Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive287

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 real-life identity outted 2 Repeated blanking of cited content 3 User: EliasAlucard 4 User:Phral inappropriately using vandalism templates in a content dispute 5 Repeated WP:ATTACK and WP:SOAP from 71.224.*.* 6 Disruptive editing and personal attacks by User:Jetwave Dave 7 User:Adolfus 8 Expert attention needed on Ebionites featured article 9 Controversial POV edits by User:Pgsylv 10 Copyright Violation 11 Cody Coker 12 Block of User:Dahn 13 User using ip to evade block 14 Could an admin take a look at this? 15 Coast Run 16 Bot Gone Mad... 17 User:BmikeSci and Bay Valley Foods 18 IP Sock Puppet keeps warring and using blogs 19 Rebelstar 19.1 Section break 20 Tmangray (talk · contribs) repeated drawn out disruption and edit warring 21 Incivility by JohnOw (talk · contribs) 22 Block user:Booooobbbbb 23 Attack & outing page up for MfD 24 Threat of physical violence from User:Doktor Who 25 WikiScanner trolling 25.1 Wikiscanner use 26 Wikipedia:Extended image syntax 27 User:Thamarih: Persistent personal attacks, accusations, and now a threat. 28 Images uploaded by User:Migssant19 29 Users pushing personal agenda 30 Maggie Grace 31 Help with request on my talk page 32 Elvis Presley 33 Fidelfair (talk · contribs) 34 Sri Lankan Civil War 35 Trouble with IP sockpuppets 36 User:NEMT 37 Content of User page reads like an ad for a product 38 User:Zordrac 39 Wikistalking by Cyrus XIII 40 Wikistalking by a user 41 "Court Order" alleged - article removed by IP editor 41.1 I'd like to add 42 Potentially illegal use of Wikipedia logo 43 Reinsertions of SPAM links on Victoria Beckham 44 User:Maoririder316 45 Blocking socks edit warring on Video Professor 46 User:207.172.87.121 making subtle changes to fictional names 47 Service Corporation International 48 User 216.75.131.205 49 Sly200 50 Roblefko 51 Vandalism covered by Wikipedia Policies 52 Borderline sexual harassment of a user 53 COI 54 Photos 55 Perverted Justice 56 Old dispute? 57 Repeated personal attacks by Rondus (and his sock C00483033) 58 Disruptive attacks by user Matthew

[edit] real-life identity outted

An editor has intentially added a link to the talk page of the Stephen Barrett article that has outed another editors's real-life identity. The link on the talk goes to a website that clearly identifies the "real name" of another editor. The edits need to be deleted from the history to protect the identity of the editor whos real name has been revealed. Here is the contributions of the editor who added the link to the talk page in an unsigned retro-style edit by editing another person's comments.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad. My intention was not to out the editor, but merely to show relevant support to a point which that editor was making. If the link hasn't been removed yet, I will certainly remove it now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This editor has outed the editor before. This is his second time he has done this after he was aware he should not do this. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have outted him before? Really? I don't remember doing so. There was a time I did refer to him by name, but that was when he was doing so. Then, at some point, he decided to go private, and I believe I have done my best to respect that. Again, this time it was entirely unintentional. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 has now added more and very specific information to the talk page that when googled can easily reveal to the same website which has identifies the person by their "real name." Levine2112 has added "key words" from the website which can lead to the website when the key words are searched.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: After editor was warned, he then went to the talk page and outed more personal and specific information about another editor again. The personal information can be googled that can find the same website. This time it is not a link but key identifiying information. The new edit should also be deleted from the history. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Outside party: Seems/appears/smells like some socks of this case are engaging in POV, BLP violations. My suggestion is for a SSP case or a checkuser case to be filed. As it stands since the page is under conflict, the page needs to be fully protected. Miranda 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that would be most helpful. I suspect sock-puppetry as well. P.S. I did the Google keywords search which QuackGuru describes above and I returned no results. I think this is a case of vendetta; QuackGuru is clearly "out to get me". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It does need to be noted that Levine has received numerous warning(s) for such activity and has been engaged in what appears to be a consistent trolling behavior at Stephen Barrett. His contribs point to the behavior of a SPA and the number of different editors reverting his edits and dropping warnings on his talkpage is now becoming rampant. Anybody would think that the cabal is starting to notice him, or just the Community... Any advice on how to encourage Levine2112 to cease his endless trolling, personal attacks and to encourage him to edit in articles other than Stephen Barrett would be greatly appreciated. Shot info 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shot_info's allegations, I would think what would be noticed by admins is the outrageous pov protective behavior by "followers" of the subject of the article where their long running activism and battles off-site, which in a number of cases have professional interests too, has been carried on here at WP. QuackGuru has been the most disruptive and contentious of editors for the past several months with multitudinous deletes of well established, prior consensus material for very poor policy cites to try to avoid consensus based change. Here and here, he even draws the ire of highly experienced admins and this RfC. Others [1][2] and even his natural allies find it wears thin[3]. Among many.--I'clast 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an update. Yesterday Levine2112 had revealed an editor's real name. After he was told to stop, he then went to the talk page and put personal identifying information of the editor he outed. Today Levine2112 is calling the editor bias.[4] Is this disruptive or is this normal Wikipedia behaviour. Thanks for the administrative oversight.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After Levine2112 was warned, he deleted the warning with an edit summary, stating: misplaced warning, expressly permitted removals per WP:NPA. In another warning about his behaviour, he deleted it with an edit summary: removing personal attacks by a troll. Clearly, Levine2112 does not think he has done anything wrong. What do administrators think about this and his ongoing activities. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Levine is continuing with the personal attacks at Stephen Barrett and has reverted the removals of his demands (my diff removing info is here [5]). I assume that per WP:NPA these sorts of shenanigans are unacceptable to Wikipedia, nevertheless input from this forum would be appriciated. Shot info 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We are experiencing a breakdown in communications as WP:RS, WP:V sources about criticism of SB are suffering severe systematic and publication bias problems here at the Stephen Barrett article. No amount denial, voting, ganging up, deletion and rewriting Talk histories changes such fundamental violations. Complaints and analysis about this problem aren't personal attacks or trolling. I have re-edited out the byplay from both sides exactly where the discussion went off-topic over the edit summary, to try to further improve Shot_info's effort. I suggest that we leave this AN/I at that, restart Talk edits from how it's edited now[6]. In advance, thank you all for your careful review and consideration.--I'clast 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'clast is part of the problem with his forgiveness of Levine2112's use of personal attacks and demands for personal information, and attempts to divert third party analysis by making one editor's behavioural problems the Communities instead with "systematic and publication bias problems", "denial, voting, ganging up, deletion and rewriting". When there are editors that attract this sort of Community attention, there is really only one path to tread, and that's to here unfortunately. No doubt this appears to the "ganging up", but as WP:CABAL suggests "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you."

To reiterate, it would help the situation if some third party advice could be provided to help a minority of disruptive editors improve their behaviour. Shot info 01:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I post to Dr. Barrett's article, mostly on the talk page. I leave the article when things get out of control and lurk though this time I was away for awhile. Now things are so out of control without any civility going on. The article as it stands in it's protected position came with a lot input from regular editors and even editors and administrators who stopped in to help the article with the WP:BLP and WP:Weight problems just to name a few policies. Since this, a few of the above editors have actively been uncivil and down right rude. Levine, as noted by the difs above, is attacking everyone it seems that doesn't agree with him and then calling them a troll and deleting their responses, again as shown by the above editors. I'clast seems to be the 'protector' here for Levine's incivility and reinserts what the majority of editors have already agreed should not be on the talk page or in the article. The outing of an editor like was done here should not be allowed or over looked. I hope a stop to this poor behavior by all editors can occur and that a more friendly and civil behavior will happen. As for Levine, I am sorry to say this, but his contribution appears to only be on the Barrett pages for the most part. He has been friendly until other editors get exhausted with him continuing to ask the same questions over and over again in a flood of words that takes over the talk page and pretty much drowns out anyone else’s comments. He seems to be very angry right now with quite a few editors and thus the attacks with calling them trolls and having serious COI issues. [7] I really appreciate you listening to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that if any admin is actually reading this, they see through all this drivel. Yes, I accidentally linked to an external page on Talk:Stephen Barrett which "outted" another editor. When it was pointed out to me, I summarily removed the link (something which the original poster to this AN/I should have done once he/she spotted the issue). There are only a handful of regular editors on the Talk page, and I assure you that they all know the the real life identity of the editor whom I supposedly "outted" as this editor had been very open with who he is up until recently. Yes, I removed some comments on the talk page. But please review them; they are all personal attacks on me lodged by the very editors posting here. So per WP:NPA, I felt I was in my right to remove the unhelpful comments from the talk page. This is methodology which I learned from Shot info, in fact. He is constantly removing comments from the talk page which he deems inflamatory. (I think we got a major case of WP:POT here.) Anyhow, my plan is to ignore these editors from now on when they try to bait me into their war (and then they rush to AN/I to post my response to their baiting!) So, if they want to carry on with the on-topic policy discussion which I am trying to carry out on Talk:Stephen Barrett, I welcome their contribution. What I don't want is more of their baiting and refusal to accept and continuation to misuse content policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Oh, and by the way, though my recent editing activity has certainly been focused around Stephen Barrett, I encourage anyone to check my complete history and see that I have been contributing to a wide range of articles for several years now. I hope that any admin bothering to read this abuse of AN/I will see through the lies of a gang of editors who have been out to get me for quite some time now merely because of my steadfast desire to write a policy-driven article which is a useful resource rather than a promotional fluff piece. I thank you and as a reminder, I plan on ignoring the baiting, attacks and scoundrel-like tactics of this group of editors from now on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, by his own admission has outted an editor. That was his second offense. After his second offense, he posted personal identifying information of the editor he outted on the talk page. Shot info deleted the personal information Levine2112 wrote and now Levine2112 is not happy about it. Removing comments from the talk page is perfectly acceptable becuase it is personal information. In essence, Levine2112 has outted a Wikipedian for the third time.  Mr.Guru  talk  17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only done it once, and it was unintentional, caused no harm and I removed the offended link promptly. If you feel I have done it more than once, please supply the diffs right here,right now. Otherwise, please stop this ridiculously unjustified campaign of lies against me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 has outted the same person three times after he knew he should stop. I will not take the advise of Levine2112. It is very bad advise. I will not post the differences here because that would be a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that I outed this editor before, but you are unwilling to back up this charge. It is because the diffs don't exist and that your charge is bogus. Excuse my bluntness here, but "put up or shut up." Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top. Until then, please stop this obvious campaign of lies and let's get back to discussing content policy in a constructive way and leave the personal attacks behind you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can e-mail the evidence to an administrator. This was not the first time. I have the evidence Levine2112 has outted the same editor before.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do. And please email you evidence to me as well. I'll be waiting. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 acts like the innocent one. I beg to differ. Levine2112 has more behaviour issues. For example, here. I hope this will be looked into. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wait if a trusted administrator is interested in me supplying the evidence. I have reported the outting of a person's real name to an administrator earlier this year anyhow. Levine2112 is a repeat offender.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• It should probably be noted that everyone who has commented on this thread (excluding Miranda (talk · contribs) has been involved in a fairly long running edit war over the Stephen Barrett, Chiropractic, and Barrett v. Rosenthal articles (et. al.). This would probably benefit from some comment by someone who doesn't have a strong POV to push here.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

slight refactor of my comment--Isotope23 ^talk 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by someone who doesn't have a strong POV to push here, but who wasted a half hour of his life looking at Talk:Stephen Barrett: Childishness all around. The last few days on Talk:Stephen Barrett (I didn't have the stomach to look at anything older) are troubling, and all contributers to that page come away looking bad. Wholesale deletion of other editors' comments in the name of NPA has become the norm on both sides. Personal attacks have become the norm on both sides. If I were God Emperor of Wikipedia (and therefore didn't have to follow blocking policy), there would be 5-6 blocked accounts, based on WP:GROWUP. Since I'm not, all I can suggest is: draw a line under what has happened so far, and threaten both sides with blocks if any incivility, personal attacks, or editing other users' comments happens again. Then, go to WP:DR, where this belongs.

As to the original accusation of outing an editor, the lack of a diff makes it tricky, but I finally found it. If Levine2112 can show (preferably by email, to an admin, to reduce further damage) where the editor he identified has recently self-identified himself, then chalk it up to an innocent mistake. If not, block for 3 days. --barneca (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide an admin with whatever you need. Are you an admin? Can I email you on this? If you did find an original place where I outted this editor, please email it to me because I am unaware of it. The only one I know of was indirectly through a link to an outside source which reveals the editor's name. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and my email is broken anyway. It seems Quackguru's claim is based on your linking to a site where the user uses their real name, and saying something along the lines "You say here that...". Then, in the silly talk page revert wars going on at Talk:Stephen Barrett, your comment kept getting removed and replaced, with (in my opinion) no really clear explanation, leading to the accusation that you've done so multiple times. You mentioned that until recently, they used that name on-wiki as well. If true, and if you can demonstrate that, in my opinion (for whatever that's worth) it was an honest mistake, eventually corrected. If not true, then your original defense is wrong, and you likely knew what you were doing was wrong. So to me, it all hinges on whether they did, indeed, until recently use their real name on-wiki. I hope an admin will come along at some point and offer to have you email them a recent example so this can be archived. --barneca (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I can do just that. And just to be clear, you have only found one instance where I have "outted" this editor - where I indirectly and unintentionally did so, by linking to an external site which in my opinion clearly demonstrates this editor's conflict of interest in editing or dictating the edits of Stephen Barrett. The other instance(s) which QuackGuru refers to has not been demonstrated to me or to anyone else and to the best of my knowledge, this is my first dealings with this issue. I appreciate your input thus far, Barneca and I regret that this conversation is as long as it is - especially since it is based on one accidental indirect mistake on my part and the rest is filled with bogus, unsubstantiated accusations from warring parties tring anything and everything to bring an editor with an opposing POV down. I thank you for seeing through all of this and assigning responsibility to "both sides". Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets be honest here. Levine2112 has just accused another editor of a COI without any evidence. This is the same repetitive comments and behaviour that got another editor blocked. The editor, who Levine2112 has "outted" on more than one occassion, has made it clear a while ago as to not reveal personal information or his/her real name. The editor has been on the receiving end of false accussations as you can see by the false COI charges by Levine2112 above. This is not the first time Levine2112 has made defamatory comments about the editor he "outted." Levine2112, please stop.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

→ Hi there. I'm uninvolved in this dispute, but I wanted to mention that I have encountered several of these users in the past - I responded to a Wikiquette Alert involving User:Shot info and User:Levine2112 weeks ago, and the end result of that Alert was myself and a couple other editors telling everyone to disengage, then more specifically telling Levine2112 to disengage when he kept prodding others. While I have no comment with regard to the current dispute, I wanted to add an outside voice regarding some history between these editors, and the prior dispute also involved the Stephen Barrett article. I'm disappointed to see that it's still going on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The dispute mentioned by KieferSkunk is WP:WQA - Personal attacks by user Fyslee --Ronz 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz. I was having trouble remembering which WQA that was, and for some reason I couldn't locate it in the archives. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the WQA was an example of Levine2112 gaming the system against Fyslee. Then, in the middle of the WQA, started gaming against myself when I pointed this out to the forum. His gaming was noted by Kiefer. His gaming is still going on. Yes, I will agree there is incivility on "both sides" where one "side" is really one editor (Levine) and his defender (I'clast) plus potentially socks (but I couldn't be bothered going there due to lack of admin interest) versus the "other side" lots of other many and various editors coming and going over the last 6 months. Unfortunately my removals of info on the talkpage is not something I want to do, and it has only been in the last week that I have been driven to do so, only because the Community seems powerless to stop his rampant accusations (COI, NPA, CIVIL, you name it...). I note he is now saying that all these different editors (all of them....all so different) are "baiting him". Come on people, when you have one editor saying that the rest are out to get him....it's obviously the cabal at work. Or just one editor pissing off a whole bunch of other editors. Now from the above it seems that this one editor will be rewarded for his gaming. Or perhaps this is the reason why AN/I is now involved... Shot info 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Levine for 72 hours. This is his third block for disruption related to Barret. JoshuaZ 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated blanking of cited content

Watchdogb (talk · contribs) blanked entire sections of text from the Velupillai Prabhakaran article, citing a number of reasons, mainly that the content was uncited.[8] I added citations for the uncited statements, an then added them back. Yet Watchdogb continued to carry out blanket reversions of the page. I pointed out if he has any problems with the text in the article, either add {{fact}} tags or move the disputed content to the talk page,[9] yet he continued to carry out blanket reversions of the article, even though most of the text is already cited.

Another reason for his blanking parts of the text was that "the LTTE has nothing to do with Prabhakaran",[10] even though Prabhakaran is the iron fisted ruler of the LTTE.

Skcsknathan001 (talk · contribs) an apparent SPA which has only edited the Prabhakaran article, then joined in the reverting, and tried to change the name "Prabhakaran" to "Pirabhakaran" throughout the article. Prabhakaran is by far the most frequently used form of his name international media and documents, and when I pointed out WP:NAME dictates that the most common name be used in articles, he replied

"This is BIOGRAPHY, not an article."[11]

Frankly, I can't argue with users who say the article is POV and think reverting the entire article to "their" version is necessary because

regarding the sentence "He has banned other religions,"

"The word "other" has to be removed, as he banned all religion."

regarding the sentence "some of his interviews point to his ideologies and also perspectives"

""some of his interviews..." under the section Personal should be re-worded as "most of his interviews. There are not many interviews, if any, that he did not speak about "his ideologies and also perspectives on various issues pertaining to Eelam and the struggle for independence".".

so I would appreciate outside input regarding the article.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please try the various avenues open for dispute resolution, such as a request for comment. Raymond Arritt 03:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about DR. I talking about repeated blanking of cited content from an article. Is it that hard to get an admin to go over an article and express a few opinions?--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, both of you are known edit warriors. I know he removed sourced edits. All he says that it is not needed to state that LTTE is a TERRORIST ORG TWICE. On another paragraph you had The LTTE is currently branded a terrorist organisation by the USA, the EU and many Asian countries. Well haven't you mentioned that before? Indeed, are you editing LTTE article itself to get into that much details? No. He indeed left the important edits in place → [LTTE] is proscribed as a terrorist organization in 32 countries. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that you yourself have been involved in related disputes Fayssal, I'd be surprised if you consider yourself neutral in this regard. Also the fact that you justified this blanket reversion [12] as " All he says that it is not needed to state that LTTE is a TERRORIST ORG TWICE." pretty much proves that. The question related to the LTTE was whether blanking content about their various atrocities was appropriate, not whether it should be mentioned that they are a banned terrorist organization. You also completely bypassed the fact that Watchdogb was blanking cited content about Prabhakaran himself.

