag and now we are here. I suggest a deletion review, but until the other two images are cited with an source or author, let's not restore the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The first image is equivalent to a picture in a 1951 book that I have. I don't recall if I used the scan or if I used an equivalent Google image, as it was a year and half ago or more. The second was definitely a Google image. The third was a scan I made of a postage stamp. The point here is not whether it's a valid fair use, but that it was twice deleted without comment (by who knows who?), and the third time with a vague comment, plus the admin's claim that he has the right to delete anything that he interprets as a rule violation without first discussing it with the one who uploaded it. My complaint is about his autocratic and threatening behavior in the matter, not about whether the image qualifies as fair use. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have deleted it too. Google Images isn't a source, it's a search engine. There's no indication as to where two of the three images in the composite are from. --Carnildo 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point. It's not about whether the image is valid. It's about deleting it without having the courtesy to say "we're about to delete your image". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually with copyright violations, we delete on sight. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Every fair use photo is, by definition, technically a copyright violation. And in this case you're talking a picture that's 60 years old or more, and I'm claiming fair use for a specific article, for specific reasons, as per the fair use criteria. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. A valid fair use of a copyrighted work is not a copyright violation, at least not in the US. It is using a copyrighted work, but it is emphatically not a copyright violation or copyright infringement. Natalie 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Two issues here, Baseball Bugs. First off, Jeffrey is right. It is clearly fair use replaceable and its source was unidentified. You shouldn't have just kept uploading it. The other issue is Jeffreys' attitude: Jefferey, you need to be more polite. Baseball is right: you do have a "screw you" attitude, and being courteous is not an option. I notice you have lost your adminship over similar issues in the past (including talk page blankings). I suggest you pay attention to what ArbCom had to say to you. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First, if someone had bothered, the first time, to tell me what the issue was, instead of blindly deleting it, I would have taken a different course of action than blindly uploading it again. Second, I thought my fair use explanation was adequate, and no one bothered to comment on that, either. Also, I would like to hear someone explain just how these images are "replaceable". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to your last question: "replaceable" means there could theoretically be a free alternative. Natalie 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what the word means. And in my experience here, all too often, people with no knowledge of the subject at hand, nevertheless jump to that conclusion... as with this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Viran and the theory of relativity

Resolved

Viran is insiting on treating Wikipedia like a bulliten board. He has tried multiple times to impose this edit on the article and had it reverted each time. The edit is discussed at Talk:Theory_of_relativity#Explaining_Second_Postulate_of_SR and is universally panned. None the less, in his latest post on that talk page he says that

I want my explainatory post in article.

Viran has been told on his talk page that Wikipedia is not a discussion group, but he refuses to listen.

BTW - He also is taking on the persona of Neo from The Matrix film series. Perhaps it is time to "unplug" Viran from our encyclopedia matrix? Thanks much, --EMS | Talk 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the above. He has made it clear that he won't listen to any regular 'peon' users, just someone with authority (maybe an admin -the nonsense is spreading). R. Baley 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User notified about this thread (diff). R. Baley 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note Virian/neo, please do not delete my comment as you did here on this board. R. Baley 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am just explaining second postulate of SR. Vandalism is something which goes against meaning of article, unsourced. I am supporter of second postulate of SR.

These people don't want to improve quality of article. May be these people are anti-Einstein.

Science is not democracy where opinion of majority matters. What matters is reason.

This is neo !!! 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to present an explanatory example, please provide one from a reliable reference. A basic physics textbook should suffice. We are not permitted to insert our own interpretations and explanatory examples. Vassyana 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Viram's post is almost a classic example of a response for a rigidly dogmatic editor. I see this not only from cranks but also from respected professors who in theory should know better. The overall gist of this is "I am right. Please get out of my way and let me do my thing". However, only Viram thinks that he is right, or that his proposed edit would at all improve the article. --EMS | Talk 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Myself as well. I have tried working with him as seen on his talk page. It is not going well :-( Spryde 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fwiw, I filed two requests for admin intervention with template Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first was dismissed as a clear case of wp:bite - which i.m.o. was exactly what he was trying to provoke.

The second was declared "not-another-case" of wp:3rr and was delisted by C.Fred, who probably didn't recognize Ems57fcva's first early warning as such. EMS did indeed not use the formal warning templates, perhaps to avoid biting the newcomer.

DVdm 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Unbelievably, Viran/neo persists (link diff) in making the same edit. R. Baley 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, he just did it three times as shown in the article history and it the face of warnings in the edit summaries. I think that he has stopped for the day due to WP:3RR. IMO, he his just going to continue to push on us like this until an admin ahows that we are serious by blocking him. --EMS | Talk 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

and again. . .with a request, I might add. R. Baley 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 31 hours for edit warring. I don't care whether or not he violated the 3rr. Friday (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See everyone here again in 31 then? ('100 names', "Blocking is trivial" "Don't talk. Go ahead.Do it.") R. Baley 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He will be back - with a vengeance. DVdm 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you will be right. At least we have tried to show him how to do it. Spryde 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You made a truly remarkable effort. I lift my hat to you. DVdm 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After consulting with Friday, I have indefinitely blocked the account. His only edits have been useless and/or disruptive, and his threat to futher disrupt the project by means of sockpuppets means that he doesn't care about improving the project. -- Merope 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for this. We most likely will be battling the sockpuppets next, but that is always a losing battle for the sock-puppeteer. --EMS | Talk 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say how unnerving it was when he stopped communicating with me in favor of quoting the Matrix? It was pretty freaking unnerving. --Masamage ♫ 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Merope's indef block. Forget about his insistence on his, er, idiosyncratic explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity, or throwing the word "vandalism" about: this user has been reverting to his own version of the article for two days straight. Should have been blocked for 3RR alone. -- llywrch 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd as it may seem for me to say this, but I think that Viram was treated properly under WP:3RR. He stopped on 9/23 just after he had been officially warned, amd so could not be disciplined then. Only after his 4th revert on 9/25 was there just cause to block him, and at that point his whole "account" became due. The price he "paid" is of course the indefinite han.

