Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive286

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
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
Incidents archives Search
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
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
3RR archives Search
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
Arbitration enforcement 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
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Banned user:Frightner continuing to edit

Frightner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was banned on July 31st for making racist and personal attacks, trolling and refusing to remove his hatred page (saying "death to Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians" in the Macedonian language), but continues to edit through various IP addresses (partial list):

Vandalous contributions and personal attacks:

All IP addresses exhibit tendency to make various attacks, vandalize talk pages and user pages. They are all located in Perth, Australia, the same place where User:Frightner declared is from. Can someone please look into this matter. It is an issue of a banned user clearly evading his block. A checkuser request for this user was declined. Mr. Neutron 16:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As the comments note, his IP changes regularly, so blocking is difficult. I'll block all those listed that seem to have only been used by this editor, but presumably he will be able to find others. We can semi-protect your user page indefinitely, and your talk page for a while if you like, that will stop all IPs from editing it. Would you like that? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems fine. I'd probably have to extend the list if this continues. Thank you. Mr. Neutron 18:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be a local internet service provider, so I picked a period short of forever (won't specify how long for obvious reasons). If the vandalism recurs when the blocks expire, please post here (where any admin will see it), or directly on my talk page, and the blocks will be repeated and lengthened. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I was 'busy' when Mr. Neutron asked me for help, but AnonEMouse has done the right thing; I would have done the same. Neil ム 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that according to a certain Wikipedia policy my edits should be reverted, but why would Mr. Neutron revert edits I have made for the good of certain articles? for examples, if I have reverted vandalism Mr. Neutron will revert my reversion to the vandalized version, makes no sense. I assume this comment too will be reverted by either Mr. Neutron, Jingiby, Laveol or Lantonov, wait and see. Regards. Frightner -> 203.59.218.120 09:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I usually refrain from reverting other user's contributions even though the user might be banned. Explaining, commenting, questioning sources: this is usually what I do. Above message is a prove that Frightner is still active and disruptive. Lantonov 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal incorrigible. See Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia. Lantonov 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Revizionist (talk · contribs) is a possible sockpuppet to banned user Frightner (talk · contribs). 'Revizionist' recently uploaded images of dubious legitimacy on the semi-protected article National Liberation War of Macedonia purporting to be a public property of the Republic of Macedonia. Lantonov 05:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major, ongoing WP:AGF violation by User:Threeafterthree (at the moment, against me at Karl Rove)

[8]

When User:Threeafterthree first blanked an entire section describing allegations of 'smear' push polling against Rove and the Bush campaign in 2000, his original edit summary was "removed material not support by cites", which I reverted as an unjustified deletion. We discussed the issue on the article's talk page and after presenting him with a detailed run through the exact same links that were already validating that section he selectively blanked the references to the book and film 'Bush's Brain' on the same basis.

He has never justified his deletions by impeaching the actual information within those cites, preferring instead to baselessly and rudely attack and accuse me of 'having an agenda' in his talk posts and edit summaries ("Yeah right, Ryan, you so full of it, you have no polictical agenda here. Thats what I love about Wiki, you can see people's history and it tells all", "poorly sourced material", "Enough with the agenda pushing, geesh", "rv attack site. Can ANYBODY else please step in. Why do I have the feeling this isn't the first time Ryan has engaged in this type of edit waring and use of attack sites and agenda pushing?)" and "crooks and liars?? Sounds like your kind of material)" ). All this while reposting links to my edit counts in an attempt to demonstrate an 'agenda' on my part (exactly what that specific agenda is he has yet to elucidate). Note that that last personal attack edit summary accompanied his deletion of a valid source for CNN video (the video blog Crooks and Liars) without valid justiification, falsely calling it a 'hate site' [9] while getting in still more attacks on me.

Since his userpage has a userbox which reads:

This user's Agenda on Wikipedia is to STOP users who have an Agenda on Wikipedia

Such conduct, openly targeting editors he unilaterally deems to have an 'agenda' (as he did above with me) rather than focusing on content issues, is a profound violation of WP:AGF, and as such it's extremely uncivil and counter-productive. I've told him I won't edit war any more on this issue - but I will work within the rules and policy to ensure valid, cited information isn't being deleted without a valid reason. And as I stated on the talk page thread, the content in question is well-cited:

The Boston Globe cite verifies the fact that push polling took place against the McCain campaign, but doesn't attribute it to Rove or even the Bush campaign. The film 'Bush's Brain' contains McCain's former campaign manager stating he believed the Bush campaign to be responsible for the poll. And the CNN cite titled "Rove responds to 2000 South Carolina campaign allegation" quite obviously substantiates that the allegation was made against Rove, and that he denied it:
'White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove sharply dismissed an allegation Thursday that he was behind a 2000 rumor that Sen. John McCain was the father of an illegitimate African-American child."
Therefore, these cites verify the information in the article section that you blanked:
1. Push polling took place against the McCain campaign in South Carolina in 2000.
2. Allegations were made against Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.
3. Rove and the campaign both specifically responded to and denied the accusations.
And that's just what the article says. So, you are beating a dead horse. Exactly what do you object to as uncited?-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not engage in a revert war with him - but of course I would very much appreciate the input of the community and any help in alleviating what I see as Threeafterthree's determined campaign of disruption by targeting users and avoiding resolution. And if there's something I can do toimprove my editing, etc., please let me know... there are always at least two sides to every conflict. Honest thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this require administrator intervention? Have you considered filing a request for comment on the article content? Have you notified the user in question that you've filed a report about his activities here, and have you followed the other steps in dispute resolution? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ten. I have indeed considered filing an RFC on the article content issue and likely will.... but it's the user's 'Agenda to Stop Users with Agendas'-driven conduct, not the content issue, that is the worrying part of this equation. I've also notified the user of this post on the article talk page, and asked him to remain civil at nearly every turn, patiently reviewing the content issues until he returns to character attacks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::This is a content dispute, and not just a content dispute, but one where the editor you're complaining about is correct: the material you're seeking to add violates WP:SYN and WP:EL. Both editors in the dispute could stand to review WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, and WP:NPA. THF 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The content is plainly cited. The push polling inarguably took place [10], notable allegations of responsiblity for the push poll were made directly against Rove and the Bush campaign [11], John Weaver, 2000 McCain campaign manager, and both the campaign and Rove have denied it on multiple occasions [12], [http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/rove-responds-to-2000-south-carolina.html.
The article does not state, and nor would I support, the claim that Rove was responsible - but the incident is a matter of public record. Also, please help me understand - what is the specific WP:SYN / WP:EL violation? And more importantly, so I can honestly focus on improvements, which edit diff of mine is an WP:NPA? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the repeated insertion of Crooksandliars video as a cite, which violates WP:SYN and WP:EL, as well as WP:MOS by an in-line URL instead of a footnote. I deleted the comment as inappropriate for AN/I, since it's a content dispute, but you reinserted it. THF 18:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Help me out on this one - if I understand correctly, it's a violation to post a link to video if it's hosted on a third party? (I'm not trying to be obtuse, I honestly don't understand this objection and would like to). Is it better to simply reference the event without a link (CNN, Rove speaks in March 2007, etc.), or find a CNN-sponsored host for the material? Thanks for any insight you can provide on this issue.
As far as a user maintaining an agenda to 'STOP other users who have an agenda', is this kind of open targeting of users (with the ongoing personal attacks he has leveled) considered an acceptable topic for AN/I? Because it's obviously serious enough to have derailed this content dispute (which otherwise ould have been rather straightforward) on numerous occasions. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on the rest of this: Why must one provide a link to the CNN clip at all? Just reference it like you would reference anything else that doesn't exist on the web (TV show, movie, book, journal article, etc.). --ElKevbo 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. I'll make the edit (later, once things have cooled down and I've had a few more hours on the beach to relax) and hopefully we can resolve the issue amicably and informatively alike... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The source violates WP:MOS by an inline URL instead of a footnote? You have to be kidding. Guidelines aren't capable of being "violated". If there's something about the formatting of a source that you don't like, what you do is fix it, not remove it. Meanwhile, I've protected the article till the issue has been worked out on talk (I know there's a lot of shouting on Talk, but that's not entirely what I have in mind.) My opinion about Ryan's questions: I don't find the userbox hugely objectionable. But the edit summaries and general incivility of Threeafterthree is quite unacceptable. I've warned him on his page. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

TIME OUT!!!Everybody STOP! Ryan, it seems that we really aren't that far apart. Can the section read: A) There was a push poll, the source there works B) Folks said Rove did it C) Rove deny it ? DONE, FINISHED, OVER!! --Tom 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we can work out the content issues easily - if you will just agree to stop accusing me of pushing an agenda (I'm not), and agree to focus on content rather than making attacks. To that end, a real (not a non-apology) apology from you for your comments would go a long way towards reassuring me that your goal is article improvement rather than attacking and smearing editors falsely as 'agenda pushers' and the like... but if you're not able to offer an apology I'll survive. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See Non-apology apology. If you guys think it's safe, I'll unprotect the article now. Reply here, please. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, sure, go for it. I will try to keep it to the talk page, and not revert immediately, but try to discuss and get other editors involved. This is a tiny blip in the article but Ryan battles to no end. Anyways, I am sure he will she this as another "attack", yadda, yadda, yadda. --Tom 22:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Your conduct, not mine, has been unacceptable. Even after all this, you persistently avoid resolution on the content issues by engaging in rude conduct towards me:
"Oh for goodness sake, get over yourself, geesh" [13]
I won't take the bait and I won't return your incivility in kind. It's quite clear who is 'battling' to no end - your blanket deletions, rife with personal attacks and bereft of factual justification, are readily apparent. I ask you again for an apology (not another insulting non-apology apology) and for you to desist from your evade-and-attack behavior. Please stop.
As far as the article is concerned, the content dispute should be readily resolved, if only the attacks will stop. So far, given the renewed nonsense that Threeafterthree cannot seem to relinquish, that really doesn't look likely. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I will not edit the Rove article. I will not talk to Ryan. I apologize for the drama. Out, --Tom 23:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] public password for User:HBKH

I just blocked and changed password for HBKH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after some strange pagemoves. If the user wants to regain his account he will need to get confirmation from a checkuser as no email was set. Agathoclea 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And now HBKH has added a blocked tag to his own page - [14]. Corvus cornix 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually that was me. Agathoclea 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Muntuwandi

User has no understanding of citation policy, as evidenced by edits to Religion here and here. As per discussion on the talk page, the user believes that ISBNs and page numbers are sufficient citations, and most likely did not revert my reversions due to 3RR. Given that this user is by no means a new user and has edits dating back to 2005, this inability following policy and procedure is unacceptable. As this user seems to have a history of editwarring, I believe that admin intervention is necessary to prevent another problem on another article with this user. MSJapan 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. He's citing a book published by a reputable publisher and he's citing the ISBN and the page number. Yes, the citation should also include the name of the publisher and the author. So you should add that to the citation. But you've just removed the citation altogether. Please explain, with reference to policy, why you felt it necessary to remove information that appears to be correct and submitted in good faith, rather than simply fixing a problem with the way the citation was given? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If your objection is to the formatting of the citation then you should fix it or ask for it to be fixed on the article's talk page. If you have no objection to the actual content then removing it is simply a disruption to make a point. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my complaint is the same as the below user's; his material citations have nothing to do with the books mentioned.
The PDF is a review of literature in a field that isn't religion, written by a psychology scholar, and the review for Wade's book on Amazon says "According to New York Times science reporter (emphasis mine) Wade, this DNA analysis shows that evolution isn't restricted to the distant past: Iceland has been settled for only 1,000 years, but the inhabitants have already developed distinctive genetic traits. Wade expands his survey to cover the development of language and the domestication of man's best friend. And while "race" is often a dirty word in science, one of the book's best chapters shows how racial differences can be marked genetically and why this is important, not least for the treatment of diseases." Therefore, what it says about religion is irrelevant, because Wade is neither a scholar nor a religious scholar, but a science reporter.MSJapan 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is a troll and an afrocentrist that needs an indefinite block. He adds in POV and OR, and adds irrelevant sources. More often than not, the sources have nothing to do with the information being added, he does so just to try and have the information kept. See discussion at [15] --देसीफ्राल 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility, tit for tat SSPs, removal of warning templates, COIs, and the list goes on

Could an administrator please take a look at the situation between User:IPSOS and User:Kephera975 please, and review the two associated sockpuppetry reports here and here, before this argument gets any worse? It has already drawn in several other editors including User:Parsifal, User:GlassFET, myself, and an admin who closed an associated AfD here which is now being reviewed. Off the bat I see complete disregard to WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:CANVAS (e.g. here among other places), and removal of warnings, such as here and here on the part of certain involved individuals as 'trolling'. Everyone needs to cool down. I wonder if administrators would consider an enforced cooling off period if necessary. ColdmachineTalk 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over the "uses in fiction" section of page Thermal_lance

This concerns the page Thermal lance. It had a section about uses of thermal lances in fiction. User:Eyrian kept deleting it.

On 14 June I went to mediation about this to avoid a long edit war: see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance. The matter seemed to stay unsettled for a long time.

On 15 or 16 August 2007 Eyrian deleted or blanked and protected all his user-area files, and thus at 05:42 on 17 August 2007 User:Daniel decided that Eyrian had left Wikipedia, and Daniel tagged the above dispute "{{Closed case|05:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)|One party has retired from editing Wikipedia.}}". I thus felt it acceptable to treat the dispute as terminated and I restored the disputed matter in Thermal lance.

On 17 August 2007 Eyrian reactivated and restored his user area files and restarted the above dispute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermal_lance&diff=151855327&oldid=151840036 for the two versions. I commented out the "closed case" tag in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance and hereby wish to consider this matter as still open, as it was closed on the assumption that Eyrian was no longer active.

(See also User talk:Eyrian#Raygun, User talk:Eyrian#Arabella Figg, User talk:Eyrian#Articles for deletion, Raygun#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns? .)

Anthony Appleyard 21:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ssoap box section keeps getting re-added

User:Mitsos keeps re-adding a huge soap box section to the Hrisi Avgi article, promoting the agenda of that political party (which he openly supports). Also, in his last revert, he falsely accused me of vandalism. Could an administrator please step in and explain that large sections of direct quotes promoting a specific agenda, without any context or analysis, does not fall within Wikipedia guidelines? I have already provided him with the link to the Wikipedia soap box policy on the article's talk page, but he has ignored, or doesn't understand that policy.Spylab 22:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is the section in question: [16]. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Caucasus' Russian history being removed

User:Atabek, the same user who had removed the term Armenian genocide from about a dozen articles previously (see here for the previous report: [17]) has now removed any mention of Russia's part in Caucasus history on several articles: [18], [19], [20], [21]

As you can see, he removed any mention of the Russian governorates in the Caucasus. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

After looking a just a couple of Atabek's user contributions, its seems like recent activity is reverisions of your removal of information. Please use edit summaries all the time. --Rocksanddirt 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible police investigation by Frank Zampino

Not sure if any of you are aware of this but I've spotted this article (although in French) mentioning that the individual is threating to demand a police investigation because of users using some IP's from the cabinet office of Gerald Tremblay the mayor of Montreal that had made defamatory edits on Zampino's article - the IP mentionned that he was a former nazi supporter and a member of the Weight Watchers. Another article here mentionned that the incident occured on August 15 2006 at 12:19 PM (so 16:19 UTC).JForget 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd be hearing a lot of similar cases in the near future. That is because of the WikiScanner. I think the police and the foundation are the ones to deal w/ the case above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with FayssalF. Also even if this was a concern for Wikipedia Sysop and editors, I found no evidence of any edits on that day or any edits in either the day before or after. nattang 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna make a research in the history of the edits of that article to see where it was. It may be an error by the author of the 2nd article (Tristan Peloquin) or the contribs have been deleted from the history.--JForget 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just spotted it 'BUT it is dated August 17, 2007 (made a couple of hours ago!) and not August 15, 2006. Not even at the French version. Anyway, IP blocked for 6 months. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is the [one edit] that the article made referenced and it was on July 23, 2006 by User:67.71.78.44 with more here, here and here with targeting other members. The recent edit, in which another IP called him nazi, was made after the incident was reported based on this edit. Probably a semi-protection may be necessary if things degenerate especially if it makes the headlines in the Quebec TV media.--JForget 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
These two radio station in Montréal also published these articles on this issue: [22] [23]. but the wikipedia link that the second article provides doesn't exist. nattang 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
because Zanimum intervened earlier today deleting to restore good edits only. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[24]

[edit] Talk:Southern California InFocus#the state of this page csloat

I am having some issues with csloat.

I began a discussion on the talk page about whether or not the article met the notability criteria that are put forward on that policy page.

Rather than addressing the concerns I raised, csloat began to focus on my motivations.

He has continued with very personal remarks directed at me:

I feel bullied. He has accused me of being disruptive, ignoring policy undue, while I have actually edited to try to address his concerns and tried to explain 100% of my edits on the talk page or edit summaries.

Maybe this is normative for Wikipedia, maybe not. I want to edit Wikipedia, and feel I have a right to without being subject to personal remarks and insinuations. Could this user be told to stick to more disapssionate give and take discussion focusing on content of articles and not editors? Bigglove 01:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience with this editor as well, at Talk:Leonard Peltier where a simple content dispute over the relevance of a certain category to the article quickly turned into a personal attack and accusations by him that I was stalking him and a false accusation that I was not participating in the discussion on the Talk page. Teens! 02:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The admin noticeboard is not a dispute resolution process. Please see Dispute Resolution and seek out a method of mediation there instead, as you seem to have already filed RfC's. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vendio IP block

Nonsense-inserting bots have been located editing from the 70.42.248.0/24 IP block. I've indefblocked that block per WP:OP, having found a number of open proxies from this hosting company. If anyone from this IP block wants an unblock, please feel free. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also been blocking a load of open proxies inserting this stuff, examples:

-- zzuuzz (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ~Kylu (u|t) 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Herbert Dingle

I know nothing about the edit history of this page, but this edit summary indicates that something needs to be done. Corvus cornix 03:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help stop vandalism to Clive Bull's article by User:John Locke22 for more than a month

Clive Bull is a British radio talk show host, and after a long history of people adding names of non-notable (and other unverifiable callers) to his page I found citations for the genuine ones and placed a hidden template/comment explaining that only verifiable names should be added in future. Since then User:John Locke22 has continuously removed this hidden comment, and used deliberately misleading edit summaries, such as here when he claimed a major edit was "Very minor". He has removed the template on 23 July 2007, 28 July 2007, 11 August 2007, 13 August 2007, 15 August 2007, and 17 August 2007. I have placed three warnings on his talk page for removal of content, but as this account is only being used to remove content I expected him to ignore the warnings. I haven't registered an account because I'm not on my PC much, but I'm a fan of Clive Bull so I want to try and keep unreliable details off his page (there's an occasional vandal who adds ridiculous gossip claiming Clive Bull had an affair with a listener he seduced on air, so this page seems to attract nonsense to it - see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon). Can someone please do something to stop User:John Locke22 from removing the hidden message, it would also be really helpful if someone could add this page to their watchlist as I can't log on much. Thanks. 172.209.61.159 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can somebody persuade User:Digwuren to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

I was trying to explain to User:Digwuren that it is uncivil to revert good faith edits of established user's with the edit summaries like that or that or to remove sourced info like that with the only explanation: "removing someditor's propaganda". I guess I failed. Since I have a few editorial conflicts with the user he might assume bad faith from my part.

