Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive293

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Abuse of Authority 2 Soapboxing on user page 3 Betacommand (talk · contribs), presumably BetacommandBot 4 User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles being disruptive 5 Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451 (pt.2) 6 User:Wikipediatrix false reports on AN/I 7 Strange conduct by user Jasonstrayer 8 RMS Titanic 9 Deleted interwiki 10 Admin User:Hu12 accusing me of 'personal attacks against policy' 11 User:Goethean 12 Vandalism at AfD 13 Legal threat 14 Block of Bouncehoper by Violetriga 14.1 Please Stop 15 This was posted to my talk page, possibly by somebody who thought I was an admin (should I be? didn't think I was ripe yet) 15.1 External Links on M.U.L.E. page violates Software Copyrights 16 problematic user; constant violation of NPOV 17 Hungrywolf 18 Ranga 19 IP Vandalism on this page 20 Dole Sart (talk · contribs) and Sole dart (talk · contribs) 21 Once again, RJ CG (talk · contribs) 22 Repeated Vandalism and page blanking 23 WP:POINT edits disrupting AfD 24 User:Pixelface 25 Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}} tag & attendant edit-war 26 Repeated deletions of page 27 RfA: comments in the Question for the candidate section 28 Incivil User 29 User:Quadell, User:Jim62sch, User:KillerChihuahua, etc. 30 Hu12 clarification 31 Chrisjnelson 32 Abuse and accusations on technical analysis page (along with Financial Astrology and William Delbert Gann) 33 User:Jimfandango and socks 34 WP:STALK, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, WP:BATTLE and WP:EW by user:Iberieli 35 Recalcitrance 36 Unverified speculation, accusation of vandalism 37 Help needed 38 Italia WP:DISRUPT Harassment on MfD 39 Help needed 40 legal threat to another user by Nuwaubian Hotep 41 blanking, borderline vandalism 42 Review help required - Copyright violations - User:Scifireal 43 José Manuel Barroso 44 Reporting User:Daddy Kindsoul 45 Abusive talk pages needing deletion 46 THF and DavidShankBone 46.1 COI query by Iamunknown 46.2 Possible remedy with THF and David Shankbone 46.3 Implications of punishing users for disclosure 46.4 How well is that approach working in this case so far? 46.5 Enough already 47 User:Carlstar3 vandalism 48 User:Bart Versieck 49 WP:UNCIVIL User 49.1 User:Grandia01 50 Please Advise Me 51 Calton...again

[edit] Abuse of Authority

IrishGuy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Irishguy) is clearly abusing his authority, as well as poorly interpreting the rule forbidding the posting of "spam" in External Links.

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia whose external links include fansites. I'm not going to cite examples, because then sad, power-hungry individuals like IrishGuy would indiscriminately blast them all. It's unfortunate that he has decided to single out an article about a B-movie most people have never heard of to abuse his authority. ManiacCopFans.com was begun by a friend and I to raise awareness of the movie. We have the blessing and support of Bill Lustig (director), Larry Cohen (writer), Robert Z'Dar, and Bruce Campbell. Yet, he seems to believe that this link violates a vague and subjective rule which is almost never enforced. The term "spam" denotes unsolicited marketing, not a link to a fansite. We make exactly zero dollars from the website, and it's only intended as a place for people to gather and discuss the films. How can IrishGuy ignore links to "official" movie sites (which are clearly commercial) and instead focus on ours?

Here is the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniac_Cop

Please help me to understand why an administrator like IrishGuy can repeatedly abuse his authority without intervention from others. I will respect your explanation and/or ruling, but I do not respect IrishGuy. Thank you very much.