This is an editor which was obviously going to be trouble as soon as he/she came to Wikipedia. A look at their initial edits shows that they came here almost looking for trouble. While I do understand WP:BITE and agree the newcomers should be given some slack, I am not at all sure that a newcomer who starts out biting us should really be covered by WP:BITE. The sooner we establish ourselves with a rouge editor, the better IMO. --EMS | Talk 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Some people strangely enough have not dealt with Wikipedia before. It took me a year to get a handle on this place before contributing regularly. I tried to deal with this particular user but he was determined it seems. If I had to do it all over again, I would. Spryde 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a difference between a new user who means well but just plain does not know what they are doing and someone who comes here with a very definite and disruptive agenda. The former can be dealt with and will quickly find their niche (not that it may not take them some time to get used to Wikpedia). The later just gets more and more frustrated (and frustating for the other editors) as their agenda keeps getting derailed. Viran was very much of the later ilk.

OTOH, even with my concern, my use of this page has worked very well (and even better than I expected). If I can keep reporting new and disruptive editors here and have constructive action taken promptly then I will be happy. Even if I need to wait a week or two before doing a report (so that the distruptive pattern can be fully established), this resource can still make being in Wikipedia less stressful. Indeed, just knowing that I can eventually come here in case of trouble will make dealing with future Virans less strssful. --EMS | Talk 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of Profg

Profg was recently blocked by William Connolley [83]. I declined the unblock, but the user claims that I am too involved to make the unblock call. I'm therefore bringing the matter up here for other admins to review. JoshuaZ 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see how your editorial views would have tainted your ability to tell whether or not something was harassment. Tend to endorse. --Haemo 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Good call. He seems bent on earning an indef block; while it would save a lot of agony to cut out the middle steps between now and that eventual outcome, others would likely object. Raymond Arritt 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I pulled out a Clueyville Slugger; hopefully he gets thie hint from me and stops throwing around the accusations he has been. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I left what I hoped would be a helpful little note, explaining why he was seeing the same editors on the same family of articles, and asking him if he understood our policies on civility and harassment. He responded with yet more nastiness, hostility, and accusations of a "clique" of editors who reverted his edits. I thought about trying to explain WP:CON to him, but it really looks like he's not interested in learning anything. He made specific accusations against me and blanket accusations against everyone on Wikipedia. I'm inclined at this point to agree with Arritt and say he clearly is trolling for an indef, and I for one suggest we accommodate him. He isn't here to improve the encyclopedia, but to wage some kind of war of insults and disrupt. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I see someone who not only doesn't understand what Wikipedia is about (which is fine - it's not exactly intuitive), but has absolutely no interest in learning. So far his impact has been uniformly negative and disruptive, he's consumed a lot of volunteer time, and he's not interested in acknowledging there's a problem with his behavior or amending it in any way. This is exactly the kind of editor to whom too much patience is shown. If there's no improvement when this block expires, then I think indefinite would be appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My thinking exactly, Mastcell. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.60.63.183

I have "BOLDly" (recklessly, illicitly?) semi-protected this page. My comments on it explain. Somebody else may wish either to confirm or to undo my good (or not) work. -- Hoary 00:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. —Crazytales talk/desk 00:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong on #2 - no impersonation. However, I say, let him rot. Static IP been vandalizing for ages. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems perfectly fine to me. Sometimes showing people the door doesn't work, and it's time to drunk-toss. Natalie 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The only potential problems I saw were that:

1. While anal homosex seems to be his greatest obsession, I seem to be his second or third greatest; preventative action might look like punitive action, and punitive action might look personal.
2. Semi-protecting an IP's talk page is a bad idea; it prevents innocent, unrelated would-be users from speaking up.
3. I had a feeling that all this was explained on some howto page somewhere, but I was connected expensively and slowly via modem and was in a rush to get out of the house.

-- Hoary 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If the user is abusing the unblock template, or vandalizing his own talk page while he is blocked, a semiprotection may be a good idea for a short while, IMO. Good call! -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war in article Loyola Law School

