Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive191

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Noticeboard archives  v • d • e • h 

Community sanction archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Administrators' archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Incidents archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Sock puppet problem - User:Rjensen

It would seem that User:Rjensen has used two sock puppet accounts (User:Obow2003 and User:Jozil) several times in votes to create the illusion of consensus. All the edits of Obow and Jozil have been in votes in which Rjensen also voted (see diff, diff, diff, and diff for examples), and their language and style of writing style suggests that they are the same people. Even if they are not, it is obvious that Rjensen has asked these people to vote (making the accounts meat puppets). However, it is my belief that they are all sock puppets of Rjensen. The accounts have absolutely no edits in the main space, so this is the only logical explanation. A more detailed report is filed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjensen, but there is a huge backlog there, so I posted here in hope of getting a quicker response. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Rjensen is a problem. He tried to purge the Henry Ford article of any association between Ford and Hitler - In the face of ALL reason and established RS-V sourcing. His justification was that he had *one* book that he thinks says everything there is to say about Hitler that didn't mention it. In fact he just tried the same edits again this week. This in spite of voluminous sourcing I found, and posted to talk. I am not the only editor of the article who opposes this revisionism, either. --BenBurch 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Caliendo - vandalism

An anonymous editor (special:contributions/130.127.230.167 and special:contributions/66.191.54.91) keeps adding junk about football predictions to the Frank Caliendo article and getting rude to people who revert it. --rogerd 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

diffs as necessary, please. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure 130.127.230.167 - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Plus blanking [11] [12] [13]
66.191.54.91 - [14] [15] [16] [17]
Also, as part of dispute resolution, I have posted on the talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, but got no response either place, so I posted here. --rogerd 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered dispute resolution? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is what I am doing - first the talk page, next a project page, and now I've brought it here --rogerd 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I was implying WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFC. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Content!!

{{helpme}} When you print out the Wikipedia page on Saudi Arabia, some racist/hateful text appears right before the section marked "Cities." The text does not appear when looking at the page online - ONLY when you print it out. Who can I talk to about this? How can this be changed?? Please help! Rememberfeb 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question at the help desk. The vandalism seems to have been removed. See WP:REVERT for how to help with this in the future — Deon555talkdesksign here! 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Try going to the print out version at [18] and clicking the refresh button while holding down shift. That should refresh the browser's cache, which means the text should disappear from the computer. Part Deux 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NLP update – COI - domination and incivility - mediation possibilities

Hello all. Further to the previous 5 notifications [19] [20] [21] [22] [23].– here is an update. Pro nlp editors seem to have changed tack and decided to move - remove - or delete any discussion relating to the long term goals civility. Despite encouragement by at least one admin [24] towards NPOV summarization - domination by pro nlp editors is currently virtually absolute. Mediation by a neutral mediator seems to be more relevant - though these ANI notifications seem to at least be preventing the more basic facts from being removed from the article. The main critical views remain obscured through minimization - crowding out with non-criticisms - and selective editing. The can be fairly easy to present encyclopedically so long as editors work to summarize according to NPOV policies. It seems that the pro NLP group is strongly reluctant to allow this activity.

User Comaze is removing any information from his talkpage and from the NLP talkpage concerning his known COI [25][26][27]. He also seems to be deliberately dominating the talkpage – restating other editor’s headings – accusing me of 3RR (no evidence) [28] and again removing any goal or intention relating to solving the suppression of information issues [29]. Comaze’s activities seem to me to be deliberately disruptive.

Comaze and user 58.178.144.161 are dominating the NLP article by removing any critical information placed there – and by restoring argumentative writing [30]

In order to circumvent COI and meatpuppetry issues they are continuing to accuse me of sockpuppetry when evidence of sockpuppetry is completely absent (I am clearly working on my own and discouraging sockpuppetry – meatpuppetry – or any other such group domination behaviour). [31] [32]

They are also resisting peer review recommendations to add images and so on [33]

They seem to be uninterested in/dismissive of getting along with editors of a different view. In the interests of encouraging discourse which enables editors of all views to get along and be civil long term I don’t suggest a community ban on Comaze or 58.178.144.161. I will apply for mediation from a neutral mediator if the dominating group are interested. AlanBarnet 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comaze - despite being reminded of his known COI [34] – is continuing to make promotional edits concerning NLP on other articles [35].
Comaze is presently unwilling to go for mediation or a third party opinion and is failing to assume good faith [36] [37].
I would give him time to correct his mistake though. I believe its important to adopt an atmosphere where editors can see sense and foster long term civility whatever the worldview or interests. A conflict of interests does not have to mean the editor will always work completely against Wikipedias interests - even though the history of that editor seems to show a self-serving habit. AlanBarnet 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am at one's wits' end. AlanBarnet could seek 3rd party comment on content disputes. I am unwilling to communicate directly with AlanBarnet or go to mediation (or back to arbcom) at this stage. We already have a peer-review and cleanup taskforce working on the article. I hope you forgive me for ignoring this editor. --Comaze 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I'm glad you took the opportunity to discuss. I see no reason why any editor should legitimately have any problem at all with discussing the peer review and Cleanuptaskforce recommendations [38]. I also see no reason why an editor should legitimately be worried about discussing how to edit in a way that the "various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." according to the information suppression section of the NPOV tutorial [39].

You now seem to be sending mixed messages. You retracted this comment which seems to me to mean that according to you I am supposed to prove good faith before you accept a 3rd party opinion [40]. Does this mean now you are assuming good faith and wish a 3rd party opinion? That would be fine with me - but I first want to give you the opportunity to show that you can be a party willing to resolve disputes without the need for outside help.

I am encouraging civil discourse with you and the other pro NLP editors using these ANI messages because so far they seem to be doing some good (mostly by showing that at least one editor welcomes the scrutiny of administrators on the NLP article long term). As far as I understand - admin prefer to be patient and allow disputes to resolve with the help of willing involved parties. I intend to be constructive in this way long term as long as there is no objection from admin - and I encourage other editors to do the same.

You and other members of the pro NLP group have accused me of sockpuppeting eg [41] (actually only four regulars (you, 50, Doc pato, and Fainites) and only user 58 has been doing this disruptively and uncivilly on a regular basis). Here is the policy on sockpuppeting [42] which shows the reasonable intention behind the sockpuppet policy. The pro NLP group may well be considered a kind of sock or meatpuppet group. But if you are willing to work with editors who have other worldviews to yourself - such as myself - without trying to dominate - disrupt - or be uncivil - and as long as you work towards NPOV policy without suppression of information or argumentative editing [43]- then I believe administrators may be more accepting of your presence as a group with COI issues.

I noticed on the NLP talkpage you mention that there is now consensus on the need to summarize the research on NLP [44]. So feel free to discuss how to summarize according to NPOV policies. Also - feel free to discuss other issues relating to peer review - Cleanuptaskforce recommendations - or solving the information suppression issues either here or on the NLP talkpage. AlanBarnet 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason editors are careful about summarizing research or other views is because it makes the site more vulnerable to the activities of longterm abuser HeadleyDown, known for misleading summaries, false citations and false references - still a problem with sockpuppets. Full accurate quotes from researchers (nearly all of which are critical of NLP by the way) are more difficult for sockpuppets to falsify (as shown by recent attempts [45]) because all the other editors have access to the research papers. The extension from accusations that Comaze has a COI to an accusation that anyone who thinks AlanBarnet is a sockpuppet is part of a COI 'group' is bizarre.Fainites 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Ramirez72

User talk:Ramirez72 has been adding the Philippines on the infobox of Spanish language which implies the language is spoken widely when it is not; in fact only 0.01% of the Philippine population speaks Spanish as per the 2000 Census. --Howard the Duck 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I have tried to stay out of the debate, but Ramirez72 (talk • contribs)'s behavior has been less than stellar. He has twice engaged in personal attacks ([46] [47]), continually reverts the page with the insistence that his version is "Fine", and exhibits something of an agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_language&diff=prev&oldid=104512627). He has stopped the personal attacks since I left a warning on his page, but hasn't stopped edit warring. JuJube 08:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It should not be there. 0.01% of the population is a frightfully small amount. And given this edit [48] ("fuck you carajo!") and his earlier pledges to keep re-adding it anonymously, I have blocked the user for a week. Any further crap will see an indefinite block. Proto::► 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • He is currently editing as 58.106.129.47 (talk • contribs) in evasion of his block. JuJube 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werdna's RfA