kd4nuh 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Our external links policy discourages "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Linking your own website, even if it is not making you money at present, is considered spamming. What other articles may or may not have in their external links at the moment is irrelevant. You can use an article's talk page to discuss inclusion of a link. Grandmasterka 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The pertinent words in the above guideline being "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent". ELIMINATORJR 23:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This tirade has already been left in various places: [1] [2] [3]. This user has also brought forth numerous meatpuppets to continue inserting his link into various articles. He also left the following message IrishGuy, kindly fuck off. Thanks - Matt Cordell on various talk pages. He further left another abusive message here. IrishGuy ^talk 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)::I must say, that while I hardly would call this an "abuse of authority" (it would be if Irishguy blocked the said user, the kind of thing I've seen before), I have to agree with kd4nuh. The EL guideline is only a guideline, and for good reasons. The said website is a good website, and there are no other external links (I have seen users give links to their websites before, and it was quite helpful to the WP page). In fact, it's probably a good thing if users who are knowledgeable about a subject have links to their website, as long as it's not promotional, as it helps the overall knowledge of the 'pedia. However, kd4nuh, I would say you haven't much of a leg to stand on, considering that you decided to revert Irishguy's change as "revert vandalism" and telling Irishguy to f*** off. That's totally inappropriate, and its' not going to make anyone want to bat for you. The Evil Spartan 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just gave Kd4nuh a good long block for continuing his temper tantrum. Grandmasterka 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it in the block log. Is the system lagging today? IrishGuy ^talk 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec again)Doesn't look blocked to me. Though a 24 hour block is probably in line ("go to bed, take a day off, let the steam on your head cool down, I'm sure you're a good guy"). But please don't block for too long. The Evil Spartan 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked and reblocked. (It was one of those phantom blocks that happens occasionally.) It's there now. Grandmasterka 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And this was his lovely reaction to his block: It's fine. I'll just register another account or fifty. Kindly go fuck yourself. IrishGuy ^talk 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand we get this. Grandmasterka 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need stuff like this. If there's a good reason not to change the block length to indef, I can't think of it. Raymond Arritt 03:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

indef. There are some few good reasons to change the block length to indef...Total of 259 edits of which 170 were made to their own userpage, +/- 30% edit summary usage, and of course spamming and disruption threats. Let's move on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I feel indef is too harsh. We'll see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question is apparently a role account, and a hostile one as well. If you look at the link they're trying to add, the screed agaisnt IG and wikipedia in general is probably within the guidelines for determining an attack site. I'd indef him and his IP. ThuranX 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kd4nuh has returned as Americanhero1985 to evade his block. New account blocked. See his user page and edits for evidence. Identical reverts as Kd4nuh, identical userpage to Kd4nuh. IrishGuy ^talk 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef for good now. I had assumed good faith more than necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soapboxing on user page

User:Jim62sch has a banner on his user page that may be considered to be in violation of what userspace is not and no soapboxing guidelines. This version can be seen here [4]. Earlier today, admin User:lucasbfr reverted it, quoting guidelines. It was reverted, so I restored lucas' version. It was then reverted by another editor, who claimed the removal to be "vandalism" [5], and then by another, whose edit summary was even more incivil [6] and who even left a warning note on my talkpage. Comments welcome; if enforcing Wikipedia guidelines can be interpreted as vandalism, what chance do we stand? ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Enforcing policy shouldn't be controversial, especially in the case of obvious violations of policy. Vassyana 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism template put on the user page of an admin (or any other experienced user) who was clearly not vandalizing the site was inappropriate; I blanked that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism template was inappropriate and inflammatory. That said, the banner is question appears to be within the limits we allow to users in good standing. The userspace rules is to prevent a page that is a long rant or such, not to prevent productive users having a few opinionated remarks on their user page. JoshuaZ 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree in this case although there has to be a line somewhere between permitted commentary and polemics. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think Wikipedia is not the place for such campaigning. Expressing one's views or biases plainly is one thing, openly soapboxing is another entirely. Vassyana 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The question should surely be "could this be described as inflammatory" and I am sure that for some people, this one could be. (Note that the current version has been edited to remove the polemic statement). ELIMINATORJR 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly seen worse, but this is an inappropriate use of user space. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Let him have a free homepage elsewhere. Friday (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again this isn't a large homepage devoted to a topic, it is a section of a userpage which has a variety of other items on it. The drive to remove it seems to be causing far more disruption than the banner did. JoshuaZ 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