Like I said, any input from a neutral editor will be certainly appreciated, although it increasingly seems as if no one really cares about such articles. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

it increasingly seems as if no one really cares about such articles. I am glad you have finally come to the conclusion that except a few fringe people like you and me, no one really cares about these articles (about Sri Lanka) or makes up their mind about these issues reading material from Wikipedia. Anyway, although I have come to ANI in the past for what is clearly content dispute resolution. My advice would be for you to use the dispute resolution process when discussing about any conflict you may have. For example if you question the RS validity of a source then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and live by its finding and potentially attacking hardworking Admins (Ironically the only one who noticed the notice for Admin action) as biased is also not going to take you anywhere. Thanks Taprobanus 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf, you leave out parts where you violate WP:BLP and put that article into liability. For example you claim that Prabakaran studied up to grade 5 and linked it to a website that says he studied to Ordinary Level (which in terms of Grade I think is 12 and most certainly not 5). This is either twisting a citation or lying about it. You seem interested in writing about LTTE's atrocities on the Prabakaran article and only give citations that say "LTTE has committed..." and in fact nowhere in the given citations does it say that Prabakaran did these atrocities. Note that WP:BLP says that it is better to delete material that is not cited than to leave a fact tag there. I believe it says Remove uncited material immediately. Another note is that you give one person's criticism a lot of room in the article. For example you wrote about 2 paragraphs addressing the view of a person who was a militant leader under Prabakaran's control (who is an enemy of Prabakaran now). WP:BLP clearly says that views of a small minority (in this case one person) should not even belong in the article. Watchdogb 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: EliasAlucard

I would like to report Elias for mocking religions and attacking on users, he uses an un polite form of language and are easy heard that he is anti-Arab, here is some points what he is doing on Wikipedia

• He suddenly placed a tag on my user page with a suspection of a user called Nochi. Which also are an Assyrian. As i looked deeper on this user, he was blocked not long ago for engaging in a edit war with Elias something about Arameaens. they also have discussed about woman breasts, make statements as they are proud to be Assyrians because of Assyrian woman got large breasts, This is insane.
• He is acting like Admin. Undo every edit he don't agree with, without any sources or discussion. He always claims sources by people while he don't give any.
• He have been mocking alot of people/religion/ethnic and has been reported before
• I tried to communicate with him by adding stuff he are saying as Arabs killing Assyrians in streets are nonsense and I am an Arab which do not hate Assyrian. He just rudely attached by sending youtube videos on Assyrian churches being bomb, now how can he write peacefully with people if he have such hate?.
• He is trolling. label every single Lebanese Christians in Sweden as Assyrians?

I would like immedtly action and seriously thought about this. BTW look at his userpage, it is very obvious that he is a Nationalist Assyrian Troll — Balu2000 12:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this also needs to be dealt with. User:Nochi, a vandal troll, was banned recently for breaking the three revert rule around 50 times or something, in one day. I suspect User:Balu2000 to be Nochi under another nick name. Here's Nochi's joke of an article, at Aramaean people: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aramaean_people&oldid=149981548 We Assyrians, speak Aramaic today, and some of us, insist on being the descendants of the ancient Aramaeans because of this. We don't have to get into details about this, but let's just say, that article is a joke. Now, User:Balu2000, is at his old User:Nochi behaviour again. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&diff=next&oldid=152224764 Adding more unsourced crap about Assyrians being 18 million. The reason why I suspect Balu of being Nochi, is because of his old user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Balu2000&oldid=151643427 That WikiFairy template was used by Nochi, and they've both presented themselves as with the same background: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nochi&oldid=150261044 He's Nochi alright, that's for sure. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:32 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh and by the way, he has threatened me with death threats on my talk page.[13] That should be taken very seriously. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:35 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    • After multiple edit conflicts: Balu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) blocked indef for the death threat. As for the rest of this conflict, content disputes do not belong here, and in the event that Balu2000 is unblocked, sockpuppet reports can be filed at WP:SSP. Sandstein 12:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, keep up the good work :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:48 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
        • Please do not gloat at others. Blocking Balu2000 does not mean that I endorse any of your conduct. – A review of my block by other admins is, of course, appreciated. Sandstein 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Look, we had a discussion on my talk page, it was a political discussion, I was criticizing the situation of Assyrians in Iraq and how they are being murdered by just about everyone, and he wished death upon me. Then the rest of the discussion got a little bit out of hand. Anyway, no big deal. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:06 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm in agreement with Sandstein. You're involved in two concurrent AN/I threads, Elias. That you're coming into conflict with others like that, and your attitude in this one, and your lack of patience and finding a better resolution in the other (you should've gone to DR sooner), suggests maybe you should voluntarily take the rest of the day off, go to a movie or something, and relax your wikiediting fingers for a day, or two. ThuranX 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah, ThuranX, you're right. I do need a break from Wikipedia. I recently began editing again, perhaps it has become a little too much. One thing though, regardless of my attitude, I am here to improve Wikipedia, and I do take it seriously. I never enact in vandalism, citing wrong numbers, trying to give disingenuous information, etc. It's just that these trolls, are annoying me with their edits. Anyway, I'll be doing something else for a while. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:59 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
                • To be clear, I never stopped AGF with you, I'm just suggesting before yiou get yourself into trouble, relax. And congrats, enjoy a day or two off. ThuranX 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • AGF? — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:28 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the indef block of Balu. Elias, i've already talked to you about your incivility here and explained to you gently why i don't like what you say. Your response was that i got offended so easily. What about now? As per this report you should have been blocked as well for a week or two. You got enough blocks on 2007. I'd not block you though you merit it as i am not permitted because of [COI] eventhough i never edited any article you have edited except that we've met 2 or 3 times around. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to block me. I've been here on Wikipedia about three years now. I believe I am valuable contributor. Though I understand it's not popular to voice your opinion here on Wikipedia, since Wikipedians don't support Free Speech, and since I am a vocal supporter of free speech, and I believe in the saying Free Speech – use it or loose it, I tend to get myself in trouble on Wikipedia. Not that I'm out of line otherwise. Yeah, I've been blocked for revert warring with trolls like Skatewalk. That's about it though. Other than that, I've created hundreds of notable articles (and a few have been deleted), and I usually take my time to improve Wikipedia. Either way, I've decided to take a break, because I have some other stuff to focus on, more important stuff. I'll get back to editing seriously in 6 months or so from now, and I'll change my attitude until then. So there's no need to block me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:28 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

About 3 years only? Ok. Do you think that is a cool justification? Don't you know that a few valuable editors have been banned because of their questionable actions? Yes, please take a break if you think you need it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Free speech implying that X better than Y? Cool, but do you think you are comparing temperatures degrees? If you'd have said the same to a Martian it would have been described as "Anti-Martians". Yes, of course, you are free to spe(a)ech. But please don't mix up Free Speech w/ Couscous. Please never use [Xree Xpeech] as an excuse only when you see it fit. I'd never call anyone an asshole because i'd never be sure. A final word, how do you define FREE SPEECH and where do you or experts believe FS is limited? If FS got no limits than why Balu was blocked? FS got its FUCKING limits. You gave yourselves too many excuses (3 years editing and Xree Xpeech). Again, have some cool holidays. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong. Freedom of speech, has no limits. That is why it's called freedom of speech; you can say exactly whatever you want. Death threats, is of course, something else. He's free to threaten me to death, of course. But precautions should be taken, if necessary. That is why I didn't care about reporting him for it at first, because I believe in free speech. But since he tried to break my balls by reporting me here to you admins, I had to defend myself. Anyway, take care until later. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:20 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice break. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Scientifically proven you are a HYPOCRITE. Ask civil people and they would tell you. Have a nice break. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One last word. Anyone who supports freedom of speech and says free speech has its limits, is a hypocrite. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:28 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard, free speech also includes the someone's right not to say what they don't wish to say: in this case, the Wikimedia foundation's right not to publish content it finds incompatable with our mission. Your right to free speech doesn't take away anyone's right to blank inflammatory and irrelevant comments with the same buttons you use to create them, and it doesn't take away administrators' rights to block you. What your right to free speech does give you is the right to tell everyone off-wiki what a fascistic place this is. You can criticize it on your website, write an article about it, denounce it on television, etc. If you think your rights have been infringed, you can even explore legal action (just don't threaten it on-wiki.) None of us here can take that away from you. As long as you're here, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an anarchy: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." That's core policy.Proabivouac 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech has no limits? I guess the US Supreme Court is wrong. Please take your "freedom of speeech" complaints elsewhere. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Lucky for SWATjester there were enough cases to make that fit. Elias, YOu keep editing despite your stated intent above to go away for a couple days. don't try to get the last word, it'll just get you upset and wound up, nad want to reply more. Walk away. Take a day. relax. Wikipedia will still be here, your articles will be here, but this thread will be archived and you can move on. ThuranX 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Phral inappropriately using vandalism templates in a content dispute

User:Phral has placed this template on my user page after I reverted [14][15] two of his deletions [16] [17] of the same material at the White people page. User purports that these deletions are consensus; reading of the (overlong) talk page shows there is no consensus, just a POV-push from a group of editors. At best, this is calling vandalism what is merely a dispute content, and at worst this is an abuse of the warning templates. Would an admin please look into this? Thanks! The same user has already used the same tactics on User:Jeeny and User:Muntuwandi related to the same content dispute on the same page, so this isn't like it's the first time he's crossed the line.--Ramdrake 12:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide links to when I did that. --Phral 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus not to have those pictures in the article, and they are currently up for deletion. Ramdrake is simply trying to prevent them from becoming orphaned, which would result in their definite deletion --Phral 13:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this section [18] shows there are many people who think these images are appropriate, so the claim of consensus doesn't hold.--Ramdrake 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And I note that user:Jeeny is currently blocked for Personal Attacks and Civility issues. --Phral 13:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And I further note that user:Muntuwandi is currently blocked for 3RR --Phral 13:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All indicative of a content dispute, not willful vandalism.--Ramdrake 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, my dear Watson. See [19] --Phral 13:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Those edits of Jeeny made when she was new were counted as vandalism, but she admits now she didn't understand how Wikipedia worked back then, and they were done on other articles. You are bringing up unrelated issues to try to muddy the situation.--Ramdrake 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was you who brought up the two blocked editors to try and further your argument. Am I not allowed a right of reply to your arguments? Late here, I'll contribute again in a few hours --Phral 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was, and remains, that these edits were made in good faith, albeit in a hot content dispute, and cannot be considered vandalism, as per WP:VAND: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. Hope this clarifies the situation for you.--Ramdrake 13:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: The reverts that Ramdrake carried out were not acts of vandalism and this entire situation is a content dispute involving the text and images on White people. Phral did used a UW template for the wrong purposes.
My proposal: I would suggest that the involved editors seek a form of dispute resolution (i.e. WP:RfM) and settle this without further distruption to the Community. nat^tang 13:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I anticipate that this won't be a problem for much longer because the primary editor (User:Muntuwandi) responsible for inserting the nonsense off-topic images at the top of the article keeps doing the same sort of things all over wikipedia and keeps getting blocked for it. He is in conflict with nearly every editor and administrator he runs into because his habit is to repeatedly add poorly sourced POV-laden nonsense in every article he edits and revert-war to keep it in. So properly interpreted in that context, Ramdrake is just aiding the vandal. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Fourdee has been going around reporting people for vandalism, to get the others blocked with whom he disagreed. But, now Fourdee is blocked. Neither Ramdrake, I, nor Muntuwandi are vandals, per se. It's an unfair use of the term, to get the other editors blocked when they do not agree with another. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to respond by posting the "vandalism warning warning" template, {{vww}}, on Phral if he does it again. It's the only template I ever made, and I'm sort of waiting for somebody else to produce a "vandalism warning warning warning"... OK, it's self-referential/meta/silly, but I'm proud of it, too. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

I used it. Good one. Thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated WP:ATTACK and WP:SOAP from 71.224.*.*

I see six very similar incidents from the following three IP address (all of which map to *.hsd1.pa.comcast.net):

71.224.192.194
71.224.232.97
71.224.232.127

This edit is an example of WP:SOAP; this edit is an example of WP:ATTACK (in this case antisemitism).

I assume there is no point in adding warnings to the talk page of a dynamic IP address, so I've blocked the article from anonymous edits. Was that the right thing to do? Or should I have requested 'semi-protect' for the article? I also looked into blocking 1.224.0.0/16, but I see that only SysOps can do that...

Chewyrunt 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First, please do warn anonymous editors. Second, only admins can protect or semi-protect articles. Simply adding a protection template does not protect an article. If the anonymous editors persist in obvious vandalism after multiple warnings, go ahead and report them. If it would be better to have the article semi-protected, request that here. --ElKevbo 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the protection template mistake - getting up to speed as fast as I can, and trying to be careful, but obviously still have a lot to learn. So do you recommend I place a warning on the talk page associated with every dynamic IP addresses seen from this user? Or just the last one he/she was assigned? --Chewyrunt 15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just hit the most recent one if it's totally obvious that it's the same editor. If these accounts behave like a sockpuppet then they can be treated as such. But if there is any doubt, assume good faith and warn each IP address as if they are separate editors (because they very well could be!). --ElKevbo 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a mild warning here. If the problems continue I'll give some thought to which of WP:AIV or WP:RFP is more appropriate (guidance appreciated). --Chewyrunt 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(guidance..) take it to AIV. they amy suggest a Checkuser to see if there's ageographic commonality as grounds for action, and they can also refer you to RFP if they deem that a better solution. Since you're still learning, it'll be a good experience. Both are good plaes to go with this sort of thing, better than here, and bot hwill guide you in where to take the problem further. ThuranX 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Chewyrunt 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing and personal attacks by User:Jetwave Dave

Jetwave Dave has repeatedly removed an AfD tag at Pribor-3B Assault Rifle: diff of most recent removal. Upon my warning that I would report him here if he continued removing the tag, he vandalized my userpage, and replied with this incivil comment. Please deal with this disruptive and incivil editor. Thanks. Parsecboy 15:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jetwave Dave has vandalized my page twice more: 1, 2, as well as continued to remove the AfD tag. Parsecboy 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jetwave has also vandalized my talk page. Please take action against this increasingly incivil editor. Parsecboy 15:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User has continued to vandalize my user and talk pages. Parsecboy 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I second this request. Jetwave has disrupted an AFD, and now he has overstepped the line with obscenities. Leibniz 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not blocked yet? Weird. Blocked indefinitely, vandalism account. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks a lot. Parsecboy 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jetwave is currently avoiding the indef block with 168.103.148.163 (talk · contribs). User has repeatedly vandalized my user page, as well as other main page articles. Parsecboy 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jetwave has also used 67.40.182.125 (talk · contribs) to circumvent the block. Parsecboy 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple waves of Jetwave Dave-related IP trolling blocked. Appropriate pages protected. —Kurykh 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Adolfus

I've given User:Adolfus the benefit of the doubt, but I'm thinking that s/he might be a sockpuppet of a banned troll. This user previously registered as User:Adolphus Hitlerius, which was obviously blocked, and then responded (through this new account) to my unblock decline with an apparently strong knowledge of Wikipedia policy. I might just be paranoid here, but the user's first edits were installing Twinkle, going on new page patrol, etc. Very odd for an apparent new user. I might be missing something obvious here, or ultimately making something out of nothing, but others' insights would help here. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm a sock of a banned troll. But of who? That's the mystery. You'll probably never know it. Checkuser isn't going to prove anything. WP:RBI. Adolfus 16:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the bait was taken. Blocked indefinitely. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If only they were all this easy :-) Marking resolved above. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert attention needed on Ebionites featured article

I tagged the Ebionites article with "expert-verify" and "misleading" tags. A lot of editorial syntheses are being added to the article by a disruptive editor, which are being put into the mouths of verifiable sources. Many sources are added as references which only peripherally mention what is being claimed. The behavior was initially reported to admins Jayjg and Metamagician3000 with corroboration by two other editors working on the article. User_talk:Jayjg#We_could_use_some_help I will contact some academics I know in the field that support Wikipedia and see if I can get some grad students to help out. Ovadyah 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This post today to the article talk page by Keith Akers reinforces my point. Keith is a scholar who contributed a lot of early material to the article. dif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ovadyah (talk • contribs) 16:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Based on the oncerns mentioned above, on the articles talk page, and on the talk pages of various contributors, I have nominated the article for a featured article review. The discussion can be reached here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ebionites. -- Avi 18:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial POV edits by User:Pgsylv

Since August 7, User:Pgsylv has made numerous edits [20], [21], [22], [23], (and so on) on Quebec in order write in the introduction that: "Quebec is a nation". This statement is the subject of a complex debate that has been underway for several years. His only reference is an essay from Gérard Bouchard, a well-known scholar who also is sovereignist. The user is engaged in POV pushing.