Please see the latest question posted at the RfA. I've asked User:Konstable for a specific diff or diffs. --Dweller 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? The question's about IRC. yandman 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I (now) presume the question is about the top result on the Google page he linked to... --Dweller 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. The ArbCom decision clearly says no links to ED are allowed. In this case Konstable was simply using Google as a link echo. Anyone who thinks they can trust the authenticity of logs published on ED is out of their mind. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you blank the entire question? I've reverted it, removing the link and explaining why. It's unfair to censor a legitimate (and serious) question just because of the link provided. yandman 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
With all invalid evidence removed, the entire question is just defamation with no support whatsoever. It's clearly not acceptable. Yardman, let's say you go through an RFB and I ask you the question of whether you've stopped beating your wife ... should I honestly expect the question to stand? --Cyde Weys 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Cyde, there's no need for straw men here. The "Are you still beating your wife?" question only works as intended when the response is limited to one word, "Yes" or "No". In fact, a response of "I've never beat my wife. Do you have any evidence or is this completely baseless" will cause it to backfire in short order. Werdna can respond however he wants to this question, so I see little need to remove it. ChazBeckett 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's still a damaging question though, and it will put doubt into some people's minds regardless of what the answer is. "Wow, they're asking him if he's beating his wife now, I don't think I like this guy ..." --Cyde Weys 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Konstable didn't ask Werda why he made these comments; he asked him if he made them. Therefore, your analogy is inapplicable. —David Levy 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, because it has no relevance to being a good bureaucrat. Anyway, it isn't defamation: Konstable makes it clear that he does not trust the logs 100% ("Is that really you?"). Let Werna reply: you must admit that if it is a fake, it's a very good one: the tone and technical expertise are spot on. yandman 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert the question. Any oversighters in the house? :-) --Kim Bruning 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would an "oversighter" be needed? ChazBeckett 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
How's this? It seems pointless to make a fuss over it, and obviously with that censor language people will know where to go to get them, so I blurred it a bit more. And those logs are legit by the way, I was there. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming these are real, what's to say they aren't taken out of context? Werdna obviously didn't do any of these things allegedly being said by him, so what is the big deal? I've idly speculated on the best way to make a vandalbot myself. It's an interesting topic. But it would be a terrible thing if those logs somehow materialized here and were read by people who didn't realize I'd never actually do those things, and suddenly, things on-wiki are being unduly influenced. --Cyde Weys 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We don’t like legal threats either. Even when anyone actually never do take legal action. --Van helsing 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Non sequitur. Legal threats are very damaging in their own right, and are used to coerce people into making different actions. --Cyde Weys 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the question again. Comments on IRC (by themselves) are not cause for on-wiki action (which is why we don't post IRC logs on the wiki), and throwing around unsubstantiated accusations is just trolling, and sullies the entire RFA process. Philwelch 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And I restored it again. This is not an accusation; it's a question asked in good faith. Your personal opinion that it's irrelevant doesn't give you the right to make that decision on behalf of the community.
Incidentally, your use of the administrative rollback function to revert my edit (as though I'd committed vandalism) was highly inappropriate. —David Levy 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It is an accusation in the form of a question, and an attempt to introduce suspect evidence into consideration. With the evidence rightly removed, it is just an unsubstantiated accusation. Anyone who restores the question again will be blocked. Philwelch 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Under what policy would that be acceptable? Heimstern Läufer 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1. It is not a loaded question. Konstable plainly acknowledged that the log might not be authentic and merely inquired as to whether or not it is.
2. Your administrative rollbacks were bad enough, but I'm absolutely stunned by your decision to block me (the first time that I've ever been blocked) after you violated the 3RR in your editing dispute with me. —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To eliminate the appearance of bias, I've recused my vote in support of Werdna. Philwelch 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How does that eliminate the appearance of bias? We already know where you stand on the issue. —David Levy 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to remove your !vote, and I'd urge you to reinstate it. There can be disagreement about including the question or not, but that doesn't affect anyone's right (and I'd say obligation if he or she has a strong view) to express an opinion on an RfA. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Per User talk:Philwelch. I see that Steel has now blocked Philwelch for 3 hours for "disrupting Werdna's RfA." I do not know that this is going to have a calming effect on the situation. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He unblocked David Levy as well. --Majorly (o rly?) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I had not seen that Philwelch had blocked David Levy—for 24 hours for "trolling," no less. I see no justification, either in policy or pragmatically, for either block. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Philwelch had reverted that page four times, and thus Steel's block could presumably be justified under 3RR. Whether or not it was a good idea is a bit more suspect, I'll admit, but it looks to me like it fits policy. Heimstern Läufer 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, though don't object to unblocking if Philwelch agrees to stop blocking and using rollback on other editors he's fighting with. -- Steel 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Noted, although 3RR was not mentioned in the block summary. But when a contested matter is under active discussion here, I see no need for anyone to be acting unilaterally, much less blocking other admins. I find Philwelch's block of David Levy much more troublesome, although I think both sides have valid points on the merits of the underlying dispute. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your concerns are the same ones underlying my remark about "whether or not it was a good idea". Heimstern Läufer 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Phil should definitely have not blocked the user he was warring with does not negate the fact that David Levy, an experienced user, racked up three reverts himself and should have known better. I'm uncomfortable with blocking one and not the other as if only the one was wrong. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What policy did I violate? —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that a serious question? You have suggested that four reverts was wrong, but that your three reverts are not even a little bit wrong. 3RR is absoutely not an entitlement, and asking what "policy" you violated (yes, edit warring is against policy) sincerely disappoints me. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Phil's edits (continually removing another editor's good-faith question and personally attacking that individual by referring to it as "trolling") bordered on vandalism. Nonetheless, I had no intention of reverting a fourth time (let alone a fifth), nor would I have blocked an editor with whom I was engaged in an editing dispute. —David Levy 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a simple solution: unblock both users and leave the question off the RfA page. Let's bury this controversy; we don't need another argument. — Deckiller 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sweep the dirt under the rug? How would that be constructive? —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's too late anyway; the dirt has accumulated to ridiculous amounts. — Deckiller 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely do not unblock Philwelch, regardless of the end result of the question. JS rollback on a legitimate edit is an absolutely unacceptable action, especially in a dispute. -- Renesis (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, and I see he also blocked the user he was in conflict with. I would have gone for a longer block than 3 hours. -- Renesis (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have been reaching to block anyone, but of course Philwelch did it first in this instance, and this isn't his first controversial block. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This question reads to me like a distasteful attempt at poisoning the well, and an abuse of the RfA system. RfA exists solely for the community to come to the best decision about a candidate. It is not a place to get your kicks in. To that end, if you disagree with someone, make a dispassionate remark to that effect. If you truly have a question that you need answered before you can know whether you will support, ask it reasonably. If it's a damning supposition that you found with a Google search, but you still, for some reason, feel you must ask it, use some tact and ask by email or talk page. Posting unqualified speculation at the top of an RFA i the kind of thing you do if you want to derail an RFA, not decide where you stand, and it's the tacit acceptance of such behavior because commenters should be free to say or ask whatever hurtful things they want without challenging that's kind thing that makes RfA such an unnecessarily stressful and nasty place sometimes. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF - I have indeed tried other means first.--Konstable 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know very well about the nature of ED, but I have been told something which made me suspect that in this case it is indeed true, though I will not present any more hear-say here. I do wish that Werdna would respond to this, rather than people on this notice board wrangling and threatening blocks on each other on irrelavent side issues of ED links / logs / RfA questions, etc. So stop this thread now, wait for Werdna.--Konstable 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor note to no one in particular: I shoved it back in, let Werdna decide whether or not to answer it. Milto LOL pia 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Phil reverted five times (twice via administrative rollback). I was in the process of typing a 3RR report when he blocked me (one of the editors with whom he was engaged in the dispute).
I suggest that Phil's block be extended slightly (not as a punitive measure, but to prevent him from causing further disruption at the RfA before it closes). —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not happy with some aspects of Philwelch's behavior, including his quickness to block and the wording of the block summary, but would support unblocking him now to participate in this discussion given that he has now promised at User talk:Philwelch not to further edit Werdna's RfA. As a process point, David Levy's observation about five reverts may be true, but when there is an active discussion underway at ANI, I submit that any related issue should be brought that that discussion, rather than somewhere like 3RR where it may come before someone who is unfamiliar with the overall controversy. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done just that. It disappoints me that otherwise reasonable administrators can be so easily trolled into blocking one another. —freak(talk) 23:21, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)
People disagree, which is fine, but I don't feel particularly trolled, nor do I believe my actions were unreasonable. -- Steel 23:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As a neutral admin who has not participated in Werdna's RFA, I reviewed the 3 hr block, and I think Steel's action was appropriate. I declined the request for unblock, as I feel the block on David Levy was innapropriate and in clear violation of WP:BLOCKnot to mention the 5 reverts. I had a feeling, though, that the block would be removed. C'est la vie. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't participated in that page either, and I'm not impressed with anyone's conduct today, so maybe we're on the same page. —freak(talk) 23:52, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)