More censorship. Great. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it; it seems well within the level of expression permitted in userspace. Similar issues have come up elsewhere recently (for example, a now-banned troll took it upon himself to edit User:El_C's userpage using the same rationale). Nearly anything "could be described as inflammatory" to someone, somewhere; if that's our standard, then there will be an awful lot of userpage blanking. I don't like the precedent we're setting here. Using a userpage to push a fringe or inherently offensive (e.g. racist) agenda is one thing. Using it to express a mainstream political belief should probably fall under the "wide latitude" that WP:USER generally allows people in their userspace. More importantly, I think the harm done by unilaterally policing established user's userspace for this sort of not-especially-offensive commentary far outweighs any benefit to the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the banner. It isn't soapboxing to firmly (yet briefly) assert an opinion, and user pages are a fine place for that. Really, what's it hurting? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're being nice to Jim (see below)? But I agree. It seems we have a few individuals more interested in censoring than in contributing to the project. This is hurting no one, and we have articles that have NPOV problems, factual errors, and who knows what else. Seems like this is a great use of bandwidth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, I'm judging the case based on its merits, not based on the people involved. And on the merits, the banner is a non-issue, in my opinion. I'd say the same if it was Videus Omnia with a "Support President Bush or you're a fop with a speech impediment" banner. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears Dave Souza deleted the statement about "mission accomplished" becoming "Nothing accomplished" as it was here. Frankly I didn't see a problem with it one way or the other. But as it presently exists, e.g., here, I see even less of a problem. It's his opinion and his user talk page. It's not an ad hominem against a user, not even an ad hom against anyone, but rather is a personal statement directed at a situation presently occurring in the world, and in disagreement with the 2003 assessment made by GW Bush. Obviously others disagree with what the statement implies. It's his opinion, his talk page and I think he's entitled to make the statement of fact and also to display his opinion of that very unfortunate situation on his talk page. At least, that's my opinion... Kenosis 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it the war related banner? I don't have any problem with it either.. (plus he erased it) what if we don't like the crab you have on your user pages.. should we erase it? He is not insulting anyone.. is very informative.. Been there done that.. seen that!--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As an interim compromise to end an edit war I commented out the "Mission Nothing accomplished" heading to the banner, but in my opinion it's well within being a reasonable statement of personal opinion, is at most arguably "polemic" and should stay. The removal of the banner without prior discussion was incivil and a good way of inflaming an unnecessary argument. Going through user pages and deleting statements of user opinion on the grounds that they might upset some unduly sensitive people who look away when the news comes on is a sheer waste of time and goodwill. My opinion is that the banner should be restored forthwith. .. dave souza, talk 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC) minor correction 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone explain why we spend so much time censoring each other. If it was out and out racism, a commercial statement, or something equally heinous, delete it away. Get rid of it. Hell, I'll stand right there helping out. But a political statement? I've read WP:SOAP, despite the you-can't-fucking-read and uncivil commentary left on my talk page, I don't think this even slightly qualifies as soapboxing. Probably offended some Republicans maybe. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to need to have these conversations every once in a while to reinforce this sort of thing. I do not believe users should be allowed to be overly provocative or deliberately offensive in their user space, but the standard should be what a reasonable person would be offended by, not what an easily offended person might be offended by. Thatcher131 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue is intent: any statement intended mainly to be polemical is inappropriate for user pages. The only acceptable uses of user pages are those that further the encyclopedic goals of the project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the party. Of course, the person who decided to remove it for specious reasons, could have at least asked me about it prior to arbitraily removing it (shall I go to his page and see if anything "offends" me, and if it does, remove it? -- nah, too childish). If it was truly a vio (which it wasn't), I would have removed it (hell, I wouldn't have put it there in the first place). It's certainly becoming clear to me why a lot of good editors have left Wikipedia, or else significantly reduced the time they spend on the project. Such behaviour as removing what is really a brief commentary from a user page is extraordinarily puertile if not infantile, especially given that there wasn't even an attempt to discuss the issue. I do not suffer fools gladly, and I am begining to sense many fools on Wikipedia. (OK, tag this for incivility, I really don't care, I come from a long line of folks who find telling it as it is preferable to blowing smoke up someones ass, or acting contrite when no contrition is merited)

Quadell, Dave, Kenosis, OM, MastCell and Josh, I thank you for your comments and your support, and I certainly second Dave's opinion on restoring said banner forthwith. •Jim62sch• 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel a polemical statement should be included on your user page? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's an expression of opinion about a current event, in fact an opinion that is shared by a large fraction of the public worldwide and even in the U.S. It's not like he said "death to the [Zionist|Mohammedan|American|Luxembourgish] scum" or something like that. Conservatives can have quotes from Ayn Rand, User:El_C can have a pic of his hero, and so on. As for benefit to the encyclopedia I find these noninflammatory disclosures of viewpoint help to give some personality to anonymous editors; they're useful as expressions of where an editor is coming from. Raymond Arritt 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find the statement on Jim's page offensive (and I'm probably one of the users who would theoretically be offended by it, according to those who would like to remove it). The fight over removal/retention is more disruptive than the statement, IMHO. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think the issue is offensiveness. Unarguable polemical statements like "Convicted murderers should face justice!" if written in a large font at the top of the page are inappropriate as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are sermons by Sun Myung Moon appropriate? ...... dave souza, talk 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