That being said, "Quebec is a nation" does not have it place in the introduction given the undue weight policy.Also, Quebec is a Canadian province and it is not because many have expressed their views that it should be a nation that this statement should consitute the introduction of the article. You may also see the talk page for further comments. Thank you for taking action. Tomj 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed some formatting stuff for you. Hope that's okay. --Masamage ♫ 19:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was to quick. Tomj 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

History of DC Comics Timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was a fairly blatant copyright violation of this website. This was brought to my attention through OTRS. Just leaving a note here so others can keep an eye on it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Coker

I've CSD'd this user's self-page (see current incarnation: Cody Coker) at least twice today, and he's removed the CSD notices several times until it gets deleted. After that, the user and several IPs vandalized my user page, and are now vandalising all the pages I've created (and possibly more, he works quickly). I'm skipping over AIV to come straight here, requesting a block of the user and all the IPs. GlassCobra 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CodyCoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
68.196.247.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
74.170.166.169 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
68.196.247.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Looks like the IPs have all been banned. Not sure if any action will be required after all, I'll keep an eye on Coker. GlassCobra 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but after a little digging, it seems User:Jereiaki created the first version of Coker's page. Is it possible that the names listed above are all sockpuppets of this guy? GlassCobra 21:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Dahn

Per WP:ANI I request to block him. (WP:CIVIL) and (WP:3RR) --202.144.118.50 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - he deserves a short block after the way he's treated you. Let me know if you need backing up ;) _TheIslander 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at my talk page, you'll see that I retracted this comment as soon as I knew all the facts. Dahn behaved innapropriately, but was seriously provoked. _TheIslander 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Reporting IP identified as proxy and banned for the next few years. See Block log. No comment on user Dahn's behaviour. --Anonimu 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User using ip to evade block

User:Oleg66 is using this ip 85.3.178.190 (talk · contribs) to evade his block. The contiuous misspelling of aeras and the nature of his edits to Largest European metropolitan areas suggest they are the same person. Could someone block him please. Thanks Woodym555 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious IPs and socks of vandals can be reported to WP:AIV. I have reported this there. Someguy1221 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i just followed the instructions at the top of the page: such as blocked users evading blocks. In the future should i report blatant evading users, such as this, to WP:AIV then? Woodym555 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what the user was blocked for. For example, if a user has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, or other, non-trivial issues, it should be reported here. If the user was blocked for petty vandalism, it can be dealt with at WP:AIV. Another way of putting it, if the original block could have been handled at WP:AIV, new ones can as well. Someguy1221 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for explaining that. Will do in the future. Woodym555 21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could an admin take a look at this?

Following a dispute between Davnel03‎ and Cowboycaleb1, Rlevse‎ mistakenly blocked Davnel03‎ for a period of 48 hours for a WP:3RR vio. However in the report [24] his decision stated that Cowboycaleb1 was to be blocked for 48 hours and that Cowboycaleb1's retaliation-report against Davnel03 was a no-vio [25]. I have tried to contact Rlevse but he has yet to respond. Can another admin take a look at this?-- bulletproof ^3:16 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Rlevse's action were correct, in that he blocked Davnel103 for 48 hours for edit warring - as he has a previous record of similar behaviour and Cowboycaleb1 didn't technically break 3RR. It looks more like Rlevse messed up a bit when giving the result on the 3RR noticeboard. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this would only be Davnel103's first block for a 3RR vio. Even so, if you look at Cowboycaleb1's contribs, it shows that Cowboycaleb1 has engaged in edit warring multiple times. In fact, Davnel103's contribs shows that he hasn't been involved in any sort of edit war before this altercation. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure whose block log I was looking at a minute ago, but you're right - it's only his first block for edit warring. I still think Davnel03 infringed on the 3RR so the block seems justified, maybe Cowboycable1 should have been blocked also. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well according to WP:3RR, a violation would occur if a page is reverted more than three reverts, in whole or in part, within a 24-hour period. Davnel103's contributions show that this was clearly not the case as the page that he was supposedly blocked for was reverted only three times by Davnel103. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all administrators will tolerate someone editing upto the limit and may well block after a 2nd or 3rd revert. Nick 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the wrong guy, my fault and I apologize. I unblocked the user and changed to page protection due to nature of case.Rlevse 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, well that solves it then :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I knew it. Even if Davnel103 was blocked for edit warring and not for a 3RR vio, the length of the block for a first offence is a bit harsh. Not that I was undermining Rlevse's block, but if Davnel103 was blocked for just edit warring, I believe Cowboycaleb1 should have been blocked for an equally long, if not, longer amount of time due to his disruptive behavior. Thanks for clearing that up. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I almost blocked both, and cowboy's would have been 48h and davnel's 24, but again, I goofed and apologize and am glad people helped point this out. I shall endeavor to pay more attention. I never goofed likethis before on an admin task, at least.Rlevse 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Again, thank you for clearing that up. Cheers! -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coast Run

The editor who created this article has removed all notability tags that have been placed. He/she argues, "Please do not delete this page as it provides history and inspiration for other people to assist charities, raising $30,000 between 6 people is a massive feat and should be documented." However the article is fairly unencyclopedic. Perhaps it can be kept if changed, I am not familiar enough with what it would need. Eran of Arcadia 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, this looks like advertising, possibly even blatant. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion about speedy deletions. It may qualify for speedy, I'm not sure. But I definitely think that it'd qualify for WP:AFD unless it's cleaned up significantly. Also, removal of tags placed in good faith is vandalism and can be reported as such.Rlevse 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I will mark it with CSD; I have no doubt that the tag will be quickly removed, however. Eran of Arcadia 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just tried putting it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 20 but evidently did something wrong; does anyone know how to fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eran of Arcadia (talk • contribs) 00:08, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Oops, forgot to sign. But seriously, I seem to have made a mess of the page and can't fix it. My comment for deletion ended up on the main page, there should be just one for this article linking to it but there isn't. Can someone help sort this out? Eran of Arcadia 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed malformed AFD, See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_21. Rlevse 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot Gone Mad...

HBC AIV helperbot3 is removing anythig added to AIV if it's been blocked in the past, regardless of whether the block is still active or not. I'm trying to add User:130.216.191.182 for repeated vandalism - they vandalised just 5 minutes ago, yet this bot has removed the nomination, saying the user's already blocked - they can't be. The bot's also removing other nominations. _TheIslander 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP *has* just been blocked.  :-) I think the BOT's ok, at least on this one. - Philippe | Talk 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like conflicting blocks - [26] - confused the blocking mechanism. Corvus cornix 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the bot. Blocked user's are able to edit their talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Now that is actually a very good point, and shows that I'm being an idiot. Please excuse me whilst I crawl back under my rock... _TheIslander 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an easy enough mistake to make. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BmikeSci and Bay Valley Foods

BmikeSci (talk · contribs) has a political axe to grind against Bay Valley Foods, and has been making unsubstantiated attacks on them in the article, which is currently listed for AfD. BmikeSci is making personal attacks on those who disagree with him on the AfD, which I removed - [27]. Now using an IP address, 67.163.247.142 (talk · contribs), which BmikeSci admits is his, he added new attacks, on me this time, even though I have not commented on the AfD - [28]. The links are ludicrous, as they do not substantiate his claims about me. I have removed them again, and have issued a second warning about NPA. Corvus cornix 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the Obama linkage becomes clear(er). Apparently Michele Obama is on the board of the parent company of Bay Valley Foods, and therefore anyone who supports Barack Obama, by BmikeSci's definition, is prejudiced towards deleting this article. And by BmikeSci's definition, anyone who has ever edited the Barack Obama article, or has even discussed Barack Obama in any context (see the link he made to my supposed "edits" of the article) is a supporter of Barack Obama. Corvus cornix 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the user has stopped since your warning, but I'll keep an eye on what comes to pass. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thankfully Duae Quartunciae left a very informative message on his talk page regarding this issue. The canvassing discontinued after that message so I would not be hasty to jump to more serious warnings or blocks. But the disruption of the AFD is a bit concerning. Hopefully he's taken Duae Quartunciae's advice and will discontinue the disruptive attitude and the canvassing.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP Sock Puppet keeps warring and using blogs

Hello, IP sock puppet 72.255.117.223 keeps warring against me on the Journalism scandals article and putting back in partisan POV blogs as sources and whole articles sourced only to POV blogs. The partisan POV blogs Confederate Yankee, and Little Green Footballs can't be used as the primary first sources for the claims on articles. I know that from WP! Can I please get some administorial help there? Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the 'diff' link. Link ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebelstar

(Apologies for X-posting - not sure which board I should be posting this on)

I just got a bot message saying that the image I'd uploaded for use on this page [Image:RebelStarcover.jpg] was orphaned. I went to the page to check it out and found it had been turned into a redirect. I went to the original Rebelstar page and all the content I wrote has vanished. There's nothing in the history apart from the redirect creation, and the page logs are empty. What's going on here??? Exxolon 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• A cached copy of the previous content can be seen here [29].Exxolon 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The page you wrote was moved to Rebelstar (series) two days ago, along with its entire history. The page has also been altered quite a bit since you last edited it[30]. Someguy1221 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Now can someone undo this little lot please. This page should not have been moved in this fashion. The correct way to do this kind of thing is to leave the original article intact and create a summary article about the entire series at Rebelstar (series) linking to it and the individual articles about all the games in the series. If there isn't enough info in the individual article (which isn't the case here anyway) the individual game article titles should be redirected to the series article until enough can be written about them. There was no need to move & wreck the original article here, a new article on the entire series should have just been started at the Rebelstar (series) title linking to any applicable individual game articles. This is the best way to preserve page histories. As it currently stands the only way for me to restore the original Rebelstar article is to c&p the code from the history that is now at Rebelstar (series). That would wreck the page history quite nicely. Exxolon 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Rationale - in case anyone isn't getting what I'm saying here's an example. I write an article lemons (the fruit) at Lemon. Someone comes along and decides that the content would be better off at an article about all citrus fruits.

Correct way to do this. Create a new page at Citrus fruits and redirect Lemon to it. This preserves the page history so it can be restored if someone later decides Lemon should have it's own page.

Incorrect way. Move Lemon to Citrus fruits leaving a redirect behind. This puts irrelevant page history into Citrus fruits history and makes it look like there was never any article on Lemon. Also this kind of thing is impossible to undo unless you are an admin as you can't move a page back to an occupied article space.

The fact that it's been done like this has made it impossible for me to undo the edit I disagree with (the move) and forced me to seek admin intervention which is irritating and unnecessary. Exxolon 02:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the reason for the creation of Rebelstar (series) was a feeling that the entire series either can or should be in one article. If there were only enough reliable sources to write a few kilobytes about lemon, and each other citrus fruit, then the information could be easily contained in a single article on citrus fruits. Good examples of this sort of merger are the lists of pokemon. A counter-argument to this is that if each entity of the broader category is itself independently notable, it belongs in its own article. The editorial method of dealing with this is to move the page back to Rebelstar, and copy paste the Rebelstar II info to Rebelstar II, with an edit summary of (moving content from Rebelstar). To even greater disply your love of GDFL, you can create the first entry on the talk page as a link to the last version of Rebelstar to contain this information (history preserved, sort of). Of course, you should take this all up on Talk:Rebelstar (series) and see if there is consensus or objections to this plan. Someguy1221 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tmangray (talk · contribs) repeated drawn out disruption and edit warring

Despite opposition to do so, Tmangray moved the List of California hurricanes page to List of California tropical storms, and later to List of California tropical cyclones, citing it was more accurate. The user was previously listed on ANI, but continued to cause disruption. Tonight, he disrupted the article yet again by linking hurricane instead of tropical cyclone in the lede, which was quickly reverted. Additionally, the user created an article on List of California typhoons (which was deleted for reason of "vandalism, POV, and blatant WP:DISRUPT creation - no incoming links"), despite that there was no agreement to do so; typhoons are strictly an eastern hemisphere phenomenon, while hurricanes are strictly a western hemisphere phenomenon. For some background information, hurricanes are a generic term for tropical cyclones in the western Hemisphere; examples include National Hurricane Center, Atlantic hurricane season, and dozens of articles on U.S. state hurricanes that have set precedent (New Jersey, Delaware, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Hawaii). It's gotten beyond the point of annoying, and after some discussion on the WPTC IRC, I wanted to bring this up to the administrators. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no cyclones or typhoons in California. The title is blatantly wrong. Corvus cornix 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point here. "Hurricane" is a general term used in the sources, and there have been hurricanes and tropical storms affecting California in the past. The problem is that we've told Tmangray that on several occasions and he's been more and more disruptive, particularly with the POV fork I deleted. --Coredesat 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why one of the articles is named "List of Arizona hurricanes" when Arizona is clearly landlocked? A more accurate title like "List of hurricanes that affected Arizona" would help. I know it's for consistency, but when consistency makes the title sound absurd... —Kurykh 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility by JohnOw (talk · contribs)

I know this is some what inactive, but I have been away for the past three days. JohnOw has repeatably been uncivil to may wikipedians including my self. Some diffs: [31] [32] After being reverted by P.B._Pilhet on my editor review, he moved on to attack that user on his talk page. I know nothing can really be done now, but could an admin or someone else keep an eye on this user? Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block user:Booooobbbbb

User has been repeatedly vandalizing Old Dan Tucker, as seen here. It looks like this dude's account may be a vandalism-only account as well. 24.250.1.196 04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Final warning issued. Next time, you can report to WP:AIV. - Philippe | Talk 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack & outing page up for MfD

FYI, urgent:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MONGO/Ban evasion AnonnyFell 05:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Proabiviouc has now vandalized, tried to delist the valid mfd based on policy and blanked the MfD as well. AnonnyFell 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above sockpuppet has been created to delete MONGO's evidence for the upcoming SevenOfDiamonds arbitration case.Proabivouac 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user vandalized a validly filed MfD. Some users don't wish to be outed IRL, and are unwilling to tolerate violent abuse such as SevenOfDiamonds has been subjected to. It's not evidence, its throwing as many random diffs at a wall to see what will stick. How many RFCUs and processes to get rid of a user must be done before those harassing them are blocked per this? AnonnyFell

How on earth would he be outed in real life?

And what's your regular username?Proabivouac 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is yours? NodeKeeper? I don't wish to be harassed by your associates, as SevenOfDiamonds is, unfortunately. AnonnyFell 05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're Alienus/ThAtSo etc. But that's only a guess.Proabivouac 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now Tbeatty has vandalized. AnonnyFell 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's extremely pointy to make a single purpose account solely to get this page deleted, and basically cause trouble for MONGO. Such an MfD is just going to be speedily closed as disruption. --Haemo 05:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Privay is a foundational issue. Per ArbCom in the MONGO case harassment can be fought by anyone without being penalized. Per that this is up for MfD. AnonnyFell 05:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How is identifying one pseudonym with another an invasion of privacy?Proabivouac 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedily kept. Whether it does, as the nominator claims, serves as an attack page, will be up to the Arbitration Committee to decide. Thx. El_C 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threat of physical violence from User:Doktor Who

In a brief followup to the Admin notice immediately above this one, User:Doktor Who just leveled a threat of physical violence against the rest of the editorship that he's apparently at odds with. relevant diff. I have tried to reason with him (see the discussions on my talk page and Talk:Electronica), but it appears that all he wants to do is attack other editors at this point, and stir up quite a bit of drama in the process. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, None could take seriously my sentence. The point is that I'm sure that there is some smart socketmaster using somethiung more sophisticated than Tor or similar proxies, agaoin, you cant fool me. I have no evidence, but Im not stupid.--Doktor Who 05:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen Dok, when you say you will beat someone if you ever meet them in real life, that is a physical threat, and a great way to get blocked indefinitely from this site. In fact, I would like to hear the other admins opinions on if at least a temporary block is needed in response to this. I don't think you were serious, but that is a physical threat. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 06:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In space, no one can hear you scream. Online, no one can tell when you're kidding. Threats of violence are totally inappropriate on Wikipedia. You've said repeatedly that you're leaving Wikipedia for a WikiBreak — perhaps that would be a good idea until you can calm down and be civil to other users? --Haemo 07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He only threatened to "kbeat" someone. Maybe "kbeat" means a more positive thing in a language we all don't speak. Jmm6f488 07:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk is likely a sockpuppet of George Cruickshank, also known as Gene_poole , same harrasment toward me, same wording, same self addressing as "we can't tolerate you" or smg.--Doktor Who 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional information:

User:Doktor Who's two comments above are representative examples of his immediate accusations of sockpuppetry whenever more than one editor does not agree with him.

• Doktor Who (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
• likely short-term sockpuppet: Shadowshadows (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

I doubt he actually intended physical violence, but he did write it so it's hard to ignore. Also, K is not next to B on the keyboard, so that's a disturbing typo. Whatever he meant, he's very angry. His comments are often disruptive and angry and this one went a bit further than usual. User:Doktor Who regularly makes sockpuppet accusations and expresses hatred and fears that he is being trolled or attacked.

He often demands that articles be changed or deleted, and I have not seen him do a productive edit, only reverting and complaining. When he demands references, he's said things like he "knows people" who "know the real information", but when asked, he has not provided any references that I've ever seen.

I want to be fair, so I'll say maybe he does productively edit on other articles, and only that I have not seen it.

Sometimes his comments are lucid and almost friendly, but mostly aggressive and sometimes I don't understand what he's saying.

The WP:AN/I report filed by User:Doktor Who about me a couple hours ago, just above this one, was in bad faith and a waste of time for this noticeboard.

Here are a couple emotional posts from him on my talk page: [33] and [34], with sockpuppet accusations and other strange claims that I don't understand. (his GC-GP abbreviation refers to his complaint about George Cruickshank/Gene_poole that he mentioned above).

He was away for a few months. I was wondering during that time if he would return and what would happen. Now we know. --Parsifal _Hello 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt provide any reference because it was Saturday morning here when you challenged me to provide, where do you live, in a magic Castle, princess? I know the sockpuppets you have here, but I'm not so stupid to post them here.

I made lots of constructive edits as anyone can realize, outside the field of the articles related to your usual edits. You were user gardener of geda before, and likely you are very familiar with gene_poole and kaiferklunk even in your daily life. Of course I will not post further personal details, do not worry, I am not a fool, i am fully aware of the policies. Please Iask you to cease to edit articles according to your WP:OWN schemes and needs. You are not the person that will kick me off from here.--Doktor Who 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has accused you of not making constructive edits, DW. If your only purpose here on WP was to disrupt and attack, you likely would have been blocked a long time ago. But right now, you do seem to be causing more trouble than you're helping, and accusing everyone of being a sockpuppet of one another isn't going to get you very far. You should consider the possibility that more than one person thinks and types the same way.