It also seem to be a recurring problem. Recently he was blocked for a week for incivility then unblocked with the summary having consulted blocking admin, this user is unblocked to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY. reblock if user abuses this trust. I do not see much of a participation in the RfC mentioned, but see other admins complaining about false vandal accusations as well as him been just under the 3RR limit on a number of articles. Can some neutral admin do something about him? Alex Bakharev 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I request that any admin evaluating this, would take a deep hard look into matters before deciding. Alex is rather biased in this matter...--Alexia Death 06:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Alex is not truthful either, claiming Digwuren was blocked for one week for "incivility", he has never been blocked for incivility as the block log indicates:[25]. Martintg 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
He was blocked for "tendentious editing and edit warring" which for all intents and purposes is the same thing in the context. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The task is hopeless. Only the community block will solve the problem. Especially as there are scores of meatpuppets ("Tartu University accounts") who support Digwuren's tendentious activities and effectively encourage his disruptive behaviour in the project. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I second an opinion about hopelessness of the task but, being relatively newbie to wikipedia, am not sure what community block means. From technical viewpoint, I (very weakly)support an idea that any edit from Tartu Uni IP address (or even from any user who ever used Tartu Uni's IP) must be scrutinized closely, as this group has well proven track of disruptive behaviour. But I don't put much faith in the technical measures here. Group's insistence on presenting any Estonia-related viewpoint only through eyes of Estonian commentators (as in [26] and [27] and [28]) speaks for it's organic inability to grasp the very concept of difference in opinions. And I believe that student (or former student) of Tartu University can google "proxy server"RJ CG 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I second Alex's request, this user is constantly disrupting a whole segment of WP. I suggest some uninvolved admins look into this matter closer. Besides, Deskana unblocked him only "to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY." and adding that one should "reblock if user abuses this trust" (see unblock summary). I believe it is the case here. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That condition of the block expired along with the initial block that was for two weeks, leaving one week under this condition. Digwuren may be a bit strong at times but so are the opponents. The admin ruling on this better be neutral...--Alexia Death 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"Opponents?" Gee whiz, but I thought we were all fellow editors. If you come here to fight your opponents, then you're coming here for the wrong reason. Uninvolved admins have investigated, and they blocked. This is a repeat of previous bad behavior. Geogre 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, three uninvolved administrators have blocked this account in the past, and all three did so for the same issues: such zeal to a particularly contentious and controversial point of view that it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Given the number of people blocking, this may be best handled at Community Blocks than AN/I. It would be good, though, to hear from Deskana and FassalF. Geogre 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must note that Alex's report is a bit exaggerated. I don't see clear signs of incivility but instead i do see that those edits summaries as signs of non-stop disruptive editing. It seems that Digwuren hasn't learned anything from previous blocks.

I must also note that during his block period back on July, my connected laptop faced intrusion attempts from Tallinn (i'm keeping more details to myself). If any admin (preferably an uninvolved admin) would like to see this evidence s/he'd just drop me an email. Note also that i haven't even intended to talk about this incident as i considered it part of "Digwuren being mad about being blocked" but now i see that Digwuren is still using questionable tactics to deal w/ situations here.

Alexia! Opponents? No, please have a look at WP:BATTLE. Digwuren, you stop that behavior of calling others vandals immediately or you'll find yourself on the bench again. I am afraid this time it would be hard to swallow. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of some estonian trying to hack you for the block are very strong and shouldn't be thrown around so easily. Suva 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
IF your'e having a dispute with someone, that someone is your OPPONENT. Whats wrong with that? In every debate there are opponents. I don't understand what it has to do with WP:BATTLE.--Alexia Death the Grey 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you want me to tell you about the exact location of the intruder? No, i am sorry. I told you above that any admin is free to pursue this and verify it. I've got all the supported material. I've also told you that i had no intention to talk about this. So what do you mean by so easily? Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I want to know the exact location of intruder. AFAIK most other editors except me are located in Tartu, and I don't remember trying to intrude anyones laptop at that period of time. Also, this kind of accusation would leave pretty bad mark on someones reputation. And I don't want my and other honest editors reputation to be touched for something we haven't done. Suva 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you an admin? If yes, have you sent me a request via email? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. And, as for what Ghirla so endearingly calls us "Tartu University accounts" (always failing to give any proof whatsoever... but that is his tactic to make others look bad, I guess), I think I am the only user out of those who has a Tallinn IP occasionally.
As for Digwuren, considering what he has been forced to go though by these single-purpose POV-pushers... you really cannot condemn him. Sure, his edit summaries could be much more civil - that has been told to him repeatedly. I recommend an admin to make a clear warning about those - and then follow his edit summaries for a month, blocking or warning him as needed. Other then that, I see no difference in comparison with RJ CG behavior - except that Digwuren is not blindly pushing his personal POV, but attempts to show facts/arguments from both sides. Sander Säde 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. I've told you above that i've got all the supported material. I am telling you again that these are secondary things to me. What i believe is that repetitive and disruptive editing means a block. Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yawwn... Should I respond with accusation of POV-pushing too? Probably I should, at least in order to prevent any future occurence of banning on the grounds so unique and laughable some completely unrelated wikipedian ridiculed them on my talk page [29]? But this is so booring, to go through the same song in the millionth time. Instead I'll try once more to summarize my view on a possible resolution of this mess. Let's agree that we all have our POVs and we're not in a totalitarian country, where having a POV is a crime. Let's also agree that my POV may be different from yours, which is OK. I also understand that such topic as Estonia's role in WWII (fight for independence, unlike in let's say, Poland, was so interwoven with collaboration that same event can be viewed as either freedom fighting or quislingism, so to speak) is controversial by it's nature. Therefore I propose to let both POVs co-exist in an article. For example, Estonians want to commemorate Erna? Fine. But let's add the Russian position here without pro-Estonian edits. If the Russian arguments are laughable and controversy artificial, it will be evident. If they have merits, they will be assessed as such. But it is up to reader to decide. Wikipedia is neither Russian nor Estonian propaganda tool. I believe this approach (imperfectly) works for articles dealing with a Middle Eastern conflict, why shouldn't it here.RJ CG 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the recent appearance of Ptrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) an SPA solely devoted to support Digwuren in edit wars. --Irpen 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Do I understand correctly that I have somehow stepped over a certain invisible border, questioning some topics or edits from people, which or who are obviously not to be questioned? My apologies for my appearance (like I see, that is considered really bad) and having opinions that are considered not acceptable. Thank you. Ptrt 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe he was referring to your edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptrt]. 1st hit [30] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 2nd hit [31] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 3rd and 4th [32] hits - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 5th and 6th hits [33] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. All edits are reverts of my edits. Then one unrelated edit, bunch of reverts to protect Digwuren in an edit disputes and flurry of activity here. Grand total of not acting as stalker of yours truly and Digwuren's supporter - one. Don't you see a trend yourself? RJ CG 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Before continuing here, I'd still would like at least one of the accusers be bold enough and state clearly, what have I done wrong? Disagreeing with their views (what coincidentally did look like supporting their arch-enemy, the dreaded Digwuren)? I was thinking that Wikipedia was more about content then social network, so I have not thought very much about supporting (or confronting) of other users, it's more about their edits and content they create.
Irpen, I presume that you would like to include also me in your RfAr (as my name appears there) - but then I have to politely ask you to change the name of your case to reflect more that it's really about. This could be disappointment for you, but I'm not from Tartu, I'm never studied at Tartu University, I have never belonged to any Korp! and (last but not least) have never met nor communicated otherwise with users who seem to share these constant accusations (what is interesting: always from one certain group of users, with strikingly similar thinking and world view), almost always for "not writing like we'd like it" (sorry, but that's the only common enough reason I could find). Ptrt 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And the immediate appearance of this "new" account here should be noted too. --Irpen 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. My mistake that before starting active participation, I took some time to discover where different topics are discussed. And I'm really sorry about having found this handy watchlist thing, I now see that using something like that is also considered bad. I'll try to avoid anything like this in future. Ptrt 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can somebody persuade User:Digwuren to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (section break)

Case submitted to ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Digwuren and Tartu based accounts. --Irpen 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, but I'm afraid that it's going to be low yield. The Community board may still be the best venue, given how every single person who looks seems to get sprayed with a face full of venom. Geogre 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think not. Digwuren has been a very productive editor with over 3000 edits to main space. This is in essence a dispute over the interpretation of Soviet history, related to this case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop to some degree. It is unfortunate that Alex Bakharev, someone from a Soviet background, does not see this and tries to undercut the proper dispute resolution processes to ban another editor with a similar Soviet background because their views on Soviet history differ. There has to be some attempt at mediation, and if not successful, then atleast a RFC/U first. Martintg 05:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation may work well for content disputes but this case is none of that no matter how hard you try to frame it as such. My statement does not say a word about content issues. It concentrates on Digwuren's disruptive conduct only. Mind boggling edit warring, attacking his opponents, accusing them of vandalism, and everything else I wrote there is unacceptable whether it is accompanied by the POV-pushing for the the theory of Global Warming, Environmental protection, World Peace, Flat Earth theory, Soviet occupation theory or Soviet occupation denialism.

Whether it is OK to run revert wars, call everyone who disagree with you a vandal, harass other editors, etc., is non-negotiable and not subject to mediation. --Irpen 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same issues were raised in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn, yet it was disqualified due to a lack of an attempt at mediation. I see no difference here. Either you or Alex Bakharev should have raised a case for mediation and dealt with these issues in an open and honest way. Martintg 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is the process aimed at finding a mutually acceptable compromise. Where is the compromise in an issue of edit warring in a bunch of articles all at once? And I am not talking about content. I am talking about edit wars. Where is the compromise between whether calling opponents vandals is allowed or not. Or between harassment and carrying a dialog like decent humans beings?

Digwuren has received a very strong message no more than 3 weeks ago about the community's stand on these issues in the form of a week-long community block. Judging from him returning to even more disruptive behavior in no time, he got none of it. I am always willing to look for a middle ground in content disputes. But I am not going to look for a middle ground on issues clearly spelled out in policies and guidelines as overall disruption.

I had no content dispute with Digwuren since I withdrew completely from all Estonia related topics in May and my attention was drawn back to this editor exclusively by encountering him as he expanded the scope of his revert-warring outside of the narrower scope of Estonia-related articles. If ArbCom says that I am at fault for not being "flexible enough", so be it. --Irpen 06:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no community block, just the unilateral action of one admin. It take two to edit war, and in the situation leading to Digwuren's 1 week block, your compatriot Mikkalai started the edit warring by blanking content on an Estonia related article while Digwuren merely attempted to restore content. Who is right? It is still content related and subject to mediation. The blocking admin himself was reported to this board by another uninvolved editor who thought the action a case of admin abuse. There are two sides in every story.
As I said, all the things which you take issue with: edit warring, name calling, etc, were detailed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn, yet it was rejected due to a lack of mediation. Do you think being called a vandal is worse than being called a Nazi? Yet that is the language Petri Krohn used. Where is his community block? Or is it the case that when your allies behave in a certain way, mediation is in order, but when your opponents act the same way, then community blocks are in order?
And if you say your "attention was drawn back to this editor exclusively", why did you also list the so-called "Tartu based accounts" in the RfA? Martintg 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unilateral action of one admin" becomes a community block when no other admin is willing to undo it. This is exactly what Digwuren got. The accusation of "admin abuse" was discussed already. You are free to start an admin abuse RfC against FayssalF or take him straight to ArbCom with this. I wish you luck in this endeavor.

You can't find an excuse for Digwuren's behavior by repeating Petri's name even 100 more times. I interacted very little with Petri and Digwuren and I am not interested in who is "worse." I saw Digwuren's behavior clearly amounting to an ArbCom. If you think Petri's has been even worse, fine, ArbCom will see to it. Try writing a statement in this regard.

I have no clue about the rest of your speculations about my "allies", "opponents", "Mikkalai", etc. If you see some conspiracy here, try to convince the arbcom of it. This board is not the place for such theories. --Irpen 07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Any ArbCom requires that the RFC process will be followed first. Since you also included the nebulous "Tartu based accounts", ArbCom expects evidence of some kind of mediation process when a group is involved. I don't see evidence of either. You have been around long enough to know this, why are you wasting our time rather than attempting a genuine despute resolution process? Martintg 09:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the ArbCom doesn't require any "RFC process". They like having a preparatory RFC, especially if evidence is otherwise scanty (not the case here). Sometimes. Sometimes they don't care. Martintg, please avoid making cocksure claims about stuff you're not familiar with, as they may mislead people. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC).
I'm sure ArbCom can decide almost anything, but I am also sure that ArbCom doesn't want to be flooded with endless ill-considered, malformed or immature requests either, that's why we have a dispute resolution process. Arbitration is the last resort, that is official policy. See WP:DR#Last_resort:_Arbitration. I don't see any legitimate attempt at prior dispute resolution here. Martintg 11:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an attempt at mediation. 1. Contact user. 2. Contact uninvolved readers. 3. Report and ask for intervention. If all of that fails, go to RFC, if it looks like a content dispute, or to RFAR if it looks like irremediable behavior. It looks like this is #3. No doubt there is a content dispute, a hydra-headed one, but it is equally without a doubt that this is a report and attempt at resolution of editing behavior, not point of view or article fixing. Further, this argument is exhibiting some of the very same bad behavior -- tarring editors like Alex, trying to elevate "civility" to the level of golden rule on one side only ("rv vandalism" isn't an insult?), and all the rest. Myself, I think the behaviors are so unlikely to be dealt with via arbitration, due to the sliding IP's and block evasions of a group of editors, that I think the ban board is better. Irpen and others believe that arbitration is better. It's not just a content dispute. (For one thing, I care nothing about the content in question, and I can see the blanking, reverting, and edit warring. If you do care about the content and can't see those things, then perhaps you're too close to see clearly.) Geogre 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not mediation at all. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Mediation. You are also incorrect on #3, it's not RFC for content and RFAR for behaviour, it's RFC for content or RFC/U for behaviour, then RFAR if required. Where is the RFC/U? Where is the genuine effort at mediation before the RFC/U?Bishonen to her credit so passionately argued in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn#.22Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute.22 that there should be mediation first. Why is there no similar allowance in the case of Digwuren? I'm not "tarring" anyone, these are legitimate questions. Let me remind you it was Bishonen who raised the issue of Petri Krohn's RFC/U as a substitute, so it is legitimate to compare Petri Krohn's and Digwuren's alleged wrong doings and compare the response of the actors involved. Alex Bakharev also participated in that RFC/U and also edits Estonia related pages so he not unfamiliar to the issues. So it is right to compare his responses in both cases. Sure, many find writing "rv vandalism" in an edit comment uncivil, however Petri Krohn went far beyond that and vilified ethnic Estonians in general over many, many occasions. The evidence is in the RFC/U. Where was his outrage and report to the notice board while Estonian editors where enduring Petri's vilification and disruptive editing to the point that thay were forced to submit an RFC/U subsequently quashed due to a lack of mediation. This is a content issue, at the heart of it is the differing interpretation of Soviet history by Russophone editors on one side and other east european editors on the other side. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop for a view of the scale of the issue. So for uninvolved editors to wade in with recommendations of short circuiting the dispute resolution process by advocating going to the ban board because arbitration is, in your words "low yeild", is wholly unconstructive. Given the emotive interpretations of Soviet history, Digwuren should be given the same leeway as Petri Krohn has evidently been given. Real genuine mediation and dispute resolution is the answer. Martintg 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do so love a lecture. However, the wild dream of settling the matter of Eastern European history is nothing I'll hold out for. In the mean time, let's look at what is directly before us: a user who has been cautioned repeatedly, and without dissent, blocked a few times, and is returning now to anger. I have no position on whether he is legitimate in being angry, but I do have a position on this mob justice of "all of Eastern Europe" on the one side and "Russia" on the other. In fact, this artificial group is not homogenous, not consistent in its "content dispute," and not coherent in its arguments. It is united, so far, only in sharing an enemy. We don't need or want enemies at Wikipedia. Geogre 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you there. Generally Digwuren is a fairly competent editor, trying to source his edits when he can, willing to overturn his own edits when new sources contradict them and attempts to follow NPOV guidelines and is also willing to discuss controversial edits in talk pages. He has already made a great contribution to Estonia related articles, filling a big gap in Wikipedia for those people interested in reading about Estonia. So I don't think we want to chase him away. If he is angry or frustrated about something, mediation is the best course of action. Having him tarred and feathered by an angry mob will only result in a downward spiral, and that will be great loss for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia and thus Wikipedia. Martintg 01:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I largely disagree with your characterization of Digwurgen and totally reject your implying that I am a part of some angry mob. Digrwuren did contribute content to Estonia-related articles. This is the only thing we agree upon. As for the rest, he does not attempt to follow NPOV guidelines, he is not (at least usually not) willing to discuss at the talk pages, when discussions take place he is extremely rude and often he is plainly trolling. Finally, team-revert-warring coordinated by IRC or any other way Digwuren and his friends are doing it is plain dirty. And on top of that, he is more given to rabid revert-warring than any editor I know among those who are currently active.

He was warned very strongly as the 1 week community block is a message worth to listen. He did not ask for suggestions, as he promised, and immediately returned to his old ways only in a more disruptive form. From experience, I can tell you that I have seen here several productive editors who due to their temper and lack of decency were unable to fit into this community. Digwuren is just that, IMO. I have explained that I have no content conflict with him to seek mediation. I am not active in topics where he edits. He was asked to change his ways. He was given a very stringent warning 3 weeks ago. He got no message. He turned worse instead. I see no chance he can get any message and this makes it an ArbCom matter. Perhaps ArbCom, unlike myself, would say that there is a chance that he can still be reformed; and will hand down some sort of a combination of conditional parole placed on him, instead of the ban. Arbitrators have seen a larger number of disruptive editors than myself, I would expect, and will take their experience with other problem editors into consideration.