You win. New policy: Personal attacks and defamation are now allowed as long as they're phrased as RFA questions. Philwelch 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks as though you win: the new policy is that violating 3RR and blocking someone with whom you're engaged in a dispute is now allowed so long as you have a friendly admin on your side. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I resent being called friendly, but to answer your question, everybody loses in this situation. —freak(talk) 00:13, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, Phil promised to stop editing the RfA page and to engage in constructive discussion. I'm very troubled by his actions, but blocks should not be punitive. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a better idea. How about: Concerns about personal attacks and defamation contained in something like RfA questions are brought to the RfA talkpage or to ANI for discussion and consensus, rather than edit-warred over to the further disruption of the RfA? Newyorkbrad 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That's an awfully laissez-faire approach toward poorly-sourced negative material about the subject of a page. Disclaimer: I'm not implying that established users (even the non-pseudonymous ones) should be protected under the same WP:BLP policy as article subjects, oh no... that would be impossible to really enforce, but let's try to show a little bit of decency, or at least some tact in RFA discussions. —freak(talk) 23:38, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)
Geez, I would love for Werdna to have the choice of answering that question or not. If your going to be an admin, you need to be ready for such things. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the explanation that you needed to be unblocked in order to post?
Accusing a good-faith editor of "trolling" is a defamatory personal attack. Inquiring as to whether or not accusations of impropriety are accurate is not. —David Levy 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, "accusations of impropriety" should be based upon a user's edits and linked to as such. An accusation conjured from a clear blue sky or an off-enwiki humor site might even be considered trolling, especially if the desired response is moral panic rather than a straight answer. —freak(talk) 23:48, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)
1. The belief that a user's off-wiki actions are inadmissible is patently false. Everyking was de-sysopped because of off-wiki actions.
2. Again, this was not an accusation. Konstable plainly acknowledged that the log may have been forged and merely asked Wedna whether or not this was the case.
3. I see no reason to believe that Konstable seeks anything other than a straight answer. The only "panic" has been from users who believe that other users will read the question and assume that Werdna is guilty of a heinous infraction. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Everyking got screwed.
2. [49]
3. You have no trouble assuming good faith of Konstable, and of our pundits at ED, but you can't assume good faith of Werdna or Phil? What has either of them done to you?
—freak(talk) 00:45, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
1. Perhaps so, but that clearly establishes that an editor's off-wiki actions (as they pertain to Wikipedia) are not irrelevant. Why should they be?
2. Yes, it's possible that the logs were forged. No one has claimed otherwise.
3. Firstly, I don't assume good faith on the part of the ED people, but that doesn't automatically mean that the log is inauthentic. Secondly, I do assume good faith on the part of Werdna. If he were to reply to the question by indicating that the log is phony, I would believe him. Thirdly, I haven't accused Phil of acting in bad faith (which isn't the same as messing up), but I think you know what he did to me. —David Levy 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Accusing a good faith editor of being a troll is a defamatory personal attack.
  • Accusing a good faith editor of trolling, despite their good faith, is not.
  • Inquiring as to whether or not accusations of impropriety are accurate is not a defamatory personal attack.
  • Inquiring as to whether or not accusations of impropriety which cannot be substantiated are.
  • Two editors fighting at cross purposes, even in good faith, is damaging to the encyclopedia. I'd rather see discussion here than anyone blocked, but if blocks were the only way to stop this, I agree with Dmcdevit.
The most germane point right now is my fourth one - are the questions/accusations of impropriety which cannot be substantiated beyond ED, an unreliable site, disruptive trolling? As another voice from the peanut gallery, I think they are and should be removed from the RFA. --InkSplotch 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1. The only substantive distinction between accusing a good faith editor of being a troll and accusing a good faith editor of trolling is that the former implies long-term actions. Both are personal attacks.
2. The IRC log appears to be authentic, but the fact that it might not be is the reason why Konstable calmly and politely inquired as to its accuracy. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you are a good faith editor. I don't think you were trolling, but rather manipulated into restoring a vindictive character assassination on the basis that it might be true. Let's face it, if you ask somebody a question like that, chances are you've already made up your mind. On a side note, what are the characteristics of an authentic-looking chat log? Timestamps with intervals proportionate to the byte count? A healthy dose of emoticons? —freak(talk) 01:06, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
1. I can't get inside Konstable's head, but I see no evidence of a "vindictive character assassination." Konstable clearly and unambiguously noted that this may have been a case of impersonation.
2. The log appears authentic because it contains very specific information (including technical specifications) to which few people are privy. Nonetheless, it may have been altered or fabricated in its entirety. Konstable didn't even imply otherwise. —David Levy 01:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people seem to be laboring under this misconception that this was a good faith editing dispute. The "question" was completely out of line. Posting it on the RFA is, as Dmcdevit noted, an attempt at poisoning the well. If we can just post completely unsubstantiated accusations on RFAs as "questions" and demand candidates to answer them, and leave those questions visible on the RFA while voting is ongoing, the entire process is invalidated. Posting the question in the first place was so incredibly disruptive that keeping it off the page is a justifiable use of administrative privileges, no different from reverting libelous article content. I did what I considered necessary and proper to protect the RFA process, and used my administrative powers for the betterment of the project. I don't apologize for being extraordinarily bold in doing so. My persistence and dedication to the project are limited, however, which is why I dropped the issue and was reluctant to post this full explanation. Philwelch 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, this was not an "accusation," nor was it pulled out of thin air. While the website in question is far from the most reliable, the log appears to authentic. Nonetheless, Konstable didn't claim that it is. Konstable calmly and politely inquired as to its accuracy (while explicitly noting that it might be a case of impersonation).
Regardless, you blocked me (an editor with whom you were engaged in an editing dispute) for "trolling." You know darn well that even if I was wrong (which I obviously dispute), I honestly believed that I was right and was acting in good faith. To block me was an egregious policy violation. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that I blocked you for disrupting and tampering with the RFA process. As the question was written when I saw it, the accusation was completely unsubstantiated. It apparently could not be substantiated without linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is apparently disallowed. Either way, either an unsubstantiated or poorly-sourced accusation of making certain remarks on IRC has no place in RFA. And it was an accusation, followed by a demand to confirm or deny it. It's inconceivable to me that intelligent people would not understand this. Philwelch 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In other words, your opinions are sacrosanct, and anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent and should be blocked for "trolling." —David Levy 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I also hasten to add that I was just about to come here and announce my block of you for purposes of administrative review, until I was wrongly blocked myself. Philwelch 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you know what? I'm actually more disturbed by your insistence that you did nothing wrong than by anything else. People make mistakes (especially in the heat of the moment), but you're calmly rationalizing your outrageous behavior and providing no indication that you don't intend to repeat it in the future. —David Levy 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not lose any more morale over this. The last thing we need is to see another handful of administrators exit stage right. —freak(talk) 00:10, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that sentiment. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have agreed not to edit the page again, I would like to ask someone to reinstate my vote before the debacle closes. Philwelch 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done so [50]. -- Steel 00:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you change it so it enumerates correctly? There's a colon after the octothorpe that needs to be removed. Philwelch 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's fixed. -- Steel 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To whoever really wants to know an answer to the question, wouldn't emailing Werdna have been so much better, rather than causing all of this? – Chacor 01:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree on this point. All of this should have been handled better from the beginning. Heimstern Läufer 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I honestly wouldn't know what to say to somebody who disagrees with Chacor's point directly above. —freak(talk) 01:17, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
Konstable does say above in this thread that he tried to reach Werdna through other means before posting the question, though he doesn't say just how. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree and that is why I did try to contact him off-wiki first.--Konstable 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys & gals - you are turning this into something huge which it is not. Has Werdna's RfA been harmed? No. Have I alleged that Werdna is a vandal? Heck no! (though some people would like to interpret it differently) Nothing productive has come from this discussion and it is only escalating into more and more personal attacks, and assumption of bad faith from all sides. This is a dead end discussion and should not be continued - it is a waste of time, it has caused disruption, nothing has come of it, and nothing will.--Konstable 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: the questions has been answered just as I had expected, and I have removed it. I have left a note here. It appears I was indeed not practising "defamation" and I did not cause "moral panic" as some have suggested.--Konstable 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please protect Seabirds

The currently featured article Seabirds is under attack from vandals. Can someone please protect it? TheQuandry 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This should be at WP:RFPP. I will list it there. PTO 02:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this at all related to the vandalism at Gull? 343gspark (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 71.109.13.160 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) have both put stuff there about "Mrs. Legind's math class" and "Scott's backpack". --Mdwyer 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's today's featured article on the main page. We should watchlist it, not protect it. Kla'quot 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name It and Frame It?

Someone keeps trying to merge content about a book to an unrelated article. There is no support on Talk:Name It and Frame It? and he added the merge tag two weeks ago and none supports a merge. Worst of all he is conflating a wikipedia list of unaccredited schools with institutions a scholar specifically labelled as degree mills. FGT2 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ball python / external link advertising

User:ArtKoen seems intent on advertising a website (see here]) that violates a number of WP:EL guidelines. The website is full of affiliate links (scroll down to see them) and articles that are available at numerous other websites, including the websites of the articles original authors.

There appears to be some sort of conflict of interest, but Arbcomm and the COI noticeboard suggested I put the notice here. Article: Ball python Jhall1468 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage message

I do not think that message 2 here is really within the spirit of the project. There is a thin line between personal opinion and hostility and that message (to my mind at least) does not match WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE. I am particular concerned about a statement that says You're at work? I think it is the solemn duty of all Wikipedians to inform employers that their employees are milking the clock and wasting valuable company time. Log in and I won't know where you work --Fredrick day 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed WeniWidiWiki's offending comment, here. I see no reason the Wikipedian community should tolerate (a) uncivil comments, (b) personal attacks against IP contributors, or (c) the very philosophy of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit any page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks have to be directed at a specific person. Do not modify my userpage again. Do not place inappropriate warning /block tags on my talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a personal attack, but it certainly goes against WP:CIVIL for any anon editor who happens to visit your userpage. Also, remember that your used page is not entirely your own. —Dgiest c 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree I removed it again. IP actually create most of our content. Biting them is harmful.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the backup. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
He's reverted me.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page:

"Censorship of opinions you disagree with is totalitarian and despicable. Only a very new or uninformed editor would think my comments or opinions are unilateral. This is an ongoing debate, and I am fully within my right to express my opinion about the matter, just as any user of a controversial userbox is". - WeniWidiWiki 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but only within the limits of Wikipedia policy. Your comment is in violation of WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not vandalize my userpage again by censoring my opinions. - WeniWidiWiki 07:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the message and protected the user page. I will leave him a message concerning my protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Do they make a barnstar for censorship and squelching dissenting opinion? - WeniWidiWiki 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki, this looks like a good time to mention StBenedictsRule. I hadn't thought of Ryulong as a stout monk before, but you get the idea. You're welcome to include both praise and criticism of Wikipedia on your talk page, but do it civilly please, or you won't be able to do it at all. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Bainer, if you are insinuating - or threatening - that I should be blocked or banned for holding unpopular opinions on what I consider broken Wikipedia policies, by all means get with it. AGF is a two way street, and obviously sarcasm is too complex a concept for many. - WeniWidiWiki 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well in this case the stout monk, rather than taking you aside for words, has protected your userpage which is more or less the same. But that's really a touch of colour to sell the analogy; the point of making the analogy in the first place was to illustrate that if you consider certain Wikipedia policies to be broken, by all means "expose the matter reasonably". Just don't get contumacious, and furthermore, don't get indignant when people take the contumaciousness poorly. --bainer (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Again, I underestimated some people's ability to detect sarcasm, and the blame for that rests solely on my shoulders. I obviously need to keep in mind that comments are easily misunderstood. Despite this, I think having templates placed on my page for personal attack, 3RR, etc. amounted to bullying by an out of line editor, and having the page locked was a bit draconian. - WeniWidiWiki 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You just need to WP:AGF and remember anything ANYONE finds in ANY WAY objectionable you have no right to express. *sighs* Wonderful, isn't it? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the fishouse

This user's contributions look like an advertising campaign to direct people to the web site.

The first submission was From the fishouse, an article about the web site. Since then, a succession of short biographical articles (example: A. J. Collins) have been created, each one linking to the web site and containing attempted links back to the From the fishouse article which are broken due to capitalization mismatch.

Notice that the articles are being added in alphabetical order at a steady pace. As I write, we're only in the D's... There are going to be a lot of them. --Tcsetattr 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop for now. - brenneman 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This user has already admitted to being an employee of the company he took his name from at Talk:James Hoch. He says he has been asked to post these bios to Wikipedia. Pretty obvious conflict of interest, aside from the fact that the articles are being used to push people to the website rather than to establish any notability for any of the poets this has created articles for. Resolute 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should delete these bios as spam. They are all unreferenced except for the link to the website. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Or even easier - speedy delete per A7. MartinDK 07:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I nominated the two and they were deleted. Can I nominate/tag the rest as well or will I be guilty of spam nomination/tagging if I do that? There are quite a number of them but they all qualify MartinDK 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Tag them all for speedy. Or just put a list of them here. Or put a list on my talk page and I'll zap them. Any way is fine. Proto::► 10:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I have posted the list on your talk page. MartinDK 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Done (apart from three, as they were properly referenced, formatted, and didn't read like adspam). Proto::► 11:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Armstrong Vandalism

The article on Lance Armstrong is a constant target for vandalism. Vandals are generally annonymous. Can an administrator please take the task to block it for editing by annonymous users Dixianity 10:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been semiprotected. Proto::► 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ed g2s again

I realise that this is likely to do little good, as many (most?) people here seem to think that because user:Ed g2s does good work dealing with images, therefore he can't also behave badly. I'll try though.

Would someone review his over-zealous attitude to image removal from articles, please? His Talk page indicates just how much bad feeling he's stirring up. Instead of the normal process of tagging an image as fair-use that could (in some bizarre Wikipedia use of "could") be replaced by a GDFL image, and placing a tag at articles where it's used, he simply removes the images from teh articles. He does this, indeed, even when warning templates have been placed at articles, with deadlines a week away. There is no advantage in this; Wikipedia is not in imminent danger of being sued for using fair-use images on pages about actors, singers, etc. All that he's doing is getting a lot of people very angry and frustrated.