Admins, how long do we need to put up with this? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a block in this instance, but will not do it myself: I'm involved, in that I intervened last evening in the matter involving Doktor Who. As such, I would prefer that a block come from someone else, so that he can't misunderstand it as a "vendetta" or anything equally creative. However, I endorse [User:Until(1 == 2)]'s proposed block, above. - Philippe | Talk 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, and would support a block of at least a week or two for this. (I'm trying not to let myself be influenced by the way his username reflects poorly on my favourite television programme, either.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not vandalized anything, you can't block me. The pattern of my edits show that I am still a valid contributor. Doktor Who 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't the only thing you can get blocked for. See WP:BLOCK#Disruption; the failure to remain civil and respect consensus in this case looks like disruptive editing to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked him for 48 hours for disruotion and threats of violence. If there is 1 thing I wont stand for, it is a threat that you would beat somebody. There is NO reason that a conversation on wiki should EVER be associated with beating people. I think this is a serious statement as to this editors character, problem solving abilities and may entertain a longer block if the community would agree to it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I was about to do the same. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good move, Chris. As I said, I'd support a block of at least a week or two in this case. Between the threat of physical violence and the disruption, 48 hours probably isn't enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And now Doktor Who is unblocked. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I again went out on a limb and did that too. He appears sincere in the apology and hope it will overturn a new leaf. It was his first block so i will give him another chance and try not to use the block as a punishment that he is (at least appears to be) sorry for, and quite possibly a mis-understanding. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter, guys. I appreciate it. I left an invitation to come back to Talk:Electronica when he's ready, and some tips on how to proceed with the discussion in a calmer, more civil manner. He seems to be taking it well and has said that he'll be taking a break from that article and other similar articles, and spending some time working on some other projects he'd started a while back. I think this is a very good course of action on his part, and hopefully it'll prevent anything like this from happening again. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. I want to mention that I didn't add all that information above because I wanted Doktor Who to be blocked for a long time or have any other kind of trouble. My concern was specifically about the way he was communicating, and the problems that was causing.

Chris I concur with the block, and I also concur that you removed the block in light of his apology. Hopefully, the result will be a positive change and the previous behavior will not resume. Thanks again to all for taking the time to address this situation. --Parsifal _Hello 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My further 1 cent on this mis-understood episode: some months ago, I talked with [[User talk:Milomedes|Milo|] regarding the usage of the letter "k", and it can be found here, but beside that, I am into computers since a long time, and kilobytes-kbyte-kbit (same sound as "the infamous word kbeat that is the main target of the above complains) are part of my geeky way of joking, I guessed it was evident to other users, but I could be wrong, apologies if I can't express properly ironic nuances in my chats. Doktor Who 11:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiScanner trolling

User:Bmedley Sutler is on a WikiScanner hunt. Is this appropriate?. He's been warned before. If it were someone else, I'd simply revert it as trolling and leave a warning but I am somewhat involved with this editor. --Tbeatty 06:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem? It is a NPOV question. His edits cause a concern. There is no NPA. Why are you 'Wikistalking' me? To the administrators. Look at the certain small group of RW editors and how many of the edits and complaints on this board and other administrator boards are from them. This can be seen by some as an organized campaign of harassment and intimidation. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a relevant question and it's a chilling form of intimidation of editors. --Tbeatty 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes your 'Wikistalking' and complaints about so many editors may be considered by some as a "chilling form of intimidation of editors". Please stop 'Wikistalking' my edits. Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 07:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't complain about editors, jsut their actions that violate policy. You can end this particular one by reverting your post. "Outing" editors is not acceptable behaviour. You may also want to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking prior to accusing editors of it. --Tbeatty 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I trust we have no policy against asking people questions about themselves. I am unable to believe that these attacks against Bmedley are being made in good faith and not in retribution for his bringing Crockspot's vile statements to light during his recent RfA. ←Ben^B4 07:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We have policies against trolling. That question is trolling. This incident report is not an 'attack.' The question should simply be reverted. We do not support attempts to 'out' editors. It's a pretty fundamental policy. --Tbeatty 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you have a whole page of links trying to out people, proxies and all the 'RFCU's are 'outings' trying to claim that honest editors are someone else! You shouldn't talk I think. Would it be better if I asked for an RFCU of Hypno against USGOV IP's? Is that what you want? ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 08:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Trolling per WP:TROLL is defined as disrupting usability, which the question does not. Per WP:COI editors are encouraged to declare conflicts and asking editors about their conflicts is absolutely common. ←Ben^B4 08:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, my 0.02$ — there's nothing super-duper obviously inappropriate, but it's definitely not in the best of taste here. Asking questions, apparently out of the blue, about "are you an employee of this agency" is not very nice, since it implies that the questioner has some reason to believe they are — and thus, have been violating a laundry list of policies. If you have some real evidence, it would be best to discuss it with the user when asking the question — at least then there's something to discuss. Ensuring conflicts of interest are minimized is a laudable goal, but this is pushing it unless there is some evidence that no one is presenting that would lead a reasonable person to believe such a question would result in an answer other than "No". --Haemo 08:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's along the lines of "are you gay?" "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party.", "Are you a jew?, "Did you stop Beating your wife?", "have you given money to political parties? Which ones?". This Wikiscanner mccarthyism needs to stop. IF there is a violation of policy, we have dispute resolution processes. But implying wrongdoing through use of "innocent" questions is not acceptable. --Tbeatty 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU! Someone with your Blacklist shouldn't be so free with the charges! TB's blacklist How DARE you link to the Holocaust when writing about me! I will go to sleep now, but if that is there when I wake up, comparing me to a Nazi, and the killing of Six Million Jews, (and Gays and Gypsies and many others too) I will make an OFFICIAL complaint. HOW DARE YOU! Stop harrassing me Tbeatty! ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 09:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is harassing you. No one cares what religion you are, what country you live in or who you work for. Contrast that with your questions. For my "blacklist" see Wikipedia:No_open_proxies and you will understand it. --Tbeatty 09:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Bmedley Sutler question as long as it's used in a targeted fashion (something in the edits has to prompt the question) and done politely. I don't see how he implied "wrongdoing" with a simple polite question. Bmedley Sutler, in future, you might also want to use it in conjunction with {{ConflictOfInterest}}, so that the person you are asking can read about COI and understand the context in which you ask it. Anyway I'm sure all the people following you around wiki will keep you straight. --Fredrick day 10:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Partially in Bmedley's defence, Tbeatty has posted a diff that doesn't tell the whole story (Bmedley's second edit to Hypo's talk page, made immediately after the first, expands on his question ([35]), and does provide context. That being said, Bmedley, digging up people's identities is not acceptable. If a user wishes their personal background to be revealed, they will reveal it. If they do not, then they will not reveal it. Chasing after them and trying to find out undisclosed information that relates to their real life identity is a violation of privacy, and does smack of McCarthyism. It would be better to phrase it "I have a concern that there may be a conflict of interest in some of your editing. Is that the case?" Leave it up to the user to reveal as little or as much as they wish; if they choose not to reveal anything, then please assume good faith - we all have the right to keep personal information to ourselves on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information.

Tbeatty shouldn't have made any kind of Holocaust connection though, which was inappropriate at best, and an apology for that would not go amiss. Neil ム 11:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While really Bmedley shouldn't be asking people's real-world occupations, that give in no way acceptability to Tbeatty calling him a disruptive troll. Honestly, give it a rest- you're worse than Raul and UBeR here. If you have a dispute with another editor, solve it, don't come to admins and try and get each other blocked. David Fuchs ^(talk) 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did I call him a disruptive troll? --Tbeatty 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Bmedley needs to calm down. The holocaust was a bad choice of an example, but it was used to show what he's doing, which is basically, disguising an accusation or implying something bad in the form of a question. It can be easily be taken the wrong way, intimidating most people who read it, and giving the impression of bad faith. I'm not taking sides, instead I'm suggesting you both back off from the accusations and be more careful in your wording in future. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that efforts to uncover 'aspects' of other user's RW identities are in poor taste at best and violating our privacy policies at worst... but the fact is that they are becoming quite commonplace. We currently have an ArbCom case over an extensive digging expedition of the same sort - right down to what neighborhood in Brooklyn a user lives in. My understanding of the practice was that any such information which is 'dug up' and might be relevant to COI, sockpuppetry, or whatever should be mailed to the RFCU's or Arbcom privately... rather than being the subject of public interrogation and discourse. On the other hand we publicly 'out' editors from the government, companies, et cetera all the time. Basically, we seem to treat it as 'ok' to violate the privacy of someone who is breaking some Wikipedia policy/guideline related to identity... but that inherently allows the same treatment of users who are merely suspected of such. Yet some digging expeditions of the same sort (revealing location where users live or work) have been treated as the worst sort of villainy and resulted in lengthy/permanent bans. We should be more consistent on this. Either we protect the privacy of all our users or we don't. --CBD 11:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Entirely - I still don't see how asking someone if they work for organisation X because they only edit articles related to organisation X is outting them - it seems an entirely sensible way of etablishing if someone has a COI and pointing them in the direction of the relevent guidance. If he was saying "I accuse you of being Joe Blow of organisation X" then people might have a point. Anyway as CBDunkerson says, what is mentioned here is common everyday practice on wikipedia. --Fredrick day 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking soley about using wikiscanner to search for identities, I too believe it to be unacceptable. It is an uncalled-for invasion of privacy, it implies the assumption of bad faith, and it is extremely rude. Other personal attacks against these various editors notwithstanding, I am firmly in the belief that wikiscanner dredging is a form of harrassment, and should be stopped. Real CoI violations can be handled on a case-by-case basis, based on the edit, the editors, and the article. But Bmedly Sutler, and others engaging in this activity, need to stop. -- Avi 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel very strongly about Outing and Outside Intervention in wikipedia so i've rubbed my brain cells together and come up with a solution that is good for everyone. If wikipedian A thinks wikipedian B has a conflict of interest then they can 1) Add a message saying "Are you aware of how WP:CoI can apply to Good Faith Edits" including the links to CoI and AGF and Thats it! No questions to B's talk page. If B continues to edit in a way that A thinks is a CoI then he takes it to Arbcom with his evidence. They can look into it in private. No accusing people of being this or that or demanding private information in public on thier talk pages. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of comments from the editor are nothing new, see this, and this. He has been warned several times for making these kinds of accusations and comments. - Crockspot 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiscanner use

So, do y'all feel that improper questioning of editors based on wikiscanner use is considered a form of harrasment or the assumption of bad faith? Or should it be ignored?-- Avi 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I belive honestly asking users, based on some kind of contribution they have made, are associated with a company or not. Thats not harrassment, it's enforcing COI where possible. — Moe ε 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can do it in good faith, but I also believe that you should have something more than just a hunch; some real evidence is required here. Otherwise, it's crossing a line. --Haemo 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to feel this way as well. To ask someone about their occupation, etc. based on nothing other than a WHOIS or similar device in my opinion is uncalled for. It is the edits and a possible perception of NPOV/COI that should generate any discussion. -- Avi 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this persons (Hypo) edits were not found on Wikiscanner, so Tbeattys whole accusation is false. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Doesn't wikiscanner work with anon IP edits and not on anyone who can be bothered to register? I know that links between the two can be inferred/guessed at by looking at the history, but is there something else going on? just wondering. . .R. Baley 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those things where people say 'it is ok when used in good faith' and I say 'so that means it is not ok'. The whole 'removing warnings' fiasco... we were assured that it would only be used against 'vandals' who were removing 'valid warnings'. In reality it was frequently used against perfectly innocent editors removing bogus vandalism warnings. The 'suspected sockpuppet' warnings... same deal. Anyone you don't like? Replace their user page with a suspected sock notice, edit war with them over it, and if an admin eventually looks in maybe they take your side or maybe you just got away with nasty harassment for a while before being told to stop. Now it is ok to violate/stretch the privacy rules for the purpose of 'good faith checking for COI or sockpuppets'? It never ends well people. There is no way to police EVERY action taken under such a practice and you can be assured that everyone is going to insist they are acting in good faith... they'll probably even believe it.

We can 'enforce' COI (which is just a guideline suggesting that users not edit where they have a conflict or follow NPOV if they do edit) just fine by saying, 'It might be helpful for you to take a look at WP:NPOV and/or WP:COI'. Allowing people to violate or stretch the privacy policy to 'enforce' the COI behavioral suggestions seems to me to invite abuse to no good purpose. We don't need to know whether someone is being POV because they have a COI or for some other reason... it doesn't/shouldn't change how we deal with them at all. WP:COI is a guideline telling people with conflicts how they should act. WP:NPOV is the policy telling us what to do when they, or any other POV pusher, don't. --CBD 11:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Extended image syntax

User:MCBC.jack has repeatedly edited this page, apparently to advertise his/her company. I reverted it 4 times - I believe that is acceptable as it appears to clearly be vandalism. However, if this is not the case then let me know (even if action has to be taken against me) and deal with the article as necessary. Eran of Arcadia 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a spam-only account. Did not cease after multiple warnings. Blocked indef. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User Masonhuang1 (talk · contribs) has since vandalized the same page, as his first edit. (I've reverted and left a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning.) I wonder if it's just a coincidence. CWC 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thamarih: Persistent personal attacks, accusations, and now a threat.

Thamarih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in persistent personal attacks and presumptions of bad faith. (See Talk:Azali & Talk:Subh-i-Azal.)

Thamarih has accused me and another user of sockpuppetry without basis or notice to the other editor.

Now, they have escalated to vulgarities and a threat of violence. To wit:

Now go jump. You want a war. You got one, mofo! There's a whole posse of people out for your stinkin heads!

Assistance is urgently requested. MARussellPESE 02:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images uploaded by User:Migssant19

User:Migssant19 has uploaded a large number of images tagged with PD-self. However, it seems many (or all) of them have been uploaded with false licenses. Some of them have watermarks, some are labeled as being copyrighted by [NAME] where [NAME] is obviously not the uploader, and some explicitly say "I found this on a website". Should I list these en masse at WP:PUI, or just wipe them out myself? The user seems to be acting in good faith, but after reading discussion on their talk page, it is evident they do not know anything about copyright. --- RockMFR 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just noticed the same person has previously been blocked indefinitely for the same stuff (User:Migssant). --- RockMFR 06:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wipe them all. It's clear this user is falsely giving copyright; I don't think we can really safely take their word that any of these is his own work at this point. --Haemo 07:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users pushing personal agenda

User:Tobbe 555 (previously under the IP 217.211.210.41) has made a string of edits where he/she claims that due to "popular opinion", content of a spoiling nature was removed in the article Little Busters!, but there is no such opinion layed out on the talk page. Not only that, but due to WP:SPOILER, it states It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. I had warned him/her once on the talk page of his IP, and again on the talk page for the newly created account at User talk:Tobbe 555. Then another editor, User:DarkS Umbreon, also reverted it to a spoiler-free version with this edit. I ask that an administator tell them that there will be spoilers on wikipedia whether they like it or not.--十八 08:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a clear-cut content dispute here; WP:SPOILER is pretty unambiguous about this sort of thing. I'm not sure why you need admin help here — perhaps dispute resolution or a request for comment would be better? --Haemo 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just revert the edits and explain the reasoning on the talk page. No need to bring every edit you disagree with to this page. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maggie Grace

Can one of you Wikipedia Admins go to Maggie Grace and check out Image:Maggie-grace.jpg.

User:Vako chilashvili claims that it is his photo.

But just looking at it, you see the Virgin logo and from the pose, you can see that it's a publicity photo.

If you agree with me then please delete the photo and warn User:Vako chilashvili not to claim publicity photos as his own.

Tovojolo 09:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture appears to have been taken at the Virgin Party Summer BBQ Tour in June 2005. --Mathsci 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If the photo is from a website then it is clearly a FU photo and not a free photo. Please delete it.

Tovojolo 10:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is the photo on a website. --Mathsci 10:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with request on my talk page

I am hoping to get help with an admin request that was left for me on my talk page, but which I can't really take the time to investigate right now. User:Creashin has left me a message asking for help dealing with User:Nascentatheist. It appears that Nascentatheist has asserted that Creashin is a sock puppet of banned user User:Jason Gastrich. Could someone either confirm the sock charges or ask Nascentatheist to back off? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

Loki, usually a valid contributor, is vandalizing Elvis Presly, removing death date and whole sections. Maybe Loki's account or computer has been cracked by some malicious user?Doktor Who 13:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a lame "Elvis is Alive; the middle name on his gravestone is wrong" joke. You and I both asked him politely to stop. If it continues, please update this thread with a diff; the mainspace isn't the place for jokes in the form of article vandalism... Even from the trickster god.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for support; but I 'll be away from my computer for several hours, hopefully in the meanwhile someone else will be around. -^_^- --Doktor Who 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fidelfair (talk · contribs)

User was recently blocked for disruption regarding disruptive protests of the non-free content policy. Now is fresh off his/her block and repeatedly inserting a gallery of copyrighted material into Iraqi insurgency in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use. Would appreciate a look at this, thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue seems resolved, please disregard. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lankan Civil War

I changed the last version to the current version by replacing a suitable photo which gives the right picture to the Sri Lankan Civil War to the article's Infobox. Admin have a look on and comment on the discussion page if possible or do the right changes. Thanks Kulaman 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble with IP sockpuppets

Over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/24.168.46.238 (which no admin has yet to look at) there are various IPs with the IP 64.38.198.xx. (The last two numbers constantly change).