EditorEsquire repeatedly prevents us from adding information from a Wall Street Journal cover story. The edit he keeps removing is here. [84] --Thirdoffer23 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO he's right to keep removing the edit. An anonymous blogger's unsubstantiated claims do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Extant comparative statistics are already in the article. Blogs are generally not reliable sources except for blogs which are either associated with reputable publishing organizations or are authored by known authorities or experts. Loyola2L does not appear to meet either of those standards. FCYTravis 05:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So a blogger, who made the cover of the Wall Street Journal, for a matter related to Loyola Law School, doesn't require a mention in the Loyola Law School wikipedia? If you look, you'll see the Loyola article literally has no critical comments, unlike every other Wikipedia article. What happened to balance? Also, since when do we need to independently substantiate something reported in the mainstream media? --Thirdoffer23 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing which has been reported in the mainstream media is a one-line mention of the existence of an anonymous blog whose writers apparently have grievances with Loyola Law School. There is no journalistic investigation into the substance of the complaints or any critical analysis of whether the grievances are justified or not. The article even points out that there is no confirmation that the blog is even written by students, because it is entirely anonymous. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not obligated to reprint everything which has ever been written in a newspaper. We have higher standards for sourcing and inclusion of information. I make no judgment on the truth of the allegations, but Wikipedia does not republish anonymous blog criticisms of persons or organizations. FCYTravis 05:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with FCYTravis on this. WP:VERIFY is a core policy, and this "source" is not up to snuff. -- Satori Son 05:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright whatever, I don't have time to argue with two nerds on a powertrip. Get a life. --Thirdoffer23 05:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an unacceptable response and I've warned Thirdoffer23 on his or her Talk page. --ElKevbo 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:202.86.166.79

This user seems to be dedicated to inserting a tag with the Greek flag into various articles on places in Turkey. I've reversed their edit to Troy as that's the page I watch. Is there a bot capable of reversing the rest? See[[85]] for the full list of activities.--Peter cohen 11:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 11:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see they've now done Insect too. So I've issued a vandal warning 3.--Peter cohen 11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

122.2.151.103 - This IP address keeps on editing our La Salle CSB page putting names thatis not connected with our school. I think they are insulting some one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.168.128 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "keeps on", you mean "twice", right? Ordinary vandalism, probably just wants to see his name in Wikipedia. Should it escalate,after say a final warning, go here. I've warned the user.--Sethacus 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

216, this is September. Vandalism always tends to spike at the start of the school year as students who don't have internet connections at home all gain access through their school networks. This is not a new phenomenon. Slambo (Speak) 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rollback page moves?

Resolved

 – taken care of by TomTheHand Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin rollback a couple of dozen page moves that were performed by a BOLD! but ultimately misguided new editor? Pogo935 (talk · contribs) moved over twenty articles on Japanese aircraft carriers from Japanese aircraft carrier {name} to {name} (aircraft carrier) apparently out of ignorance of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sock puppetry from indef blocked AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Range block applied

Hello. I'm enquiring about the advantages of putting a range block in place on this user's IP address. They have been indefinately blocked for using a multiple of socks (see here for history, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd) and there are a variety of other cases with this user under different names).

I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. I have collected all of the IP's he has used so that something can be done.

Seraphim ^Whipp 10:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much collateral damage a range block will incur.

 inetnum:        87.160.0.0 - 87.186.159.255 
 netname:        DTAG-DIAL21 
 descr:          Deutsche Telekom AG 
 country:        DE 
 admin-c:        DTIP 
 tech-c:         DTST 
 status:         ASSIGNED PA 

Navou ^banter 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to only block the 87.167... range? He only seems to be assigned IPs with that particular prefix.

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's still 65,536 IP's, or /16 rangeblock; the largest we can give IIRC. -- Avi 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... how about if it was narrowed further to 87.167.200... to 87.167.255...? He has only been assigned IPs in that range. The earliest IP address he used was in February so the range hasn't changed since then. I'm seeing now the gravity of a range block, but at the same time I really don't know what other measures could be put in place.

Seraphim ^Whipp 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you have narrowed it down to 14,336 IP's:

• The 2048 between 87.167.200.0 and 87.167.207.255
• The 4096 between 87.167.208.0 and 87.167.223.255
• The 8192 between 87.167.224.0 and 87.167.255.255

Is it possible to narrow the range down a bit more? Anonblock rangeblocks have been given out, even /16 versions, but if we can restrict it a bit more it would be helpful. -- Avi 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've collected as many IPs as I possibly can and made this list in a show/hide box so it won't clog up the page. Maybe it could be narrowed further to 87.167.204.0 to 87.167.255? Seraphim ^Whipp 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Full range of IP's used
87.167.204.34
87.167.207.20
87.167.207.84
87.167.207.145
87.167.210.109
87.167.210.141
87.167.210.200
87.167.211.93
87.167.211.197
87.167.212.188
87.167.213.156
87.167.215.209
87.167.216.175
87.167.219.140
87.167.220.165
87.167.221.57
87.167.221.241
87.167.225.43
87.167.225.84
87.167.226.24
87.167.226.119
87.167.228.83
87.167.230.62
87.167.230.242
87.167.231.59
87.167.235.3
87.167.235.7
87.167.235.161
87.167.236.61
87.167.236.109
87.161.237.219
87.167.240.60
87.167.241.160
87.167.242.147
87.167.242.222
87.167.244.183
87.167.245.5
87.167.245.44
87.167.245.103
87.167.247.95
87.167.249.137
87.167.249.151
87.167.250.222
87.167.252.64
87.167.253.249
87.167.254.235
87.167.255.129

The contiguous range from 87.167.204.34 to 87.167.255.129 is still 12,896 IP's and would take 16 separate blocks, as opposed to the 3 to cover the 14,336. I'll put in an anon rangeblock for a little while for the latter option, and let me know if the vandalism significantly slows down. Good Luck. -- Avi 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for all your help and for being so patient :-). Seraphim ^Whipp 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blog reviews in Film Noir