I'm not suggesting that he stop his no-doubt valuable work in stripping the encyclopædia of images, just that he slow down and try to apply some judgement. Hos activities no longer verge on the obsessive; they've overstepped that line. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's crossed the line far too many times, just yesterday he violated 3RR (again!) edit warring over fair use images because he did not believe they are fair use (though consensus says they are) - List of Heroes episodes. Ed refuses to provide rationales generally as to the problem he finds wrong and oversteps the mark when he disrupts pages to make his point. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You know what? I don't have a problem with him removing the fair use image. If there could be a GFDL image in its place, then there shouldn't be a fair use image on the article in the first place. Fair use should be restricted in cases where it is not possible to get access to a similar or appropriate image. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel, did you have any particular edits in mind? Browsing through Ed's most recent contributions, maybe you meant the removal of unfree image galleries from Harry Potter articles (here and here). Or maybe it was removing screenshot images strewn about en masse in a list of episodes of a TV show (none with any critical commentary - or even any commentary at all - where they are used ). --bainer (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at Mika (singer), for example. As I said at the beginning, I was expecting a list of things that he's done of which people approve; that's irrelevant to my point.

I might add that this tosh about an image's being repleacable by a GFDL image really needs to be reflected upon. First, artists and their PR companies put out images to be used by magazines, Websites, etc., in order to illustrate and identify the people involved. We've got terribly neurotic about using them in the way that they're specifically intended to be used — not because our use is improper, but because someobody else who uses our material might misuse them. Frankly, that's their responsibility, not ours. Secondly, the claim that an image mustn't be used merely to identify the subject of the article: why on Earth not? That's the point of most images of people in most reference works. Thirdly, the idea that a fair-use image can be replaced; who says? It can only be replaced if somone editing Wikipedia has taken or is able to take such a photo. Who is in a position to know that? The person going round Wikipedia removing fair-use images from articles, or the editors themselves? This is a use of "can" that's peculiar to Wikipdia, so far I'm aware, and it's irritatingly inaccurate.

In addition, the fact that people are allowed to up-load fair-use images, and even provided with a licensing template specifically for such images, only to see their work undone on the basis that they were wrong to up-load them in the first place isn't winning Wikipedia any friends.

Still, that's all beside my main point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with our replaceable fair use policy bring it up at WP:FU. If you disagree with the tag being placed on the specific image then dispute it on the image talk page. Otherwise stop adding the image to the article citing some non-existent process. ed g2s • talk 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
read the template placed on the image; it gives the up-loader time to respond. Read the template on the article; it gives editors time to respond. Why do you insist on going against both? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hay ed g2s, This is about your behavor and aditude, not about FU. Why not try to remain civil and actualy respond to Mel's comments? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page on Humans destroyed

Hi,

Someone has just replaced the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human. It now shows the childish sentence: BOYS HAFF A PENIX, GURLS HAFF TEH VAGIN!

Check it out.

regards, mark Stikvoort.

Already reverted. Will give user more info via talk off this page. Pedro1999a |  Talk  13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Reba episodes Vandalism

The page listing the episodes of the sitcom Reba was recently vandalized by Metallicaman2112. Accoring to his profile, he has made numerous edits of the same nature and has been repeatedly warned against doing so.Can an administrator please take the task to block him from Wikipedia 8:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drpryr (talk • contribs).

He was blocked yesterday for disruptive edits. --Onorem 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Posted note at User:Drpryr's talk page directing him to WP:AIV for the future. Pedro1999a |  Talk  13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review of NYkid0709

I have blocked NYkid0709 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) indefinitely. He has continuously since his arrival made changes that appear to be against consensus (reverted by several different editors, and resulting in his first block for 3RR). He doesn't appear to respond to any attempts to communicate, and is a likely sockpuppet of DeathSeeker (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) based on the contribution history [51].

I don't necessarily intend for this block to be infinite, but as his first behavior after being blocked for the same changes a few days ago was to come back and make the same exact changes I feel some paradigm shift needs to occur to allow this editor to continue.

As with all my actions, if someone feels that they can get through to NYkid0709 you are welcome to shorten or lift the block. Syrthiss 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good block: single purpose account, probably a sockpuppet, unresponsive to attempts to communicate, continued the same tendentious editing that got the account blocked as soon as the block was lifted. If NYkid0709 truly does want to contribute, he can explain why on his talk page. Proto::► 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Birdz

Can someone please delete this template? It was created solely to vandalize the FA. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gustav Klimt

Could someone please undo the latest vandalism on Gustav Klimt. I'd do it myself but apparently there's a blacklisted hyperlink that has nothing to do with the vandalism on the page and I can't verify that link from my current IP so grateful if someone else might. MLA 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I went ahead and reverted it but where I am, i would rather not chase external links (blacklisted or what not). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signaleer -- disruptive editing and sockpuppetry

User:Signaleer is engaging in repeated disruptive editing of P-51 Mustang for many days despite a community consensus against this user's changes and many requests from many users to cease. He is also engaging in personal attacks, userpage vandalism, and 3RR violations. Recently, he has been continuing his disruptive editing using sockpuppet IPs User:72.135.19.52 and User:160.149.99.58 (both IPs from the same geographical area, making the same disruptive edits, user claims to be in US Army and the 160 IP is registered to US Army). - Emt147 Burninate! 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing low level edit war between Signaleer (aka IP160.149.99.58) and a number of other editors on the Convair B-36 article as well, all over whether one or another image better depicts the plane, [52] [53], [54], [55], even though the consensus is not in his camp.[56] There has been little effort on his part to discuss the matter on the article talkpage even though he has been encouraged to do so.[57], [58].--MONGO 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Signaleer and two of the IP address have made identical edits on Women Airforce Service Pilots adding non-notable, non-cited material, and reverting it when that material is removed (examples: [59], [60] (where he called the cleanup "vandalism"), and here as an IP). Signaleer also insists on hard-coding image thumbnail sizes in numerous articles, despite being repeatedly advised that this is contrary to the MOS. He has blatantly vandalized a userpage ([61]} and blanked a whole section of the article David Petraeus {[62]). Formal vandalism warnings have been placed on his talk page ({{Uw-delete3}} added [63], {{Uw-delete4}} added [64]; it should be noted that this last one was posted today, and he has not reoffended since its posting). His response to warnings can be read here: [65]. Akradecki 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In reference to this "disrputive" behavior and "vandalism" -- edit wars is not a violation of Wiki guidelines. Who is to say what the "consensus" is? This is a free online encyclopedia in which anyone can contribute or edit. I don't see fit certain images, I can revert them. -Signaleer 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

edit wars are very disruptive to wikipedia and if etending past 3 reversions, are actually a violation of wikipedia policy WP:3RR. Are you claiming to continue reversions under the ip address specified above? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, edit wars are contrary to guidelines, see WP:Edit war. As to who says what consensus is, the official policy does. Please abide by these. You seem to think that edit warring is an honorable sport...it isn't, it's merely disruptive. Akradecki 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. If it contines again with the ip reverts, i might have to reccomend a checkuser case. I am relucant to block an editor who has been here for a while based on a couple of IP reverts (as suspicious as they may be). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this morning, in addition to the above comment, he did his usual anti-consensus image reverts to both the B-36 and P-51 pages, which now put him past the level 4 vandalism warnings on his talk page. Akradecki 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, in reference to your comment--obviously you think your way is the only way, and anyone elses does not matter and does not count. With that attitude, I think it violates working out to an argreement. I already stated why I believe the P-51 photograph should be left. The context of the subject matter. Is the P-51 used in airshows? Sure, but when was it made and when did it see military action for what it was designed to do? Used a military fighting aircraft in the skies of World War II, not paraded as an antique relic of a goneby era. Obviously you tend to think this matter is a closed and done deal discussion. Since you decided to change the photograph with a disucssion or dialogue of the matter, and the excuse that the photograph that was previously on the page was of "poor" quality. Is a poor judgement and reason for changing it. So who is right? Obivously you think you are, and vice versa.

In reference to the B-36 photograph, I've already made comments on the dicusssion page. Just a FYI, the United States Air Force owns and operates that museum. The photograph I provided is of better quality and better representation of the aircraft in lieu of Rogerd's photograph which he provided.
1. The image is at an angle
2. There is a spectator of the musem in the image
3. The quality of the photograph is poorer than the one I supplied and
4. The photograph I provide shows much more of the aircraft versus what he supplied which mainly focuses on the fuslage and not the entire subject matter

Again, this beckons back to the original problem...who is right? It's stated in the Wiki Guidelines that Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Signaleer 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, in reference to the P-51 edit, the user BillCJ took it upon himself to make the initial change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-51_Mustang&diff=103326453&oldid=103321047 Please see this initial change of the info box image. His reasoning for this change is poor and in any event, does not fit into the context of the aircraft when it was used. The user BillCJ also took it upon himself to post this initial comment on the discussion page without creating a dialogue first. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AP-51_Mustang&diff=103519676&oldid=103510194 -Signaleer 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You can argue all you want, and though WP isn't a democracy, it is consensus-driven. Other editors have weighed in on the issues you mention, and the consensus went the other way. Don't feel bad, all of us have been on the loosing side of consensus now and again. The point is to respect others, respect the consensus and get on with life. Working well with others means that sometimes you have to realize that things don't always have to be done your way, and you're not the only one with a valid opinion.
And though you didn't mention it in this comment, I'll include this here, because it's valid for this overall discussion: Your attempt to deflect attention from your edit warring and make it look like I'm the edit warrior as you did at Talk:Women Airforce Service Pilots is not appropriate, either. The point here isn't to win a battle, it is to conform our edits to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and insisting on adding undocumented material and calling it "notable" flies in the face of WP:V, and then to call the editor who removes such undocumented material and "edit warrior" is, well, a sad way to try to justify yourself. If the material you've added is notable, as you said, all you have to do is document it. A brief note on how the pilot is notable, along with a citation, is all that's required to meet policy. And, it would have been a lot faster than all the griping. Akradecki 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to slander my username on Wikipedia is also against Wiki policy. Which you have done on a number of cases:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Petraeus&diff=104757171&oldid=104692525

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jack_Bethune#WASP_Edit_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:P-51_Mustang#Dark_BW_lead_pics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Signaleer#Vandalism_warning

At this point I've tried to keep this within Wikipedia, the next step will be outside of Wikipedia and I really don't think you want to step there.