Over at User_talk:64.38.198.55, one of these IPs admitted to having over hundred of disposable IPs for use in harassing me. Since all of these ips come from the 64.38.198 domain, is there anyway that that system can be indefinitely blocked?--CyberGhostface 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to notify you about this, but as an interim measure I've semi-protected your userpage, and if you'd like your talkpage that way as well for a short time, just ask. I'm not too handy with rangeblocks so hopefully someone who is will see this message ~ Riana ⁂ 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I set a range block which should take care of it. Let me know if you are still getting harassed and I can adjust it.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the quick help you two have given me.--CyberGhostface 15:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NEMT

Please also refer Archive 176 as well as NEMT's talk page which explains the history of this editor's infuriating behaviour and wikilwayering/gaming the system. This otherwise productive editor has some weird compulsion to commit random acts of vandalism. Over the past few months (and I do mean MONTHS...check out his contribution history) he has taken to creating bizarre and inappropriate redirects e.g. Land of the Switzers, International Civil War II and who knows how many more that I don't have time to chase down. This user KNOWS that he's committing wilful vandalism, and seems happy to wikilawyer any editor who challenges him on his talk page. I'm pretty much done with this issue since nothing was done about it the last time I reported him. I'm just bringing it to admin's attention once again. My suggestion is and has previously been a week-long block, and continued increasing blocks for further infringements. However, feel free to waste your time discussing it with him while he games the system and gets a few laughs at your expense. Zunaid©® 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content of User page reads like an ad for a product

This was raised at the pump... Please take a look at the user page of User:Liquidroof, it really reads like an ad for a product. Is this appropiate? Blueboar 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Blanked. Neil ム 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zordrac

Zordrac has just (about 15 minutes ago) send an email requesting unblocking to unblock-en-l. If you are subscribed to the list, the message can be viewed here. Obviously this is not something that can be decided on the list, so I am posting this notification here. Prodego ^talk 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See also 123.2.168.215 (talk · contribs) and Internodeuser (talk · contribs). Although 123.2.168.215 has denied being Internodeuser, that was not true (as per unblock-en-l). --Yamla 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking by Cyrus XIII

I am being wiki-stalked, and I really don't know what to do.

In January of 2007 Cyrus XII blanked a page that had come through consensous of 2 years to state that "Visual Kei" was a genre. [36] I made a statement objecting [[37]. He then went through my recent contributions to edited any page I worked on recently including [[38]], [[39]]. He then followed the edits I did in January and February, to the point I was scared to edit any page, because he would come and blank it. I finally came back in July, and he has started stalking me again.

After I argued about blanking out the The Pillows page (you can see the arguments there) I left a small resource on Antic Cafe [[40]] and left a request on the talk page for some cleanup. He then immediately did this edit: [[41]] which removed perfectly valid sources, and had his friend repeat the exact words I put on the talk page onto my user page in order to intimidate me.[[42]]

Today I've done a lot of editing, and once again, he is making meaninless edits [[43]] (he just blanked all the resources I put - all were completely valid magazine resources!) and he attacked this page that I created as well [[44]].

I am simply tired of him stalking and harrassing me. These are not edits that benefit wikipedia in any way. As you can see on my user page, I am adding content to wikipedia using sources. He constantly pushes the 3RR rule, pushes revert wars, etc. I don't mind pages being changed over time by different users, but one user should not control every page I edit. I have tried resoning with him, but he only fights. Denaar 12:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Further proof he is stalking me - he is only making these edits to intimidate me. [[45]][[46]] I didn't use the best examples originally, but it was the same behavior - going through anything I had did that day just to change it somehow. Denaar 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that most of my editing on Wikipedia concerns Japanese music, it should come as no surprise that I have previously worked on (and subsequently watchlisted) quite a few articles in that field. Regrettably, most of them are still in a generally poor state in terms of verifiability and formatting, a situation I have been trying to rectify for well over a year now, which should become evident from the diffs Denaar provided. I won't counter these accusations of stalking (and apparently canvassing) with a list of problematic contributions on part of Denaar, as I have pointed them out to her/him earlier and if I considered them too much of an issue, I would file an RfC. I will merely state that a bit of tension between editors with similar fields of interest, yet different approaches is to be expected. - Cyrus XIII 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You only do your "strict editing" to pages of users who have had conflict with you, you do not do it systematically or randomly. Denaar 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching the pages on Japanse music for well over a year now, and from a neutral perspective, I would say that Cyrus's edits have been for more legitimate than you seem to express. Much of the information you've added has been sourced by unofficial sites, or has been irrelevant to the article. The point about me being sent to "intimidate" you is quite a mistake. I was only agreeing with you that something should be done about the member profile section of the An Cafe page. Cyrus later deleted the section altogether, which I wholeheartedly agree with, seeing as they do not pertain to An Cafe as a band.

No stalking has occurred here. I have watched Cyrus's edits, and the majority of them are very obvioulsy systematic. They take place on recently edited Japanese music pages, and you just happened to make non-standard edits to a certain page too much at once, and Cyrus happens to be the first person to take notice (possibly because of the time-zone differential). You should be a bit more careful in your accusations, as many of the issues Cyrus has with your edits can clearly be found in Wikipedia's basic policies. --Jacob 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above user is a close friend of Cyrus's (check out thier banter on their talk pages) [[47]] - and is one of the people he recruited to attack me as stated above. They are currently trying to provoke me into a fight. Removing sourced material is not a "style" contradiction. Denaar 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, Cyrus is just removing trivial material (e.g. lists of the band's blood type, shoe size and perfume?), helping the articles by trimming things down and making it seem less like a blog for the band and fix templates and references... hardy a bad thing. On top of that, I don't see any evidence of trying to contact the editor and discussing these things before coming here... you should try that next time instead of making claims of wikistalking. Sasquatch t|c 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that it's not wikistalking to see a bad edit by a user on one page and deciding to check their recent contributions to see if they are doing the same thing elsewhere. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who requested the information be sourced, and re-written. Then they copied my words and pasted them back on my user page. Then when Cyrus did the change, he removed all the sources that were on the page. (I am not arguing the removing of unsourced material, just the fact that he left the page sourceless). He had editted that page many times without removing it before - he only removed it after I touched it. (I didn't add any of that info, my only addition at that time was to add one source to confirm the bands name - which was a Japanese magazine). The thing is, he has been following me around for 6 months reverting edits, saying that the New York Times doesn't count as a resource, etc. I have discussed it with him on many talk pages. I honestly don't see how [48] or [49] is hurting anything - it is added sourced information. Denaar 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't tried to edit anything on Wikipedia, but I'm am interested in Japanese culture, so I ended up in the articles about visual kei bands, which led me here. Looking back through the history on Aliene Ma'riage, for example, it looks to me like Cyrus is making unreasonable demands for sources in his edits. Description of a stage act documented on YouTube and featured on several fan sites shouldn't require a further "verifiable" source. If the band dresses in feathers and fishnet hose, it's obvious from the pictures and the video. Does that really require a source? The guidelines on verifiability say context is important in what sources are used. Since visual kei is something of an underground, cult phenomenon, it's to be expected there will be more information available through commercial and fan run sites than through university journals or even mainstream music magazines. Strict insistence on this will continue to result in bare bones articles that provide very little information about the bands and their particular style of performance. Since the discussion is in session, does anyone else have an opinion on this? Tattoo515 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: I used the band's website as a resource to show that the band announced they were breaking up and he removed it as an un-usable source. The band breaking up does not concern ther verifiability only a detail that fleshes out the page. [50] Denaar 05:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked through that and the band's official announcement is still there... I think he (as well as I) are more concerned about links like this. And you still haven't addressed your completely unfounded allegations of "wikistalking" as well as not actually using discussion pages before you posted here... Suffice to say I don't think any admin is going to take action as there's nothing to report. Just a content dispute. Sasquatch t|c 03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking by a user

For those of you following the noticeboards, you know that there is an ongoing conflict involving content and behavior between myself and two others. Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) is not allowing me any "space" and has followed me to several articles and discussions - he is WP:STALKing me. He always "claims" they are on his watch page but in fact - many of them he has never edited before - so that seems highly convenient. The latest example is at Jeff Saturday's article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Saturday's article I saw because B (talk · contribs) was on my watchlist and I saw the link you provided there. Also, I didn't see this ANI until after I left my most recent message on your talk page. Ksy92003(talk) 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• This situation has been amicably resolved. No more attention is needed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Court Order" alleged - article removed by IP editor

208.110.218.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This IP editor removed all content from Michel Thomas, diff alleging it violated a court order from August 20, 2007. The IP resolves to Time Warner Cable Houston, which (to me) would seem to have no connection to Thomas, as he is a Polish linguist. My advance sincere apologies if I'm bringing this to the wrong board, but rather than revert it, and get into a revert war, I felt such a serious allegation against Wikipedia should be looked into by administrators. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for fixing that link, Kevin! My lil fingers done got carried away with me! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the anon and/or USDC should contact OTRS. Not familiar with law so not sure how far we can take this - but I'm guessing it's an OTRS or OFFICE thing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take anonymous claims about some unspecified "court order" seriously. Revert and block if he keeps it up. If he has a case, he can contact the foundation and send an official take-down notice. Lupo 10:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Lupo, that's what I initially thought, but I also prefer to be careful, rather than just hit that 'revert' button, so I reviewed his contrib history (nada) and skimmed the article, and finally decided to just err on the side of caution and ask here. However, I also thought that it may be an OTRS issue as well, so I'll just leave that up to someone who may be more familiar with these types of legal threats than I am, and if needed I'm sure that it will be taken care of. I thank you all for the input! ^Ariel♥Gold 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I semi'd the article for 48 hours and I'll contact our anonymous friend and point them towards OTRS.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa already instructed them to contact the foundation.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to add

I'd like to add that the user quoted a non-existent court. There is no United States District Court, Central Division, all US district courts are named after the state/territory of their jurisdiction. The use of "USDC" as a username, to imply association with the US District Court, should probably get them an indef block (with the option of creating a new account). VxP 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be observed that there are indeed United States district courts that include in their names central division (viz., those of California and Illinois), although there is no USDC, to be sure, the title of which does not include its geographic jurisdiction. The underlying point, to-wit that anyone with an order from a federal court is quite unlikely to refer to a United States District Court, Central Division, is, though, quite valid, IMHO. Joe 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is not division. It is the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. There is no "division". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a vaguely related OTRS ticket, but it contains clarification information on the article and not even a hint of court proceedings. I would request consideration that the account in question be blocked (no account creation limitations) to prevent future impersonation, as there is little other use. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potentially illegal use of Wikipedia logo

Could someone who is better versed in usage rules take a look at Image:Wikiswing.gif for me? I think it's a copyright vio, as it uses Wikimedia trademarks outside fair use, having usage only on user page, but it is Wikimedia, so I'm not sure if special rules apply here or not --lucid 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We really need a statement by the foundation about whether they allow these derivative works. Also, as a nonfree image, this logo shouldn't be on user pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't work out what this was made for. 2 wikipedias (nl and lt) use it in the article space, the rest use it on user pages. I suspect it is a breach of commons policy, if nothing else. I can't see it ever being used by the Foundation. Secretlondon 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked on the commons village pump. Secretlondon 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's use here on Wikimedia projects much like Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif is allowed. And lets be honest, the logo is on our own servers used by people who participate on thier project. Who are they going to sue, themselves? — Moe ε 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This image has been around for a year-and-a-half nearly two years, is a common fixture on userpages, and while technically it's copyrighted, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation will sue itself, or sue you, for using it. (Or, at least, it hasn't yet in the two years this has been used.) Let's not let copyright paranoia go that far. Grandmasterka 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As a general principle, could we avoid using "I don't think anyone will bother to sue us" as justification for our actions? Our tests should be "Is this legal?" and "Is this consistent with our policies and project goals?"—not "Can we get away with this?" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We should also avoid process wonkery and rules-lawyering for the sake of process wonkery and rules-lawyering. You're welcome to try to get the image deleted from Commons and removed from the userpage of everyone who uses it. Grandmasterka 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinsertions of SPAM links on Victoria Beckham

Can someone range block with the possibility of creating an account 196.206.xxx.xx, because she/he keeps inserting SPAM links to Victoria Beckham, after being repetitively warned not to do so. Examples are shown below:

1

2

3

Thanks,

Miranda 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: This person also uses the ranges 81.192.xx.xxx as well, as shown below:

1

2

3

4

5

Miranda 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Might it be easier just to blacklist the poramor.forums1.net site? I don't see any situation where the link would be used legitimately. --Onorem♠Dil 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, forgot about that route. Blacklisting the site would be much better (and preferred) than range blocking. Miranda 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Maoririder316

This user has made a number of articles that are being deleted as fast as they are found) that consist of one sentence with no context. According to an edit on my talk page, he has been hard-banned previously. Eran of Arcadia 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be already banned? --Rocksanddirt 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking socks edit warring on Video Professor

There was an impressive (60 reverts and counting) edit war today at Video Professor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nsk92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 3RR because they reverted after a 3RR warning. It has just been confirmed by Checkuser that Skporganic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is using Crrockford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet to evade 3RR. Furthermore, 74.134.229.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just showed up to take Nsk92's place.

Can I suggest an indef puppet block for Crrockford, a block of whatever length is appropriate for Skporganic for 3RR gaming and sockpuppetry, and an extension of Nsk92's block for pretty obvious sockpuppetry to get around being blocked?

Also, I've updated the appropriate RFPP entry, but it was marked as declined earlier today, and I'm not sure if someone will see it unless I relist (or mention it here). I think, if the blocks above occur, that semi-protecting the article to prevent further puppet games would be all that's needed.

I'm fairly sure, but not positive, that I'm in the right place. if not, please let me know. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez... what a mess. I've protected the article for the time being whilst this is sorted out.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nsk92 is already blocked. I blocked the IP for the same 24 hour period. I blocked Crrockford indefinitely as a sock of Skporganic. I blocked Skporganic for 48 hours and issued a warning about sockpuppetry... it if happens again the block will be much, much longer. I'm leaving the page protected for now; if someone wants to make changes they can request an unprotection, or wait until the protection expires.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Isotope23. You protected The Wrong Version, of course, but you really had no choice. One is wildly pro-company, one is wildly anti-company. If I decide to try to find a middle ground, I'll use {{editprotected}} on the talk page, or go back to WP:RFPP. --barneca (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I always protect The Wrong Version... it's what I do. In this case I just protected whichever wrong version is current. I'll tag it for POV though.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:207.172.87.121 making subtle changes to fictional names

207.172.87.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (with several vandalism warnings) has been making fairly subtle changes, mostly changing fictional names to close variants. In some cases, he's been correct[51] (I happen to have that book in front of me, and could verify it), in others obviously wrong[52]. Others I can't verify[53]. If someone could keep an eye on this user I would appreciate it. henrik•talk 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Service Corporation International

While looking through recent changes today I noticed that the user Service Corp had completely rewritten the article on Service Corporation International, after which the article went from detailing notable events Service Corp. international was in the news for, to reading something like a puff or promotional piece on the company. I think that a conflict of interest appears to be the case here, and I don't know how best to handle it. I reverted the major rewrite of the article, and the user then completely blanked the scandal and sources section. If any administrator could give me some help in knowing how best to handle this, I'd appreciate it. --ForbiddenWord 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Ordinarily, you could report them to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but in this case it looks like it's been reverted back and I blocked User:Service Corp as a promotional username. - Philippe | Talk 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, you should give a uw-coi warning on the editor's page, and only if they disregard the warning should you report to COI/N. It's permissible for editors with a conflict of interest to edit, so long as they comply with Wikipedia policies; these edits did not for the reasons you stated. THF 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what User:THF said. Thanks for clarifying. You're right, of course. - Philippe | Talk 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the blocked user was correct that the sources section was inappropriate under WP:NOT#INFO. I've moved the sources to the talk page and added a cleanup tag; to the extent the sources are useful, they should be integrated into the article as sourced information and footnotes. I suspect there is a WP:WEIGHT problem as well, as the article is mostly a hit-piece against the company. THF 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User 216.75.131.205

User:216.75.131.205 has just vandalised Tsunami, and deserves a block (see user page to understand why) - however, I can't report him to AIV because one of the lovely bots won't let me, stating that he's already blocked. He's not, he's just vandalised Tsunami, and I'm not making the same mistake as yesterday. Please sort this out... _TheIslander 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No mystery, just closely-timed occurences.

21:47: Last edit made by User:216.75.131.205

21:48: Blocked by User:El C for 25 minutes

21:49: Your report to AIV, after block was already in effect.