I found over 70 links to a blog, http://noiroftheweek.blogspot.com in various film noir articles. The vast majority were added by Steve Eifert and a couple of IPs that only added these links. I removed them all as spam. Now, RedSpruce has decided to readd them all after calling me a dick repeatedly [86] [87]. I have explained that blogs aren't reliable sources and they fail WP:EL. RedSpruce found a couple of the entries that were ostensibly penned by valid authors. The problem is, those entries are taken from published materials and added to the blog with no assertion of permission to do so...and while I explained this to RedSource, he doesn't seem to care. The other entries are all simply reviews from people on the blog owner's message board. Nothing of note. IN the course of his blind reverts, he is adding in other spam that was removed. IrishGuy ^talk 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After posting this...he decided to reiterate that I am a relentless dick. IrishGuy ^talk 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, maybe I'm just on a blocking roll, but I'm inclined to block for incivility and edit warring. The links clearly don't fall under WP:EL; it's a blog that violates copyright. Removing them was the correct decision; restoring them and calling you a dick isn't. I'll issue a final warning. -- Merope 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning posted and will monitor. *sigh* -- Merope 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't like your warning [88] :) Thanks for talking to him, though. IrishGuy ^talk 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that I was uncivil to IrishGuy. However, his actions with regard to these links he removed were unjustified and in my view incorrect. The links may have been added in a "spam like" manner by someone hoping to increase traffic to his web site, but if there's a policy for removing links because of an editor's motivation in adding them, I'm not aware of any such policy, nor has IrishGuy cited one. Instead he cited WP:RS which doesn't apply because these were external links, not sources used for attribution, and WP:EL. WP:EL discourages, but does not prohibit, links to blogs "except those written by a recognized authority." I pointed out to IrishGuy that many of the articles whose links he deleted were in fact written by published authors and recognized authorities. He then raised the issue that these links might be copyright violations.

In fact, until IrishGuy mentioned it, the issue of copyright violation hadn't occurred to me. I guess I was distracted by IrishGuy's arrogant attitude and his obvious ignorance of the WP policies that he repeatedly recommended that I read up on. However, IrishGuy has no evidence that any of the linked articles are copyright violations. In one case, the editor of the website speaks of interviewing the author of the book being excerpted ("I asked Dr. Mayer to tell us a little about the book...) [89] -- that certainly implies the original author's involvement in the website article. In another, the article is said to come from a yet-to-be-published book [90]. That too strongly suggests the original author's involvement. If there is a WP policy against linking to articles that might contain copyright violations, I'm not aware of it.

I apologize to the WP community for my insulting language. I believe IrishGuy owes the community an apology for his unjustified wholesale deletions of valid content. RedSpruce 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No policy against spamming? How about WP:SPAM. Again, I don't have to prove that they are copyright violations...the blog itself doesn't give any reason to believe otherwise. What you quote could be a simply cut and paste from another source. Even if it isn't, interviewing soemone doesn't give you the right to copy a book to a blog. Even within your answer you are incivil. Once again, please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy, your endless and inappropriate repetitions of "please read..." are insulting and a form of personal attack. Please desist or I will be forced to post a warning on your Talk page. Thanks. RedSpruce 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you clearly do need to read the civility guidelines...as well as WP:SPAM, WP:EL, etc. Two other editors have agreed and warned you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The debate on the validity of the "Film Noir of the Week" page as an external link has been continued here: User talk:RedSpruce#Film Noir of the Week page. I am actively soliciting input from anyone who can offer any rational argument that addresses the points I've raised here and on my Talk page. (Hints: Saying "you're wrong because X number of people have said you're wrong" is not a rational argument. Saying "all of your arguments have been addressed, you just aren't listening" is not a rational argument when it's not true.) RedSpruce 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren blocked

Digwuren continues to edit war despite several blocks in the past. He has recently been edit warring at Denial of Soviet occupation. Therefore, I've blocked for two weeks (his most recent block was for one). As Digwuren is involved in a current Arbcom case, there may need to be arrangements to unblock him for this reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you chose to block only him and not also Anonimu (talk · contribs) with 4 reverts in 24h ([91], [92], [93], [94]) and a far longer block log? -- Sander Säde 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1.The first diff is my first edit on the page and my {{or}} was brand new (no rv) 2. The second is a rv indeed. 3. Since H2O said in his summary that "No, a referenced article that has every right to be kept", i decided to drop the OR and ask for a reference that, judging by H2O's tone, wasn't hard to get. Not a revert, in my opinion. The two tags have different meanings. (no rv) 4.The fourth can be considered a partial revert. Thus I have one revert and a half, plus some suggestion of compromise.Anonimu 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. Digwuren was unblocked for no apparent reason within five hours after the block, arranged the promotion of a recently deleted POV fork to GA, and created a bunch of inflammatory templates (speedied by now). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The conflict between you and Diwurgen has an ArbCom case. Please try to avoid posting inflammatory accusations of one another on this forum for the duration of this case, we have had enough of those in the past.