I am not motivated by the goal to chase him away. I want his disruption to stop. If he wakes up next morning a nice and decent person editing constructively, talking nicely, listening to opponents, seeking the compromise, I would me more than satisfied. I don't see the chance of this. And I am willing to mediate seeking for the middle ground when I say one thing my opponent says the opposite and the solution is somewhere in the middle. But I am not interested in a mediation on whether disagreeing with Digwuren amounts to Vandalism, whether it is OK to revert war on a bunch of articles all at the same time, to resort to teaming up when you "don't have enough reverts" and to badmouth other editors. --Irpen 03:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, for someone who claims they are not part of an angry mob, you come across very angry indeed. It is rather sad that my conciliatory tone and support of Digwuren should elicit such a strong response from you. And ofcourse your motivation is indeed to chase him away, otherwise you would agree to mediation. Since you yourself above said that you are "not active in topics where he edits", I cannot see how you could form a full picture of Digwuren's character. That is why an RFC/U should have been held so that those who are active in the topics he edits can comment on his character before going to RfA.
What I find disturbing is your continued baseless accusation of "team-revert-warring coordinated by IRC". Your RfA cites "Tartu based accounts" as the involved parties, but you fail to name the individuals that comprise this group or to articulate what this nebulous group of accounts have allegedly done, let alone any evidence, to warrant ArbCom intervention. It seems that you want to slur and unjustifiably damage the reputations of editors who happen to reside in Estonia, hence continue to throw mud in the hope that it will stick. I know you are a Russophone, and I am also aware of the attitude of many Russophones towards eSStonia, I hope that I am wrong in thinking that there may be some connection here, so you ought to think about deleting that aspect from the RfA and refrain from making these kinds of speculative unfounded accusations. Martintg 10:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks and RFCU

I've been on an extended wikibreak, since approximately the 17th of last month, and I returned to discover that I had been blocked for a week during that time, ostensibly for violating 3RR on a living person's article. After some discussion at AN/I, in which I did not participate, and of which I was unaware, that block was reduced, but not eliminated[34]. On returning I approached the admin who blocked me and asked him to clarify his reasons, while pointing out that the block was unjustified[35], as it was based on the assumption that anyone from all IPs in Harvard and Cambridge/Somerville editing an article about a prominent Harvard professor would have to be me, and, indeed, was pointless as I have been editing from New York for months. Meanwhile an RFCU was declined without giving a reason, and it seems I can't ask for it to be reopened. Basically, this means I was blocked for no reason, two weeks into a wikibreak, and I am denied a method of demonstrating that it was pointless, inaccurate and unfair. I'd just like to know if there's anything that can be done under these circumstances; I'd like to have something to point to indicating I did not abuse the system, given that block logs don't go away. This was my first block - indeed the first allegation that I violated policy of this magnitude - in my many years of editing the encyclopaedia, and I can imagine that it was no coincidence that it took place a few weeks into my vacation. Hornplease 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation certainly warrants discussion, but you should advise the administrators who were involved in the block of this thread, so that they can respond here. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I should have. Have done so now. Hornplease 03:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease, you have to just move on. This is an adminstrator's board and you will likely find little support or sympathy about your block, whether it was justified or not. Even if administrator abuse is real (and I'm not saying it is abuse in your case), nothing will be done about it. In fact, it is dangerous to even comment on it because people are likely to attack me just for saying this. Keep editing. Look forward, not back. There are plenty of articles that need improvement. Stay away from bad tempered people, particularly if they are administrators, and you will do fine. Don't get hung up on freedom on speech because you can be right and still raise the wrath of angry admins. History, music, arts, entertainment, geography, science, games, etc. There are so many topics to write about and still stay away from controversy. Good luck!
Isn't this topic ready for the "resolved" tag! Specialjane 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Err? A little difficult to move on, perhaps, given that I haven't actually discussed it properly yet. Thank you, however, for taking the trouble to give the advice, (especially since I assume it required you to set up a new account!). Hornplease 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As Hornplease suggests, Specialjane's contribution above is her first non-userpage edit ever. Newyorkbrad 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the earlier discussion about this, User:Blnguyen's block of Hornplease was done without sufficient evidence, and was unjustified. Unfortunately, Hornplease edits in an area of Wikipedia that is fraught with conflict and infested by sockpuppets (one example in this very thread); I have no doubt that this block is going to be used against him in partisan warfare. It would be nice if Blnguyen would comment, but if he doesn't, I would simply point at this discussion and the previous one as evidence that Hornplease should never have been blocked, as there's no evidence that he violated 3RR on Michael E. J. Witzel or anywhere else; in fact, as I've already said, Hornplease should be praised for his efforts to keep this BLP from turning into a smear piece. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that:

  1. Hornplease was blocked without any evidence, by Blgnuyen.
  2. During the RFArb on Hkelkar2, allegations had been placed about Blnguyen's conflict of interest, and his forgiving attitude towards the accused party of the RFArb.
  3. Yet, Hornplease was blocked. What does it have to do with Hkelkar? Well, Blnguyen has totally ignored to block the WP:BLP violating users on the Witzel page, some of whom were later found to be sockpuppets of banned user HKelkar.

Under these circumstances, Blnguyen's admin actions on Hornplease are totally inappropriate. In particular, Blnguyen should refrain from taking admin actions in such edit disputes, where he has been accused of favoring one side. Also, supporting sockpuppets in continuing BLP violation is very bad. Admins should be neutral. Yes, admins can and will have opinions supporting a POV, but in such cases, admin actions should never be taken to support any POV. --Ragib 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any honest and informed user would see that blnguyen has blocked Hkelkar a number of times. Also strangely enough, Nick has also been outing hkelkar as well. So, the two users "protecting hkelkar" are really not protecting hkelkar at all. The COI allegations were brought by a rogue admin who also thought there users acting on hkelkar's orders on wiki. Ragib and Akhilleus are obviously still convinced of the existence of some underground cabal. The evidence was circumstantial at best, but the similarities were uncanny, and the obvious proximity to Witzel himself makes it even more suspicious.Bakaman 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
All very fine except that the RFCU against the Kelkar socks were filed by Akhilleus and sock mentioned above and the rest were discovered by Mackensen on his own(Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar) without any help or guidance from Nick. And I have heard the "so and so blocked a sock in July 2001, so he must be fair" argument about a hundred times in the Kelkar business to support the same two or three admins. Is there any time period after which the statute of limitations on that runs out ? Tintin 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (edited - damn, still not sure what it exactly s-of-l is)
I fail to see what is 'uncanny' or 'suspicious'. Please substantiate. Hornplease 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with user:Ragib and user:Akhilleus that user:Blnguyen's block of user:Hornplease was inappropriate. I note too that an apology or even an acknowledgment of the error has not been forthcoming from Mr. Nguyen.

I don't know too much about Mr. Nguyen, but recently happened upon two edits made by him, both of the graceless sophomoric variety that is the stock in trade of user:Bakasuprman. In his edits, Mr. Nguyen removed the Pakistan tag from the talk pages of Rudyard Kipling and Syed Ahmed Khan, and provided the summary, "Pakistan didn't exist then". Although, I have no idea who put the tags there, I could tell at a glance that they could be relevant, and that the proper approach would have been to leave posts on the respective talk pages. My subsequent post on Mr. Nguyen's talk page explaining that Kipling had cut his literary teeth at the Civil and Military Gazette in Lahore (now in Pakistan) and that Syed Ahmed Khan was one of the first proponents of the Two Nation Theory, went unanswered by Mr. Nguyen himself, although, strangely enough, was answered there by user: Bakasuprman. The Kipling tag was reinstated almost immediately by another editor (with edit summary, "Where else is Lahore?"). The deletion of the tag seemed very strange for a administrator to make, especially one who has no history of edits on those pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Since I realized earlier today that user:Blnguyen had (belatedly) responded on his talk page to both my post and User:Hornplease's post, I am retracting what I wrote above. I am retracting the first paragraph (about Hornplease's block), not because I think that the block was right, but because it seems more complicated than I had thought, and I do not have the time to pursue it further. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
An apology was conditioned on an RFCU, which I cannot obtain; the only explanation involved the unwarranted assumption that I outlined above; and there's not reply on either admin's talkpage. Any suggestions? Hornplease 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If the block is considered unfair, do admins do a 1 second good faith block or something, where they make an apology in the edit summary (which shows in the block log) to recognise that it was an incorrect block? Just curious...
Seraphim Whipp 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What good will that do? Blocking a user again to apologise for a previous block seems rather counter-intuitive to me. A simple talk page message would suffice.--Atlan (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a "reason" field when the unblock is done. Look at some block logs and you'll occasionally see notations that the previous block was in error, etc. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case, Hornplease's block has already ended.--Atlan (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that I'm sure I've seen this done somewhere else before. The problem with a talk page message is that it gets archived, so the point of using a 1 second block making an apology is that it is preserved in the block log...Have I got that right? If this was one of those cases, then it could be quite useful at "clearing the person's name" so to speak.
Seraphim Whipp 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that the block has ended, an apology can still be added to the log by means of the famous one-second block. See this section in the blocking policy (I think I may have added that section, if memory serves). And here's an example from a similar situation, where the user had also been on break during the block. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC).
From WP:BLOCK: "very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block". ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majin Xezeveir

Could an admin or admins take a look at Majin Xezeveir? It was created out of the blue with a semi-protected tag and sources tags all in one edit, it seems to have been deleted already once earlier in the day as "patent nonsense". I have no idea if this is a real anime character or not, but for the creator of the article to create it with a semi-protected tag and request for sources tag, is more than a little suspicious. Corvus cornix 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

After a few Google searches, it looks like this is fanfic. And User:Majin Xezeveir is indef-blocked. Corvus cornix 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Indefblocked the creator; obvious sock of a blocked user. This person is not here to build a credible encyclopedia or conduct himself according to community standards. Raymond Arritt 02:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD of the mentioned article is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majin Xezeveir. nattang 12:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalbots perform massive vandalism?

examples: 201.65.76.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

70.169.133.119 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

201.222.9.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

213.255.230.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

202.172.238.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

212.239.25.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

212.77.230.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

222.124.59.80 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

there are more, and they are still showing up. Vandalising too fast i cannot keep up with them. Are they some kinds of bots??!!?? I have to go now, so could someone please sort out these IPs and review the blocks? Some IPs were blocked indef (i'm in a hurry) if it's not appropriate, just change the duration. Thanks for the help —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceNT (talk • contribs)

I just blocked two of them myself for 1 week. I dunno what's going on... --- RockMFR 06:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah; the edit speed on these things indicates either cut/paste vandalism, which seems improbable, or some kind of tool/bot assistance. --Haemo 06:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
These all seem to be blacklisted in some way or other on RBL and are likely open proxies. Please block for longer. I wouldn't bother waiting for an individual checking in such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at the words they are vandalizing with. That's not cut-n-paste vandalism. One edit per 8 seconds per bot, with random strings of words, at least, so it appears to me. Less sophisticated than 'XXX is a penis' 4th grade vandalism, plus, RBL hits. Bots, probably abusing open proxies, gleaned from RBL lists. It's not an uncommon practice, nor is it clever. --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 09:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
All the IPs listed here are blocked for 1 month. -- lucasbfr talk 09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This vandalbot has been editing sporadically for a few days now. They are all open proxies. If you see them please block them for longer or list them at WP:OP where someone else will. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tricky Vandalism

Adds nonsence information in articles such as Moscow and Russian language (and possibly others). For example: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] Please help to stop vandalism.--Dojarca 10:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite.... I don't get it... Nonsense? Doesn't look like vandalism to my tired eyes... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 10:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding info that 1.4% of Moscow population are Waloons and 1.8% are Luxembourgish isn't vandalism? Then what is vandalism?--Dojarca 10:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Believers

There has been a post at Talk:Bible Believers by a person who holds himself out to be that organization's minister, which is an essay containing some disconcerting statements about Jews.[41] (It is unclear whether statements about Jews burning are from a source or the editor-- the context is not clear.) Could someone take a look at it? While Wikipedia is not censored, and the post was in response to the article, the polemical language goes too far. Should this be deleted as outside the scope of a talk page? (I added the talkheader after the post was made). Or is it a legitimate response to the article's statements about the nature of the organization? Kablammo 10:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages. Here I'll get rid of it. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the extraneous material[42] but left remainder intact. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of it's cut-and-paste either from Bible Believer's own blog, or the IHR website. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A case of massive copyright violations (for real this time)

OK, I recently miswarned a user about copyright violations; turned out he wasn't the creator of the page, even though it was listed at WP:SCV. Looking through the history, I'm finding that pretty much every addition by User:2me2me is a copyright violation of some sort; for example, his additions to List of South of Nowhere episodes seem to all be copied verbatim from http://the-n.com (e.g., [43] for one of the episodes). This will require massive cleanup for sure, and I sure would appreciate some help. The Evil Spartan 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SevenOfDiamonds blocked out of process

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SevenOfDiamonds#Unblock

Per Thatcher131 this was to go to RFAR. New admin blocked out of process, Proabivouc is harassing on the talk page, and has violated 3rr there as well. Please investigate. 85.31.186.224 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The whole sordid history is that MONGO went on an exended fishing expedition to find something on SevenOfDiamonds that would stick, accusing him in turn of being a sockpuppet of several different banned users. Finally he found an admin willing to block based on one of the accusations, despite discussion having been closed in favor of no action. *Dan T.* 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not "find" an admin at all...that admin saw the link after it was posted in a section up this page. Please stop misrepresenting me all over this website and on the mailing list.--MONGO 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not the point. The point is that you accused him of being a sockpuppet of various different users. I think that you were right this time, but assuming from the start that he was a sockpuppet without any evidence has tainted it enough that people won't believe that without an Arbcom case. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I knew he was a sock from the getgo...I suggested to one other editor that if they wanted to run a checkuser on him fine, but I knew all the likely candidates would be stale. I'm not going to arbcom when there already is a case on this editor from a previous settlement...besides, all anyone has to do to avoid their ban is get a new IP...then start over...so I'm done worrying about this matter...if someone else wants to deal with it, they can use my info if they want. I'll just avoid him completely and not edit articles if I see he is.--MONGO 04:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I get that you knew he was a sock from the getgo. And I admit that you were right about that, against what I thought. The point is that you kept calling him a sock with no evidence. So now that you have evidence, not enough people will believe it. -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Amarkov, if you believe it, as you apparently do (and good for you, thank you) then why not lay off what MONGO did wrong and focus on blocking the sock? It's gone from "Maybe he's an attack sock, but MONGO…" to "Yeah, he's an attack sock, but MONGO…" No but MONGO, it's a sock of a banned user who has just trolled off a non-banned one, and he should be blocked, now, ArbCom or no ArbCom. Even if MONGO doesn't want to press it - and after all this, who can blame him, he'll have how many people saying, "Sure, it's attack sock of a banned user, but MONGO…" And as he observes, the ban won't mean much - he'll come back with another and we'll be right back where we've been, "how do you know he's really so-and-so, oh okay he is, but MONGO…"
Because editors have axes to grind with other editors. Attack socks of banned users are welcomed as stalking horses of whomever they're attacking, ones who do things to our enemies that we're not allowed to do while we sit back and comment on the civility of the targeted editor's responses. In the name of process, it's a mockery of process - what could be more out of process than letting banned users return to troll? In the name of civility, it's a mockery of civility - what could be more uncivil than allowing our colleagues to be trolled? Under the reedy cry "Assume good faith!" it's good faith's very opposite.
Maybe it's time we eliminate "but" from our vocabularies.Proabivouac 10:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
He's been unblocked now (as noted in above section), so I guess this one should be closed and archived too? *Dan T.* 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Dan T, you've said that Brooklyn has a larger population than Manhattan.[44] You've said that MONGO's pursuit looks like a witch-hunt to you.[45] You've said that no one can prove SOD did anything wrong.[46] And you've jokingly suggested that we block all 52 cards in the deck.[47] Not once have you said that SOD isn't ZF/NU. Step up and give us an answer: is he or isn't he?Proabivouac 11:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC!)The evidence in question can be seen here: User:MONGO/Ban_evasion. Take it for what you will. In any case SevenOfDiamonds has been unblocked pending an arbcom review, so this is in essence a closed issue as far as this forum is concerned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Though I'd be curious to learn who this anon is.Proabivouac 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If you find out, and it is pertinent, take it to the arbcom review. Otherwise, AGF. Can we move on now? LessHeard vanU 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently an individual who has been edit-warring using TOR.[48][49][50][51][52] etc. In good faith, presumably.Proabivouac 01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

From the evidence at User:MONGO/Ban evasion, SixOfDiamonds/SevenOfDiamonds is clearly Zer0faults/NuclearUmpf. The remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults says he 'may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring,' and that if he violates 'any ban imposed under this decision they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.' The log of previous blocks follows, ending with Chairboy indef blocking for 'threats of harassment, promised intent to disrupt.'

So Zer0faults/NuclearUmpf came back as SixOfDiamonds and then SevenOfDiamonds, and harassed and disrupted. What is there to arbitrate? FayssalF's block was entirely appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 12:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement

I am not Nuclear, I have not harassed anyone either. MONGO follows me around, he calls me names, he brings up his accusations on any page I particpate on. He went into a rant on a RfA page. His evidence is a joke. Both users say "Thank you", "Both users edit in the same timezone" "They both live in a city of 2.5million" "they both edit at the same time" (this one is false cause the chart shows a drop my editing when I goto work and no drop in Nuclears editing at all, showing he either doesnt work, works close to his house, or works at night. From looking at Nuclears and zero's page they look like teenagers and I am grown man, I have done my service to this country and I have a daughter. MONGO also lies saying we both live in Park Slope, however I live in Bay Ridge, this faulty assumptions comes from the location and IP trace goes to, which is not the persons house it is the nearest trunk, which is not in Park Slope or BayRidge, but Sunset Park, Parkslope is 20k more then I can afford and 3 miles away. We do not edit the same articles other then 9/11 articles which I am sure many New Yorkers do, in fact I do not even edit them regularly. The articles I create an edit are based on Latin American countries, ones with dictatorships and corrupt governments. He ignorantly tries to attach Nuclear by his adding of a Guatemala to a page one day. A country I do not write about, nor have any knowledge of, I repeatedly state this on the "allegations" page that MONGO ignores to mention. MONGO and his friends have filed 3 RFCU's accusing me of being 5 different users. In the arbitration page alone, MONGO begins calling me yet another not even banned user user:rex as if he is preparing to make another accusation after this one fails. I have asked MONGO, who addresses me as "sockpuppet" whenever he is referring to me, to stop harassming me. I have asked him to stop posting on my talk page. He also cites that both me and Nuclear do not wikilink policy pages, however in just the first two pages of Nuclear contribution log I found cases of him doing it [53] [54], which of course MONGO dismisses. Nuclear left a message when he was banned saying he already created a new account, MONGO notes this was in February, this account was not made in feb, and I was editing Wikipedia even before then from various IP's, back to last year when I still lived in Queens and had a different ISP, I belive Verizon at the time. If you look at some of the articles myself and Nuclear have in common they are because MONGO and Nuclear have them in common. After MONGO appeared on my talk page attempting to bully me into submission over an AfD he lost, I started to watch his edits. I did not make any malicious ones on pages he participated, but I would involve myself in some debates if I knew of the topic and seen MONGO attempting to bully someone. Much like he did when he followed Giovanni to the Hiroshima page just to revert him, a page he never edited before then and only appeared an hour after Giovanni edited it, Tom appeared shortly after Giovanni reverted MONGO. MONGO also falsely noted on that page that I started an RfC against him, however I did not, I signed onto it after being made aware of it on my talk page. I was then told "go play somewhere" is not common phrase and was able to highlite the person making the statement, Theresa Knott, had infact said it themselves. I then showed with a google search that apparently 1/3 of all "go play somewhere" statements do not end in "else." I guess when you review all the lies, then yes it looks convincing. Ignore the dip in editing, or consider people editing during the day in the East Coast to be damning. Or believe that Nuclear did not wikilink policy which he did. Or attribute my first edit to a template which ignores that I have edited here for over a year on various ISP's (well 2), and that is simply the last IP we are aware of since I used it while having my account. I am sure the "evidence" no matter how much is foolish (highliting that people on the east coast go home at 5 and wake around 6-8, its universally known as rush hour), lies (started the RfC, living in Park Slope, first edit being to a template, saying myself and nuclear edit at the same time, ignoring the 7Am dip Nuclear does not have) and faulty (RDNS being used to pinpoint home location, when it pinpoints trunk location), or based on selective evidence (noting only the times Nuclear did not wikilink policy to show a connection) is pretty damning, however untrue it is. For further enjoyment here are some highlites of other people I am:

I am sure after the hunt ends I will soon by hunted down again for being rex. When can I just edit? I welcome MONGO to take it to Arbcom. I want to see MONGO's evidence of me harassing him, as I am sure my actions have always been in defense and I am prepared to show it. I am also more then welcoming to the communities input on both mine and MONGO's behavior during our time on Wikipedia, in all aspects of the encyclopedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If I was accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned editor (indefinitely banned), my response would be a simple "hell no" or "that's ridiculous". Why? Because there is no evidence I am. I am always fascinated that the noninnocent seem to think some long winded diatribe is going to be proof that they are innocent. So by your statement above, numerous other editors, including myself, Tom harrison, Tbeatty, Crockspot, Aude, Fassal, Amarkov, Theresa Knott, Raymond Arritt and Proabivouac, who have stated that the evidence is 99% clear or stated that the evidence is 100% clear or that I am correct that you are this banned editor are all assumptions of bad faith? Interesting. Can't imagione why we would be "going after you" if there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. For the record, I never filed checkuser on you...I suggested it be done, but always knew it would be stale info due to checkuser time limitations.--MONGO 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
MONGO if you are not willing to take this to arbitration, then I am going to have to. I think we can all agree that this constant fighting serves no purpose, and the disruption to this board is unacceptable. Either SevenOfDiamonds is a sock of a banned user, in which case I am gonig to block him. Or he is not, in which case all the accusations must stop. I'm going to draft a request in my sandbox now, anyone who wishes to help me out is welcome. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom is not necessary. It was not agreed at arbcom enforcement that he should be blocked, so the case is dead. I was just responding to his neverending misrepresntations that myself and others are on some kind of witch hunt. I have much better things to do so I know good and well that I wouldn't have bother tracking his diffs unless I had cause to do so.--MONGO 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No I think Arbcom is necessary and will bring the case and name you as an involved party no matter what, although I will of course prefer it if you help me. We cannot have the constant disruption to this board. I want him blocked or cleared so that we can move on from the seeminigly never ending fight. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I won't be commenting on the case. My experiences at arbcom is that they permit too many only very peripherally involved or even not previously involved editors to use arbcom cases to settle scores with those they have had disagreements with...the case is only about whether Diamonds is Nuclear and that is all. Regardless, I am not going to be participating.--MONGO 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, what do you suggest we do then? I agree with Theresa that this continual bickering is disruptive to the working of this board. --John 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I had made my last comment on the matter in response to Diamond's statement above. If someone wants to use my evidence at arbcom for "proof" or whatever that Diamonds and Nuclear are the same editor, they can certainly do so...I wash my hands of this.--MONGO 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Theresa in that we must move on and let the ArbCom fix this though i say this not because i want anyone blocked but to see the mess stopped for once so no one can come here every couple of days. We've got a lot of things to do. If you see, there are more than a dozen of people dealing w/ this and yet nothing has been achieved. If he's Nuclear - as i personally believe-, than this time he'd be banned and not just blocked indef as it is the case now. The ArbCom may also deal w/ MONGO being accused of being uncivil to a few of other contributors and decide if that is true or not. So you have to think that this would-be ArbCom case as a solution to all the mess. You don't have to see it as a punishment for one party and not for the other. I have the feeling that both parties are not prepared to go to the ArbCom. MONGO says there is no need and SevenOfDiamonds say it is not up to him. If that is the case please try to never bring your issues here anymore. P.S. I've archived a related thread above yesterday so i am thinking of doing the same for this one. As you see, there was an admin intervention (blocking SevenOfDiamonds indef) but it was questioned on the spot under the justification that the ArbEnfor had already given its word. I say again that the ArbEnfor is a semi-official venue and is not considered as the last resort. So it is obvious that no admin intervention would be possible now. So please leave your arguments and efforts to the ArbCom case of just stop using unnecessary bandwidth here. In other words, stand up for your rights or shut up. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it better to keep the arbcom case on this issue seperate from the possible MONGO rudeness issue. They are seperate things and as an ex arbitrator I like to keep cases as simple as possible. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My general impression is that if you want to convince people that something is true such as MONGO is rude, etc...post it enough times at the noticeboards and eventually the allegation becomes fact, or at least seems that way anyhow. You don't even have to have any real interaction with anyone here...just watch their page and anytime they get a complaint, run here and ask for admin intervention, over and over and over. That is a great way to settle scores, add drama, etc. Much the same could be said about the constant accusations that Diamonds is a sock...and I wish those checkusers hadn't been run repeatedly, but why would anyone do so unless they had strong suspicions? I don't think anyone has ever run one on me...maybe once, but can't remember.--MONGO 16:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
but you don't have to fear anything if you are innocent MONGO. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Given my limited interaction with you, I'm actually willing to agree that you've got a bigger-than-normal chip on your shoulder. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I do. A lot was going on when you came to warn me and I was rude in response and I apologize.--MONGO 17:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I've been in similar situations. Apology accepted. Now we can go out and kick some vandal ass. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that this needs to go to arbcom, or it should be dropped right here right now. What I find interesting is that if you read the evidence presented, it certainly raises a suspicion, but if you look at the contributions of both editors as a whole (and I hope those who say they are 100% certain have done so) the evidence looks more and more like cherry picked diffs. Looking at the contribs all together, they don't look like the same editor, and they very rarely overlap. Could SevenOfDiamonds be a sock? Sure, I certainly could be wrong, but this has gone beyond the enforcement of a previous case. - auburnpilot talk 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Anyone who has an evidence they wish the arbitration commitee to see should make a statement. Please keep it short, simple and to the point. Arbitrators are interested in evidence far more than they are interested in opinions. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to block Barcelona for newbies and some spam

Resolved. Articles semi-protected and local spam blacklist updated - Alison ☺ 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, I'd like to ask to block the article just for newbies (and maybe study the sock puppetry case?).
  • Another request: the pages Perpignan and Pyrénées-Orientales have been spamed also contineously by an anonymous (just see both historials) adding always the same 2 spam-links. We have made a request to put this list on the meta spam black list (he also spams other wikipedias) but still no answer. Could you protect those two pages temporaly also, or put this two links in at least the English-wiki spam list, please? Thanks!--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Perpignan and Pyrénées-Orientales have now been semi-protected for two weeks due to persistent linkspamming. The Barcelona article has been semi-protected for two weeks due to disruptive sock-puppetry. I suggest you file a case at WP:SSP to get to the bottom of it. Probably the best place for protection requests next time would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - Alison ☺ 12:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As for Perpignan etc, can we have a meta admin blacklist the spammed sites as requested at m:talk:spam blacklist, not to mention the rest of the backlog? We're getting sick of waiting. MER-C 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't help you there as I've no meta privs. However, they're both now blacklisted from the English WP as I've just added them to the local spam blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - Alison ☺ 12:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry if I didn't ask in the proper place. I was looking for something like it but I didn't find it. I know it for next time :-) --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all :) - Alison ☺ 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive IP user, 2nd round

Please see [55] for background. The IP user 24.185.136.255 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) is at it again - semiprotection must have expired. In any case, this editor appears to only use that one IP, so I don't think it would hurt to issue a block this time, especially since other articles than Kashmiri people alone were affected. Right now a block seems a better solution than semiprotection. Thanks in advance for help dealing with this long-term abuse. The Behnam 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The semi-protection did, indeed, expire. However, I'm not sure why it was semi-protected in the first place. It's a content dispute, nothing more. It's a fairly low-level edit war (only about 40 edits in the week prior to protection), it should be possible to deal with it without resorting to admin actions. --Tango
I'm not sure if I agree - all attempts to work with this user have been fruitless. This includes on the article talk page, and even notes on the IP talk page. While his last edit didn't include the "Dear Editor" section, it still had the same blind element that is impossible to work with. I've looked at the source he presented awhile back, and don't see how it supports his edits, but he doesn't participate in or even acknowledge discussion. Frankly I'm quite pissed at this - not only do I have to revert an unworkable user every day for weeks, but now this is being dismissed as a "content dispute" (as if typical Aryan cruft really counts). I'm complaining because I have had to encounter this user's unacceptable edits over and over and my attempts to work this user have been entirely ignored. Now I find my attempt to otherwise deal with this user's disruptive editing being dismissed as a "content dispute." This is quite frustrating. The Behnam 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death threats

A currently blocked user, blocked for sockpuppetry, LOZ: OOT (talk · contribs), gave me a death threat in this edit on his talk page: ([56]). One of his suspected sock puppets trolled me several months ago, back in June, and today has sent me several e-mails, as well as the death threat. I know he's already blocked, but this is a serious matter. Ksy92003(talk) 01:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Talk page has been fully protected by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs), and I've blanked it. I've also blocked e-mail (and made a mess of the block log in the process); if any other admin thinks this was a stretch on my part, please revert my actions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not a stretch, I was about to do it myself, and then I realized you did it! :-D Cbrown1023 talk 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Endorse, and if not already done, I recommend a checkuser to see if this user has any other accounts. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; I'm wary of blocking e-mail as it may be seen as punitive (under other circumstances of course; this is clearly protective), but this sort of behavior is intolerable. Checkuser is probably a good idea. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Previous checkuser of Connell66. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how are you able to block somebody's e-mail from Wikipedia? Ksy92003(talk) 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a special block feature. It blocks them from using the Special:Emailuser function. Cbrown1023 talk 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a new feature as of about a month ago, which blocks the user from utilizing the "Wikipedia e-mail" feature. Of course, if the user has someone's e-mail address from somewhere else, it can't affect that. Newyorkbrad 02:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I thought it was limited. Hopefully he won't be any more of a problem. But if this continues, is there any more than can possibly be done if necessary? Ksy92003(talk) 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed to the max and beyond. He was trolling on my talk page re. being blocked over on Wiktionary and when I checked with the admins over there, it turns out he has quite a reputation for trolling and abusive sockery - Alison ☺ 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This whole situation is actually kinda interesting me, death threat aside. A couple months ago, I undertook a huge project and made near 400 edits in one evening. Then, Beneath the bridge (talk · contribs), a troll and sockpuppet of this guy, vandalized my userpage, saying something like he didn't like the edits I was making. I actually befriended this guy, not knowing that they were one and the same. Not only does that make this whole situation interesting to me, but it really starts to make me wonder if there is another sockpuppet who vandalized my page back then. I don't understand why this person would've just attacked me right away, so there has to be another reason. I really think there is another user still editing who has bothered me in the past. Ksy92003(talk) 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Endorsing also. Death threats do not help build the encyclopedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Jeffton

Jeffton has a penchant for vandalising articles on schools in the Brisbane area. In fact, vandalisms are the editor's only contributions to date. I have undone his handiwork in All Hallows' School, Brisbane Grammar School, St Laurence's College and Villanova College, and left a uw-vandalism3 warning on his talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef as vandal only account--JodyB yak, yak, yak 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule

Esteemed collegues:

If you examine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_chess&action=history

You will see that InfoCheck has repeatedly, much more often than thrice, inserted a link in the "See Also" section, despite the consense to leave this link off of the Gothic Chess page. This user is insisting that a chess variant that he devised is very similar to the game of Gothic Chess which has been in existance for seven years. He is therefore requesting links back to his personal home pages, his personal PDF files, and his personal analysis, none of which has undergone the peer review process common in academic circles. Gothic Chess has been so scrutinized, and has been published, in both hardback textbooks and other periodicals dealing with Artificial Intelligence. References of these published works are provided on the Gothic Chess page.

The user InfoCheck repeatedly imposes his own links, vioating neutral point of view, and violating the 3 revert rule as previously mentioned. Judge not only the history of posts, judge the two games for yourself:


Image:chess_zh10_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zh10_26.png
The game of Gothic Chess of which a great deal of material has been published.
Image:chess_zh10_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zh10_26.png
The game of Optimized Chess which has no followers aside from its creator.

It is obvious that:

1. Only the kings are in the same place, on the f1/f8 squares. This is the only similarity between the two games.

2. The Queen in "optimized chess" starts on the wrong color (White Queens are always on light squares, Black Queen are always on dark squares.)

3. The Knights and Rooks in "optimized chess" have exchanged places, not even on the same relative squares as regular 8x8 chess.

4. The Bishops in "optimized chess" can't reach the "long diagonals" (a1-h8 via being placed on b2, or j1-c8 via being placed on i2.) Placing Bishops on long diagonals is a very common motiff that chess players strive to do fairly often, and Gothic Chess players enjoy it as well.

5. The Bishop on the Queen's side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

6. The Bishop on the Kings side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.


With so many obvious differences, myself and several others feel this user InfoCheck is doing nothing constructive. He is just trying to publicize a game of no interest at the expense of detracting from the Gothic Chess article.

I recommend him for banning for the 24 hour period for all of the aforementioned reasons.

ChessHistorian 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"You and several others" refers to a gang of Gothic Chess fans, about three editors here. At least equally many neutral editors are for the inclusion of the Optimized Chess link. You yourself have been violating the three revert rule at least equally much as InfoCheck. You even just deleted InfoCheck's arguments for inclusion from the talk page (accidentally, I'm sure), without an explanation. Luckily I have just restored them. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You're calling the inventor of the game a fan? You're calling only one of four people in the world who won a game against the inventor (who has over a 96% win ratio) a fan? You're calling me, a reporter for two city newspapers a fan? It would be more correct to say that 2 biased, anti-Gothic Chess people, with no interest in the game, no talent for playing the game, are just trying to detract from it by playing the role of spoilers. Well, guess what? We're sick of your illogical remarks. We're sick of you sub-standard, low-achievers claiming superiority over a published artificial intelliegence researcher who has several college degrees. You can't just insert meaningless links to a well constructed page and say they belong there. That other variant is complete crap. You were asked to find ONE PHOTOGRAPH of anybody playing that game, and you couldn't do it. So drop it. Go somewhere else. You're not wanted on the Gothic Chess page. You're not needed. You're statements are biased, inaccurate, and ludicrous. But we gave you your voice, however wrong it is, you have said what you needed to say, and the the people have spoken. They said get your links off of that page. So do it.
ChessHistorian 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a noticeboard for violations of the three revert rule right here. We also have article talk pages for content discussions. This is not the place for either, and I also strongly encourage both of you to review the guidelines on civil discussion and personal attacks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
User:InfoCheck is not requesting links to "his personal home pages, his personal PDF files", but to the Wikipedia article on Optimized Chess. If you think that such article should not exist on Wikipedia, the proper course of action is to take the article to WP:AFD. Well, you in fact did that already. I will now go there and vote keep because of my loss of WP:AGF. -- Petri Krohn 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Protected Gothic chess: Enough edit-warring. Discuss things on the talkpage, wait for this to expire, or visit WP:RFPP [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC))" Please note that The Wrong Version of this article has been protected. Please do not request unprotection on my talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell if chesshistorian is claiming to be the inventor of gothic chess or not, but that rant above with all the NPA and CIV vios seems to also be admission of a CoI. Anyone else reading it that way, or is it just late and I'm tired? ThuranX 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
ChessHistorian is not the inventor of Gothic Chess, User:GothicChessInventor is. (PS. I decrypted the bunch of acronyms that you just threw in by adding links to them, hope you don't mind. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind. Thanks for the clarification. ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the inventor of Gothic Chess. I got a call at about 4 AM from a Gothic Chess player from Australia letting me know what was going on at the Gothic Chess page regarding these edit wars. While I did appreciate his diligence, this is not how I would like to be informed when the Gothic Chess page is being vandalized by other variant authors. ChessHistorian is a newspaper reporter from the Baltimore Sun who interviewed me a few weeks ago when the game of checkers was announced as being solved. If you perform this google search you can find him:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Ed+Trice%22+%22Baltimore+Sun%22&btnG=Search

Anyway, it looks to me like the correct version of the page is protected now. Thank you for this.

If I may shed some light on this from my own observations: Gothic Chess is a very popular chess variant that tens of thousands of people play. Other variants are virtually unknown. Sometimes a person that creates a new chess variant tries to force a "piggy back" association with another variant as a means to try and "trick" people into thinking it is played much more widely than it really is. This is clearly the case here. InfoCheck is the one who is trying to mislead Wikipedia readers with his announcement of an implicit strategic alignment between my game and his.

Objectively speaking, and as cited above, of the 10 pieces in the back row of each games' setup, only the Kings are in the same location.


The games are completely different. There is no reason to have his variant mentioned on the Gothic Chess page.


Furthermore, whereas I have gone through the recalcitrant process of obtaining a patent on my game (due to its uniqueness and the potential desire for many other chess manufactures to try and get a hold of it) and had several scientific periodicals print my published analysis of artifical intelligence papers that I had written on this (and other) subjects, the person known as InfoCheck has merely created a PDF file that he has on his website, and he continues to claim that his information is more accurate, "better", more realistic, etc., than my own. When I offered to submit his paper for him to the artificial researchers I know that would review it, he then reverts his claims, and stop spewing forth his ill-found rhetoric.

So we have a clear case of InfoCheck just looking for a soapbox on which to stand and say a great deal of things that are untrue, unproven, and just plain unfactual.

He is using Wikipedia as a means to broadcast this misinformation, the highest form of treason.

The administrators have the power to positively impact the material presented herein. I have a great deal of respect for your constant vigilence in countering page vandalism. I urge you to support ChessHistorian and understand some of his retaliatory remarks are just a function of his own weariness in dealing with InfoCheck. We have people on three continents agreeing that the material submitted by InfoCheck just does not belong. We also have people who are jealous of the popularity of Gothic Chess and try to do anything to detract from it. I do not understand these people. Just by reading their comments on the History page, you can see they are nothing more than unsupported conjecture that has no basis. As one of the Gothic Chess supporters summarized:

You can call a cat a fish, but it will not swim.

That is their case in microcosm: They furnish false statements without any backup. It is as if they are trying to tell Wikipedia Administrators that cats have gills and live in the water.

In closing, InfoCheck violated several Wikipedia policies, and should be dealt with accordingly. The people whose comments on the History page are nothing more than ignoratio elenchi will be easy for the administrators to find. I know you will do the right thing and take the appropriate actions.

I thank you for your time.

Inventor of Gothic Chess, Ed Trice

GothicChessInventor 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. (by the way, I didn't do anything to protect the page, as yout talk page note seems to suggest.) Now that we've got someone claiming to be the inventor, who claims to have a clear view of the situation, I guess the only thing left to do is validate his identity to support his claims, then edit the page accordingly? thoughts? Have I oversimplified? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It is my position that I was baited into violating the 3-revert rule by a small gang of editors on the Gothic Chess page who were repeatedly throwing-out Optimized Chess which is indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant. These few people are zealots (not merely players) who are extremely prejudicial and unfair to other chess variants. It is significant that in tandem with this malicious action against me, a malicious attempt to have Optimized Chess, despite its established significance, thrown-out of Wikipedia is also underway.
All of these acts are financially-motivated to prevent a free game of excellent quality Optimized Chess from being available to people on Wikipedia who casually look at a commercial product Gothic Chess. This agenda violates the charter of Wikipedia to the extreme. To be sure, you are being lied to on a large scale in every paragraph by the opposition on this issue. You must spend some time and effort to discern exactly how and when.
The bizarre edit history and talk page entries at Gothic Chess and Ed Trice as well as Optimized Chess and Embassy Chess say much more than I can concisely about what honest editors go thru daily in fighting-off the actions of dishonest editors. This is where to begin to investigate in order to discover the truth.
Frankly, I am unconcerned about being blocked for a time if Wikipedia administrators are locked-in by the rules regardless of the circumstances. I did what I had to under difficult, stressful, unjust conditions. However, I am certain that I am normally a responsible, conscientious editor who acts constructively and should not be blocked. My edit history proves that.
--InfoCheck
ThuranX (and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia admins), please do not make up your mind on this issue based on what is said on this page only. Fully read Talk:Gothic chess starting from, say, the Number of example games section. Then see how User:Oli Filth was attacked using a mediation request which was correctly denied by the medcab people and then rightly deemed as ridiculous and pointless by a neutral third party, User:Boricuaeddie. I know all that is a lot of reading but I find it necessary to understand the extent this edit war has gone to. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. Please check your facts before making claims such as this. Firstly, I did not deny that request; the people at WP:MEDCAB did. Secondly, I did not attack Oli Filth. In fact, I agreed with him. Thirdly, it was ridiculous. The first party wanted to "ban" the other from editing the article; that's ridiculous. Therefore, creating a request for mediation because of this is pointless. Please assume good faith, man. --Boricuaeddie 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see we have some misunderstandings here. I admit I thought you denied the request, sorry for that. I did not say you attacked Oli Filth (and of course everyone knows you didn't), I just said he was attacked. I'm with you here, I think your judgement that the case was ridiculous is completely right. I also agreed with Oli Filth, I only used your comment to bring up the other point of view to this whole mishmash of an edit war. See, I said that the case was judged as ridiculous by a neutral third party. My point is that if a neutral party judges it as ridiculous, it must be ridiculous. If one of the involved parties would've judged it ridiculous, there would obviously be a conflict of interests and it wouldn't mean much. I've now reworded the message above to avoid any further misunderstandings. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Boricuaeddie 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

InfoCheck clouds the issue. The point is, that the chess variant does not belong on the Gothic Chess page. Of the 20 pieces that are not pawns, only 2 are configured identically. The claims being made that is is a "indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant" are absurd. With only a 10% correlation of the pieces matching where they are placed, how can it possibly be related? Despite several authors asking this same question, no satisfactory answer was ever given. There is a reason for this: The games are not related at all.