The block expired 25 minutes ago, and no further vandalism has come from this IP, so it looks like the miscreant moved on to spray painting his school hallway or cherry bombing the toilets or something. --barneca (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. Would be helpful if admins always left messages for blocks... _TheIslander 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

El C might have just figured the anon knew the routine by now :-) Someguy1221 23:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)That (leaving block messages) was discussed somewhere recently, probably on an archived talk page somewhere, but I can't find where now. The gist, I think, was that some admins felt that not leaving a block message was a form of DENYing them recognition. IMHO it's a good idea to check the block logs prior to going to AIV anyway; for this reason, and because it gives your report more ooomph if you can say "vandalism immediately coming off a 3 month block". --barneca (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh God... As if We didn't have enough issues with pseudo-policy enforcement already! Circeus 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sly200

This user, who I also suspect is IP 141.151.167.121, keeps adding a news article to America's Funniest Home Videos and Ricky Lake, stating that Lake is AFV's new host, while the news article in question is very much unrelated to AFV and Lake, making a passing guess. I also believe PR News Wire fails WP:NOTE. ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roblefko

Moved from WP:AN.--Chaser - T 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The CVG project ("Roblefko") has recently reported getting spam messages from banned user Roblefko (talk · contribs). Can someone block with email disabled? hbdragon88 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that he has been unbanned. However, given that Essjay has left, I think this is the apporpriate board to bring this issue up. hbdragon88 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a warning message on his talk page, but (at least now) he has email disabled. My understanding is that someone can't send email through Wikipedia's system unless they are setup to receive it, also. Was this recent spam or a few days ago?--Chaser - T 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind. Blocked with email disabled. I did an experiment. Even with email from other users disabled, one can still send email to other users.--Chaser - T 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism covered by Wikipedia Policies

Greeting, Admins! There is a Wikipedian named Durin. He vandalized images on my user page. I try to put three images. However,But he takes them away and lies that it is part of some policy. Then he removes a semi-lrotection iamge which I just put to fool panels. You are experts at Wikipedia. If you agree with him (which means I stand corrected) talk to me about the errors I made and I will apologize to him right away but if you agree with me (which means I prove my point as a victim) than have him blocked from editing for a month because not even blocking should last forever.--Angel David 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Angel David, Durin is not a vandal. Before anything else, please read WP:AGF, it defines one of the cornerstones of the project, and in many ways is the most important because it makes collaboration possible. That said, Durin is very well versed in the policies we have in place to protect the project from legal risk, take a little bit to review the applicable policy pages he linked you to. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Durin is quite certainly in the right here. Fair use images don't belong on userpages, and {{pp-semi-protected}} does not belong on pages that are not semi-protected. android79 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heed Friday's advice. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borderline sexual harassment of a user

I found this edit disturbing in light of User:Nagara373 making edits along the lines of this. I issued this warning, then considered that this issue is beyond my expertise. Thoughts? Darkspots 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, but unrelated, this just popped up on my watchlist and needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the diff linked by SandyGeorgia reads more like a threat of physical violence than sexual harrassment. DuncanHill 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Either way, blocked indef as an abusive vandal.--Chaser - T 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a straightforward nasty case, and I'm glad that guy got indef blocked. My case, I'm not sure if I did the right thing. Darkspots 00:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally find that edit disturbing as well, particularly since the recipient asked what that was all about and got no reply. Nagara373 also has a history of not very productive edits, such as this bizarre BLP violation, although they do not seem to be in bad faith. Endorse warning; let's see if he keeps this up, and I certainly wouldn't rule out a block in the near future. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed stuff about who he's looking for from his userpage and left a msg referencing the part of WP:NOT about myspace and dating sites. That's enough for now.--Chaser - T 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Darkspots 01:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI

Hi, I think I may be witnessing a conflict of interest issue. I'm not trying to out anyone, or to get the editor blocked. I think he may just need to be educated about the conflict of interest policy. Another editor has informed him of it, but he has continued to make edits, some of which are POV (although some of his edits were actually quite helpful). Reference #7 in the article provides some data which gives a clue as to his identity. Either he isn't the subject of the article, in which case I'm jumping to conclusions, or he is, and he's unaware of the policy. Please advise. Popkultur 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI/N is the place to report conflicts of interest if an editor has a conflict of interest and is not adhering to guidelines for participation. The Pat1425 edits obviously violate NPOV and BLP, and I have reverted them, and will give him a message, but the page itself is questionable under WP:BLP1E, and I have prodded it. THF 03:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth "Pat1425" is the same user id as the email address of the indicted article subject (according to the indictment), but it's entirely possible that it's not actually Syring, but someone trolling in his name. Either way, the edits are unacceptable. THF 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion. THF 04:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I have been criticised for putting too many photos in some articles, and some of them have been deleted.

Are there any particular guidelines or policies on photo content of articles?

Sardaka 03:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is really an editorial decision. An article should have enough text to support its images. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not when you're adding an entire gallery of images, such as in this edit. That's just ridiculous and clutters up the page with a useless gallery, especially when said article has enough images as it is.--十八 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of placing large galleries inside articles, you could assemble and/or link to a gallery of free images on Wikimedia commons. Someguy1221 05:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd second Someguy1221's suggestion here. Use {{Commons}} to link to a Commons gallery page or {{Commonscat}} to link to a Commons category (either should appear in "External links", I believe). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perverted Justice

I've just gone through Perverted-Justice and removed all outbound links to their site because they are redirecting all our traffic to page set up for the "Wikipedia Visitor" which discusses Wikipedia as a "Corporate sex offender" and our alleged protection of pedophiles, "Literally, anyone that points out the large-scale pedophile campaign to subvert Wikipedia is an enemy to Wikipedia itself, according to them. Due to that, we've set up this redirect to properly inform Wikipedia readers regarding this important issue. With Wikipedia continuing to try to get their project used in classrooms across the world, it's important to note the danger inherent in the public accepting the project as being factual considering their acceptance of even extremist special interests such as pedophile activists as legitimate editors of their "encyclopedia." " The page also has links, similar to those some might remember User:XavierVE posted before he was indefinitely blocked a few days ago, to a "Wikipedia Campaign" page which contains a list of Wikipedia editors alleged to pedophiles. Related AN/I discussion here. Sarah 07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes should be delinked completely as an attack site and any related accounts blocked as necessary. Theres no place for ideological witchhunts on wikipedia, for any purpose. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What about all theese links from other wikipedia pages? Do they all need to go too? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the policy is to remove absolutely all links to pages that attack wikipedia editors, and block people who re-introduce them. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

PJ itself doesn't host the content which complicates matters.Geni 12:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters. Furthermore, wouldn't it be prudent to go ahead and add this to the blacklist (for now)? --ElKevbo 15:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, PJ runs CorporateSexOffenders.com and Von Erck is the main editor.HolokittyNX —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

That... is exactly what they accuse us of doing. Is there some reason why we're trying to hide criticism from a legitimate and active organisation? Would it not be better to counter it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

...in fact, now I've read their post, to try and claim Peej is an attack site is utterly unjustified. Their reasons for listing us as Corporate Sex Offender is "Wikipedia accepts pedophiles as editors with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.". But we do. Pedophiles who do not self-identify as pedophiles are not blocked, but allowed to edit. Why are we trying to hide this fact and label the site that respectfully and politely points that out as some kind of vicious attack site? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say it isn't an attack site. The page refers users to a site where wiki editors are labelled pedophiles. The basis for these allegations are little more than hearsay. The founder of that site was blocked from editing here because of such frivolous personal attacks. He's just taken those attacks elsewhere. That he's decided to manipulate the encyclopedia in this manner to further this personal crusae should not be tolerated. Vagr4nt 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dev. How do you think PJ is going to take this? Do you think they'll understand what an "attack site" is? Or do you think that will just support their case that Wikipedia is "supporting" pedophiles? Didn't ArbCom want to be informed by email about pedo related stuff?

I really don't see that this as an attack site. I think if outbound links to the PJ main site redirect to the "Hello Wikipedia Visitor!" page, that would be ok, the only issue is they are complicating outbound links where they are used as a reference. Maybe this can be explained to them. If the outside world hears the Wikipedia has labeled PJ an attack site, some eyebrows are going to be raised. Just a note. daveh4h 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that it's "[not] an attack site" but if all of our links to the site are being redirected then our links to the site are pretty useless for nearly every purpose. From a purely practical point of view, until those links are allowed to link to...whatever they're supposed to link to, our links to that website need to be edited or removed as they're simply not serving their intended function. --ElKevbo 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is so completely not the point. If their redirection is making it difficult to use it as a source, we should be contacting Peej to ask if they will either take their redirect down or provide an option to go on to the page linked to in the first place. I fail to see how that in any way warrants blacklisting Peej altogether. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you (or anyone else) can resolve the matter then that would obviously be the way to go. It would certainly be easier than us doing anything (removing links, hiding them, etc.).

Further, I don't necessarily support blacklisting this website. I merely offered that it would be prudent if the decision were made to block the site then adding it to the blacklist would seem to be the easiest way to do it. --ElKevbo 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if ArbCom asked to be notified of events like this, has anyone done so? --ElKevbo 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole idiotic "no links to attack sites" policy amounts to a witchhunt in its own regard; see my essay on the subject. Nevertheless, the site's redirecting of inbound links from Wikipedia to a different page is grounds for temporary delinking until they change this behavior. *Dan T.* 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's useless like this, and given my experience with XavierVE, I doubt it'll ever be useful. Prohibitions against linking to attack sites are stupid, prohibitions against linking to attack pages make much more sense. As long as they're forcing us to do the latter, we might as well drop all the links. WilyD 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will contact Peej to ask if they will either take down this redirect or allow people to go on to the original link. In return, could I please ask that this absurd delinking stop until I get a reply. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not experiencing this redirecting. Powers ^T 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am. Are you sure that you're using a link from Wikipedia? I just made one of the links in their main article active (in a preview; edit was not saved) and it does get redirected. --ElKevbo 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am experiencing it too. I have emailed their admin address and will report back regarding what they do. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your browser is configured not to send referrer strings when you follow links? *Dan T.* 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the blockers of XavierVE, I have to say, removing all these links is a mistake. PJ serves a useful purpose and that is not as an attack site. You'll note that it does not specifically target Wikipedia. It's a broad, partisan site that does publish some negative information, but it is not an attack site, and definitely not one that is designed against wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're all redirected then most of the links do not serve their intended purpose. I think one could make an argument that links intended just to link to the website without linking a specific document on the website (i.e. the PJ official website in the article's "External links" section) be preserved. But other links that are used as references for specific documents no longer link to those documents and need to be dealt with as we deal with other "dead" links. --ElKevbo 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For those who dont know Xavier got blocked indefinitely a few days ago. This isnt the first time this has happened, very reminiscent of when Daniel Brandt, who was also indefinitely blocked at the time, did the same thing (witht he same BADSITES controversy Dan refers to. I agree with Dev on this one. I think the links should be restored but with the nowiki command so they have to be pasted in to one's webbrowser, which is what happened in the Brandt situation, SqueakBox 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, of course it's an "attack site", by any reasonable definition of "attack site". I don't think they'd deny that they're interested in attacking, exposing, shaming, and ultimately destroying pedophiles; that's rather the whole point! But if they're attacking Wikipedia as a "corporate sex offender" for not participating in their crusade, then they've strayed beyond that ambit: instead of targeting pedophiles they're now targeting anyone who is insufficiently zealous in rooting out pedophiles. Wikipedia has no obligation to indulge that sort of "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists pedophiles" attitude.

Second, if they're redirecting links from Wikipedia to a page full of attacks on Wikipedia, then those links are not useful references. If you intend to make links to various pages on their site, but in fact those links get redirected to a page full of libel about Wikipedia editors, then there is no point in having those links -- they're actually a net negative for Wikipedia readers. --FOo 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I broke all the links used as references, so now they have to be entered directly into a browser and no longer redirect. Problem solved as far as I can see. Arkalochori 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just got a reply from Peej:

We could do that, but Wikipedia policies state that any redirection is cause for delisting. Plus, the other point of contention, we're not going to stop linking the Wikipedia Campaign article on our CSO Wiki. Which ironically is linked from other places in Wikipedia without a massive firestorm of anger being raised (see, Pedophile Article Watch talk page).

We're quite pleased with the links being removed from Wikipedia. This will do two things, one, it will reduce the google relevancy of the Wikipedia article about us, an article rife with error and editors whose sole purpose is to try to use Wikipedia to attack us. Secondly, having the article without links to our organization but links to other organizations that attack us will make the average person, unaware of the problems of Wikipedia, wonder why the hell the article has such a overt bias.

Lastly, the idea that websites cannot "respond" to a Wikipedia article by redirecting is quite curious. The policy itself is nonsensical. It is Wikipedia saying that their editors, no matter who they are, can write whatever they wish about a subject and that subject has no right of response. 'Tis an unjust, silly policy and one we have no interest in cooperating with.

So, ignoring the aggressiveness of the email, I have to ask: our policy on redirection says WHAT?! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

They're clearly trying to provoke Wikipedia into showing bias against them, so that they can in turn use this against Wikipedia. Aggressive enforcement of the pseudo-policy against linking to "attack sites" plays right into the hands of people like that; all they have to do is make their own site into an "attack site" in the eyes of the BADSITES warriors to get Wikipedia to be heavyhanded in censoring it, which can be a public-relations coup for them if their aim is to show that Wikipedia is a nest of censors who can't stand criticism. *Dan T.* 21:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We completely are if we block all of Peej because they don't like our policy on pedophiles. It's not like they're being abusive. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a situation where WIkipedia is damned if we do, and damned if we don't. If we remove the links, which PJ admits are only designed to insult and denigrate all of Wikipedia as a group of pedos, or pedo-lovers, PJ says 'they won't link to us 'cause we tell teh troof.', and if we DO link to them, then we're 'all STUPID kiddie-touchers who can't even prevent PJ from bringing teh ebil into da lite'. Either way, Wikipedia is going to look bad.

I'd also be willing to wager that XavierVE is monitoring this very thread, and enjoying our frustrations. This is also clearly him 'punishing' Wikipedia for banning him for his libelous behaviors and attacks on our editors. I am concerned he may go even fruther with this 'revenge' theme, and go after additional editors whove offended him in the past.

Given that we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't, I'd say that the above mentioned cut n paste situation is probably dishonest, and we should instead put a template at the top stating 'Some source links in this article may cause your browser to go elsewhere, as a result of deliberate hostilities against Wikipedia by PJ.com'. readers can figure out for themselves taht PJ isn't interested in promoting balacned and well cited coverage, and will (hopefully) understand that instead, PJ is agenda warrioring the situation, which would make them look childish. Go for a solution as radically transparent as possible, one that makes it clear that PJ won't allow readers to read about PJ if they come from Wikipedia. Let the readers figure it out. ThuranX 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While our policies on pedophiles is significantly better than it was at the beginning of Martch (which PJ acknowledges while lauding the actions of Jimbo and Fred Bauder) it still, IMO, has a long way to go. Perhaps instead of trying to label PJ as a BADSITE we should look at our current pedophiel policy and certain things are going on re that on wikipedia (such as the locking down of the terrible POV pro-pedophilia activism and our tolerancce of editors who dont identify as pedophiles on wikipedia but do do so off wikipedia in a way that makes it obvious it is the same person). I put the PJ criticism, obviously with a ref, inott he criticism of wikipedia article a couple of months back and it was certainly still there before this lastest event came up. Thanks for giving us Peej's email, certainly confirms to me that we should not have an article about tis founder and be extra careful re BLP in the PJ article itself, SqueakBox 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is almost certainly the case, and I suspect they'll just keep escalating the provocation until we're forced to do something. I've dug through XavierVE's history a lot since I was the one who deleted his User talk after he was banned to purge all the problems (which it was rife with) and it's very clear he came here with the purpose of getting himself banned to show that Wikipedia is a safe haven for pedophiles. I'm sure he'll just keep provoking us, and I'm sure the only thing we can do that makes sense and will be effective is ignore it. As long as we can't link to his website correctly, I see no point in trying and failing. WilyD 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, with all the rhetoric going back and forth, I'm going to ask: Are they making unfounded accusations against specific editors? If so, we need to get rid of links to it posthaste, as we should most certainly not be linking to sites which call a specific editor a pedophile or anything else. On the other hand, it appears to me that they are criticizing Wikipedia in general. While they may do so in harsh tones, I see no reason not to link to such a site. Even the New York Times has criticized Wikipedia as a whole at various times, shall we ban all links to them? Refuse to link to Slashdot, as posts there are often critical of Wikipedia? There is nothing to be gained by simply refusing to acknowledge criticism of the project in general. If it is well-founded, we should take it to heart; if unfounded, we should simply ignore it. Attempting to suppress it lends it credence, is that what we really want to do here? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Acusations against individual editors are on their corporatesexoffenders site rather than their PJ one although the page you are redirected to links to the corporatesexoffenders site.Geni 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how "doesn't appreciate it when you run around calling random people pedophiles" translated to "supports pedophiles," and yes, the timing of this with Xavier's blocking makes this all seem rather petty; those are factors to consider in terms of our overall approach, here, but we shouldn't be writing articles in terms of who we are or aren't on good terms with (see NPOV, after all), and I'd prefer we didn't let ourselves get sucked into an adverserial whirlwind for no particular reason. My greater concern is that, with the links redirected, they're no longer going where they're intended to go. The nowiki solution appears to fix that well enough, for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What a pointless thing to do. Wikipedia, as an entity, is now a "passive" sex-offender? Ten thousands people are being slandered because we refuse to acquiesce to his point of view in our articles and policies? Wonderful. Yeah, whatever. Personal feelings aside, he has rendered it impossible to link to his website.... however, you can still us his website as a source if you don't actually link the address. ELs are never required to cite a source... even if it's an online source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not reasonable for anyone to expect to draft Wikipedia into their campaign, no matter how right and good that campaign may be. Wikipedia cannot be anti-pedophile any more than Wikipedia can be anti-Mafia. Indeed, we can probably talk about this problem more sanely if we use the Mafia as metaphor:

We report truthfully on notable and newsworthy crimes committed by the Mafia, but the project itself doesn't take a stand that the Mafia is evil. We certainly don't take the direction of Mafia-related articles from the FBI, the Carabinieri, or anti-Mafia crusaders.

Even if almost all Wikipedia editors hate the Mafia and regard it as an incarnation of evil itself, Wikipedia as a project is limited to reporting the facts. It is utterly wrong for an anti-Mafia project to demand of Wikipedia that we bar mafiosi from contributing. It is simply libel to accuse Wikipedia of being mafioso simply because we won't adopt anti-Mafia policies. --FOo 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many efficient ways to deal with the possible problems of "pro-pedophile" edits and listing Wikipedia as a corporate sex offender is not one of them. Recently, I speedy closed the AfD of NAMBLA and was accused of siding with the pedophiles and of making Wikipedia a sex offender. In my mind, this is a clear sign that the push to expunge perceived pedophile POV from Wikipedia has taken a definite turn towards witch hunting. In fact, I would not be surprised if the mere expression of my sentiment gets me a few "who's side are you on?" questions. Let's make things clear: no we don't ask if editors are pedophiles and it would be rather silly of us to ask since anyone with an agenda can easily lie. That's not how we do things: we watch articles, we edit them, we block people who try to push a point of view with utter disregard for consensus. It's a lot more time consuming but it's also a lot more effective in the long run. We don't delete articles because we find their subject objectionable, we make sure they stick to the facts. PJ thinks we should do things differently and I'm sure they'll be welcomed at Conservapedia but this is how we've worked and it's working pretty good overall.

Of course, as a practical matter, the links should be removed or nowikied. But I suggest it's also worth revisiting their relevance on a case by case basis in any case. The website of PJ is most certainly not a reliable source or one with the required level of objectivity and attention to details like, say, truth. I just don't understand why they would even be mentioned on the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Let's face it, this is a marginal organisation with very questionable methods: if the New York Times or even The Christian Post starts labeling Wikipedia as a corporate sex offender then it'll make sense to include this but PJ? Give me a break... Whatever happened to due weight?