With regards to the article in question, protection (due to warring by several editors) is much better than singling one of them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Bamadude

• Bamadude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This relatively new editor got into a dispute with Croctotheface and me over Taxi (TV series). Now, he seems to be following me around reverting my edits out of spite (the last one on Taxi and one on My Fair Lady (film)). (He was also kind enough to warn me about the 3RR rule, though apparently 8 were okay for him.) Seems to have been an isolated incident, so let it slide. Clarityfiend 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This complaint was actually about 3 different users (assuming these accounts aren't sockpuppets as they usually don't edit at the same time) who harassed me because they didn't like my edits, and used the "letter of the law" (so to speak) to revert my edits by arguing over WP:MOS. I agree that I unknowingly made at least one edit that went against the manual of style and I relented after my research, but that's not the real issue here - it's just a smokescreen by those users to win at least a little ground in an edit war, a "tweak of my nose" if you will. Apparently the edit war has been settled as I relented since the content is essentially 99% my edits anyway.--Bamadude 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing COI tags

Fredsmith2 (talk · contribs) doesn't like COI tags.[95][96] That's fine, but he's started removing tags willy nilly without always fixing the underlying problems. This is potentially disruptive. I left him a stern warning, but he hasn't given me much respect (maybe because I'm just a puny editor). If not for the snarky comment he made at the template talk page, I'd chalk this up to lack of experience, but my feeling is that I need backup. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I added my two cents. Hopefully he gets a better grasp of what he is asking before pushing any further. Spryde 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if what he's doing is that out of order. He could be a little nicer about it, but describing the practice of tagging rather than fixing a problem as "lazy" is entirely appropriate. Neil ム 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I wish you'd go over to WP:COIN and fix some of those problems yourself. I haven't seen you over there lately. This is a volunteer project, so it's rude to call other people lazy. Sometimes an article needs to be completely rewritten because it's riddled with peacock terms, and lacks sourcing. That can take a lot of time. My complaint isn't with the user's opinion, it's with his actions which are an end run around consensus policy. Stripping tags because you don't like them is very disruptive. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any activity since this report was made. Maybe he'll get the message. Follow up if the problem continues. Durova^Charge! 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On "tagging but not fixing", sometimes in my RCP I spot an article that clearly needs some kind of clean up, but I'm working on fighting vandalism at the time. Surely it's better to let people know that it needs some clean up, rather than let it sit in a poor state? The other reason someone may tag an article but not work on it is that they know enough to know it needs work, but not feel confident enough (or in fact know they don't have the appropriate skills) to perform the cleanup themselves. Again, I think tagging articles is appropriate, in order to let someone who does have the time, energy, knowledge, and skill to do the work. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On each of my three edits on articles with COI tags, I contributed to the pages by a combination of two or more of the following: 1) putting more appropriate tags, 2) adding comments to the talk pages, 3) by expanding the article, 4) adding references, 5) cleaning up the article. I think that the claim of my edits being willy nilly is unfounded. If you have a better discusson than calling my edits willy nilly, I would love any constructive feedback. None of the three pages that I removed the COI tags from had proof they actually were COI, or comments in the talk page by the person who had tagged them originally, about them being COI. Most were just poorly written. Fredsmith2 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you visit the pages in question and check the edit history, you will see multiple edits on each by a userid that suggests a close relationship to the subject. Additionally, the articles had a promotional tone. Do you understand the nature of my concerns in light of your comments at Template talk:COI2? To be clear, I am not stressed, but just want you to see that there is a consensus to keep these tags, and that there are sometimes good reasons to use them. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Better to tag it an an advertisement, in my opinion, than a COI. You have very clear evidence of advertisement, but unclear evidence of COI. But that's really more for the discussion page.

So, I'm feeling kind of picked on here. All I did was try to fix up three articles that had the COI tag, and express my opinion about the COI tag on the template talk page at the same time. I don't really feel "That's fine, but he's started removing tags willy nilly without always fixing the underlying problems." accurately describes my sincere effort to try to improve those three articles. I'm always try to contribute content to wikipedia, and I feel like I'm being labeled as someone that's removing good content from wikipedia. What's the term for those folks, by the way? Fredsmith2 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely not being labeled as something bad. You're a good editor. Please don't feel insulted. Let's take this discussion back to the talk page where it started. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

TOR point violations

There's at least one editor currently going around abusing the unblock template on talk pages for TOR proxies. An example is User talk:69.57.148.76. I have issued warnings and will now simply be reverting these WP:POINT violations and temporarily semiprotecting the talk pages if this continues. --Yamla 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that your behaviour is very bad, Yamla. Not only this particular case, but your activity as an admin on WP as a whole. Anyway, thanks for protecting talk pages only for 24h, I will come back tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.156.172 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:POINT violations continue. Now, the user is linking to an off-Wikipedia attack site. Anonymous user, if you have a point to raise, please do so. Your WP:POINT violations are inappropriate. --Yamla 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious WP:POINT. This user is having no trouble editing (as evidenced by the IP used above), and is familiar enough with policy to be a regular contributor. If you want to propose a change, please do so at the proper policy page. The Evil Spartan 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Banning of Skatewalk (user)

• Could this incident get a second look by some unbiased admins? The basis of the ban is ridiculous. Link: [97]

Funkynusayri 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• A "strong suggestion" from a checkuser that the two users of the same is good enough for me, when you couple it with the user's protests that his IP is and was his, and his alone. --Haemo 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bots not picking up unlicensed images