-Signaleer 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signaleer has made at least 17 anti-consensus image reverts on the Convair B-36 page in the last month and over 10 anti-consensus image reverts on the P-51 Mustang page in the last week alone. Disruptive editing, IP sockpuppetry, and personal attacks should be sufficient grounds for a temporary ban so he can cool off a bit, no? - Emt147 Burninate! 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I passed this while looking at another article and had to come back to it... "the next step will be outside of Wikipedia and I really don't think you want to step there" by Signaleer above looks ominously like a threat of violence, I'm sure the user would like to take a moment and rethink the wording of their statement. Just an observation. Nashville Monkey 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've menionted, I've been lurking AN/I for a while, and more and more often, I'm finding myself reviewing full cases. The actions of Signaleer Seem to me to be escalations of conflict at every demonstrated turn. He's clearly going against the consensus of numerous editors, he has threatened editors, shown increasing incivility and probable threats, and his recent contribution to this very thread is either a legal threat, or a physical threat, which is probably both more severe in seriousness, and less likely to come to pass. Regardless of whether he can actually do anything, Signaleer should get a good long block to help him cool off. ThuranX 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, this looks like some kind of threat. --rogerd 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add my $0.02 worth here and say that the guy simply reverts contrary to consensus and uses sock puppetry to avoid a 3RR violation, I have diffs that show it: [66] [67] [68] [69] --Patrick Berry 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CopyToWiktionaryBot

It seems like CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk • contribs) is doing a mass tagging of article with {{TWCleanup}} and their discussion page with {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} without any discussion on the article's talk page. There are some long heavily edited articles that are also heavily wikilinked that have been tagged by this robot. The robot's user page says to bring up any issues with the robot on this page.--- Safemariner 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you give an example of a heavily edited article that got transwikied? BTW, this bot has been approved to do such mass tagging. - 131.211.210.11 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Example: Glossary of nautical terms. It reverted my removal of the tag. --- Safemariner 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No it didn't. It applied the search and replace that is given in the edit summary. I don't know how Connel has written xyr 'bot, but it's a fair bet that it checks for applying the same tag twice and only made that second edit because you manually removed the tag in the time between the 'bot making its two passes. Uncle G 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So it is OK for a robot to do reverts but if a human does it it is bad! --- Safemariner 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Once again: It didn't do a revert. The bot's edit summary tells you quite clearly what it did. Uncle G 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk • contribs) only responds when editors have tagged pages with {{copy to Wiktionary}} in the first place. It doesn't touch articles that someone else hasn't already applied a notice to. If there's mass tagging occurring, it is the editors who are mass tagging with the initial {{copy to Wiktionary}} notice that you need to look to, not the 'bot. Uncle G 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not see any tag at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_nautical_terms&oldid=104828560 that the robot used. Please check --- Safemariner 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Then you didn't look at the article's history. The application of the {{copy to Wiktionary}} tag by Interiot is right there, two edits before the version that you have just linked to. Also note that your edit summary was wrong. The article was tagged for being copied to Wiktionary, not moved, and the 'bot that you reverted didn't add the tag. It removed the tag, replacing it with a tag saying that the copying had been done, and further action was up to Wikipedia editors. Uncle G 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent attack on Passive smoking article

Please help! User 69.141.30.12 keeps changing the consensual summary text of the Passive smoking article. In spite of reverts done by several editors, and complaints that this was considered vandalism, he/she keeps modifying the article as soon as its text is reverted to the consensual definition. He/she has done it about six times in a row, in a very short time span of a few days. Thanks for intervening to put a stop to this disruptive and unhelpful behaviour. The same scenario of repeated changes, on the same portion of the text, previously happened with BlowingSmoke. It may be suspected that BlowingSmoke and 69.141.30.12 are one and the same. Dessources 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, increases risk would appear to be more accurate than causes death. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is JzG's point of view, and not a consensus among the editors of this article. What matters, as far as writing the article on Passive smoking is what the experts and public health authorities think. It appears that they overwhelmingly agree that passive smoking causes death. The position of the public health authorities, worldwide, is expressed in the four documents referenced in the summary of Passive smoking, in particular in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which has been adopted unanimously by the representatives of 192 countries. Article 8. of the FCTC states clearly that passive smoking "causes death, disease and disability". The US Surgeon General offical position on the subject is "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." The position of the Californian Environment Protection Agency is similar. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the world leading authority on cancer, is no less categorical: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans." We all know that lung cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer, with a very poor prognosis of survival. To suppress the word "causes" is to amputate the text of a key, fundamental element and to water down or minimize the true health effect of passive smoking, as evaluated by the public health experts of the world, without any justification.Dessources 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NuclearUmpf banned from Iraq War

Just a quick note that I have banned NuclearUmpf from Iraq War per his probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults for edit warring. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:NuclearUmpf_reported_by_User:Alecmconroy_.28Result:_Page_ban.29. Dmcdevit·t 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but why is is that your actions always seem to cut just one way?Proabivouac 11:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your question, the probabtion limits imposed on them from an arbcom case aren't going to be imposed on someone else. --pgk 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't an attempt to solve the dispute, that requires dispute resolution. Rather, it's to curb disruptive behavior. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NisarKand

Somebody might want to have a look at this: [70], and act accordingly. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. If there was some way of blocking for longer than infinity, consider that to be the case. Proto::► 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL. You just told him that after infinity has expired, he's welcome to come back [71]. Wonder if we will still be around then. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I plan to be :) Um, yes, that notice didn't make sense. Fixed now. He's still blocked until one day after the crack of doom. I don't think I've ever seen such a comment pack so much misplaced bile and hatred into one neat and tidy paragraph. Proto::► 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
With your life expectancy, you don’t need that to live until the end of infinity. —xyzzyn 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, if you add the autoblock to the indefinite block, it's infinity plus 24 hours. :) Femto 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

I thought I would draw to the attention of admin the breach of WP:CANVAS on the above page. The AfD was initiated by User:Astrotrain, however, when the vote was not going his way (eight straight Keep votes) the canvassing began.

the result of this was that the first delete votes came in on this topic.


  • I have also put a notice on the AfD page itself. thank you--Vintagekits 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits, an administrator is likely to review your canvassing issue here, however, I do not believe they will speedy close the afd. Not to worry, the closing admin will review the afd and take into account any single purpose accounts if any, and users with a single purpose. Regards, Navou banter 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the update, its just that it is getting out of hand a bit now and spilling over onto others AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started.--Vintagekits 15:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the editors that User:Astrotrain contacted, so it is hard to say if this is a WP:CANVAS situation, though if I were closing this AfD I'd say that numerous editors who show up to a debate after a message on their talkpage and opine "Delete per nom" carry less weight in the discussion than other editors who have rendered opinions. I don't think this should be speedy closed, but I imagine the closing admin will weigh this when he goes through the AfD.--Isotope23 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
From the links I have provided you should be able to see that the people he contacted had already vote delete on other recent AfD's that he has nominated so the attempt to contact editor whom he knows will support him should be evident. I know the closing admin will take this into account however someone needs to warning the editors involved in canvassing that it is unacceptable, especially as it is now effecting other AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started and is skewing the vote of those also - it is making a mockery of the process.--Vintagekits 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Address the case in question; ad hominem arguments score no points. Trebor 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please Assume Good Faith on Vintagekits' part. I was the one who added the canvassing template to the AfD, after seeing that User:Astrotrain had been canvassing for his POV that all IRA terrorists are inherently non-notable. After observing his behavior, I believe that all AfD nominations by Astrotrain of IRA members are bad-faith nominations in support of his POV-warring with Vintagekits. Argyriou (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that AFD is not a vote- and the editors in question have left perfectly good and reasoned comments on the deletion discussions expressing why they beleive these articles should be deleted. It should also be noted that Vintagekits has a terrible habbit of harrassing other users and admins with whom he disagrees with, and was formally warned about this recently. I would advise him to accept the consensus developing on these pages- namely that Wikipedia is not the place to idol worship fallen IRA members. Astrotrain 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A consensus like the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McDade? Argyriou (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(in response to Astrotrain) If someone had pointed to reasonable precedents, then the "Delete" arguments would have held more weight. At the moment, all arguments seem to be "not-notable" without elaboration, or a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to IRA members. It's not a vote, so a bunch of people turning up and saying the same fallacious things shouldn't (I hope) contribute to the decision of the closing admin. Trebor 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Right... I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but which delete opinions contain "perfectly good and reasoned comments"? The ones that say "per nom" or the ones that say "seems like" and are predicated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning and claims that Wikipedia is somehow becoming a IRA memorial? These would carry more weight if the people leaving them would actually take the time to form an argument.--Isotope23 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Trebor: To draw attention to Vintagekits's previous naughtiness is not to make an ad hominem point, it's to question his credibility. Isotope23: What don't you understand regarding the argument of IRA memorialising? As I write on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill, there seem to be a large number of articles about minor IRA personalites, citing POV sources and with a latent republicanism/ anglophobic leaning. As far as I can see, the argument is quite clear.--Major Bonkers 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that your argument isn't a deletion rationale... we don't do conferred notability (or non-notability) and the status or existance of other articles is no rationale for deleting or keeping this article. Either the subject meets WP:BIO or he does not and right now I don't really see any credible argument being made that he doesn't meet it. Furthermore, POV isn't a deletion reason either; it is a reason to cleanup and NPOV an article.--Isotope23 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Vintagekits has promised to do a clean-up over-night, so we'll wait and see what turns up. I understood your previous posting to be that you did not understand the argument of memorialisation, not that it was not a good cause for deletion. I suggest that the problem that Wikipedia faces is this: that there are a series of linked articles, all of which display slight but significant bias, and which are set up and maintained by persons prepared to devote the considerable amount of time necessary to this task. I do not agree that this individual merits a dedicated page; the only significant aspect of his life was his accidental shooting by the Police, and there is nothing to stop the manner of his death being reported in a suitable article.--Major Bonkers 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Normally articles like this would be nominated for speedy delete (nn-bio). It should also be noted that Administrators recently had to speedy delete and blank a page about an alledged IRA member after Vintagekits added unsourced allegations about murder and terrorism. There is a clear danger to the integrity of Wikipedia about creating articles on minor IRA members where there are no reliable sources to back up the information provided. Astrotrain 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Diarmuid O'Neill satisfies WP:BIO, with two non-trivial stories linked right there at the article's bottom and the link to the Amnesty campgain. The various arguments about Wikipedia not memorializing or glorifying terrorists don't follow any policy or guideline I know of. {{nn-bio}} would not have been appropriate, and if I ever saw a user who was tagging articles nn-bio because of POV reasons, I'd consider a block for abuse of the speedy deletion process. As for the AfD, I !voted, so I can't do this, but it should be closed as a "speedy keep" (already running about 2:1 in favor of keeping even if we count all canvassed !votes, and possible bad-faith nom). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The first version of Diarmuid O'Neill is sourced by The Telegraph, how were there no reliable sources? I wouldn't consider the initial version of the article to be a candidate for speedy deletion. One Night In Hackney 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(to Major Bonkers) Yes, it is ad hominem, because you're questioning his credibility by citing a previous and fairly unrelated matter, while in this case numerous editors agree with him. I don't see what relevance you linking that page has to this discussion. Trebor 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Trebor, it isn't an ad hominem remark, because all that I have done is write 'See:' and provide a link. I have not made any comment whatsoever; it's up to any other interested party to click on the link and draw their own conclusions. I, unlike you, have made no comment and I have had the grace not to impugn either your bona fides or those of Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then the obvious question is why you did that. What relevance did it have? What did you hope to accomplish? Assuming good faith, I'll give you a chance to explain. Trebor 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The obvious answer is that those contributing to this discussion should have the opportunity to see a full picture of a User's behaviour and be in a position to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And that means it is ad hominem. Rather than arguing the merits of the case at hand, you're commenting on the person who brought about the AfD. You can say you didn't put across a point-of-view but, being realistic, a link to a CheckUser can't be seen in a positive light. So my original comment stands: you are bringing into question the user, not the AfD. Trebor 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Its relevant for users to understand that Vintagekits has been proven to use sockpuppets to canvas support for his attempt to add yet more IRA propoganda. Astrotrain 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And how is that relevant? I am not a sockpuppet; I support keeping the article. The fact he may or may not have canvassed in the past does not justify canvassing this time. Trebor 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
DownDaRoad is my account, I have NEVER denied it, there is a difference between acceptable and unacceptable canvassing
 *                    Scale         Message            Audience
  • Accepted Limited posting AND Neutral AND Bipartisan
  • Not accepted Mass posting OR Partisan OR Partisan
  • Term Internal spamming Campaigning Votestacking