Yeah, I'm sure PJ will get a kick out of posing as the victim of censorship. But I don't see any sensible argument for why we should care. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, but I do feel obligated to point out that if Peej's methods were "questionable" they a) wouldn't have Information Sharing Agreements with 2/3rds of the law enforcement departments in the US and b) would not have successfully had 221 pedophiles convicted representing an 100% success rate. Given how useless my local Child Protection agency is in comparison to that, I find it very unfair that you would attempt to call them marginable. Certainly if I were a pedophile I would have stopped hanging out in US regional chatrooms by now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree strongly with the removal of the P-J link from Criticism of Wikipedia. Such censorship (that's what it is, folks) just makes us look like we have something to hide, which is of course the (intended?) effect of the counterproductive BADSITES policy. But even if the link goes, I really can't understand removing all traces of P-J's criticism from the article. This absolutely makes us look like we're hiding something. It's not for us to decide if an organization like P-J is so "marginal" that we shouldn't even allow a reference to them in Criticism of Wikipedia. As Dev920 points out, there is at least a strong case that the organization isn't "marginal" in any objective sense of the word. I am restoring P-J's comments on Wikipedia to Criticism of Wikipedia, though I won't restore the link, pending a community decision. Casey Abell 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Replace "pedophile" with "communist" or "atheist" or "fascist" or "darwinist" or anything else. Attacking editors is grounds for delinking the site from wikipedia. People who re-introduce the material that is offensive to SlimVirgin and CBerlet get banned immediately, I don't see why this should be different.

It doesn't matter whether it's true or false. It doesn't matter whether a wikipedia editor is a convicted criminal, a pedophile, a war criminal, an Israeli spy, a CIA agent, a space alien - none of that matters, only the person's behavior on here, and trying to expose some kind of potentially damaging personal information about an editor is not acceptable. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that P-J's comment now restored to Criticism of Wikipedia is a general criticism of the project. The comment doesn't even mention any specific editors, much less attack them. If we're going to start censoring such general criticism of Wikipedia based on the asinine BADSITES policy, we deserve all the bad press we can eat. Casey Abell 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia...off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. We need no longer believe that these individuals on-wiki actions in adding these sites was in good faith. Blacklisting is also a viable choice.--Hu12 13:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is America, a relatively free country, and neither wikipedia nor any other organization or individual is under any obligation to make public statements about any public issue. The allegation that wikipedia is "protecting" pedophiles (or rapists or bank robbers or whatever), presumably by not asking them "are you now or have you ever been a pedophile (or rapist or bank robber or whatever)?" is your basic McCarthyism. I'm reminded of the story of a film director being grilled by the HUAC. A committee member asks him if he's ever made a pro-Communist film. "No!" Then another committe member, with raised eyebrow, asks if he's ever made an "anti-Communist" film. There's no winning that kind of game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind repeating myself. I am not restoring the link to the P-J redirect page, even though I disagree with its removal. I'll let community consensus decide that issue, though the redirect page contains no mentions of specific WP editors, much less attacks on them. But, yes, this is America, and P-J has every right to criticize Wikipedia in general for what they see as failings of the project. Eliminating all mention of that criticism from articles such as Criticism of Wikipedia just makes Wikipedia look bad and P-J look...well, not exactly good but certainly the more innocent party. Is this what P-J's critics want? Casey Abell 14:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not make Wikipedia look bad: it makes it look consistent with its content policies. That section of criticism of Wikipedia focuses on Wikipedia's presumed problem with "contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs". Ironically enough, the notion that Wikipedia is a corporate sex offender is precisely an "idiosyncratic belief" and one that should be given due weight. PJ is of course free to think this but it's important to stress that this accusation is not taken seriously by anyone of note and in particular is not taken seriously by law enforcement. I just don't see how this can be treated any differently than a rant on some mildly successful blog. Undoubtedly, PJ will have a field day with the removal and will pose as the victim but we have to stand up to the bully and recognize PJ for what it is: a small extremist organization with dubious methods. Yes, we tend to be more sympathetic to it because we perceive it as having ultimately worthwhile goals but this is beyond the point. They are unquestionably efficient and the parallel with McCarthyism is very good. Even participating in this thread is risky: if you bad mouth PJ you'll become a suspect, a censor, someone who for whatever motive is trying to protect pedophiles (and hey, what motive could that be? wink wink nudge nudge). You'll get accusations like the ones here thrown at you, you may end up on PJ's suspect list like User:Tony Sandel which most likely means you get a flood of abuse on your talk page from anons wound up by PJ's attack page. Let's return to sanity: there's no good reason to link to the PJ website from anywhere but the Perverted Justice article. Pascal.Tesson 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you determined to badmouth Peej? I just wrote you a post above countering your accusation that they use dodgey methods and your response is to claim that they are small (which at 45,000 members and 221 pedophiles locked up, multiple websites and well into the Charitabke foundation process they emphatically are not), extremist (they want pedophiles locked up and children to be able to surf safely online - if that is an extremist goal you'd better lock up most of the Western world), and use dubious methods (221 pedophiles locked away, acres of press coverage, agreements with almost every law enforcement organisation in the entire United States, you'd think someone would have shut them down by now if their methods were dubious. Instead they get ask to work with departments to do mass stings. That's a ridiculous claim.). Every point I just made is readily available on the Peej website, and on the media coverage of Peej. So why do you insist they're an enemy? :::Peej's beef with us is that we don't hunt down and ban pedophiles - which we don't. I fail to see what is slanderous about that. If they want to label us a Corporate Sex Offender on their website, let them, meh. It's Wikipedia's role to allow everyone to edit as they wish, not put them through some kind of inquisition to discover the "right sort" of people. It's the duty of Wikipedians as individuals to report suspected criminals to their appropriate authorities, as we do stalkers and people who make detah threats. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is real evidence that wikipedia is actively nurturing criminals, then links to pages making such a complaint amount to nothing more than slander. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like how the specter of McCarthyism is being invoked to justify censorship. All sorts of what I consider unfair criticisms of Wikipedia are linked from Criticism of Wikipedia. I don't rip those links out of the article because I think they're nothing more than slander. The article exists to record and discuss, well, criticism of Wikipedia. The fact that some editors dislike a certain source of criticism is no excuse for eliminating any mention of the source from the article. The link in the article mentioned no names and made no accusations against individuals. I won't restore the link because there appears to be (wrongly, IMO) no consensus to do so. But the attempt to eliminate any mention of P-J's criticism is pure censorship and I will oppose it. Casey Abell 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are however failing to address the issue of due weight. When did PJ become an organization that carried any sort of weight regarding "corporate sex offender" accusations? As far as I can tell these accusations have gotten zero echo in mainstream press and I don't see why it should be brought up here. In fact, in the blogosphere, they have often been met with a chuckle [54] [55].

To answer Dev920, I love how you've subtly started asking "why are you determined to badmouth PJ?", thus continuing the kind of pressure tactics that are a growing concerns with some members of WP:PAW. Like I said, PJ is not an extremist organization for opposing pedophiles. It is an extremist organization for insisting that the best way to deal with pedophiles on the Internet is to expose them by any means and post personal contact information about them on the Internet so that they can be harassed. Anyone who stands in their way is quickly labeled as a pedophile or a passive supporter of pedophiles and they routinely divulge personal information about these people, again with little or no care that their accusations are well founded. There has been extensive discussion in mainstream press about concerns with these methods. PJ does get quite a bit of support but again it is marginal. The "45000 members" figure comes, I believe, from the Rolling Stone article and corresponds to the number of users registered on the PJ forum. This is not an unusual figure even for extremely fringe websites. And the idea that they are an important organization because they have a lot of websites is, well, rather unconvincing. Pascal.Tesson 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As you clearly haven't read the site there's no point continuing this conversation. I'm going to find my guinea pigs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As Mr. McEnroe was known to say, you cannot be serious about the undue weight argument. This is the entire reference to P-J in Criticism of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has also been criticised for failing to deal with pro-pedophile activists, and has been described as a "corporate sex offender" by Perverted-Justice." Depending on how you count, this makes about two dozen words – in an article of nearly 8,000 words excluding notes and links.

Frankly, you should stick with WP:IDONTLIKEIT on Perverted-Justice. At least this argument doesn't maintain that two dozen words in an article of 8,000 words is undue weight. Of course, I could argue WP:IDONTLIKEIT about lots of stuff in Criticism of Wikipedia. I think McHenry's comparison of Wikipedia to a filthy john is grossly unfair, nothing more than professional jealousy from a former Britannica functionary. I think the Wikipedia Watch whines about admin abuse are ridiculous, especially since admins gave Brandt his wish to have his article deleted. I think a lot of the allegedly humorous criticisms are the lamest gags since the last time I tried to make a joke. I think much of criticism in the article is exaggerated, unjust, flat wrong, stupid, silly and really really dumb.

But guess what. The article isn't called Criticism of Wikipedia that Casey Abell thinks is just and reasonable. We know what the article is called, and that title means it should include all sorts of criticism, even if it comes from people and organizations you and I don't like.

I've already compromised more than I think I should. I've removed a link that named no names and made no attacks on any individual editors. This means that I've basically given into BADSITES, which was the craziest, silliest, most misguided attempt to make policy since the last time I thought about writing policy for Wikipedia. But I won't acquiesce in total, outright censorship of criticism from an organization just because some editors don't like it.

Wikipedia's article Perverted-Justice contains a "Criticism" section that runs to more than 1,500 words. But whoa, if we try to put two dozen words of P-J's criticism of Wikipedia into an article, it's "undue weight." Sorry, but it belongs in Criticism of Wikipedia along with all the other sometimes unfair and wrong and not nice criticism. This encyclopedia really is not censored, and that will be my final comment on the matter. Casey Abell 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is that the criticism of McHenry was widely publicized and to a lesser extent, so was Brandt's. The PJ criticism on the other hand was not picked up by anyone of note and is, in effect, a rant from a collaborative blog. As such, its mention in the criticism of Wikipedia article is giving it more exposure than it has received anywhere else and that is undue weight. Pascal.Tesson 22:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking my promise not to comment again. Another editor pulled the evil, horrible, intolerable two dozen words from Criticism of Wikipedia. I'm tired of the fight. Censorship wins. I could do something equally silly, like pulling all the criticisms from the article that I think are stupid. Or I could make a justified undue weight argument on the huge "Criticism" section at Perverted-Justice. But why bother? "Consensus" looks flat wrong to me here, but you really can't win them all. Casey Abell 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite a place where P-J's criticism of Wikipedia is mentioned in a newspaper, and it will be added to the article. Basically, there are a thousand websites out there critical of Wikipedia. There will be a hundred vandals indefinitely blocked just today, and I'm sure ten of them will run to their blogs, so that will be ten more. We can only mention the notable criticisms, as in Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Chatmag News [56] has picked it up in a way highly unfavorable to P-J, but you wouldn't consider that reliable, I guess, though it does show up in the Google news cache. But how many newspapers picked up the Black Mystery Month "satire" of Wikipedia, which gets about as much space in Criticism of Wikipedia as the former P-J mention? Or the vandalism to the Larry King article, which actually gets a lot more space (but is pretty funny, unlike the lame Black Mystery Month effort). I could cite some more examples from the article, but...you win. I won't restore the awful two dozen words. Casey Abell 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole scenario disgusts me. I hate how PJ is trying to tear apart sites that are not totally in favor of the organization instead of trying to prevent sexual abuse. This attitude of Von Erck's will implode his organization. I would like to ask him to read Death Note - There are more than a few similarities to the main character, Light Yagami. Hopefully the overzealous attitudes possessed by Light and the character's ultimate fate will tell Von Erck that he needs to change his approach. WhisperToMe 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What I find disturbing is the level of intimidation exercised by PJ, both as regards Wikipedia coverage of PJ in general, and their ability to go after individual editors. This 'chilling effect', as news analysts like to call such reactions, are invariably going to lead to a 'win' for PJ. Either we let them edit as they please, or we surrender our policies, or they pick any of us to report as a pedophile, or supporter thereof. Regardless of our clearly stated intent to maintain neutrality on Wikipedia, and regardlessof the Occam's Razor nature of such behaviors, no one here wants to be on the recieving end of such accusations and the resltant job loss, social death, and so on that come from knee-jerk reactions to such accusations. I note that many people here have said they're concerned about such patterns. I'm beginning to think that this whole mess might be best off left to the WP:OFFICE and Jimbo himself to sort out. We're just editors and admins, we're volunteers. Let someone who gets paid to deal with potential off-wiki harrassment and such deal with it. ThuranX 03:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when is P-J "winning" on Wikipedia? The site's chief editor has been banned from WP [57] and the organization's criticism of Wikipedia has been censored from the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, a huge "Criticism" section of the Wikipedia article on the organization accuses it of many failings. That's a strange kind of "win" for P-J on Wikipedia. Casey Abell 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Jimbo, speaking here in terms of general principles. WP:BADSITES is a rejected policy, as it should be. There is of course a noble concept behind it, and it is my belief that a more carefully formulated restricted version of the policy could in fact pass muster. We are under a general moral obligation, in my opinion, to be thoughtful about what sites we are linking to, and why, and the harm that a site may be causing is one factor that should of course be considered, though it will not in most cases be an overriding factor. Once upon a time there was a web page on the net with a photo of my little girl, claiming that she is retarded due to fetal alcohol syndrome caused by my wife being an alcoholic due to me forcing her to suck dicks for $10 each during pregnancy. That whole string of blatant lies does not count as valid "Criticism of Jimmy Wales", it is nothing more than hatred. I would expect that among the many reasons not to link to that, the fact that the site was viciously immoral by any coherent standard should be a factor.

In the current case, the kind of criticism being leveled against Wikipedia itself is not, per se, hateful. It is inelegantly expressed by people who clearly are quite excited by their mission. It is not, in my opinion, a *valid* criticism, but it is at least within the realm of debatable. What should Wikipedia's policies be towards editors who are active pedophiles? How could it be enforced? "Don't ask, don't tell" is NOT our policy. Something close to that, though, is inevitable under almost any conceivable stated policy, since if someone is a pedophile, and doesn't tell us, what can we do about it? (And surely no sane person would suggest that we randomly inquire as people sign up for Wikipedia whether they are pedophiles or not.)

Reasonable people can question whether our articles on pedophilia are biased. There are some reasons to think that some of them could be at times, of course. One problem is that pedophilia activists have no qualms about editing those articles, but lots of good people just prefer to steer clear. There is a great great irony here in the ridiculous apprpoach that P-J is taking... their propensity to label people as "pro-pedophilia activists" on public websites makes it *less* likely that good people will want to assist in making these article as good as possible. And their own incivility on the site means that they have been unable to assist in a meaningful way.

What would please me would be to have some kind, loving, thoughtful, forgiving, reasonable anti-pedophilia activists going over these pages carefully and helping to make sure they are neutral. At least some extremists on either side will be unhappy with anything other than a one-sided rant, but in my long experience, there are usually very thoughtful and kind people who have the courage and wisdom to write neutrally even on emotionally difficult topics. We should encourage that kind of behavior.

As to the instant question of what to do about the links, I think this question has nothing at all to do with BADSITES or attacking us or criticizing us or whateve. The simple rule should be: does the redirection interfere materially with the experience of the reader who is trying to learn more. In this case, I believe it does. What I would support P-J doing is putting a message on their site saying "Welcome from Wikipedia" with a short sentence or two encouraging the reader to visit their critique of Wikipedia page, while at the same time, leaving the rest of the page alone, i.e. doing a dynamic insert based on the referrer rather than a total redirect. As a Wikipedia editor, if I want to link to a particular page on their site for sound editorial reasons, but their redirection policy makes it impossible for me to do so, then I have to conclude that the link should be omitted in favor of just doing a more extensive quote.

There is one page on their other site (the wiki site) which names specific individual wikipedia editors as being pedophiles. A couple of them whose talk pages I checked have flatly denied it. I would consider that page to be a hate site page engaging in reckless speech about innocent people, and that's the sort of thing I think we should have the good sense and dignity not to link to directly. At the same time, I suppose there is actually no reason why we would be linking to that page directly.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I wonder though why you wish for kind, loving, thoughtful, forgiving, reasonable anti-pedophilia activists going over these pages carefully. What would really benefit these pages or for that matter any pages are kind, loving, thoughtful, forgiving, reasonable editors whose approach is as clinical as possible. Activists editing on Wikipedia spell trouble, no matter how good their cause may be. Sure unkind, unloving, thoughtless, unforgiving, unreasonable activists do far more damage but an encyclopedia is never well-served by writers who are emotional about the subject of their edits. This is true for pedophilia-related articles, true for abortion-related articles, true for Israel-related articles or any controversial subject. Rational discussion and meaningful compromises are hard to find with activists, even the best-intentioned ones. Pascal.Tesson 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, Pascal.Tesson. I've had it to here with activists of any kind going on editing sprees at Wikipedia. I'd rather editors be cold, Spocklike and uncaring than be driven by activist issues they feel passionately about. wikipediatrix 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Guess what, I agree with Jimbo! I agreed (reluctantly) with the removal of the redirect link, which didn't name anybody. But I don't see why P-J - a highly notable though controversial organization by any reasonable standard - shouldn't have its criticism of Wikipedia briefly noted in the article that is designed to note criticism of Wikipedia. I don't think P-J's criticism is fair, either. Wikipedia is not a "corporate sex offender" in my view. But as I said before, Criticism of Wikipedia contains lots of stuff that I don't agree with. At any rate, I've become way too involved to remain unbiased. I'll let other editors hash out our treatment of P-J in Criticism of Wikipedia and elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Casey Abell 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue in this thread is the redirection of all links to P-J on Wikipedia to their criticism page. Not about the content of said pages, unless I missed something in the reading of this lengthy thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old dispute?