I notice that at the moment, User:OrphanBot has stopped doing anything since last night. I think it might have been giving its work User:STBotI. However, 90% of the new images being uploaded that aren't tagged aren't being hit by StlBot: e.g.: [98]. This is a very big problem, as a glutton of unlicensed images are being missed. The Evil Spartan 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you'd notified me directly. I wasn't aware that OrphanBot had stopped running. The bot's working again, and it should have the backlog cleared in the next few hours. --Carnildo 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 205.221.155.74

The user with the IP Address 205.221.155.74 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.221.155.74) is now on his/her sixth consecutive vandalism today. Every one of the user's edits are vandalisms and he or she has already received one warning. It's not my position of warn or block the IP, but I think someone should take a look at it. Tserton 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to report this, but briefly; if they've not received a final warning, it's inappropriate to block. If you feel they warrant a warning, add the appropriate template to their talk page. If they vandalise after a fourth (final) warning, submit a report to WP:AIV. In this case, I've issued a level 2 warning - I don't see anything (yet) to warrant a block. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, anyone can warn another editor, as long as there is justification. Also, I've tagged this IP as belonging to a K12.--Sethacus 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF is a K12? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends... It's either a very tall mountain, an NIH career-development grant, or in this case, I believe, an educational institution comprising kindergarten through 12th grade. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you learn something every day. That would be what used to be called "a school", then? — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A side note: Iridescent, please read the archived section on JzG's leaving. It talks about formalism and warnings for nothing but the sake of formalism. ThuranX 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I watched the conversation unfold - but I don't really agree that "warning for the sake of warning" is a bad thing. Plenty of people do stop vandalising after a couple of warnings and go on to provide valid content, who if we blocked right away would leave altogether. Particularly at this time of year when a lot of anon IP edits are from schools, working through the 1-2-3-4 scale can draw the teacher's attention to a problem, get the disruptive kids off the terminal and save the kids who have useful content to add from being blocked as well. Except in the case of really bad offenders (blatant sockpuppets, serious BLP violators etc) I think vandals shouldn't be blocked without a final warning. I know plenty of editors I respect don't agree, but personally I think Wikipedia's current rules do work very well; compare Wikipedia's (relative) stability to the permanent block/unblock/delete/undelete wheel-warring of somewhere like Conservapedia. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You may come to regret your position in time, but thanks for being aware of the issue as it was discussed above. ThuranX 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC) ( not a threat, just an observation about the trends discussed above growing, and more events being likely to cause regret.)

(outdenting for the heck of it.) A K12 is my stupid typo. A "K-12" is a school that services both primary and secondary school students. So, we're dealing with anywhere from kinderartners to 12th graders (K-12).-- Sethacus 03:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax article, possibly from a banned user

User:HDHandshhadsn has posted a new article called Pickles and Prickles Time which is a totally unverifiable hoax. There is a banned user who used to post nonsense articles about non-existent Cartoon Network programming; I suspect he's back under this totally useless username. --PMDrive1061 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing message at Talk:Child abuse

I ran across this message over at the talk page for Child abuse posted by a newish user named Chatterson. I know Wikipedia isn't a help line, but on the off chance this is sincere... He's since removed the message. Any thoughts on what to do? AniMate 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Call the cops. We have no idea if this is fake or real. If its real, then this is a child in need, and if this is fake, its a terribly sick joke. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I requested a CheckUser to get the user's IP address, if someone can make the call. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be worth posting a message on the user's page saying that if it is serious, they should contact appropriate authorities, if it's a joke, it's not funny. Please note that the user blanked his earlier post. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But do we have any guarantee they're still on that account? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio by Geniusd402

The above user has been uploading copyrighted images of Alexz Johnson to show her appearance in violation of WP:NFCC#1, ignoring talk page warnings. To circumvent the WP:NFCC#1 criterion, he began uploading these images under fraudulent free license, which I warned him about on his talk page. Not long after I warned him, he uploaded Image:Alexz lauren2.jpg under fraudulent free licnese (the image even has the watermark of the copyright holder) and inserted it into the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IP editor removing valid sources from an article

I noticed King Kong Appears in Edo earlier at AFD, and some references were added as a result of the AFD keep getting deleted by an IP editor. I checked the references and they are reliable, one of them is text taken from a reference book about King Kong which mentions this movie (there are actually two books which reference this film in Gooble books). Can this article be protected, at least until the AFD is over, because the IP editor seems to be removing the references in order to influence the AFD, ie make the article look unreferenced, so less likely to be kept? Masaruemoto 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. People can dispute them on the talk page, or at the AfD — just not in an edit war. --Haemo 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

POV forks, Dokdo and East Sea

A suspected sockpuppet of Fixersfixers is creating POV forks for Dokdo and East Sea. They are using multiple accounts, to vandalize these articles.--Endroit 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the culprits so far:

• Fixersfixers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
• VANKassociation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Listream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fixingpeople‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indef blocked)

--Endroit 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked them all as obvious sockpuppets used to evade the original Fixersfixers block. — TKD::Talk 06:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action.--Endroit 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another obvious sockpuppet, Beautifulshout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), appeared just now and proceeded to vandalize admins' user pages, so I've filed a checkuser request to see whether there are any common underlying IPs that can be blocked. — TKD::Talk 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think he did wrong thing, but I was looking at your Endroit's contribution, and found out that many times, you have been not keeping NPOV similar to Nlu. Well, then how can you say that to keep NPOV to other users? Also, Wikipedia needs to keep article close as possible to historical facts then to be NPOV. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirFrance358 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing Harassment by Matt57