We have asked the "supporters" of this extremely unusal variant to show us one picture of someone playing the game. None have been provided.

That speaks to the issue. Over 50,000 Gothic Chess sets have been sold since the year 2000. There are thousands of archived games on the GothicChess.com website (for example here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/all-players-games.php ). There is a free program for downloading at http://www.GothicChess.com/vortex.zip that destroys every other program and player on the planet.

There are photos such as this one:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/GCACheck.gif

..showing someone being paid $5000 back in the year 2000 for winning a big tournament that was played at the Marshall Chess Club in New York. There are boards and pieces for sale on the website. The inventor went to Iceland to meet Bobby Fischer shown here: http://www.gothicchess.com/iceland_news.html

In short: Gothic Chess is not just an enterprise, it is a thriving one.

If the game that InfoCheck claims is better than Gothic Chess, how come he can't show one picture of one person playing the game? And, if his game is so much better, why wouldn't the "lowly" Gothic Chess people actively seek to have their game linked to his?

It is plain to see that the reverse is being sought. InfoCheck is desparately trying to attach his game to Gothic Chess and thereby "prove" something. I have no idea what that is. All I know is, that game he is trying to promote is worthless, nobody plays it, there is no dedicated website for it, there are no example games of it, there is just one PDF file where he claims it is the best thing out there.

You have to call it like you see it. That other variant has no followers. Even the game's creator has no photograph of him playing it since he can't get one other person to play it with him!

Compare that to Gothic Chess where they raised $15,000,000 last summer had the interest of Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer to play a match.

I ask you: How can anyone be fooled by the nonsense of InfoCheck ??

ChessHistorian 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChessHistorian- If you successfully raised $15 million US, then why was the tournament that would have immortalized Gothic Chess cancelled?
Wikipedia administrator(s)- Can you imagine what it is like to deal with this caliber of nonsense upon several Wikipedia pages nonstop?
--InfoCheck

I can answer this question. First off, ChessHistorian is just a newspaper reporter. He had nothing to do with raising any money for the match. He knew nothing about Ed Trice until the game of checker was solved. Secondly, Anatoly Karpov signed the agreement to play as shown here http://www.gothicchess.com/images/Karpov_Signature.jpg so the match was underway. Thirdly, if you read their blog at http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/ you will have all of your questions answered in time. It was a very long process to get this match put together, over two years. The short answer why it came undone: Fischer wouldn't sign anything, typical Bobby. That's all. Trice and Fischer have had contact since the match fell apart. He was there to wish Fischer a happy 64th birhday for example.

GothicEnthusiast 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GothicEnthusiast- While The Gothic Chess Federation was trying to make this event materialize, I read information provided by Ed Trice that Susan Polgar was lined-up as an alternate in case either Karpov or Fischer backed-out. So, what happened?
--InfoCheck
You read only what you want to read, that's the problem. Susan Polgar was not the replacement if Fischer did not sign the contract. If Fischer did not sign the contract, there was no match. Susan Polgar was the replacement if Fischer signed the contract, the match was in place, and Fischer never showed up.
GothicEnthusiast 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
ChessHistorian, the relationship has been explained to you a few times, the latest time probably being shown in this diff. Of course, you later deleted the explanation, which could be why you have the mental image that no one has explained it to you. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


This situation is a mess. There's definitely a highly involved, tighly agreeing group working the gothic chess pages. I'm concerned by things like [[57]] this, where the owner/creator/promoter advocates letting him have more control of the images released about his own prouct. The talk page at gothic chess reads to me as thick with CoI, and not particularly willing to listen to new ideas from outside their group. Are these two ugly cousins closely related enough to be on each other's pages? Sure looks like it to me. SHould they be on each other's pages? either all of the Capablanca chess variants can cross-link freely as appropriate by article, or none of them should, instead referring readers to a list of Capablanca Chess variants. As it is unneccesarily cumbersome to avoid referencing other variants, I'd say let them be discussed freely. That a group works together to block edits ot the page by spreading their reverts around isn't ethical, it's an end run around the 3RR. When the talk page is likewise a bullying ground for a few closely aligned thinkers, it's even tougher. I don't think the 3RR Violation is blockable at this point (preventative, not punative; and editor in discussion regarding issue), I think the editor in violation should've brought the whole mess to one of WIkipedia's resources for assistance before. Probably not AN or AN/I, but maybe help desk or village pump. It's tough to hlp edit when you're hitting serious, and CoI-based, resistance. ThuranX 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


ThuranX I looked at [[58]] and I just don't understand the concern. What was so morally indefensible about that discussion? It's just people chatting about an image of a board. And what is "thick with Col"?? I don't understand this terminology.

By the way, many of the people you say are "unwilling to listen" are more than willing to listen. But there is nothing of substance being offered, and the people to whom this is demonstrated do not furnish backup for the things they're trying to add to the page. For example, that one nuisance who insists on claiming his chess variant belongs there.

Why does it belong?

He claims it is similar to Gothic Chess. He, the person who made it, the person was has a POV.

The following people did not merely say "it should not belong", they offered reasons:

ChessHistorian a reporter for the Baltimore Sun
Andreas Kaufmann a highly skilled variant player from Germany who is 1 of only 4 people to have defeated the game's inventor
GothicEnthusiast myself, a strong Gothic Chess player as you can see from here http://www.gothicchesslive.com/one-players-games.php?id=174 I am just one rung below Bobby Fischer on the site, which you can see sorted by rating here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/players-games.php
GothicChessInventor who published several important papers in artifical intelligence, helped solve the game of checkers (see http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ ), who invented the game of Gothic Chess, and who understands the game and those that are similar to it more than anybody in the world.

Please note:

All of us agree that Embassy Chess belongs on there, as does Capablanca Random Chess. All of us agree that the other variant DOES NOT belong there, for the numerous reasons cited here and on the Talk page of Gothic Chess.

That other variant is a Capablanca Random Chess variant. It has no bearing, similarity, or likeness to Gothic Chess.

All of the other ranting and raving is moot. It's not the same. It doesn't belong.

Where does it belong? On the Capablanca Random Chess page. It is a CRC variant by the author's own admissions.

Let it stay there, where it belongs.

GothicEnthusiast 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. The inventor of the game is advocating that HE be in control of the images used in the article. HE regularly monitors and edits the product for his own page. HE states that HE will take the pictures to be used, and so on. This is a CoI, a Conflict of Interest, in which a person with significant financial and commercial interest in the article is shaping the way it is written, to the level where other people's contributions are being critiqued one by one and reviewed like this is an advertisement. Finally, as described above, There is the Set of Chess. there is subset, chess variants, subset Capablanca Variants, subset Gothic, Subsets Embassy and capablanca Random. As Capablanca random is a subset of Gothic as you describe, and Optimized is a subset of Capablance random, then the subset of optimized Chess is also a subset of gothic. don't see why it wouldn't belong. ThuranX 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Ed Trice is not saying any of those things that you mentioned. You are obviously misreading the thread. He asked people which images they liked. In effect, he called for a vote. When there was an agreement, he said he would put the image up on Wikipedia. Have you ever communicated directly with him? I have. He said he only looks at the page when he gets calls from concerned people or if he is "emailed to death" (his words) by Gothic Chess players who see something awry. Your hierarchy of sets and subsets seems off. It should be something like this
Chess
All Chess Variants
Capablanca Chess Inspired Variants (This is Gothic Chess, Capablanca Random Chess, and others)

At which point we have other branches at this level, and also below the level

Chess
All Chess Variants
Gothic Chess
Embassy Chess (Embassy was invented as a means to circumvent the Gothic Chess patent only, so it "springs from" Gothic, even though, otherwise, it would be at the same level if it was invented stand alone)

Another path would be

Chess
All Chess Variants
Capablanca Random Chess
Optimized Chess (this descends from CRC and neither Gothic nor Embassy, because Gothic pre-existed Embassy, Optimized Chess is very different from both Gothic and Embassy, and Optimized Chess came after CRC, and one can only say that Optimized Chess looks like an ordinary, random, CRC creation.)

For the above reasons, from a historical perspective (of which I am very aware) the sets you mention are not 100% reflecting the accuracy of the variants' respective chronologies.

ChessHistorian 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the subsets in terms of chronolgies, but nice attempt to recast my commentary. have to be bluntly honest here. This tactic which I've noted in the talk page there, and the AN/I here is to come back with a variant move on any ideas proposed. I address admissions of how the games evolved relative to each other, you reply that my list doesn't go chronologically, which I never implied it had. Not really an endearing behavior, but I've noticed this sort of You're talking about A, so I'll put you on the defensive by interpreting and responding to B.
To all interested parties, a related AfD is found here, regarding the Optimized Chess article, and in the discussions, the future of many, if not all of these minutely differentiated variations on the theme. ThuranX 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


ThuranX how is it that this statement:

Finally, it is so well designed, it is one of only two Capablanca chess variants that has been awarded with a fault-free rating via the select CRC analysis tool.

Has you completely fooled? The guy who invented the CRC analysis tool nominated his own game for the "fault free" award. Optimized Chess has been nominated for deletion. Nobody plays the game. Not even the guy who invented it. as stated repeatedly, there is not one photograph of one person playing one game of it.

ChessHistorian 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, this condescending 'oh, look at this buffoon who's trying to get involved, yet cannot possibly be smart enough to paly OUR chess much less see that we are clearly so right nad the other so clearly wrong' attitude is getting insulting. I'm reading quite clearly. You don't like him or his game. I get it. IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid reason for much of anything here on Wikipedia. He plays his own game, I've yet to hear or see proof he doesn't, so don't use hyperbole. Second, there's no photo of Bigfoot, yet wikipedia has an article. So, we don't have a picture to go with the article isn't a reason. Ultimately, this comes down to ' I made my game, and Iwill protect my right to advertise it on wikipedia', 'We support his right to protect his advertisement on wikipedia', and 'we all don't want that guy diluting our profit margin by adding HIS info on HIS game to our advertisement on wikipedia.'. I'm really tired of this. It's quite apparent that Ed Trice is protecting his product's article on Wikipedia, to maximize his profit. that's a Conflict of Interest. It's apparent that the chess reporter for the Baltimore Sun is going to stick up for his reporting and subject of his article in a way that's frankly bizarre, and should probably be brought to the attention of his editors. That may well be another COI. So two guys with COI problems against a guy who's also talkin about HIS game. I'm done trying to sort this mess of COI out, let an admin block all of you. ThuranX 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX your reaction is that of someone who lost a debate by a huge margin, then you just attempt a smear campaign. You overlooked something huge. The guy who nominated his own game with 0 followers for the "fault-free" award that he created is enough to embarrass anyone. Trust me, I know why you are ashamed of yourself for supporting the wrong side of the debate. Perception of condescension when there is none is a sign of an insecure person. The people who are posting remarks about the legitmacy of Gothic Chess are giants in the field of artificial intelligence, successful business owners, strong chess players, and computer science wizards. There is only 1 person backing the absurd variant trying to get his little link on the Gothic Chess page, and that is the person who invented it. There are no reasons to have that ridiculous game on the Gothic Chess page. The game isn't even played by anyone, including that game's inventor! You would think if he game is "so worthy" he could at least show someone playing it. Just one person.

The fact that nobody plays Optimized Chess is proof that is was just designed on paper. That game does not exist in the real world.

Look, we're all for it having its own little page somewhere. That's fine. Just don't say it belongs on the Gothic Chess page when that is just an absurd point of view.

I am also surprised that so many of these Wikipedia editors have such thin skins. Someone refutes your arguments, and refutes them thoroughly, and you go sulk, or try and rally support in numbers to oppose the people who are in the know about something. So what if you never wrote a computer program. So what if you never met former World Chess Champions or played games of your own variant with them and are photographed with them and had a multi-million dollar match arranged. When these topics arise, just respectfully acknowledge that maybe the posters who are supplying material to Wikipedia might know a little bit more than you on the subject.

If Wikipedia editing becomes a clique that is politically motivated to retaliate because someone who is more knowledgeable in some area rebukes someone within your circle of friends, it won't last. OK, people should use more moderate tones when offering feedback, but you more experienced writers should no better than to just gang up on these "know-it-alls".

Gothic Chess's page does not suffer from any Conflict of Interest posts. It suffers from detractors posting baiting attacks waiting for the supports to retaliate, then the baiters say "Look what they said, look what they said."

Special interest in the Senate is what killed Rome. Rome was big. Wikipedia is big. How widespread is the special interest? Time will tell.

GothicEnthusiast 05:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse you. Your condescending attitude continues to pervade this discussion. All the 'evidence' above is YOUR assertion, based wholely, as far as I can tell, on two things. You don't like him and his version of your game, and he lcks a picture of the game being played in some tournament. That's hardly enough to validate your position. Your citations of the credentials of experts on OTHER variations and so on is not relevant to disproving the validity of this topic. Finally, all of that noise about how stupid I am to get fooled is insulting and hardly relevant to this discussion. Please focus on a clear explanation of why the game is not notable and so on, one NOT basede on arguments from authority, or arguments from special knowledge. If you can't, don't reply. I don't need to be called an idiot again. ThuranX 01:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

People, people, please calm down. I forgot,(intro.) Hello, I'm a recent user starting on Wikipedia a few months ago. If you want my opinion both sides brings up valid points, yet needs to moderate their language. I was wondering if the Optimized Chess has any non Orignial Research information about how it relates to Gothic Chess. However, there is a Conflict of Interest with the patent holder advocating a support of their own article. Also, is any of the participants adminstrators? If this comment is incorrectly places let me know on my talkpage first and then feel fre to remove it as I am still learning more about this wonderful website. Cheers. Janus8463 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, isn't the main point of the issue about User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule because I think this is an arguement that requires dispute resolution about chess variations amongst yourself, third parties, or even sysops. Just trying to point out the statement at the top of this article. Cheers again.Janus8463 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willful WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations by User:Jeeny after warning

User has been persistently using Talk:White people has a personal forum and making personal attacks.

The refusal to stop once warned and repeated subsequent violations of WP:CIVIL after being warned indicate to me that this is willful rather than a mistake or passing indiscretion. If it were just one or two instances it would not be much of a problem but it seems to becoming a matter of habit and warnings are only inviting more of the same. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, Jeeny announced her retirement and I definitely detected a collective sigh of relief from other editors. However, only two days later she is back hurling abuse and slander. Perhaps a long block may enable her to mature a bit and gain some perspective. Along with Muntuwandi, they are making certain articles hostile and extremely difficult to edit and improve. --देसीफ्राल 04:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


There is more to this situation than meets the eye - I shall endeavor to provide appropriate context. From what little I've noted, I remember Fourdee expressing great enthusiasm towards the linked article that offended her [59], mentioning that he was "shocked" that "someone could not only not get what the woman is saying, but be so offended by it they had to go hide." He said this right after Muntuwandi mentions that Jeeny was upset by the article and left Wikipedia.

Fourdee has revealed what appears to be a pro-Nazi POV behind his edits & suggestions (suggesting using a picture of Hitler,supported a troll who wanted to add a Nazi soldier as a photo,wants to add the "Nazi POV" & calls description of the Holocaust as mass murder "POV-pushing", to provide a few quick examples).

It is clear that Jeeny is very offended by Nazism, yet Fourdee had the nerve to give her a farewell that, all things considered, amounts to trolling ("Tschüss," with a less-than-sincere-sounding note). I certainly didn't miss this interpretation, and neither did Jeeny [60].

What we have seen here is that Fourdee's more subtle trolling has succeeded in provoking Jeeny into a fit of incivility. That Fourdee is not blocked as well really sends the wrong message, as it rewards quiet instigation of disruption and harassment of sensitive users, perhaps to eliminate/block those who oppose an extremist agenda. I hope that the situation will be appropriately reconsidered by uninvolved readers of this post, and I invite further discussion.