I rest my case.--Vintagekits 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained to you, Trebor, that I have made no comments at all on either Vintagekits or his previous conduct. I am happy to let his record speak for itself (as he should be) and for others to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else here troubled by Astrotrain's nominations of all of these articles on IRA terrorists for deletion, with obviously spurious claims of non-notability? These strike me as bad-faith nominations, and I'm perturbed to see that someone might be using AfD in furtherance of a political or personal agenda. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly since a large amount of people have agreed that this person and the others are not notable- this is not obviously the case. Please don't attack the nominator- and put your arguments in the debate page instead. Astrotrain 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, that's just wrong. Two of your noms were already kept, handily. The one in question here is headed for a keep and clearly meets WP:BIO, per two articles in the Telegraph. The question here is whether you're trying to use AfD to push a POV - and in my opinion, based on your comments here and your actions on those AfD pages, is that you are. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to back up my statements with facts:
And the subject of this thread is snowballing to keep right now, 17 to 7, and most of the delete !votes have nothing to do with notability. Don't use AfD to push your own agenda. If you see articles that are too POV, clean them up. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to my comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill page. There are a series of articles about minor members of the IRA that, frankly, are being used to memorialise those individuals and promote their editors' own partisan views. Astrotrain finds that objectionable and while it could be argued that the articles need substantial revision instead of deletion, it is also arguable that such articles could be merged or revised under different article headings.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
But that's not Astrotrain's argument. He's claiming that these subjects aren't notable, which appears to be false. If Astrotrain objects to the use of such articles to promote partisan views, then he should work on the articles - not file AfD noms with questionable claims of non-notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is part of the same argument. These individuals are not sufficiently notable as to warrant an article in their own right; the existing articles should be merged.--Major Bonkers 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree- he could be mentioned in a list of People killed by the British police or something- but is not notable enough to have an article in his own right. Its not even clear if he was even in the IRA- the Telegraph says he was an IRA suspect, and there is no evidence from a reliable source if this was confirmed. The only source for being in the IRA are unrelaible Republican forums. These articles are dangerous to the credibility of Wikipedia- we've arealdy had to delete a similar article after libelous information was added by Vintagekits. Astrotrain 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Tirghra state the he was a Volunteer on page p.365 and Gerry Kelly confirms it. As for claiming that I added "libelous information" - you know that I was the one that was proven correct in the end - would you like me to prove it?--Vintagekits 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think Astrotrain is making bad-faith nominations, too. Argyriou (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a substantial number of people think in a similar way to Astrotrain and it is wikipolicy to assume good faith except where shown otherwise. - Kittybrewster 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Astrotrain has clearly demonstrated bad faith by his comments in the AfD discussions. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise by one of his meatpuppets. Argyriou (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And that, Trebor, is an ad hominem attack!--Major Bonkers 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear to me and I am not a meatpuppet. Are you a sockpuppet of Vintagetits?? - Kittybrewster 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked Kittybrewster 24 hours for the above personal attack (referring to Vintagekits as Vintagetits). I am posting a notification here so that other admins may review the block as needed. I will note, as my own devil's advocate, that I did not find any other recent WP:NPA violation by Kittybrewster, but I thought that attack was egregious enough to merit a block. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You respond to Astrotrain's calls to !vote on AfDs where he's being rejected on the merits, and post the same weak arguments he does. Smells like meat-puppetry to me. Argyriou (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly endorse this block. I have given out warnings to two other users regarding Vintagekits. People think they can play the system by trolling someone in apparently trivial ways which they calculate are not egregious enough to get them into trouble, but this way of behaving to someone has a very undermining effect. If this project is to mature, we have to show that we demand respect for editors and that the way to address article content is by adherence to policy, not insidious mental and emotional pressure on those who disagree. Tyrenius 02:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As a friend of Kittybrewster, I think that's an unhelpful and unwarranted punishment. It's also quite clear that he's been provoked.--Major Bonkers 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears it was warrented... that was a "t" is far enough away from "k" on the keyboard that I'm going to have to guess that was intentional. "Provoked" is no excuse at all. If there was a personal attack that provoked this then it should have been reported, but we don't excuse or condone bad behavior in response to bad behavior.--Isotope23 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So, just to get this straight: accusing another User of bad faith and being a puppet - acceptable behaviour; a play on words of a User name - unacceptable?--Major Bonkers 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that was a response to me or just a general question, but that isn't at all what I said. What I said was that bad behavior in response to bad behavior is not excusable either.--Isotope23 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request assistance regarding User:Derex

Hello, the User talk:Derex page is being used by its user to conduct a rather bizarre personal smear campaign against myself. Whenever, I try to engage him in a discussion and respond to his accusations he deletes my posts and threatens me not to return to his talk page or else he'll have me banned. I would be happy to stay away from this individual as I very much dislike him, but he has conducted research into 6 and 7 year old posts I made on a previous website and posted them on his user page in some weird attempt to discredit my work here at Wikipedia. Frankly, I find this all rather disturbing. He is entitled to his opinions and I am entitled to mine, so long as we do not put our opinions into the articles we write. To do what he is doing smacks of McCarthism or a witch hunt and needs to be quickly knocked down and knocked down hard. Thank you for your time. --Jayzel 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is on the bottom of his talk page. See under the heading "research notes. references collated by Jayzel68" [72] --Jayzel 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this mic on? Additionally, he has made numerous personal attacks against me. If you look at his talk page history you will find comments such as "(rm extended jayzel troll ... i fed him, i regret it)" when he deleted my replys to him. --Jayzel 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we have to wait to see how he responds. All I want is my name removed from his talk page. Since when did it become acceptable for Users to create files on each other? By the way, here is the beiginning of our debate [73] --Jayzel 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I should just remind everyone of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks

  • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
  • Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
  • Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. --Jayzel 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And this had been going on for a while. Here is a comment from Derex back in October 2006:

[74] Let's suffice it to say that the main author of this article posted a previous version of to FreeRepublic with the title "TREASON OF BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS!"[2]. It's absolutely filled with innuendo and leading phrases. See this edit I just made for a good example. I used to think the facts were ok, but just a little overly-spun. However, I started factchecking another article by this author, and in at least 5 cases the refs did not actually say what the article said. It also has very serious WP:OR problems; it's an embarassment this made it to the main page. I think this thing needs to go before a peer review or something. Derex 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cricket, cricket, cricket --Jayzel 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User Derex is now using a puppet to revert factual and well-referenced information in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy article.[75] --Jayzel 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :::Seems you have need of this lovely hat. Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the Administrator's notice board, no less.
Is this page a joke? You archived this with no action whatsoever? --Jayzel 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if you just shout a bit louder? Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll respond as an admin to cut out the crickets. I can't guarantee I speak for all the others but for me, your complaint is rather hard to understand, and seems disjointed. Is your complaint that Derex posted links to articles you wrote in the past? If so, that's neither a personal attack nor a smear - it's not based on your affiliations, but your actions, and it's not exposing you to any outside persecution. Is your complaint that he is rude to you on his talk page, and deletes your posts from his talk page? Well, yes, I would say he could be more civil, but if this [76] is an example of your posts that he deletes, I would have to say that your posts aren't as polite as they could be either. Is your complaint something else? Then I guess you could make it more clear. But, if I may, rather than try to get admins to hurt each other more, let me offer some unasked for advice. May I? Please? Try to make peace. That does not mean "I'll stay off your talk page if you stay off article X" as I think one of you wrote to the other. Instead try to make article X reflect that both views exist, and give proper references: WP:CITE. And try to keep in mind that you are both here to give the world a free encyclopedia, with no personal benefit except a nice warm glow. That's a pretty good thing, implying that you are both likely to be rather good and well meaning people, if you would just stop calling each other names. Instead, try to respect what the other is doing. The encyclopedia will actually get better if the article properly reflects both views. Honest. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. You're missing out on a bit because Derex has a habit of deleting anything he says after the fact. Basically, my complaint is that, instead of helping to improve the article 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, for the last 4 months he has been obsessing about a couple posts I made at a different web site 7 years ago. He has also continuously been mischaracterizing those old posts, at one point saying I was a crazed Clinton hater who accused the president of murdering a few people. When I brought to his attention that if he actually read the posts from the other site he would have seen that I said something quite different. The fact remains, however, we are not supposed to be commenting on editors here at Wikipedia and instead are to be commenting on the edits. His continuing albeit lame attempt to smear me clearly violates Wikipedia policy. With that said, I never had any intentions on requesting him to be banned or blocked. I just want my name "Jayzel68" removed from his talk page. He can keep the links all he wants, I don't care. He should also be given a warning to remain focussed on the articles and not concern him with others' personal opinions or beliefs. Thanks again. --Jayzel 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, as for the article, all major points do exist and it is one of the most well-cited articles here at Wikipedia. It is also already a featured article, no thanks to Derex. --Jayzel 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Example 1 of smear: "pathetic and bording (sic) on pathological obsession", strong words from someone who spends his free time researching and posting Clinton "Body Count" articles. Oh, I see you deleted the links to your excellent Free Republic research on who all Clinton had murdered. Interesting edit for a fellow trumpeting that I once posted, and later deleted, a link to a blog article I found interesting. Derex 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayzel68" What I really said in 7-year-old posts:[77] You need to get over your blind obsession with Clinton. No where in this post did I even hint at Clinton being involved in Boorda's murder. There are thousands of people involved with this China stuff. Clinton is but one link...