Some time ago Matt57 and Elonka got into a dispute over images of Muhammad. Matt57 hasn't been able to let go. After Elonka's unsuccessful Rfa (which I supported, and he opposed), Matt57 has been harassing Elonka by attempting to delete articles about her family members. He's editing tendentiously, in spite the fact that several uninvolved editors and administrators have asked him to find something else to do. This eventually led to a recent exchange on Durova's talk page where Matt57 was disrupting, badgering and generally being incivil. I warned him very politely, as did Durova, and his response was this ugly rudeness. RfA blackballing is a disgusting tactic that should not be tolerated. "Agree with me, or I'll vote against you," has a chilling effect on editors and harms the encyclopedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, please leave your bad faith accusations of harrassment and incivility aside. I asked Durova for an opinion on Jan Czarnowski, she said she didnt want to give one and I didnt ask her again. Whats the big deal now? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading through that exchange, I don't think "I asked Durova for an opinion on Jan Czarnowski, she said she didnt want to give one and I didnt ask her again" really adequately describes what you were actually doing there. I have zero involvement here, but from reading that link it sure looks like you are fishing for a reaction from Durova (essentially demanding she AFD an article) rather than asking a good faith question. Your response to Jehochman (talk · contribs) was fairly inappropriate as well. Perhaps it is time for you to disengage. Beyond that I'll simply add that asking others to assume good faith is predicated on you yourself actually trying to do that as well.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disengaged already. Jehochman and Durova raised a fuss over nothing. I was threatened two times again with a block all over this. I had already said there that I wont ask Durova again to evaluate the article since she didnt want to, so I did disengage. They responded very nicely with threatening blocks. So again, I dont get the fuss. I should have been the one to complain of them harrassing me because being threatened with blocks like this over nothing, is harrassment. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. What precipitated this exchange was a complaint Matt had posted to Jimbo's talk page, essentially in the same vein that a variety of impartial and experienced Wikipedians have been asking him to stop for months. I shouldn't have to say no three times, followed by a warning to complain to ANI, for Matt to lay off. And he didn't lay off - he just went over to Jehochman and tried to intimidate an excellent editor because Jehochman had supported me. If it weren't for the fact that the action could be construed as bias, I would have blocked Matt57 for WP:POINT long ago. I was one of Elonka's conominators at RFA. Really this has gone too far and it's time to use the tools. Requesting a block on Matt57 by an uninvolved sysop. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A block for what again? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Severe harrassment and disrupting wikipedia to make a point. You are very very close to a block so proceed with caution. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, talking about the Jan Czarnowski article wasnt a disruption as Jehochman pointed out. It was simply another non-notable family spam article. These are all bad faith accusations that Durova and Jehochman are making on me.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been going on for ages now, that's why it's getting serious. Each individual thing that has come to this board in recent months regarding your behaviour could be considered minor, but added up, they ammount to a serious campaign of harrassment that no wikipedian should have to put up with. Please Matt, just drop all this. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am far too jaded by far too may encounters with Matt57 and reading the tone of dialogue with others to even suggest that I could venture an impartial opinion here. I will however express my highly partisan views of Matt57. He is an aggressive and disruptive editor with a focus on middle east and Islamic topics where he demontrates a strong POV and hostility to those who do not share it. Indeed that even seem to extend to resentment of those who suggest compromises or try to mediate disputes in that area. His response to those who disagree with him are various pointY activities designed to harass and disrupt. For example, when he dislike the support rationale of User:A.Z., he opposed all RfA that editor had supported in protest. He uses the potential of opposing people at RfA as a stick with which to beat them [99] and shows a disturbing obsession with those he has had disagreements with. His feud with Elonka is one sided and petty - instead of trusting to the community's ability to impartially solve notability and OR issues with articles she (by her own admission) improperly edited or created a year ago, he decided to make that his personal crusade. He removed sourced material from those articles (refusing to accept the counsel of more experienced editors that inline citation are not required by police) and goaded her on her talkpage on multiple occasions. Despite being asked numerous times to stop by at least 8 separate admins (including those who have been strong opponents of Elonka in the past) he continued and responded by making wild accusations against those who criticised him, rather than heading their concern. His only supporter has been revealed to be a sanction evading sockpuppet. His forum shopping has included a post to the help desk making unfounded challenges to Elonka's editorial technique, and recently an abusrd appeal on Jimbo's talkpage. His conduct is nasty, disruptive and small minded - his obsession with Elonka entirely personal and inappropriate. Matt57's attitude to this project is disruptive and totally at odds with trying to create a collegial and co-operative environment. WjBscribe 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not an uninvolved party here. All the things you said are disputes that all of us have in our history. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I seems clear to me (an uninvolved admin) that Matt is in need a break from Wikipedia (or rather Wikipedia is in need of a break from Matt). I'd say a month or two would be a good start before we went indef. Thoughts? -- John Reaves 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly support 1 month to start with and any future harassment escalating accordingly. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with John... it might be time for a break, be it voluntary or involuntary.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is the alleged 'harrassment'? This is really intimidation of the highest degree. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll repeat it here: Please show me specifically the alleged criminal behavior from me that is being complained about. Whats the evidence? What did I do, other than engage in disputes that all of us do at one point or the other anyway? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At one point or the other, yes, but I think one view might be that you seem to be permanently in a state of dispute in multiple locations. I should also note that I, like you, strongly opposed Elonka's RfA and as far as I can remember have never personally been in a dispute with you (just watched from a distance, mainly during the DavidYork business where you were restoring edits by socks of a banned user). Orderinchaos 16:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The same banned editor who I myself later supported for an indef ban and even marked some of his sock puppets due to his continued swastika trolling etc. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked Matt57 for one month per this discussion. The comments on Jehockman's talk page are clearly a threat and I'm getting tired of all the disruption that seems to be connected to this user. As always, any other admin is welcome to unblock or vary the block to reflect any change to consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this block, as Matt57 is clearly editing in a highly tendentious manner (more so than usual, at any rate). Vassyana has declined the unblock request. A month of peace and quiet beckons, hopefully. Moreschi ^Talk 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's nice to see that the system works. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As an univolved observer, I endorse this action regarding Matt57. I suggest that if it continues after his enforced break, that WP:CSN would be the place for a discussion of future sanctions. --Rocksanddirt 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As another uninvolved (except only for supporting Elonka's RfA) nonadmin observer, I also fully endorse this block. This editor's tendentious stalking, POV pushing and countering demonstrations of his troubling edit patterns with the equivalent of "show me that demonstrations of my troubling edit patterns demonstrate my troublesome editing patterns" is exhausting the patience of many, many good editors, as well as me, and making me lurkingly wonder what on earth he has to do to get blocked (til now). If he entertains the idea of falling back to similar insistence on his own righteousness, I offer him two suggestions: if you genuinely think you are in the right, consider this discussion and block action to be proof you are wrong; on the other hand, if you indeed know better, then please instead get yourself a blog or something—both you and wikipedia will be better off for it.