With much concern, The Behnam 05:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who are overly sensitive should probably stay away from such controversial articles, as when emotions are running high, scientific thought and civility often come second. Fourdee did not support the Nazi SS soldier being kept in the article, but its retention on wikipedia, as it appears to be a colorised version of another photo. --देसीफ्राल 05:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
1) someone else offending you is not an excuse for repeated and deliberate incivil comments 2) it's not a case of one or two responses in the heat of a discussion but a pattern of intentional abuse even after being warned 3) if someone places a civility warning on my talk page or someplace I have been editting, I will try to remedy it. I have no such warnings from the comments you cite as somehow incivil. 4) theres a difference between being deliberately abusive and saying things that offend someone else, although I will readily agree we should avoid being insensitive because it diminishes the "friendliness" of wikipedia if not the civility. Perhaps we need a new guideline WP:FRIENDLY, if it doesn't exist already, which encourages people to not only be civil, but be friendly. I welcome the creation of it. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
In no way do I suggest that Jeeny should be unblocked. She thought that those who offended her into leaving were "reveling" in her retirement, so she returned and quite angrily attacked a number of people. I, however, have noticed the way that some, such as Fourdee, had provoked her (intentionally). I'm quite worried that blocking Jeeny alone is rewarding subtle trolling by allowing it to achieve its objective. @Phral, perhaps the SS image wasn't the best example - I'm on dialup and its difficult to sort through the diffs. The Behnam 05:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
None of those examples look unreasonable to me. People have opinions and in fact most or all of those edits you cited are intended to say just that - "hey, people have other opinions". At any rate Jeeny even resorted to attacking the administrator who blocked her:
"And you, Mr.Z-man, how old are you? And what experience in this world do you have, and what is your education level? Another thing wrong with Wikipedia. A bunch of teenage administrators who do not do their research and have no life experience and little education."
It seems clear to me this user is unable to behave remotely civily in a situation where there are differing points of view. This is not fitting with the diversity of experience and point-of-view that wikipedia brings together. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you have focused only upon the part of her angry post [61] that attacks Mr. Z-man, ignoring the rest that basically confirms what I have said about this situation. I suppose you have done this because you want to discourage Mr. Z-man from reconsidering the situation and properly extending the block to you as well? Again, I'm not asking for Jeeny to be unblocked. And please, don't try to present your view that calling the Holocaust 'mass murder' is "POV-pushing" as 'just another opinion'. The Behnam 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The only part that's relevant is that she can't stop herself from blatant incivility. And please, I'll present whatever points of view I like. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Just don't expect a pro-Nazi view to be respected and treated as equal to any other opinion. As for her incivility, nobody disputes that she has been uncivil. What is outstanding is that you have seen no consequence for your trolling against her. Blocking Jeeny alone rewards your bad behavior. The Behnam 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Allegedly having pro-Nazi (or not-extremely-anti-Nazi or whatever) views is not trolling, either by the traditional definition or WP:TROLL. I spend a lot of time trying to improve wikipedia and that is my intent, and a great deal of my time is spent improving non-controversial articles. Being greatly concerned that systemic bias is overly influencing the presentation of some controversial articles is not "trolling" and in fact that is, I assume, why all these editors are interested. Causing other editors grief is not why I am here. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't cite those views as your actual trolling against Jeeny - it is simply important to note your pro-Nazi tendencies in order to fully understand your trolling (the subtle Tchuss, for example). Anyway, I've got to go now, but hopefully some uninvolved people will take a good look at this, rather than you and I debating endlessly over misreadings of my statements. The Behnam 07:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, fourdee, I will look at this. If I determine you did something wrong, I will write a warning for you. I hang out on #wikipedia at times, so I will tell other people about this. WhisperToMe 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BrainChannels Retraction of Legal Threat

I am hereby retracting a legal threat related to my accusation of Corvus because I did not understand how Wikipedia operates and myself felt threatened by the legal language used to accuse me of uploading images unlawfully. I felt defensive and under attack due to the accusation I was doing something wrong, which I have never, ever been accused of in all my web design career, including at [www.BrainChannels.com] of doing. I have scanned and uploaded hundreds, most likely thousands of images in the past decade and no one has ever accused me of copyright infringement. I have always gotten permission to use images from the photographer and publisher or used images based on Fair Use. In this case, I've noted someone has a Julia Roberts newspaper/magazine scanned image uploaded to represent her article page and it was allowed under the Fair Use Act. I feel it would be far more helpful of editors to not treat contributors like criminals with legal accusations of unlawful copyright infringement, but rather suggest the appropriate category be entered for uploading images, such that someone used for the Julia Roberts photo. --Brainchannels 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent apology and explanation. I hope you now fully understand why Wikipedia is so keen to protect itself against charges of copyright violation. If, following your recent experiences, you can suggest ways of making the advising of editors of potential violations less bitey I am sure it will be well received. LessHeard vanU 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False sockpuppety accusation and other PAs allowed to pass

I'm curious as to why this disgraceful;, false accusation of sockpuppetry by Paradisal (talk · contribs) was allowed to pass with no sanction. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Poluphloisboisterous Homer of old/Threw all his augments into the sea/Though he had often been courteously told/Perfect imperfects begin with an E/But the poet replied with a dignified air/What the digamma does anyone care? Moreschi Talk 19:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there a chance you could wait until Andy's buried before dancing on his grave? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm only giving attention to what others have noted before with valid basis. See an earlier comment from User:Fireplace. --Para 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you were repeating a baseless lie makes it no less baseless, and no less of a lie. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 23:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been baselessly accussed of being a sockpuppet numerous times. The best thing to just do is ignore it. --Haemo 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect; no that is not the "best" thing to do; particularly given Para's ongoing ad hominem campaign against me; about which other editors have already warned him, more than once. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, this is exactly why you're getting banned for another year. Don't you have more important things to worry about than this pointless wrangling on ANI? Please get a sense of proportion. Moreschi Talk 10:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true - if I'm banned, it'll be because of lies about me. It's not surprising that you're unconcerned by such dishonesty and ad hominem abuse, given that much of it is your own. My name remains, Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, now I see what the arbitration committee meant by "contempt" on your behalf, Pigsonthewing. Your conduct here is a perfect specimen of why you keep getting sanctioned - is that so hard to realise? I even devoted a whole section in my evidence to this. Moreschi Talk 11:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
QED. My name remains Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User creating low quality articles

This is a bit of an odd one. User:Kglman6 is not disruptive as such but is creating a series of (I'm afraid there is no other way to put this) low-quality articles about celebrity deathmatch which are full of typos and in no way meet the WP:MOS, the most recent is The Laser Pointer. Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure any of those articles should exist (which is a content issue not for here), I'd argue that his actions are distruptive because he's generating an awful of clean-up work. I have left two messages on his page asking him to read the MOS - I have not had a reply. I'm a bit stumped what to do next - leave the same message over and over? --Fredrick day 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanking as a pour spoiler myself. I'd say leaf it bee. miss stakes in tent eey oh nail four who more
If he were editing old articles and reducing the quality that would be one thing, but if he is creating low quality articles than that is certainly better than having no article at all. Add cleanup tags and let people help by cleaning them up a bit. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree but still he has to be informed. He has just got 0 talk space edits (out of hundred). Informed now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Writing articles that need more work is not disruptive, it's how Wikipedia works. He should certainly be educated in how to write better articles, but that's all. --Tango 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
From the looks of it, all of the episode articles he created need to be redirected to List of Celebrity Deathmatch episodes since there's nothing by secondary sources covering them. Anyone up for the task? 17Drew 07:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This was going to be my suggestion about what to do, but I was afraid someone would tell me to be bold and step into the hornet's nest myself. I second this, though — but I know how contentious these can be, and it's too late in the evening for me to commit to such a large project. --Haemo 07:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done it. --Fredrick day 12:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kungfoofighting1

Before you point me to WP:RFCU, the main page says disruptive article editing compliants about possible sockpuppets go here.

A few days User:Burntsauce was edit warring over content claiming a false WP:BLP violation on the article Terry Gerin. Burntsauce went inactive for 3 days and hasn't been active until now when this new user Kungfoofighting1 appears. This editors first edit was Undid revision 151277579 by The Hybrid (talk) violation of Wikipedia policy back to Burntsauce's revision, 3 days ago. He was then reverted twice by different bots for vandalism, but reported them as false positives.

This editor is claiming the same false BLP claims and on the talk page Burntsauce seemingly reappeared out of nowhere to congratulate him on it while making personal attacks [62] Someone should block the obvious sockpuppet. — Moe ε 22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This guy has removed several talk page comments and warnings - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moe_Epsilon&diff=152143165&oldid=152142535 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Gerin&diff=152129026&oldid=151922795

And he just removed another warnings: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moe_Epsilon&curid=6634905&diff=152147784&oldid=152147510—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kungfoofighting1 (talk • contribs) 00:57:02, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

WP:Talk#Others' comments, bullet #8 states that you are allowed to remove other's comments from your own talk page. Be careful about enforcing policies when you haven't read over them. The Hybrid 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Warnings are not allowed to be removed are they?
Here is what i wrote on the Terry Gerin talk page, it summarizes my points well: No, saying that he shoved a woman's head into a toilet, or that his family was poor, or that he had a public alteraction with his wife that resulted in the termination of his job could be considered nothing short of libelous, and without sources, will stay out of the article. Sorry but speculating about a person's marriage and family situation is not acceptable. The other information I removed, such as redundant information regarding Last Man Standing matches, gossip sites sources (wrestlingexposed.com), and superfluous info (so much that there is too much to name, but one example is that he ran to the ring like a rhino...first of all that's unsourced, second of all its not important, third of all if it was important, its in the wrong section). I am improving the article, not hurting it. I have given you more than enough examples. Please add sources, then we wont have any problem.Plus well have a better article. I didn't remove anything that was vital to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kungfoofighting1 (talk • contribs) 01:02:13, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you are allowed to remove warnings, actually. The Hybrid 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct about the removal of warnings which I was not aware was allowed. Thank you. Kungfoofighting1 01:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kungfoofighting1 (talk • contribs) 01:07:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I have removed accusations of fighting with his wife and shoving women's heads into the toilet and family problems and other stuff. These things do not need warnings to be taken out.


Kungfoofighting1 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) In addition to readding contervoersial infromation, the yare also removing my additioons of information to the article. This is unacceptable.


Kungfoofighting1 01:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys. I see more problems w/ WP:BLP than w/ WP:SOCK. I'll tell you why:

  • At "Heatwave", Rhino attacked the couple before his match and attempted to force Lori's head into a toilet. ← No source at all.
  • where it seemed that Rhino was on his way to victory when James Storm hit Rhino with a beer bottle. After the match was over Storm and Jackie Moore attacked Rhino and poured beer (which was the cause for the match) into his mouth and left him bleeding in the ring. ← No source at all.

And indeed you are removing comments (concerns) re libel from talk pages Moe? I am surprised to see two established users dealing this way at Wikipedia! Honestly. Please note that if WP:BLP is really being respected you'd be having no sockpuppeter around. That's the truth. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not that Saucer guy, that accusation is preposterius!!


Kungfoofighting1 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of why, if there is a sockpuppeteer around, and I'm not saying that there is, I would think that the admins would deal with it. Whether or not you approve of my actions or Moe's actions, the point is there is a user committing 3RR violations by making edits that mirror the edits of a very controversial user. Said controversial user has mysteriously gone missing since this new user's appearance, except to give this user a welcome and pat on them back for their actions. Rather than blame a group of people who respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the policies, you should be dealing with the blatant policy violations like admins are supposed to. We know that this user has violated WP:3RR, and there is strong evidence to suggest that this user may be a sockpuppet. Now that this has come to the noticeboards, it is someone's responsibility to deal with it, or at least try to. The Hybrid 08:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. This is the solution. I've sprotected the article to sort out any possible sockpuppetry. Now please discuss your versions both of you. I'll keep an eye. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, The Hybrid 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd vandalism

It appears that Xia999 (talk · contribs) (accompanied by his almost-certain puppet Yuan666 (talk · contribs)) has taken to repeatedly pasting his long, verbose rant on my userpage [63] [64] [65], despite my requests that he stops. This would appear to be in "retaliation" of my having marked the copyvio of his original post for deletion. — Coren (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, is "A case involving human life is to be treated with the utmost care. Our country is ruled by law, why they can be so arrogant?" a record for long article names that aren't simply meaningless repetition of words or characters?  :-) — Coren (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There was a redirect for "Clerks: TAS" which was 255 characters. --Haemo 03:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That's quite the doozey; I'd say it's pretty pointy disruption there, though --Haemo 03:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts. I could semiprotect your talk page for a week to stop the disruption, but that seems a bit OTT at the moment. Let me know if he comes back. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Razoroo

This user has violated the 3 revert rule on the article Assassin's Creed by adding in his own assumptions regarding the game, even though in the talk page, the community has repeatedly disagreed with him. Not to mention, after he stated that he would no longer make the edits, he continued to make the same edit. (The edit was in regard to the religion of the main character of the game) 162.83.255.39 06:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has not violated the three revert rule. If and when he does, the report should be filed at WP:AN/3RR. Someguy1221 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Igor "the Otter" and Holocaust denial

This is a follow-up to my earlier suggestion to block a disruptive user Igor "the Otter" (talk · contribs) instead of locking a target of his activism, Holocaust denial. A few days ago Richardshusr "hesitated to block Igor because he had not been warned", but I noticed a lot of warnings from a number of editors and admins, e.g. Jpgordon, ConfuciusOrnis, Richardshusr, Humus sapiens and plenty more. Despite these warnings, this user keeps disrupting Holocaust denial - for months now - by promoting inflammatory fringe theories and inundating talk pages such as Talk:Holocaust denial with WP:UNCIVIL comments. After he found himself against consensus, he turned to canvassing for allies [66], [67], [68] and to spreading his activism into related articles Final Solution, Adolf Eichmann and Institute for Historical Review. Per WP:NOT#ANARCHY: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia." Since warnings did not make any impression, I think it is time to give him at least a short block. FYI, I am giving him 48 hours. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Fully endorse. I would have done it, if I had not been a party to the content conflict. He is entirely unproductive and a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz 08:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. The only thing I have seen him do on the project is try to legitimize holocaust denial. Tom Harrison Talk 11:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with it too. Like Stephan, part of my hesitation was that I was editing in the Holocaust denial article myself so I was on the brink of asking for another admin to look in on the situation to avoid a COI problem. --Richard 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea. The project suffers when skewed minority POVs are pushed. ThuranX 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Tendentious edit warrior, and undoubtedly Wikipedia will be better off without him. Do you need an outside admin to make the block? It sounds like there would be no objection to you doing so. MastCell Talk 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relentless Stalking

Hi, I have a persistent stalker (Talk). He made a religious duty out of stalking me and spamming every article I edit, ranging from (Ancient history, Politics and Culture). Although, his wikipedia career was mainly dedicated to Assyria -which I never edited!.

  • All I know that he is a self-identified Assyrian and a hardline Assyrianist who had long edit wars with the: Arameans, Syriacs and somehow decided that he is an expert on Ancient Arabia! in the process inventing a new term (Arabic people).
  • His last vandalizing stunt was jumping into the Brigitte Gabriel article, restoring a (NPOV) just because I removed it! (I watched the article for a month and I asked her personally to fix the part about her life so I can remove the NPOV). It was fixed 2 weeks ago and I removed the last non verified quotation myself before removing the (NPOV). Talk probably never heard of the Congress for truth or Brigitte Gabriel yet he decided, that its his vandalizing duty to spam the article.
  • He was blocked 3 days ago for spamming an article that had 24 references including the Britannica and 5 recognized historians, so I decided to stop editing that article because it brought edit wars. Ironically, instead of focusing on his articles and appreciating my maturity, he began stalking me into articles that he never heard of before!
  • 3RR doesn't apply to him he broke it in talk pages, articles on a daily basis. And all he contributes to Wikipedia is extreme Vandalism and few emotional Nationalistic "Assyrianist" edits.
  • He accuses everyone who doesn't agree with him of being; an Arabist! or Islamist....sigh. Although I am a Christian Arab and an active member of the American Congress for Truth!American Congress for Truth, nevertheless you will never find one edit of mine that shows any extremism or hate towards any person, all I do is go by facts and if I ignored any topics is just because of Elias spamming and childish behavior.
  • Please review our history to see who he made himself an important part of my Wiki career!--Skatewalk 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me just say here, as a white North European old fart, that

"This Arab shouldn't be taken seriously..."

is an entirely inappropriate comment and, if an indication of your attitude toward the editor based entirely upon their culture, one that will likely get you into some trouble. I would like to see an apology for the language used. LessHeard vanU 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
May I add that racism isn't tolerated in the slightest on Wikipedia. --DarkFalls talk 10:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, he is an Arab (he has acknowledged this). There was nothing "racist" about me implying this, since I am an Assyrian, and let's just say we are closely related to Arabs. Hence, you can't call that remark, "racist". Second of all, have you even looked at his edits and what he's up to? He's not here to write encyclopaedic content, because he's using Arab-revisionist sites. If you start by looking at his edits, where he's ascribing an Arab identity on Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and just about every other ancient ethnic group of peoples in Mesopotamian history. Of course, anyone who knows anything about this kind of topic, realises, that this user, shouldn't be taken seriously since he's out to make everyone in ancient history into Arabs, yet we know that Arabs came in late antiquity. There's no personal attack in saying that such a vandal user shouldn't be taken seriously. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:52 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Referring to anyone by their ethnicity is not civil. Civility is a core concept on Wikipedia. Restrict your comments to the content, and not the editor. LessHeard vanU 11:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well then, you should give him a warning as well, since the first thing he did was to refer to me by my ethnicity. Of course, the admins here are one sided. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:12 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make a report, please cite diffs. You're just making generalised and racist complaints and then sitting back and making sarcastic comments when busy admins don't sort through thousands of diffs trying to understand what you are talking about and instead comment on the behaviour you exhibit on this board. Sarah 11:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've already filed a sockpuppet report: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skatewalk. Again, there was nothing racist with that comment, except of course, "racist" only for one sided admins. He called me Assyrian at the very beginning of his report. Why are you not giving him warnings and attacking me ferociously like that? He's trying to play the victim here, yet he's the one vandalising every Arab related article with his obsession in turning ancient peoples into Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:23 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Let's just say that Elias was simply responding in kind after Skatewalk made this comment: "All I know that he is a self-identified Assyrian and a hardline Assyrianist". In other words, both users are accusing each other of being ethnic chauvinists and distorting information they add to Wikipedia accordingly. So if there's any "racism", then they're both guilty. But it's whether or not they have distorted information in the encyclopaedia that should concern us here. --Folantin 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. And that's just it, whereas I use academic sources on Assyrian related articles (and I usually don't edit Arab related articles), Skatewalk is using homemade websites on Arab related articles. I mean, come on, seriously, have you ever heard of an academic scholar refer to ancient Mesopotamia as Arabic in nature? I rest my case. Here are some of the flawless articles Skatewalk has worked on, ascribing an Arab identity on Semitic peoples: Ancient Arabs, Ancient Arabia, Ancient Semites. You think it's a coincidence that they're all redirects by now? It's only a matter of time before he labels Jews as "Arabs" simply because they're Semitic peoples. Don't fool yourselves, we're dealing with an Arab nationalist revisionist troll. Oh I'm sorry, that's so racist of me to say. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:49 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Skatewalk did not imply that they were being stalked because EliasAlucard is an Assyrian, but that EliasAlucard has an pro Assyrian pov (including self identifying as same) leading them to review and revert Skatewalks edits. Skatewalk contends that this practice has spread to articles that are unrelated to Arab/Assyrian/etc. culture. Elias responded by commenting, "This Arab shouldn't be taken seriously." which seems to infer that it is their culture which devalues their opinion. Now, I concede that that may not have been EliasAlucard intent but instead of apologising for the misunderstanding or even trying to explain EliasAlucard just became very defensive and attempt to justify the comment. It didn't strike me as understanding the need to be polite when referring to other editors.
Lastly, there is no provision in WP:CIVIL for tit for tat namecalling. It shouldn't be done, period. If another editor took Skatewalk's comments as being a personal attack then they should discuss it with them. I didn't, but I felt that EliasAlucards was and thus warned them and discussed it on their talkpage. EliasAlucard has responded by saying they will be more careful in future, which is very satisfactory as this was what I wished for in the first instance. LessHeard vanU 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me that the allegation of stalking is going to be looked at, there certainly does seem to be a pattern here on a quick review. Whether either the reporter or the alleged stalker are "racist", stalking and harassment should be taken seriously. Victims can be jerks, but still victims; and stalking is disruptive to the encyclopedia. I hope admins will review the allegation of stalking. Risker 11:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I suspect Skatewalk of being a sockpuppet (with good reason, and I've reported him), and since he's been doing some outright ridiculous edits on some articles like the ones I mentioned above, I have been checking up what he's been up to. It's not like I follow every single edit he makes with intimate details, but I'm keeping an eye on him, because I don't want more revisionist articles, of Akkadian empire being Arabic in nature and ridiculous crap like that. And don't bother those "racist" remarks made on my character. It's just politically correct Wikipedians. Case in point: I'm not stalking this guy, I am keeping an eye on him, because I don't want him to add home made websites as references, and use it with the same authority as if they were scholarly sources. You should commend me for cleaning up Wikipedia articles from trolls instead of giving me warnings. But I guess showing some gratitude is a rarity on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:11 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Skatewalk's sources are definitely 'interesting', and I doubt many would pass WP:RS/WP:ATT. His edits sure look like their intent is to group anyone anywhere in 'Ancient Arabia' as an Ancient Arab. Some of his sources don't even state what he's citing them for, I noted one source in that diff references above specifically called them Semetic People, but NOT arabic people. The article reads a lot like OR, where he's finding any citation for a people living anywhere in those lands. I further find it interesting that he's asserted that Lebanon counts, since the Lebanese don't self-identify as arabic, at least not the ones I've met, and I've met a dozen or so in life, adn they're all vehement in their attitude that the Lebanese aren't arabic. I've also met Arabic peopel who concur. that's OR in terms of article writiing, but a good indicator that something's going on. EliasAlucardprobably should've sough intervention instead of following him around, but Skatewalk's edits should be questioned as not meeting WP:RS, and possibly being WP:SYNTH violations. ThuranX 14:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be close to my reading of Skatewalk's contributions to "ancient Arabia" articles, especially the failure to meet WP:RS. --Folantin 15:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget original research. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:04 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Taheri