I seem to recall an old dispute with respect to PRT, some transport system that is allegedly a hoax, involving a number of disruptive, aggressive and tendentious editors. According to User:Avidor, this has flared up again (see his talk page). Does anyone here know what this is about and how to deal with it? >Radiant< 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Avidor failed in an attempt to bring a COI complaint against me ("Mr Grant - No COI"[58] and parallel discussion[59]), and he is dissatisfied with the outcome.[60][61] --Mr Grant 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a bizarre dispute over personal rapid transit, centering around my area (Minneapolis) because a Minnesota senator supports trying to fund it. I've only ever heard of a handful of people that actually support it (although the bridge collapse adds an interesting twist to it) and why it's become such an issue on Wikipedia is beyond me. I can go back and find the long AN/I thread about it, but it hardly seems worth it. Grandmasterka 18:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a Minnesota Senator, it's a State Representative Mark Douglas Olson. What the Wikipedia article on Personal Rapid Transit doesn't explain is why this supposed transit mode has no support among traditional transit organizations or transportation professionals while support for PRT comes from individuals and groups opposed to conventional transit such as light rail and commuter rail. PRT is a classic stalking horse for people like Rep. Mark Olson who is opposed to rail transit because he can claim that there is a transit system that is "faster, cheaper, better than LRT". Since PRT does not exist anywhere, PRT promoters can make any claims they want... even that PRT guideways can be built with robots.... and David Gow (Mr_Grant) is the Seattle contact for the Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit.... Gow should be banned from editing the PRT page as well as other PRT promoters...Avidor 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of a certain other representative who does support it. (Not state senator - my bad.) Grandmasterka 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Avidor is now going around Wikipedia repeating the same claims[62] he made in his COI case against me, claims that were found to be baseless.[63] I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy against double jeopardy, but I respectfully request Avidor be directed to stop.--Mr Grant 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr_Grant (David Gow) refuses to say whether he is paid to promote PRT, which apparently includes editing the Wikipedia PRT page and attacking me like this.

You raised the issue of my income at COIN, and yet my edits were found not to be COI. The issue should be considered closed. The link you provide is parody, and cannot be considered an attack in that it refers to things you actually did.--Mr Grant 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But, you don't have to take my word... here's a scan from page # 221 from the book "Transpotation for Livable Cities" by Professor Vukan Vuchic of the Univ. of Pennsylvania[64] and the professor gives PRT only one paragraph. Professor Vuchic declares PRT to be "imaginary" and "infeasible"... Avidor 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vuchic's opinion is mentioned in the PRT article and he is cited in the references. What's the problem?--Mr Grant 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And the PRT fans trashed his opinon in the article calling them "flawed"...Professor Vuchic writings are peer reviewed. Most of what's referenced on the PRT pages comes from PRT fan sites (many of them haven't been updated for years). 2001 was the last news entry on the "Skyloop" website. 2004 was the last news entry on the Skyweb Express web site... and Jpods... and of course, like the rest of the article, the stuff on the PRT page is written by fans of PRT. For instance stuff by editor Bill James who is none other than Bill James, who built a PRT model called Jpods and is seeking funding to build more... Avidor 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vuchic IS IN THE ARTICLE. Both pro and anti views are represented. You may say "trashed," others would say Vuchic's views were "debated."

You are continuing to rehash issues that were disposed of by the now-closed COI case you brought, which was resolved in my favor. I proposed to revise Bill James' edits to improve the article[65] and you failed to respond. --Mr Grant 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Debated"? This is a well known tactic by groups and individuals who promote controversial ideas like PRT and Intelligent Design called teach the controversy. Professor Vuchic's remarks about PRT are only controversial among PRT promoters. Mainstream Transit groups like Transit for Livable Communities and the Sierra Club North Star have resolutions against public funding of PRT...Avidor 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Now anyone who debates is a right wing extremist? "Debate" is debate, "teach the controversy" is when the proponent uses it to give equal time to views that are demonstrably false or unsupported by verifiable evidence. If there was such evidence about the PRT concept I would not object to it being in the article. The resolutions you cite, and have cited many times before, are political documents. One reads:

• "because the proposed technology has never been built anywhere in the world, there is no real engineering data to create reliable estimates of costs and benefits. Due to these concerns and the scarcity of public funding for established transit, the TLC board passed a resolution in April opposing state funding for PRT at this time. [emphasis added]"

Taking them at their word, I would expect them to be open to change this opinion if their concerns were to be addressed, by evidence. The other includes:

• "(6) does not oppose the study and possible use of automated, small-cab vehicles on fixed public guideway for limited geographic and functional sites such as airports or large educational or business campuses, as long as such systems are financed by the entities being served. [emphasis added]"

This is fine with me, it is a fair political position. But again, the "Whereases" reflect assumptions, many well-founded, but many also could be addressed by the results of subsequent PRT work now being done in Europe, e.g., evidence.

These links describe political opposition to PRT as a policy. Neither puts PRT in the same league as Intelligent Design.--Mr Grant 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Explain why staunch opponents of any spending on transit such as Michele Bachmann and Mark Douglas Olson authored legislation for and promoted PRT in the media?Avidor 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Avidor, you are being disruptive. Please stop harassing other editors over a content dispute. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so your arguments about public policy are wholly misplaced: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. If the article has POV problems, discuss them on the article talk page and use dispute resolution. But to outside observers, you look like the POV-pusher and an uncivil violator of WP:MULTI, which is counterproductive to whatever it is you are trying to accomplish, which one hopes is the improvement of the encyclopedia. THF 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated personal attacks by Rondus (and his sock C00483033)

Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a supposed new user who from his very first edits began personal attacks against me, starting with his third edit. This message was spammed to multiple pages, and when it was reverted by multiple editor, began also to be posted by C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The latter is clearly a sock of the first. Here is a list of the subsquest posts and reposts:

• [66] 04:50, 8 August 2007 by Rondus
• [67] 05:09, 8 August 2007 by Rondus
• [68] 05:20, 8 August 2007 by Rondus
• [69] 06:01, 8 August 2007 by Rondus
• [70] 06:03, 8 August 2007 by C00483033 (first edit)
• [71] 06:06, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [72] 06:17, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [73] 06:23, 8 August 2007 by Rondus
• [74] 06:34, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [75] 06:36, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [76] 06:46, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [77] 06:47, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [78] 11:31, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [79] 11:34, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [80] 12:06, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [81] 14:24, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [82] 14:59, 8 August 2007 by C00483033
• [83] 19:43, 9 August 2007 by C00483033
• [84] 19:49, 9 August 2007 by C00483033
• [85] 11:16, 10 August 2007 by C00483033

It is interesting to note that the edits by C00483033 were not done using undo or revert, but appear to have been copy and pasted.

These posts continued until C00483033 was blocked for disruption. Rondus was not blocked. He continues to make personal attacks against me despite explanations and then warnings on his talk page.

Two sockpuppet reports have been filed, first Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) and later Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975, yet despite the obvious sockpuppetry and disruptive editing, no action has been taken. Could someone please take the time to look into this? IPSOS (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Rondus / C00483033 have accused you of conflict of interest and vandalizing the article. You characterize this as a personal attack in violation of the WP:NPA policy. You are pretty sure that they are a pair of socks, and have asked for a review. The diffs you posted are from 11 to 12 days ago. Is this ongoing? What sort of remedy are you asking for from the admins who monitor this board? --Rocksanddirt 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is ongoing. Here are the latest attacks: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. He has been warned repeatedly by myself and by other editors on his talk page and on Talk:Alpha et Omega. The sockpuppet C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was only blocked for 3RR and not indefinitely as is usual for obvious socks. I would like an admin to block the sock C00483033, warn Rondus about both sockpuppetry and his continuing attacks, and for someone to evaluate the sockpuppet reports to determine if it is reasonable to believe that Rondus is a sock of indef blocked user Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) and indef block him if he is. IPSOS (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia administrator recently proteted the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" page due to the behavior of User IPSOS and 3 other users. The administrator characterized this behavior as "HOGD activism." I have merely pointed this out in related discussions, which has caused User IPOS to harass me, despite my repeatedly telling him that his issue is with the administrator rather than with me. User IPSOS has dogged me wit improper tags, filed frivolous sock puppet reports, etc. In short, he has used ever conceivable bullying tactic possible while trying to skirt the rules of Wikipedia. Today's episode is just one more instance of his bullying me as a new Wikipedia member.--Rondus 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: that hadn't happened yet when you started attacking me on your third edit on 8 August, and the frequency of repetition you have adopted even after I have clearly denied the accusation multiple times makes your actions definitely qualify as harassment. IPSOS (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from third-party. This disruption is active today on Talk:Alpha et Omega. There was a gap after the AfD, and now they/he are/is back and making insulting and unfounded accusations against IPSOS and other editors.

In his comment above, Rondus mis-quoted the admin who protected that article, to manipulate the discussion. This statement from Rondus is false:

The administrator characterized this behavior as "HOGD activism."

Here is the actual edit summary from the admin who protected the page:

too soon to revert war over, or merge, content; let's tone down perceptions of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn activism

The admin mentioned perceptions of activism, not actual activism. Rondus has used this mis-quote several times in his repeated personal attacks against IPSOS and others.

I'll re-post for convenience the links to the two sockpuppet reports. These reports both list Rondus and C00483033. While the reports are not conclusive about all the listed editors, those two accounts have:

• virtually identical behavior
• cross-posted the same comments multiple times as listed in the reports
• both were created in the first week of August,
• both immediately began posting to the identical topics
• both have between 50 and 100 or so edits.

here are the SSP links:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975

About my interest here: I did not know of IPSOS until the recent AfD where I also encountered the two disruptive accounts. I have edited the related articles a couple times, but before the AfD I had never edited them. I have thousands of edits on completely unrelated topics and no vested interest in this topic.

It appears that C00483033 and Rondus are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

But whether they are or not, I know from seeing them in action that their comments continually contain personal attacks and disrupt article talk pages from the topics at hand. --Parsifal _Hello 02:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just see the editor User:Rondus as saying Ippy has a COI and so on, not extreme personal attacks. User:IPSOS on the other hand has used repeated warning templates on Talk:Alpha et Omega and on Rondus' talk page. Including 'this is your final warning. If you continue to do this you will be blocked'. He has made comments on Rondus' talk page along the lines of 'I'll ensure you and your sock are blocked'. While I agree Rondus is probably a sock or a puppeteer, the use of templates including a 'final warning...continue and you will be blocked, and the 'I'll make sure you're blocked' I think is a bit much. Then again, this user Rondus might well end up blocked for his sockpuppeting, may well even be a sock of a banned user.:)Merkinsmum 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) case has been closed, with the result that Rondus and C00483033 have been indef blocked as sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Frater FiatLux. --Parsifal _Hello 01:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive attacks by user Matthew

User Matthew (talk · contribs) repeatedly readds an attack to user User:Videmus Omnia, calling him "Soldier Boy"[91] [92] [93] [94]. Mathew had been warned by me[95], Quadell[96] and by Videmus[97] [98], but removed the warnings with funny edit summaries [99] [100]. Although Videmus, the target, keeps calm, such attacks are disruptive to all involved in the discussion. Would someone try to explain Mathew that this kind of behaviour is inline with our community spirit? Thanks in advance.

This is not the first time Mathew has ignored warnings about calling names. [101],[102] [103]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu badali (talk • contribs).

I'm considering a block. It's really time we put an end to this situation where hordes of people think they can get away with hostilities against editors who do the thankless job of image patrolling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The diffs regarding me can be seen at User:Videmus Omnia/Attacks and incivility. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The user continues to readd the attack[104] and mock the warnings[105]. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew has been informed of this thread. — Scientizzle 19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Grandmasterka (talk · contribs) blocked him for 24 hours I don't think he will be contributing here.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above (edit conflict?), I have already warned[106] him about this thread, but he mocked the warning[107]. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to post here: Blocked, but with room for leniency. I might be gone shortly, so handle any unblock requests without consulting me. Grandmasterka 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep... I'm not convinced 24 hours is enough time for Matthew (talk · contribs) to grow up, but I support the block. This isn't the first time Matthew (talk · contribs) has engagend in this sort of silly trolling so I'm not sure I see a case for leniency.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew's talk page specifically states "No spam" - this means for image warnings as well. Spamming generic image warnings is both annoying, and, in Matthew's case a waste of time, since it states "No spam". I'd disagree it's a "thankless job". Thankless maybe, because who wants to thank someone who has nothing better to do than go round tagging images with a script? It's hardly difficult work either.

As for the personal comments, I have to agree that he's taken it too far. Majorly (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's thankless because you become the target of such attacks, and have to patiently and diplomatically repeat arguments about unnecessary non-free images... But if you don't think it's difficult, feel free to join the team. We're hiring ;) --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The image warnings aren't spam, they're mandatory. Can you imagine the screaming that would ensue if images were tagged and uploaders not informed? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Abu) No thanks... I'm here to write the encyclopedia, not as a robot. Anyhow, I know exactly what it is like (see my early Commons edits where what I did was mostly robotic tagging.)

(To Tim) If I ever get them, I'd remove them as spam. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Majorly (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing them is entirely legitimate: it means that you've read them. Just don't use a snarky edit summary :) In most cases, however, the purpose of using such templates is to inform someone about the state of an image they've upoaded, not explain Wikipedia's entire fair use policy. Yet, these templates do the latter, possibly a dozen times over, on the same user talk page. Why not make a shorter version (something like "Your image, Image:Image.png, has been tagged with {{rfu}}, tilde tilde tilde tilde"), and use only one section for all image notifications? Image template spam sucks. Gracenotes^T § 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A good way to avoid the templates is to check back through upload logs to make sure that uploaded images are in compliance with policy. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, editors are supposed to go through every image in their upload log several times a day to make sure that it hasn't been orphaned (replaced by a free image)? I don't think so :) Given that fair use is more about the usage than the image itself, this doesn't seem feasible. Regulars don't like to be annoyed by long policy explanations; since notification is mandatory, do so without policy explanations. Simple enough! Gracenotes^T § 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. That was just plain silly, and an enforced wikibreak is merited. We should treat each other with more respect, at least in public. Moreschi ^Talk 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but Matthew also equals MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) where the block log is quite impressive. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the talk page deleted on the above account? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RightToVanish, though that evidently isn't working. Moreschi ^Talk 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Pardon my inexperience with m:Right to vanish but how can you invoke that but then not only not vanish but continue tacking on numerous entries to an already long block log? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He had his account renamed using usurpation, and apparently never redirected his old pages to the new ones. As far as I know, he never used Right To Vanish. Grandmasterka 20:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, guess he did try to vanish once. I've re-redirected those pages. Grandmasterka 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Matthew seems to have some problem with image patrollers. Either way, Videmus Omnia is an important part of the project, and we need to take measures to stop people from needlessly insulting him. --Deskana (banana) 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

...and if you see his smarmy response to the block message, which apparently tries to tack onto the insult with what Matthew no doubt feels is a clever play on the term "vet" I tend to think he got off a bit easy with 24 hours.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

fully endorse Matthew has been long over due for such. hes been making personal attacks and other CIVIL issues for months. (I wish I had this kind of support when I was getting attacked for my non-free image work) β^_command 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew's recent conduct and comments have been unacceptable, but the deletion of his prior userpage and talkpage containing his full real name were user-requested and were reasonable requests based on off-site trolling and harassment to which he was being subjected at the time. Newyorkbrad 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'mma get choo banned! actually, I'm not - I'm just making the 66 cabal paranoid ;) Will ^(talk) 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If the previous usertalk was deleted under a Right to vanish request, his subsequent return to Wikipedia under the new account would seem to indicate that the vanish has been canceled. Perhaps they should be restored, comments? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side point I find it ridiculous that what Tim is doing is referred to as 'templating the regulars'. 'Templating the regulars' is about things like civility warnings, those twee AGF warnings, etc... The image warning templates contain such information that can really only be communicated via a template - I'm not about to go making that stuff up as I go, I would leave key information out. VO is doing a fantastic job and gets more than his share of crap for it. Block was totally justified, but I think it would take rather longer than 24 hours for Matthew to learn how to get along with his fellow users. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See what Gracenotes wrote above, which I agree with. When you get a lot of image notices, there's no need to template each and every time. Also, Matthew specifically states on his page not to post them, but users do anyway. He's probably sick of it. Majorly (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Chairboy, I tend to agree. Can you invoke right-to-vanish and then not vanish? When you leave behind a page-long block log in the process, that seems more like "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors". —Wknight94 (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

His pages were deleted for other reasons as well, that I won't go into on a public forum (see NYB's comment). Majorly (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Riana about the difference between using a template to inform someone that an image is up for deletion and using one to tell an experienced editor that they may be blocked for reverting, or that they should "take a look at the welcome page if [they] would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopaedia. The former is not in the least bit patronising, as the template contains information that the user normally needs, and that can't be adequately written by hand (I'd get all the details and all the links wrong, unless I spent fifteen minutes composing, previewing and correcting the message). The latter is, frankly, rude, and is usually intended to annoy.

On the issue of the deleted talk page, please guys. Just leave it. If someone has used his real name and regrets it, now understanding the possible real world consequences, let's respect his privacy. This is not a case of a hypothetical User:Mushroom Soup pretending to vanish but coming back as User:Granite Wall, so that Granite Wall can be as rude as he likes and will get away with it because nobody will realise that he has ever been blocked before. Believe me, if he continues his bad behaviour (as Matthew seems to have done), he'll soon amass a long enough block log to be able to stand alone. And there are enough admins who know his previous identity that he isn't really going to get away with too much on the grounds of his new attempts to be anonymous. While I wholeheartedly endorse the block, and was considering blocking him myself, I would suggest that exposing and further publicising the real life identity of an underage editor (he is underage, isn't he?) against his will is far worse than calling another editor "Soldier Boy" (obnoxious though that is). See WP:HARASS, where it says:

Posting another person's personal information . . . is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This . . . applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

On the issue of his deleted user page and talk page, everyone has the right to have old versions of their userpage deleted. The talk page history has not been deleted. The talk page was moved to his new name, and the redirect was deleted. That is perfectly appropriate, and nothing to get excited about. ElinorD (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had trouble with this user for months now, as you can see here - [108]. He is often sarcastic and patronising toward people on FAC pages - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK) also. Something really needs to be done here. Dalejenkins | 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)