There has been a lot of heat generated lately by discussion of how impotent wikipedia seems to be in handling editors who game the system. Hopefully this will resort to a little bit of light. I am not usually this adamant about disputes, and indeed have seen worse, but for the sake of defense from future wikigamers, this type of exploitation of process cannot be merely wristslapped. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Tend to endorse. I will go on record saying that I'm not unbiased here — I like Matt, and my interactions with him endeared him to me; he's a dedicated editor with a strong opinion. However, the pattern of behavior which I've seen from him over the past several months has not been productive; dare I say it, even disruptive. "Tendentious" is perhaps the best word. --Haemo 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is a difference though between an editor with a strong opinion and tendentiously trying to pick fights with editors that one has conflicted with. There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion; but Matt seems to have crossed over into the latter territory, and not just in this specific situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Indeed, this isn't the first time, nor the first time that he has been warned (our last Elonka related discussion and this. Honestly, I'm surprised at how long the community had put up with this disruptive wikistalking - he was supposed to let go of the Elonka articles after the last ANI discussion, and that was kind considering that he'd already been warned for such behavior. We've given him enough chances to change and show more respect, but he just never let go. The Behnam 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Durova Elonka is permitted to flood wikipedia with articles about her family, when that family does not pass the notability threshold. One of these silly articles is the subject of a current AfD which has about a dozen delete votes: [100]. A month block for upholding wikipedia guidelines is another reflection on the current crop of admins. Arrow740 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm- (1) I think it was Elonka, not Durova you meant to make the accusation against, (2) her edits to those articles were all about a year ago and she accepts that this created WP:COI and WP:AUTO problems and has agreed to no longer edit them (so its really up to everyone except Elonka whether those articles should stay on Wikipedia or not), and (3) surely that discussion (with which Matt57 has not been involved) shows that he can step back and let the community deal with the matter rather than continuing a campaign of harassment against fellow editors? WjBscribe 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If she has recused herself from those articles, then Matt's cleaning-house there is not a campaign of harassment against her. Arrow740 07:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons the community has near-unanimity about this block is that this rather transparently was a campaign of harassment against her. Among other things, Matt repeatedly challenged her to edit those pages and refused to accept her explanation about how once she became aware of WP:COI she stopped editing them. His history didn't show an interest in biography articles generally, just people who were related to her and only after she had tried to find middle ground in a dispute where he had taken a very hard line. Although the community was divided about her bid for administratorship, there's near unanimity for this block and some expressions that it was a long time coming. Durova^Charge! 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are taking the side of the only one of the two of them to actually violate wikipedia guidelines. I am not aware of the context of the "repeated challenges" and I would guess that they were in response to something Elonka said. Arrow740 19:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, it appears that you're very much unaware of the context. Elonka made some mistakes when she was a new editor. She admits that freely and she came into compliance with site standards by - among other things - ceasing to edit these articles. One of the reasons this long block has near-unanimous support is that Matt's challenges weren't in response to any provocation by Elonka. He simply decided to target her. Durova^Charge! 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Fortunately for all concerned, I'm descended from a long line of beer drinking peasants. None of them have Wikipedia articles. ;) Durova^Charge! 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused; can you expand on what you are asking by surely that discussion (with which Matt57 has not been involved) shows that he can step back and let the community deal with the matter rather than continuing a campaign of harassment against fellow editors? Yahel Guhan 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support a long block, based on the LAST time we all went through the 'Matt57 going after Elonka' thing. Wasn't that just a month ago? two months? this sort of thing just goes back to the JzG section above about long term tendentious editing not being stopped due to ridiculous warning:time ratios. Block him long term. Let him find a new hobby or new perspective on things. ThuranX 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)