Amir Taheri was semi-protected on August 5 (BLP-concerns). Nyisnotbad reverted fifteen times during the following week (removing the protection template from now on, too), was blocked for two days on August 13 (his sockpuppet Unclezeb was blocked indefinetely), and resumed reverting on August 16. Has been on this (more or less single-purpose) mission since February (making use of IPs mainly; see BLP/Noticeboard). -- Ankimai 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reblocked for a short period, with a request that they use the proper procedures for content dispute in future. LessHeard vanU 11:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

Hi, I asked for help with helpme and was advised to come here. User:Feline1 has made a comment on the talk page of User:Mongvras which appears to be defamatory (accusing Mongvras of fire-bombing hotles, on a day when at least 1 person was killed in a hotle fire in Cornwall, which is where Mongvras comes from). Mongvras has become very upset by this, and Feline1 (who has a history of disruptive/downright rude edits & being blocked for them) has responded in a way which seems almost calculated to wind Mongvras up more, I'm worried that the situation will deteriorate further, and would appreciate some cool heads take a look and help calm it down. Thanks. DuncanHill 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a hotle? Diffs would be appreciated. Sandstein 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think, from reading the user talk page that he mentioned, I believe that he meant to say hotel. nattang 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hôtel is indeed what was intended. DuncanHill 14:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This [70] is where the fire-bombing "joke" made its appearence, the situation continues from there onwards, though it's worth looking at what went before to get background. DuncanHill 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a giant violation of WP:NPA. I'd support a block there. ThuranX 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked for one week given the users failure to withdraw the comment when concerns were raised and after looking at their block log. Comments? Spartaz Humbug! 14:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope that everyone involved can cool down a bit now, Feline1 obviously has a lot to contribute in some areas, and I know I'm not perfect and get grumpy or snidey sometimes, but it did really seem over the top of him. Thanks again :) DuncanHill 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this was an extremely lousy attempt at sarcasm by the blocked editor:
“ "stop firebombing hotels" is a sardonic metaphor for "stop getting so ridiculously over-emotional about editing wikipedia articles". It was good advice and still stands. Continually abusing other editors and making wild accusations will only make things worse. ”
My guess is that said editor was oblivious to this fact, and was asking to be throttled. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that a block should never be used to make editors "cool down" (See WP:CDB for context.) --Aarktica 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - cool down blocks are ineffective. This is not a cool down block but a response to an egregious personal attack that the editor tried to laugh off when it was pointed out to them exactly how offensive they had been. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility and POV-pushing

User:Guivon seems to be POV-pushing by deleting references and external links he disagrees with (instead of for valid reasons according to Wikipedia guidelines), has made unjustified comments about other editors on talk pages, and has deleted every single message posted on his talk page (regardless of the legitimacy of those messages). Also, this individual's editing pattern and word usage is quite similar to that of the permanently-banned accounts User:NovaNova and User:GiorgioOrsini. If need be, I will make a a separate IP check request, but if an administrator here look into that, it would be much appreciated.Spylab 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For the first two accusations, specific diffs, please. It's not immediately obvious that this is not a run-of-the-mill content dispute that can't be resolved by WP:DR. For the sock allegation, please see WP:SSP and the warnings there. Finally, it's polite to notify another editor if you're opening up a conversation about him on AN/I. THF 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(On the other hand, this tag removal is unusual for a brand-new editor.) THF 14:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is pointless to leave any message on that individual's talk page, since he deletes every single post. I will go ahead with the IP check request, because the more edits/comments I read, the more it seems likely that this individual is the same banned editor(s) mentioned above. And as you mentioned, it is strange that he would delete that protection template, especially since the account that the template was meant to protect the article from is a sock puppet of one (or both) of the banned accounts mentioned above. Here are links to some examples of the innappropriate edits and comments:

  • [71] - deleting link for no apparent valid reason other than opinion
  • [72] - earlier example of same unjustified edit
  • [73] - first example of that same edit
  • [74] - incivility on talk page
  • [75] - unjustified personal attack on talk page (accusing another editor of defamation)
  • [76] - comment on talk page showing that the individual considers the validity of sources based on the ethnicity of the author
  • [77] - deleted legitimate comment on his talk page
  • [78] - uncivil comment on another editor's talk page
  • [79] - deleted welcome template on his talk page
  • [80] - uncivil comment on talk page

Spylab 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User may be removing notices, but it is likely that he is looking at them first, so a warning is not pointless . DGG (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, other than the 8/14 declaration of nonsense, for which the editor was warned, and has since been more civil. Some of the edits you protest appear to be perfectly legitimate edits. For example, the editor's argument is not that validity should be determined by source of ethnicity, but that one ethnicity's POV is being underreported in an article about a subject of ethnic contention. There is perhaps confusion because of the imperfect English on both sides of the edit conflict (the accusation of "defamation" can in no way be considered a legal threat). One may delete comments from one's talk page. Please assume good faith and use DR procedures; if you have strong sock evidence, please report it as appropriate. THF 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lankan Civil War

Added the Image of Anton Balasingham for Sri Lankan Civil War as there was no any photo to represent LTTE, the major rebel group against the Sri Lankan government in the civil war. Help the photo from removal.Kulaman 15:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] systematic removal of unwanted facts

Checkuser request: User:Dmol

  • Galileo CRS
  • 8 aug [[81]]. removing location of company headquarters.
  • 14 aug [[82]], removing company ownership from article (It is currently owned by Travelport).

Removal location information: *[[83]] Computer reservations system removing critical notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_reservations_system&diff=152253163&oldid=152251111. Mion 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bluemiracle and his IP sockpuppets

After making a list of IP addresses with similiar Digimon-related unsourced edits (here, it looks like I've finally found a named account who's using these: User:Bluemiracle. This user is characteristic of edits to Sora Takenouchi, Matt Ishida, and now Mimi Tachikawa. Other edits (such as to José Moreira) also back up this conclusion. JPG-GR 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pope Peter Seabrook evading blocks

User Pope Peter Seabrook was banned by User:ChrisO. A look at the history of Chris's talk page since [84] shows that a sock is being used. I think Chris is offline which is why i bring it here. (i found it through recent changes)

  • User:Pope David Jordan
  • User:Pope Tony Hutchings
  • User:Pope Richard Leach
  • User:Jobsworth Terry

Could something be done about it? Thanks Woodym555 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

They might be socks of Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu), given the obvious correlation of username and similar harassment of ChrisO. —Kurykh 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Woody. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pope Benjamin Lister‎. The loser responsible appears to have registered a large number of sock accounts, possibly using a bot. -- ChrisO 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not that interested in ChrisO. I have bigger fish to fry. Do you wish to call it a truce? 81.132.215.158 23:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandals aren't welcome around here. If you want to start contributing productively, then do so; but if you're going to keep vandalising, you won't be given any quarter. -- ChrisO 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal move, Talk:History of the telephone to Phone Sex 2

A vandal by the name of User:Larry4444 seems to have moved the talk page of Talk:History of the telephone to Phone Sex 2. I would have requested a move but that process would be to slow. Plus it seems to be an obvious bit of vandalism Rgoodermote 21:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another vandal done, when will they learn Rgoodermote 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old AFD nomination

Resolved.

Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder (2nd nomination). It probably wasn't included in the log and is still open since 24 July. I can't really close it myself since I already stated I prefer deletion. Garion96 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Navou banter 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Still prefer this being deleted, but thanks. :) Garion96 (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading deleted images

mathewignash (talk · contribs) continues to have difficulty with fair-use images. He's uploaded in good faith over the last couple of year dozens of images from Transformers box packaging, most of which have been deleted per a pair of discussions (those two images were the only ones on which there was discussion; the others were CSDed after receiving refuted fair-use tags).

Since those deletions, however, he has re-uploaded several images. The first was Image:Starscream-boxart.jpg, which was CSDed as a repost. I asked him to stop posting boxart images in general and specifically mentioned the deleted image reposting. More recently, however, he uploaded Image:Megatron-toy.jpg, which is a repost of Image:Megatron-boxart.jpg. He also did not cite the fansite source for this image or the other boxart image he uploaded. Both of these images went up after I again reminded him that the boxart images did not meet Wikipedia's fair-use policy.

This is not mathewignash's first difficulty with copyright and fair-use issues, and I thought I'd toss a heads-up here. --EEMeltonIV 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Zasdcxz

Could anyone review block of this user, please? He was blocked indefinitely by User:Ryulong for allegedly "POV forking" [85]. Looking at the edit history of Zasdcxz, I could find only a few questionable edits of article Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, which he tried to explain [86]. It is noteworthy that User:Ryulong has a "vandal got hold of an admin account" notice in his block log [87]. This looks like a wrong block of Zasdcxz to me. Thank you. Biophys 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why "is [it] noteworthy that User:Ryulong has a "vandal got hold of an admin account" notice in his block log"? That happened a while ago, when some admin accounts were hijacked, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Compromised accounts. That's got nothing to do with this. Melsaran (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say: give him another chance, see how it goes, you can always reblock. Melsaran (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I just think Biophys is suggesting perhaps the account was compromised again, though if the account had gone rogue I believe more than one block would have been evident. David Fuchs (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear enough. Could you please unblock user Zasdcxz and give him another chance? I did not mean to tell anything suggestive or bad about Ryulong. Biophys 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry, you were clear enough. I've unblocked him for now, but if he does anything outta line again we would be obliged to send him to the cooler. David Fuchs (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to block:User:172.163.201.179

I realise that I am anonymous as well, but this user, by history appears to solely be interested in defacing canadian articles, particularly defaming Carolyn Parrish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.145.64.64 (talk) 22:32:30, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV for vandalism reports, but NB the anon vandalized this page as well. THF 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Behavior of 172.163.201.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is similar to the already-blocked 172.164.88.96 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). A larger block may be needed. THF 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there some sort of AOL block we can use on this range? This editor has been vandalising Canadian articles consistently for over six months. Individual blocks are completely ineffective. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pizza1512 disrupting Wikipedia

The above mentioned user is causing significant disruption to Wikipedia, specifically WP:OX. Very briefly this user is recreating the many userbox templates available for denoting a wikipedians who are alumni of various Oxford Colleges. These recreated templates are of poor quality; non-free images, bad spelling & grammar etc and they are recreated in the main template namespace against WP:UM. The user then replaces all occurrences of the original templates with the new ones and has the original templates deleted. Further the user has already attempted to subvert the speedy delete process by removing the delete tag from one of the new templates Template:User Aularian and continuing to edit the template despite being warned by two editors about his actions. I have attempted to undo as much damage as possible and asked for the undeletion of the two userbox templates already deleted but I can see no signs of this user stopping.

The Wadham template was rescued by User:Bencherlite before the category was speedily deleted but Pembroke and Oriel were not so lucky and were speedy-deleted out of process - they had not been empty for four days.

Pizza1512 has previously been warned about fair-use images in userboxes, incidentally.AulaTPN 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pizza1512 has also editing other people's user pages to give them a userbox, to replace their previous userbox with a Pizza1512 version, or to add them to a Wikipedian category – all without any sign that they had asked for this. BencherliteTalk 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have undone all of this. I have restored all the templates which were not deleted and added the categories back. I have also restored all the user pages. Finally, I have added speedy delete tags to all of Pizza's new templates Template:User Ox Catz, Template:User Wadhamian, Template:User Ox Pembrokian, Template:User Mertonian, Template:User Balliolian, Template:User Aularian and Template:User Orielense. AulaTPN 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted the two userboxes before I saw this. I agree with the above comments about disruption.--Bduke 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued incivility during an ongoing dispute

Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) continues to behave with extreme examples of incivility. His latest takes place at his RFC page here. He has been warned numerous times and has in fact been civil to multiple editors. This is on display here. Please put this to an end. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the continued incivility could be reason for a block; I'm going to warn him. David Fuchs (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, he has been warned at least 5 times, why does nobody take this up to the next level? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What is it you are looking for? Navou banter 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Because you are engaged in a content dispute with the editor, I feel I should take your recommendation with a pinch of salt. David Fuchs (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
These are all lies. I'm only about the content here. Jmfangio has done so many things wrong it's insane. It's personal with him. I do not deserve any warnings at this time - he does.►Chris Nelson 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And so might I suggest dispute resolution? Also, blocking someone who is the focus of an RfC is prolly not a great plan. David Fuchs (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The only issue here is his existence. He causes so many problems it's unreal, and it's no coincidence he's the common denominator. It's personal with him and he opposed every edit or suggestion I make because it's mine. He cites policies that he knows nothing of, he doesn't take responsibility for his actions and he makes false accusations all the time. NO one would have any problems with one another if he did not exist.►Chris Nelson 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then edits like this are counterproductive. WP:COOL, or it's difficult for outside parties unfamiliar with the situation to come to the correct conclusions. THF 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Juan, never come here before making a visit to Chris's talk page unless it is a death threat. To Chris. It is counterproductive and hope i won't happen again. If communication fails try the dispute resolution process as mentioned by David. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF- going to his talk page is no longer advisable. He has been informed so many times and anything coming from me is not going to help the situation. I don't expect everyone to be up on the situation, but the amount of time i'm having to put into the Dispute Resolution process is ridiculous when the other editors (Chris and Ksy92003) have no intention of settling. The guy has made blatant WP:OWN, and people have seen that. To summarize: He makes really offensive comments ([88]).
And he gets warned many many times for his behavior. Look at how many this is in just a few short days. [89], [90], [91], [92], [93] Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Enough already. This thing is in request for arbitration; let it run its course there. Raymond Arritt 02:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 68.252.227.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Resolved.

68.252.227.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) continues to add uncited statements about sexuality into Ty Pennington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) GreenJoe 01:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This one's handled. WP:AIV was a good place to report it, thanks. - Philippe | Talk 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Masterypro is intentionally vandalyzing Chevron corp pages

Resolved.

User is adding the words Bio Diesel an inordinate number of times and intentionally changing appropriate postings to replace words with Bio Diesel or some other similar vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.89.249 (talk) 03:27, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This is trivial enough for WP:AIV. I have made a report there. Someguy1221 03:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
User indef blocked by Academic Challenger. - Philippe | Talk 04:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parsifal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Resolved.

Parsifal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) despite discussions at talk:Electronica behaves in violation of WP:OWN, as he did at Space music. This time he doesnt want to admit that a reference posted Electronica is faked, please see here and here --Doktor Who 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... I am not sure it IS faked. I looked up the ISBN and got:
Music and Technoculture (Music/Culture)
Release: 2003-09
Publisher: Tandem Library
Format: Hardcover
ISBN: 0613912500 EAN: 9780613912501
List Price: $39.60

- Philippe | Talk 04:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Ditto. That reference looks accurate; see here. --Haemo 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorr, I checked, it doesnt show me. :[ Thats a conspiracy, I guess.....Doktor Who 04:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to close this as resolved. The reference appears legitimate. - Philippe | Talk 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor: I have also read similar books and materials as the one listed, so while I can't specifically vouch for that particular reference, I can vouch for the presence of similar materials. Also, I left a warning for Doktor Who on Talk:Electronica letting him know that, regardless of content issues, his behavior stepped significantly over the line with respect to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and advised him that he should cool down and come back when he's ready to address the content issues. (I've been edit-conflicted twice, so I apologize for editing an already-closed notice.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not an uninvolved editor, since you are very close to Parsifal. Anw, I'll never believe anymore in anything related to music that I read on this site, it's time for a long, indefinite wikibreak.Doktor Who 04:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to take a break. We are not trying to drive you off of Wikipedia. As for me, I am not "very close" to Parsifal - I am perhaps the closest thing there is on WP to a friend of his, but that is merely because we've crossed paths on Wikiquette Alerts. I happened to have been watching his Talk page when I noticed your initial threat to report him here, so I treated it just like I would a Wikiquette Alert. That is where our "closeness" ends. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:Sundarbot

user:SundarBot is adding transwiki links in various languages. It just zapped an edit I made to a page a few minutes before the bot ran: Diff at [94]. I left messages on the bot talk page and the talk page of user:Sundar but the latter seems to be on a wikibreak so could some admin block the bot until the problem can be sorted out? PaddyLeahy 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's being operated by one of two other users (is that appropriate?). It also seems to be changing the order of the interwikis, placing French, German, and Japanese at the bottom rather than having them in the correct order. violet/riga (t) 09:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sundar is around and has stopped the bot. PaddyLeahy 09:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sockpuppets

After noticing suspicious requests on WP:RFPP, I investigated a little and just blocked:

as obvious sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who had another obvious sockpuppet, TimDuncanSupportsTRNC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)). Since it's almost the start of the work week in the Eastern time zone, and I won't be able to edit or check up as much while at work, others might want to keep an eye out. By the way, if anyone thinks that the IP block should be longer, go ahead and extend it if you want. — TKD::Talk 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinatra

Resolved.

The German professor Joachim Grzega, active on Wikipedia as user Sinatra, has got a bit over 200 edits. The majority of these consist of linking to himself and/or inserting links to his own research and papers he has written. Not many are vandalism, but I still find it very problematic. Academics contributing to Wikipedia by writing about their own field are a huge asset, but academics doing little by promoting themselves is something I’m more dubious about. Most of these contributions by Sinatra are exactly of this kind, I only give a few examples here [95], [96], [97] , [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104] The following is particularly nasty, and a clear case of vandalism. Grzega deletes well respected sources like The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language and replaces them with research done by himeself and his colleagues [105]. In some cases his articles are relevant to the subject [106], but I’m still uneasy about the author himself inserting them. I write and publish academic articles myself, and I would never link to them on Wikipedia. If every academic did, the situation would become absurd. It can be noted that some of Grzega's colleagues display the same behaviour. Professor Jean-Pol Martin, known here as Jeanpol and a colleague of Grzega, has written both the article about himself [107] and about Grzega [108] as well as some links to himself [109] alternatively deleting points about himself [110]. I'm a bit uneasy about all this. JdeJ 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First, let me react to the accusation of vandalizing the References section in the article semantic change. Let me state the following: I have not just quoted myself, but several other authors who have carried out research on this matter. I can offer to add a positive review on my book quoted. As to Crystal, I have not deleted his encyclopedias because I think they are bad, but they are not really exhaustive (Crystal himself says that his list shows only “some” types of semantic change and he doesn't say who these types go back to!) or up to current research on many historical topics (the newer editions lack many of the recent developments). Actually, the vandalism has now been done by JdeJ himself: he has deleted respected and current sources that are specifically on the topic of semantic change; the revert means that the current knowledge and the wide-spread terminology has now been replaced by a basically out-dated terminology in a very general encyclopedia. Second—and more important--, I don't get quite see why experts on a specific field (who are experts not because they've read a lot about this field, but because they have worked in this field themselves) should not write on topics and therefore add links also to their own work. Jean-Pol Martin has written a few things on this in the German wikipedia here, among other things on the destruction of expert articles by laypersons. I am certainly not going to insist on my contributions. I offer my knowledge and expertise and I can give arguments regarding the content; however, I am not going to enter a discussion on judging a contribution on who made the contribution. In my view, collective construction of knowledge shall be predominantly content-oriented, not author-oriented. - Sinatra 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The place for this discussion is WP:COI/N. Sinatra, please do not make controversial edits that can be perceived as being on your own behalf without talk-page consensus. See generally WP:SCOIC. THF 14:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's no problem. I can have contributions including my own research discussed on the talk page first. -Sinatra 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AlexanderPar

user:AlexanderPar is involved in this arbcom [111] After a break he returned back and aggresively rv'ing without discussion to meatpuppet user:Hajji Piruz edits : see his contribs [112] - 6 pages he edited - no comments left and all rv's for Hajji Piruz. He was once blocked for such kind of activity and repeating it again.--Dacy69 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartel of User:देसीफ्राल and User:Fourdee and User:The Behnam and User:KarenAER

These users have formed a cartel of editors and are using the strength of numbers to steam roll over other editors. They have caused a hostile environment on the white people article. These editors seem to be in agreement on so many points that there is almost no individuality in their edits. This has created a polarized atmosphere. The assumption of good faith has been lost and they are blindly reverting edits from me and others regardless of their merit. They have been wikistalking me on several articles, which they normally wouldn't edit if I had not edited them. They have accused me of sockpuppetry for which I had absolutely nothing to do with. see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi and User_talk:Deskana#Request User_talk:The_Behnam#Muntuwandi and rfc muntuwandi] and User_talk:KarenAER#User:Muntuwandi and User_talk:Fourdee#User:Muntuwandi. Many of their accounts are new accounts. Myself I have been editing since June 2005, that is over two years, so I get offended when people accuse me of being Sock without good reason.