He says he is removing the "offending" citations, so hopefully the issue is over. Yes, he could have written even that more nicely. But let's try hard to pretend he did. Assuming admins were being asked to intervene in a preventative, not punitive way, am I correct in believing the incident over? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP dispute on Undercover Mosque

there is currently a dispute on Talk:Undercover Mosque where several editors (Hypnosadist (talk • contribs), CltFn (talk • contribs), Gerryfarm (talk • contribs) and A2Kafir (talk • contribs)) have constantly insisted on inserting libellous material based upon the findings of a controversial (and heavily criticised) documentary. the article currently declares, as fact, that specific individuals have been inciting murder against others, as well as "advocating" the "beating of children" among other things. previously the article was even worse, stating that the subjects of the documentary "sanction[ed] pedophilia" and advocated the "degredation of women." naturally, the accused have strongly denied the allegations in seperate press releases, and they have not been convicted in a court of law (which is required to condemn people of the aforementioned: the article is stating that these people engaged in criminal activity). a major problem here is also that the comments surrounding the quotes are OR, as they are wiki editors' commentaries of what they conclude from the primary source (i.e. the documentary transcript itself). the new changes to the article which now implicate specific individuals is a clear-cut violation of WP:BLP, although even before these changes i would still argue that the article infringes BLP as the individuals subject to the controversy are listed elsewhere in the article. i had forwarded an alternative proposal (which still needed a bit more expansion), which i think avoided the problem of OR conclusions as well as BLP. i bring this dispute onto ANI because of (what i perceive as) the defamatory, libellous material insisted by several users upon living people, and i would appreciate comments by experienced users/admins on this. thanks ITAQALLAH 10:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Itaqallah's summary of the dispute unduly confrontational, but would certainly appreciate feedback on whatever BLP issues might be involved.Proabivouac 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah challenges the information that the Channel 4 documentry provides and hence the article. He complained that the quotes were not attributed so i spent an hour doing that, only to have my work reverted with a one line reason. I'll follow what the WP:BLP expert says.Hypnosadist 11:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"He complained that the quotes were not attributed..." - not at all. ITAQALLAH 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As an outsider to this particular dispute I must say that while there are severe NPOV issues, I don't see the BLP problem. The heading The footage provides an uncensored insider's view in major mainstream mosques before all of the comments strikes me as the most problematic, because it endourses the thesis of the documentary. This is an article about a documentary, not about the people who appear or are quoted in the documentary. Consequently, I would think there would be no problem with saying "Undercover Mosque generated controversy when it claimed Sheikh Al Faisal advocates for the killing of non-Muslims and quoted him as saying, 'You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews you kill them physically.'" Is that ok with everyone, and if not, why not specifically? --Selket 18:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
what do you think about the following statements: "Sheikh Al Jibali advocates the beating of children", "Dr Bilal Philips sanctions marriage with pre-pubescent girls", "Sheikh Al Faisal advocates for the killing of non-Muslims". these are comments which have been inserted by editors, intending thereby to summarise the quotes; and the article was declaring these analyses as factual. in my eyes, this is a clear BLP violation because it implies they are encouraging legal infringement. even then, such commentary comes across defamatory. you can't use "quotes" to justify these OR conclusions, especially when the accused are complaining about how their words have been misinterpreted. your alternative seems reasonable on the condition that the programme explicitly forwards the specific claim. ITAQALLAH 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Speedster 619

Speedster 619 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Just check his “contribs”. --Bender235 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He's only vandalized articles twice in the last few months and has been warned for that. This seems like a straightforward vandal who should be properly warned and then reported to WP:AIV if he continues to vandalize after a level 4 warning. Thanks, Gwernol 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the proportion of vandalism to genuine edits, though (and you have to include things like page-creation vandalism, which doesn't appear in the contributions), he is obviously a problem. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree Mel, my point was first that this is the wrong place to post - posting to WP:AIV is the appropriate way to deal with this. Second, blocking is a preventative not a punative measure, so unless we have evidence this user is continuing to vandalism we won't block them. Continued vandalism past a final warning is good enough evidence to block. Gwernol 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Hello. I would like to bring your attention to the talk page of the Azerbaijan article where several users (all of whom are probably the same person) continuously make personal attacks, even when told not to and told about Wikipedia NPA rules: [78] Notice how many times I have referred them to Wikipedia rules and asked them to stop with the attacks. I suspect that one reason for the attacks is so that they can avoid discussing the main issue. Typical comments include ones such as this: [79] Also note their false accusations. Looking at my contributions, you will not find one instance of POV pushing, original research, or removal of sourced information without good reason. However, I urge you to look at the contributions of these users (who, again, are most likely the same person) and notice their editing habits. This is the third time I have had to file a report, and now I ask for some punishment for their bahaviour. Here is what Wikipedia rules say:

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to be handled through the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban.

Note, these attacks have been continuous, and I have tried both ignoring them and responding politely by referring them to Wikipedia rules and policies. Nothing has worked and they have shown the exact same pattern of hostility and personal attacks. This is the third time I have had to post here about such personal attacks. As per the paragraph above, this is disruptive editing.Azerbaijani 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. Sorry. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I did this. Hope the argument cools down. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:193.219.28.146 disruption resumed after 1-week 3RR block

After being blocked 3 times for 3RR violations, and just coming out of the latest 1 week block, User:193.219.28.146 has resumed adding unconstructive comments on Talk:Ass to mouth. He has promised on his talk page that he will continue to do so despite being blocked repeatedly. True to his word, he resumed immediately when the block was lifted. See User talk:193.219.28.146 for extensive discussions that don't seem to get through to him. Issues are WP:TALK (using talk pages to discuss content or value of Wikipedia rather than improving the article, and WP:POINT (disruption to make a point), as well as WP:3RR. =Axlq 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit war on that comment deserves to be added to WP:LAME. --BigDT 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because editors are trying to keep a talk page focussed on the task in hand? I don't understand how a generalised comment could be considered helpful.-Localzuk(talk) 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a lame thing all in. However the IP user was determined to make that statement, regardless of it having nothing to do with the article is was attached to, or having any suggestion for improvement. Article talk pages are for discussing the article and it's improvement, not for dicking around with general pontification. If the user wants to say something, and has a proposal to make then there are many places to do that productively. I only got involved in this matter after an earlier request on ANI. Thanks/wangi 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Or better put by Amatulic on the article's talk page:
"While the subject of this article doesn't appeal to me either, it would seem that 193.219.28.146 was reverted and blocked (not "censored") because (a) the comment above, comparing Wikipedia to Britannica, violates the leading two paragraphs in WP:TALK; (b) repeated disruption from re-adding the comment violates WP:POINT; and (c) repeated violations of WP:3RR. Looking at User talk:193.219.28.146, it appears this user has been asked several times, but never answered, how his comments facilitate improving the article, or how they are constructive in any way.
To User:193.219.28.146: Please suggest improvements and constructive changes rather than make editorial comments and complaints. If you feel the article should be deleted, you can always propose it for deletion; see WP:AFD for the process. -Amatulic 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)"
Thanks/wangi 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VaughanWatch Sock

  • User:Pm dibiase is yet another VW/JC Sock, the name is a clear giveaway, you'd think they would have learned by now. An Indef block would be appreciated. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Annnnd another one: User:PM Sock. Block please... -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How bored must this idiot be? Blocked. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Benio76

I've just had an e-mail from Benio76 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has been blocked indefinitely as a sock-puppet. He's given me pretty conclusive evidence of his identity (linking the e-mail account from which he contacted me, his Web page, his University in Italy, etc.). He explains that he shares an ADSL line with his housemate, of whom he's accused of being a sock-puppet (Olivierd (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)).

I must say, looking at the evidence he provides, and at the evidence of editing, the sock-puppet charge looks open to debate, at the very least. Is there any chance of reassessing this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. We can block the IP but permit existing accounts. If this account behaves, let it edit. If it misbehaves block it. Even if it is a sock, if it behaves we've lost nothing.--Docg 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, I also agree.--Jersey Devil 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocking admin has given his go-ahead for an unblock, with much the same provisos. I'll keep a close eye on it, having stuck my neck out. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User 164.116.126.140

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this. WP:AIV didn't seem right either

This IP (from a Washington State public school) has a long history of vandalism and at least one previous block. Is it possible to block anonymous edits but still allow logged in edits from an IP? --Selket 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Admins can enable/disable account creation when blocking. {{subst:bv}}'d for vandalism today; if there is any more vandalism in the near future, go to WP:AIV. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One for closing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World: Off the Table probably now has enough input. Wikipedia:Protected titles/October 2006/List would be a good place for it... Guy (Help!) 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] it's been vandalized.

link title

yup. i needed it for a report, and i'm not sure if i should use it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.104.36.114 (talk • contribs).

I checked the article and it's fine as of now. A section was removed, but I reverted the change. -- Gogo Dodo 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insert-Belltower

Insert-Belltower (talk • contribs • logs) consistently removes confirmed Sockpuppet tag initially placed 1 May 2006 by user:Mackensen. He also has placed a sock tag on my user page in retaliation for my efforts in repeatedly replacing the sock tag on his user page. Believing my actions were in support of policy WP:Vandalism against abuse of tags, I reported this matter to WP:AIV, but after some discussion Hús recommended I report this matter here.

The following are a few of the significant diffs establishing a pattern in this case. Each time either Insert-Belltower (on some prompting) or someone else would replace the tag, after which IB would wait for awhile and then remove it:

1 May 2006 [80] removes sock tag placed by Mackensen.

29 August 2006 [81]

30 Aug 2006 [82]

17 January 2007 [83]

31 January 2007 (the beginning of this current episode) [84]

Insert-Belltower was the subject of a prior RFC here:

I'm taking this matter seriously because this user has recently returned after an absence and currently edits the very article he was proven to have used socks in the past to manipulate. I think the sock tag should remain as warning to any new users who deal with IB, especially as pertaining to the University of California, Riverside article.--Amerique dialectics 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm being trolled here. Someone developed a duplicate SOCK of my account, with the letter "g" substituting for "q." Please block this account before he does more damage. --Amerique dialectics 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is the account Amerigue (talk • contribs • logs). This user struck the report made by me. Please investigate!--Amerique dialectics 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, would it be ok to request an IP check on "Insert-Belltower" and "Amerigue"? I have a strong suspicion that these two are the same, and I'd be delighted if this could be confirmed.--Amerique dialectics 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Duck test. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I went ahead and made the request anyway because I want to be sure. --Amerique dialectics 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So, the RFCU was deemed unnecessary by user:jpgordon. I've been reverting Insert-Belltower's user page to keep his sock tag on, and I'm sure my doing this may be seen by some people as harrassment or engaging in an edit war so wouldn't it be better if his page were s-protected or something? Best, --Amerique dialectics 09:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought a bit more about this and ran it. Checkuser shows that Amerigue is most certainly a sock of Insert-Belltower. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jpgordan! I am not surprised at all. But my next question is: is this actionable? He was trying to fool you guys, after all. He must have known I would have caught him out on it, so I assume he must have hoped maintenance would have deleted the report before I noticed it. But he should have also known I would have checked page history and noticed the sock anyway, so he must either be a total idiot to think I wouldn't have done that or this must be his way of saying "Hey admins, I'm a sockpuppeting vandal and I don't care who knows it!" --Ameriquedialectics 05:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Username violation?

This may seem like I'm on a vendetta, and this user has had this account for awhile, but people familiar with the UCR campus may recognize the unique double entendre the name "Insert-Belltower" suggests. This doesn't mean it's actually bothersome to me, but it may be against policy, to say the least;-) This diff more or less shows this double entendre was his intention in picking this username [85]. Would there be any admin support if I listed the account under WP:RFC/NAME as a violation of WP:Username clauses:

If there are no objections from admins here by tomorrow I'll go ahead and proceed. I've already posted a warning on the subject's talk page here: [86].--Amerique dialectics 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks of User:193.219.28.146

This IP was blocked three times in a row because of adding one, short, polite comment on Talk:Ass to mouth. I believe blocks of this IP were unjust, because:

  • Wikipedia is not censored
  • generall consensus is to NOT remove comments of others people (with exception of extreme cases)
  • comment added on Talk:Ass to mouth is polite and civil. 193.219.28.146 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone looking into this may wish to take a look at the long conversation on his talk page before drawing conclusions. He was blocked for disruption due to re-adding a non-constructive and irrelevant comment about wikipedia in general regardless of the general consensus that such things are not appropriate on talk pages per the opening para of WP:TALK Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.-Localzuk(talk) 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I did look through it, twice in fact (this issue was posted here a week ago, I think), and I'm not so sure about the blocks on the IP address, or whether the comment is really so out of line. The comment is the user's personal view on whether the article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia - that's a valid point for discussion, and obviously has been one in the past since the article was AfD'd. The comment is polite, to the point, and doesn't attack anyone, and I don't see it as outside of the limits placed by WP:TALK. What is the harm in allowing it to stand, responding to it if needed, and letting the matter come to a natural close? Anyway, this seems like a very tenuous reason to block an anon user. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a tenuous block as there are at least 5 editors who have agreed that it is not an acceptable thing to post. How does a generalised slating of wikipedia count as being discussion about how to improve an article? If the person thinks the article shouldn't be there then they should take it to AFD.
The 5 of us do see it as being outside the limits placed by WP:TALK as it is simply his opinion about the quality of Wikipedia and doesn't in any way help improve the site or article.-Localzuk(talk) 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a generalized comment - it's about that article and whether it belongs on Wikipedia, which (again) is a perfectly legitimate topic for a talk-page discussion. Consensus, by the way, isn't used to determine whether comments should be deleted from talk pages; that's a matter of policy. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And policy is determined by consensus... Your point being? :) As I have said, the issue here is that the other editors and I think it isn't a constructive comment - it is an opinion and is against WP:TALK. So the actual issue is simply that the editor in question has repeatedly been asked not to do something and been blocked for doing just that.-Localzuk(talk) 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the 5 of you are wrong and you should let the question stay. Also, I don't see why the anon doesn't give up and go away. Life's too short and all that. But you're within your rights to ignore his question, and he's in his rights to ask it again, all within 3RR. This is one of those occasions where (IMHO) the only sensible thing to do is say "everyone involved is displaying suboptimal behaviour", apply the rules and move on. So I'd support a block if there's a 3RR violation, but not otherwise. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Ben. I also think that the last block on the anon was excessive (one week - it was just his second block aside from one 3RR vio), and I've asked the blocking admin to recuse himself from the matter in the future. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the first person to remove this user's comment (but have not removed it at all since then). To provide some context, the article in question was nominated for deletion in, what I now believe to be based on activity of the nominator since, bad faith. The votes for deletion were not grounded in policy, and there was no consensus to delete, yet the AfD was closed as delete anyway (and the closing message made it clear that the admin didn't think there was consensus, either, but...). The deletion went up on DRV and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of overturning. Following the restoration of the article, a lengthy thread appeared on the talk page denouncing the article, talking about religion and censorship and how Jesus would never have engaged in ass to mouth (no shit?), etc. I removed that entire thread (with no complaints). Nearly immediately afterward, this comment appeared. While significantly more polite than the first comment, my gut instinct was that this was the same user attempting to start another flamewar in a way that wouldn't be immediately deleted, so I removed it.

I'm more liberal in removing content from talk pages than most. I realize some disagree with this attitude, but if a particular thread or comment is not actually constructively related to writing the article in question, then I'll remove it per WP:RTP. Again, I realize that some disagree with this. Hindsight being what it is, I certainly wish that I had left the comment alone rather than starting this ridiculous edit war.

However, I do firmly believe that this user is not in any way attempting to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and rather is editing disruptively to make a point. I, and many other users, have attempted to engage the user in discussion on his/her talk page to determine what he/she thinks could enhance the article or Wikipedia in general, and have been entirely ignored each time without fail with the user insisting that he/she has the right to say whatever they want because Wikipedia is not censored (and attempted to evade their block for 3RR but found themselves unable). (Apparently we're also now known the world over as "Pornopedia", and "even Jimbo realizes this.") My $0.02, and again, I do regret starting this thing and think it should just be left alone instead of feeding the (s). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being attacked on edit summaries, talk pages and image pages

Hello, I need some help in communicating with User:Deathrocker. He is recently following an annoying pattern of attacking me in his edit summaries.

We have been editing the same image description pages, and articles using the corresponding images, after I noticed that some of the images he uploaded had some problems, like absence of source info, wrong licensing (tagged as cc-by, but actually cc-nc-by on source), or faillure to comply with the fair use unrepeatability criteria.

I understand dealing with divergent opinions is part of Wikipedia editing. What I'm asking for help here is with the user's attacks towards me (and towards others, indeed) in his edit summaries (and talk pages, and image description pages).

Following is a list of diffs showing the kind of behaviour that I wish User:Deathrocker to avoid:

  • readds an unsourced image to an article an calls me a troll [87]
  • reverts a correction on an image's licensing, calling the correction an act of "trlling" [88]
  • Reverts an image removal (due to copyvio suspect) and calls the removal a "image vandalism" [89]
  • calls me a "notorious image vandal " while readding an image to an article. [90]
  • removes some image warnings from his talk page (not necessarily a problem in itself) calling the warnings "automated trolling by virg badal" [91]
  • reverts a correction on the image licensing, calling the correction "simple vandalism" and "image terrorism" [92]
  • readds an unsourced image and calls me a "image terrorist" doing "simple vandalism" [93]
  • removes a deletion tag (instead of adding a 'dispute' tag) from an image and calls me a vandal, sockpuppet and wiki-stalker; [94]
  • implies User:Mosmof is a sock puppet under my control, and calls me/he/us a stalker "leaving crap" on his user page. [95]
  • suggest I should get a hobbie or a girlfriend (not that this would be a bad idea, but considering the context, it's hard to take that as a construtive advice) [96]

I've then left him a message asking him to avoid promoting the use of unsourced images and also to avoid calling me a vandal/stalker/puppetmaster. He replied still insisting in his sock-puppet/stalking/trolling theory. I replied one last time urging him to quit the accusations, and explaining him about the user contributions feature.

I hope someone could help me make this user stop attacking me and concentrate his efforts in contributing with his valuable editions to Wikipedia.

Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to verify that I am in fact, not Abu's sockpuppet, and a simple IP check should prove that. And while the user claims to archive old messages, he appears to be deleting legitimate discussions, 3RR warnings and attempts to explain my actions, referring to them all as spam. [97][98]

- Mosmof 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User will be blocked for 48hrs for multiple personal attacks. User has been warned in the past about this kind of behavior.--Jersey Devil 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you all for your attention in this case! Hopefully, everything is gonna end well and pacefully. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker continued the personal attacks while blocked on his user discussion page. That page has been protected for 48 hours. Any further violations should result in a much longer block, in my opinion. This person has 20 blocks (some of which are extensions) in just a little over a year. Clearly a problem editor and perhaps some time away from the Wikipedia may be beneficial. --Yamla 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking of User:RK?

RK (talk • contribs) was evidently involved in arbitration last year. RobertKaiser (talk • contribs) recently registered and has begun rolling back what appear to be innocuous, legitimate edits by RK, calling them "trolling". Each now claims that the other is an impostor of the "real" Robert Kaiser, whoever that is. This probably deserves examination. Choess 02:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of "Johnny hurt me! ... Timmy did it first!". Checkuser? In fact, no. I've got a better way. Ask them each to prove they are not the "imposter". Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
User:RK has been editing since 2001; User:RobertKaiser for a couple days. In my opinion the new guy needs to stop or be blocked. Bucketsofg 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
See Robert Kaiser - RobertKaiser (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) violates the username policy anyway. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef as an impostor, see RK's aforementioned talk page for reference. Teke (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threat from user

Would someone mind dealing with User:69.76.46.169? He just left me this message, including "You killed Jesus beacuse you think you correct his behavior. Your turn is coming soon, watch your back, God is there". I assume he's upset because of this revert of mine; that also gives a sense of what kind of person this guy is. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 03:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked them for personal attacks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden vandalism in "Spanish Civil War" article

The subheading "The war: 1939" within the "Spanish Civil War" article has been vandalized by an anonymous user. The phrase "It was gay" has been added to the very end of the section, and it cannot be removed by attempting to edit the section itself, the section following or the entire article.

It's gone now. Likely the vandalism was removed between when you saw it and when you tried to remove it. Thanks for letting us know, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:D1256 and a UK fixation (replacing England and Scotland)

User talk:D1256 came to my attention with this and their first edit was this. I can't imagine why any sane person would make these edits. WAS 4.250 04:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 67.53.73.42

Not that I'm terribly worried about this, but this message probably deserves a block and possibly investigation? (Although it's probably nothing worrisome.) I'd put this at AIV, but it seems different, with the planning and whatnot. Shorelander 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If they start vandalizing, the great users on RC patrol will revert them and some admin will eventually block them. I wouldn't be too worried; when it comes to Wikipedia, the admins hold all the cards. PTO 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, now he's vandalizing my user page, so Kuru blocked him. Shorelander 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive191_c56d.html"