If there is any administrator who has some free time, to have a look at the article and bring some objectivity so that we can return to consensus building. I would be grateful. Muntuwandi 06:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See also incident report

Muntuwandi 06:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A cartel? No. A selection of editors working in consensus, to improve articles, who have realised that Muntuwandi is trolling to satisfy an Afrocentric agenda? Yes. --देसीफ्राल 06:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally I have been editing these articles for quite some time, and have gone out of my way to work with Muntuwandi on revising[113] his edits so they can be successfully included in the article and make the cited points he has been trying to raise. Can you please cite the policies you feel have been violated by which editors in which edits? I think you'll note that Behnam is distinctly not fulfilling his part of the cartel in the above section on this noticeboard. Also a number of other editors (User:Dark Tea, User:Kevin Murray, etc.) have objected to your behavior on these articles, and other administrators (User:Luna Santin) have warned you [114] about your behavior, and you have already been blocked for edit warring recently. These are all people who do not always agree with each other. And if they do agree, that is part of how wikipedia works.
This is not the place to introduce concerns over content disputes, this is for acute cases of policy violation not covered by other boards, so you should try to identify which policies you feel are being violated. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
What you have to say is irrelevant because the stance of the four of you is already known. I am requesting independent outsiders to review the situation. Let us not clog up the space and leave it to a good faith volunteer. Muntuwandi 06:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


<classified cartel communication>

Excellent. Our planned fake argument in the above section will trick others into not believing Muntuwandi's bold attempt to expose our cartel. Soon Afrocentrism will lose its cherished place on Wikipedia, and our cartel's ideology (whatever it may be) will rule in its place...

</classified cartel communication> The Behnam 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

^^ Best post I've read in ages! --देसीफ्राल 06:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I've worked with user Muntuwandi (MW) on several projects. I find him to be a great researcher, but a bit defensive about critisism. From my experinece I don't see cabal among these four editors,as they frequently are in opposition among themselves. MW frequently represents a polar position so it is likely that he would frequently be opposed by a wide range of editors. That's not to disparage his effort, because he keeps us all thinking and talking. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is all about OR - Muntuwandi takes material out of sources not generally concerned with said material and introduces it into articles, such as an offhand statement about religion in Before the Dawn, which is primarily concerned with history via genetics (which came up in an earlier ANI report I filed here). It's not really an appropriate use of sources, and it ends up looking like finding sources to make material stick to make a point, especially when the citations are incomplete (usually URL links only, no author, no page). There is definitely a process and methodology problem here, and it shouldn't be such an issue unless there is wilful disregard involved - how can one be an excellent researcher and yet a lousy citer? It's the same skillset. MSJapan 02:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
He doesnt cite properly because he uses Wikipedia as a political propaganda tool. See his political soapboxing here [115]. An example to this would be this edit: [116]
What Muntuwandi says: "As human evolution progressed, dark skinned hominids may have been sexually attractive."
What the source says: "The intense selective pressure that drove the version to become universal in Europeans may have included sexual selection. "In Africa people are much darker than they need to be for UV protection, so to me that screams sexual selection," Dr. Shriver said. Black skin, in other words, may have been favored by men and women in sexual partners, just as pale skin may have been preferred in sexual partners among Europeans and Asians. " [117] KarenAER 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam is not part of the "cartel". Sheesh. - Jeeny Talk 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brainchannels

Brainchannels (talk · contribs) is uploading photoshopped images of Kristy McNichol, claiming to be the copyright holder, with no explanation as to how they are the owner. I listed them on Possibly unfree images, and Brainchannels responded - [118]. Is this a legal threat? Even if not, could someone explain to this user just how they are not the legal owner of the images, and to stop uploading them and abusing those of us who are attempting to clean up after them? Corvus cornix 19:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat to me, he's she's told Corvus to get an attorney and that he will be "reported" should he continue to assert himself. He She might be placated if someone were to explain that Corvus is simply enforcing our image use policies (which are more restrictive than fair use copyright law) rather than enforcing Fair Use law itself. And that any website is well within its rights to restrict the scope of Fair Use --but looking at all he she has posted I doubt it would help. If he she won't retract his her comments and instead argue from an Image Use policy standpoint, he she should be blocked. R. Baley 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)(strikthru&edit 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
This user has done little but cause trouble with WP:BLP, WP:NPA and now WP:NLT, I'm very tempted to recommend that this user is blocked unless there is some explanation for their actions. GDonato (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As he continued to edit his threats (fixing spelling, adding words) after the warning, I am also in support of a block (and am considering doing it myself). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
He She received a warning and then copy-edited his threats? He She should be blocked immediately. R. Baley 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (strikethru&edit 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
People should also check out his edits to Paul Davidson, which I had to remove due to BLP concerns. We don't need editors like this? Legal threats? block him. --Fredrick day 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


First, I am a woman. It shouldn't be such a big deal to upload photos of Kristy McNichol under the Fair Use Act, or those I can prove I own. There are no photos under her article page and that's a shame. I have provided substantial responses on the deletion page where the photos abide. I feel that the conduct of Corvus is overstepping and he did not refer to any links where I might review the policy of "derivative" works. Others cite sources to their actions on this deletion page. Since I have never experienced my photos being removed like this before, I found this process to be rather inhuman, rude, with a total disrgard for my time and efforts to improve an article on Kristy McNichol as if I had criminal intent. I take offense to that and it is clear to me that you guys want and enjoy trouble that you cause with these actions that are politically based.
Wikipedia has no way to prove permission for copyright works such that a person owns. People who want to upload photos seem to need to have a special relationship with a Wikipedia editor to do so. If my filling out the initial form wasn't enough for Wikipedia that it has now sent its clean-up crew around to remove my photos, I simply see no point in contributing to your encyclopedia any further.
First, I have witnessed Wikipedia allowing unsubstantiated, unverified information remain up about Paul Davidson, unchallenged for months. Somehow, Davidson has a special connection on this Wikipedia site as noted above with one of his "bros" coming to his rescue while threatening to remove me as a member. Clearly politics are in play here. You want the lies about Davidson to remain while disallowing legal photos of Kristy McNichol? That really says it all.
I'm sorry, I just don't have the time or energy to deal with guys like you. You are really totally impossible fellows, rude, in my face. I am just someone who wanted to put up a nice photo I did artwork on of Kristy McNichol and it's a huge, huge ordeal on Wikipedia to do so, though it has no formal means of proving copyright holdings.
Thus, I will have to deduce that Wikiipedia is being run by a lot of egocentric men who want too much control and are rather reckless in believing Wikipedia is a nation unto itself that doesn't fall under U.S. Constiutional law. Quite sad, people died for our freedom in America, and Wikipedia and others like it, seek to create a little nation unto itself in its own little bubble world.
Suggestion: Perhaps if there as a more "helpful" approach instead of a hardlined one, that isn't really based on the law, it would bring better results for you all. However, I tend to think treating people this way makes you feel manly and powerful about yourselves that you enjoy annoying people in such a way. It is really quite nasty how you treat people who attempt to improve Wikipedia, the way you get in their face on-line as if you're big bad men with the power, and threaten anyone who stands up to you with the laws of the U.S. Constitution and various statutes you seem to want to ignore because fascism seems to work better for you.
Wikipedia is not a nation unto itself and operates due to the U.S. Constitution it falls under. One day I believe Judges will be brought cases about how these sites are run in opposition to the laws of the United States Constitution and various statutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainchannels (talk • contribs)
Please actually read the Constitution before contemptuously throwing it in our faces. We are not "Congress," and therefore do not operate within its restrictions as set out in the Bill of Rights. Your ludicrous tirade is groundless. —Kurykh 22:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a certain amount of irony here, though... Wikipedia fights to keep from violating the law (by forbidding copyrighted images) and in the process... gets accused of violating the law. I kind of enjoy this - amateur legal scholars amuse me.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
All we have to do is abide by the fair use laws, there is nothing stopping us from having policies that are more restrictive, we just can't have less. We could make a rule that all fair use images accepted must be exactly 471x312 pixels. It would be silly and arbitrary, but perfectly legal. If by Constitution, you are referring to the First Amendment, you should realize where that applies. Wikipedia could be compared to a self-publishing company. Its free and we accept a lot, but we do reserve the right to determine what we will and will not accept. You have about as much freedom of speech here (and whether pictures are speech is debatable) as you have in just about any privately owned public area (like a shopping mall); as much as the local rules allow. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to inquire about "us" here. Who is us, and are you a family? Are you employees of Wikipedia? I had no idea there were a bunch of people who believe they have special rights that override the laws of the United States that they can do whatever darn well they please here that apparently is the case. I also don't understand wby the initial complainant can't address his own dispute in which he did not "cite" any policy link related to his derivative work.

I'm sorry I just see through all of this for what it is. You are like a gang on Westside Story, or any other similar type of male bonding click. You are not operating within the laws of the United States while overriding Fair Use Act Statutes, and people's rights in the process. You are in fact, playing politics and making people work too hard to put up photos they have a right to up. You enjoy making people struggle and suffer in their efforts and then you enjoy burning them.

I just wanted to upload a few Kristy McNichol photos, didn't realize I had to move the universe to get a few up on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainchannels (talk • contribs) 23:38:14, August 18, 2007 (UTC).

clique LessHeard vanU 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"us" would generaly be the wikipedia regulars. No one claims that wikipedia has the right to overule the laws of the united states. Wikipedia is in effect private property. Your rights are somewhat limited. At the present time the en wikipedia community takes the view that it should be posible to get a picture of any given living person that is entirely under a free license. Uploading images that fufill this critia is fairly easy. Uploading images that don't meet this criteria is somewhat harder.Geni 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Brainchannels, my sincerest apologies that you've had to go through so much to upload your images. If you are indeed the copyright holder of the images, please email permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The people who have access to that email address know U.S. copyright law well enough that they'll be able to confirm that you are the copyright holder and that it is not an illegally made derivative work. It sometimes takes several days to respond, so the images may be deleted, but if they do confirm through the OTRS system that you are the copyright holder of the images, then the copyright status of the images should be uncontested. 17Drew 00:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(I haven't read all the comments, but some last night) I'm sorry to butt in, but this issue or interpreting law is problematic for me also. That is, unlicensed persons interpreting the law. It is against the law to interpret without a license. This policy needs to change, in that only certain qualified Wikipedian admins who can do this sort of thing. Laws are very complicated. I know one can read them and think they understand them. But why do we have lawyers, judges and a whole judicial system? Answer, because it is complicated. Even the police officers CANNOT interpret the law, the are to enforce the law, but then it is up to the judge to decide a law violation. Just an example. I can go on and on about this subject, but it will take forever. Meaning it's COMPLICATED. :) - Jeeny Talk 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting a different (boilerplate) approach for potential "non-free" images

Problem: A cursory review of Brainchannels' replies and actions suggests (to me anyway) that they are more vituperative (especially the "Constitutional analysis") than substantive.
There is, however, one (very small) aspect of her replies that actually may have some substantive merit.
When a Wikipedia contributor asserts conclusions with legally operative language (such as, "this is a derivative work under copyright law", or "you do not have the rights to release this image") a reasonable person might indeed interpret that as a statement of legal advice, and therefore: 1) inconsistent with Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer; 2) a potential UPL violation; and 3) outside standards of professional conduct (if the contributor indeed happens to be a lawyer).
These are potentially legitimate concerns, regardless of whether the WP contributor is, in fact, a lawyer, and regardless of whether the stated conclusion is "correct". For various reasons I will not enumerate here, it is indeed a good idea to avoid giving opinions that may "smell like" legal analysis.
Suggestion: Fortunately, mitigating these concerns is a simple matter, because it is enough to assert that all content within Wikipedia is expected to be GFDL-compatible, and Wikipedia simply does not have the resources to deliberate over content that (in the judgment of its contributors) represents too much of a "close call".
For example:
   One or more Wikipedia users have deemed this image inappropriate for 
   Wikipedia, because its compatibility with Wikipedia policy or the GFDL is 
   either too ambiguous or too difficult to determine without expert review.
This approach is much more desirable, because it clearly relies on the terms and conditions of Wikipedia itself, and makes no pretense of offering a legally-consistent analysis. Plus, it specifies that it is not WP's job to interpret Intellectual Property law, even if WP were authorized and capable of doing so. It might also help to take a lot of steam (i.e., Constitutional tangents) out of these kinds of debates and confrontations ... just something for folks to consider. dr.ef.tymac 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone who deals with copyright issues is an admin. Another problem is the statment is often going to be blatantly false in that either the image could be compatable and fails other standards or the person is quite able to determine the copyright issues. In addition there are various terms of the GFDL Wikipedia does not allow to be used. I would tend to argue that your version is not an improvement on the current aproach.Geni 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think dr.ef.tymac's suggestion is a wise idea, but I also believe we need to have better clarification of the “usability” of derivative images, especially Photoshopped versions. Does the contributor have to own the original photos, too? How much editing of the image is needed before it constitutes an “original work”? A quick look at what information is readily available on the subject reveals that it’s not easy to find any. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: (Note, I changed the sample text after a comment by a contributor to this thread, to make clear it is not just admin action at issue, other tweaks were made as well, the sample text itself was actually not my intended emphasis, but rather a general change in approach). dr.ef.tymac 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Why even mention administrator? Why not just "A Wikipedia editor has expressed a concern that this image is inappropriate...". It seems silly to cloak this in authority by gravely mentioning "administrators" and "deemed this image inappropriate"; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and admins have no special powers in expressing a concern. --Haemo 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"Does the contributor have to own the original photos, too?" if the work is a deriv either yes or the image has to be PD or under a free licsense. "How much editing of the image is needed before it constitutes an “original work”?" That one is a question for the courts. Wikipedia generaly takes the position that any non incidental inclusion of copywriten material is less than ideal.Geni 00:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up to Geni: The sample text was not offered as a "first draft" but rather a proposal for an alternate approach. I am aware that it's not only admins. It was the alternate approach I was emphasizing, not the specifics of the text itself (that was just to get my basic point across).
When you say that some contributors are capable of rendering a "correct" determination on the copyright issues, I don't particularly disagree with you. The point is, WP contributors should not be expected to offer anything resembling a "legal analysis" regardless of whether it happens to be "correct"; most importantly because there is no need to, especially in "close calls" or instances where all the relevant facts are simply not known.
Even if the admin/contributor happens to be a lawyer, potential UPL and malpractice liability would provide enough incentive to him or her not to give any written determinations beyond "This is just too much trouble for WP to handle, if you want specific reasons why, go seek counsel." If the contributor is *not* a lawyer, then all the more reason to remind WP contributors not to provide "analysis" and "conclusions". Stick to boilerplate.
There are pages and pages of questions that would need to be answered before someone could conclusively state in all instances "you have no rights to release this image". User:Askari Mark mentions just a handful right above. To see these kinds of statements in a review of potentially non-free content by a WP contributor, to me is a red flag that a change in methods may be warranted.
Please note, I'm not faulting anyone here, just stating that Brainchannels' remarks, (although unfairly confrontational and a bit too accusatory for my liking), do have a kernel of substance that may point to a larger issue. dr.ef.tymac 00:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing "proper analysis" from "communication to potential uploaders"

The thing to remeber is that wikipedia has developed a shot cut around a lot of these issues and various methods of the review. In the case in question the uploader admits they are calling on fair use rather than de minimis which means that the argument just boils down to replaceability. Argueing something is overcomplex therefor cannot be used is a dangerious road to go down given the complexity of various public domain and freedom of panorama laws which we rely on.Geni 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, I am not proposing that we argue issues are "overcomplex" ... in fact, quite the contrary, I am proposing it be made clear that conclusive review regarding the validity of legal claims is beyond the responsibility and scope of Wikipedia. Far from being a "dangerous road to go down" ... it is quite a sensible road, especially considering the express limitations provided by Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, and the implicit limitations imposed by UPL and other professional safeguards.
Your reply to me helps illustrate my point: How many WP contributors who involve themselves in these kinds of matters would have given the same "analysis" you've just provided? Assuming your analysis is "correct", how many WP contributors would be expected to properly interpret:
  • fair use rather than de minimis
  • the argument just boils down to replaceability
  • the complexity of various public domain and freedom of panorama laws we rely on
Indeed, how many WP contributors can be expected to understand what all of those actually mean (let alone whether they are correctly applied)? Even if it is necessary to engage in this kind of analysis, that does not imply that it is necessary to communicate this kind of analysis to potential uploaders of content.
My basic point is this: WP should not stick its neck out any more than is necessary. There is a big difference between telling a potential uploader:
* 1) "you do not have redistribution rights for this image"; and
* 2) "you have not adequately demonstrated that this image is consistent with WP terms of use"
Statements like 1 clearly seem outside the appropriate bounds, and subject WP to the kinds of "legal one-upmanship" demonstrated in this thread. In contrast, statement 2) simply indicates that the uploader has not met the burden established by Wikipedia (thereby obviating unfounded "Constitutional" and legal "debates" entirely). If the potential uploader wishes to contest the rationale, they can do it independently, and stick their *own* neck out by requesting a review. dr.ef.tymac 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Overcomplex is still a bad approach. Generaly we try to create a simplfied ruleset inside the bounds of copyright law. Generaly the reasons we give should be better than complexity this is where our tags such as template:nsd template:nrd template:untagged and template:rfu come from. However in this case was somewhat outside what those tags can deal with since we have someone who knows enough copyright law to make a mess of things.
"WP contributors would be expected to properly interpret:"
fair use rather than de minimis
almost none that would be a somewhat non standard formulation
the argument just boils down to replaceability
Given the prevalance of RFU probably anyone who deals with image copyright.
the complexity of various public domain and freedom of panorama laws we rely on
depends how you define properly interpret.
Your average wikipedian doesn't need to know. It's only when you run into people like Brainchannels that you bother going to that depeth. Normal anaylis would be that fair use is involved it is replaceable therefor delete.
Saying "you have not adequately demonstrated that this image is consistent with WP terms of use" would not have prevented the arguments brought here in any way shape or form. They've been used before they will be used again no word combination you can use can prevent that. Can you really explain why the image isn't consistant with wikipedia's terms of use without resorting to legal terms?Geni 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a statement below in the section "BrainChannels Retracts Legal Threat". I have stated the reason why I initially made a legal threat towards Corvus and why I retracted it. I value my Wikipedia membership and do not wish to jepordize participation in making Wikipedia a better on-line encyclopedia which I feel I can. --Brainchannels 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)