this does not strike me as likely to give offense to anyone reasonable--the existence of different views on the matter is well understood. It's minor. Removing it without discussion seems WP:POINT and, frankly, deliberately aggressive. DGG (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a polemical statement, but I'm personally not offended by it, but I question the good faith of anyone who says we need more human beings dead, despite wherever their from. Maybe I was reading that the wrong way, I'm not sure. At first glance it appeared the read that more Americans should die, to compensate for the large number of Iraqi's dead, but on a second glance it might mean that too many people have died. Either way, it's a polemical statement, nothing worth the edit war. — Moe ε 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be some confusion, let me explain: the banner is a statement on the futility and sadness of war, especially one of choice, and speaks to the fact that 4 years and almost 4 months after the war was officially declared over, there are still brave men and women and innocent civilians being killed. These are sacrifices that need to be remembered, not swept under a rug. Yes, I disagree with the war (hence VO's point that he could be one of the people who could theoretically be offended) but I do support the soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc., who are just doing their duty and serving their country (hence the reason (I guess) that VO isn't offended). Everytime I hear of another death I am both angered and saddened.

Now, on my talk page I mentioned the irony of the use of the word polemical given its etymology. For those of you who don't know, polemical derives from the Greek πόλεμος (polemos), war. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for giving that explanation. Despite it's tragic irony, it's a polemical statement. Nonetheless, edit warring over this silly thing is unproductive (refering to those removing it). — Moe ε 10:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hell, a lot of user boxes are polemical (not that I really want to raise that damned issue from the dead). Had I written a long rant on my page, I could see folks getting upset. That I was able, in a few words, to (for the most part) get my point across should be no biggie, and removing it without discussion was far more uncivil than anything I've ever written (yes, I do have my moments). This whole process has been silly and could have been avoided via discussion. •Jim62sch• 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He could just as easily have put a little userbox that says "this user opposes the war in Iraq" and then had a separate banner listing the very same facts of the war dead. Someone has too much time on their hands, or is a Bush die-hard, to be fretting over this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand (talk · contribs), presumably BetacommandBot

Is now tagging user subpages for deletion en mass, for no particular reason--69.118.235.97 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is very bizarre, I'll try to contact him on his talk page. This is really weird.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Im nuking userspace cruft. β^_command 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Three of those user sub pages are backup copies of archival templates for the reference desk--69.118.235.97 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And most admins are loathe to speedy things like sandbox pages in userspace, anyways. --Haemo 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit rate looks too slow to be a bot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the tagging because I honestly wasn't sure. But are all those mostly clutter? Some are sandboxes.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, these pages appear harmless. I suggest that tagging this type of pages, even if the tags were earned (which is very debatable at best), really is not a high priority. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Im what Im doing is tagging nonsense pages, and PRODing per policy. these pages havent been edited in months, these are pages created by users who have since left the project. Most of these pages havent been edited in over a year. β^_command 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At least 3 are currently being used as templates for the reference desk, and belong to a user who has edited as recently as within the last few weeks.--69.118.235.97 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy aside, what is the benefit to Wikipedia to deleting these pages? -Chunky Rice 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're prods, anyone who objects can certainly remove it, but I too fail to see any urgency in this. Unless it's an attack page or something of the sort, dormant userspace pages don't really do any harm. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it looks to me as though this will be far more work than worthwhile, and could cause more harm than good. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially since this is not even saving Wikipedia disk space, since we keep all deleted article revisions, and new revisions are being created because of the prod tags! Cleaning up harmless pages in userspace is pretty close to the end of the useful tasks possible to do on Wikipedia; Betacommand, I'd encourage you to go and find something that's a little bit more urgent a problem, and/or less likely to annoy someone. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles being disruptive

First off: this user comments in many pop culture articles AFD debates (many of which I strongly feel he hasn't even seen the article of). His comments such as "keep per.." are a constant in AFDs, even though people have told him several times to stop doing that. Plus his other random AFD keep comments such as "it has good images, so keep it" aren't very useful. People have told him about policies: yet he doesn't think he should have to read them (or simply doesn't want to follow them). Another reason for keep he's given is something along the lines of "my students find it useful, so keep the article". Secondly: he has had various issues with video game images. He claims it's alright to just take a picture of a video game box, and then stick it wherever even if it's not correct (or free use and so on). People have told him numerous times about this: yet he continues to upload images that are incorrect. Also he's claimed to take a break from AFDs: yet he still continues to actively comment in just about any "fictional" or "pop culture" article that is nominated. Making false promises, doesn't help things out. I suggest someone needs to mentor him, or he needs to be watched closely. Other than those issues, he doesn't seem to be a trouble maker or vandal (from what I see at least). RobJ1981 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this post incredibly unfair and perhaps retaliatory, because I have participated in some AfDs that RobJ1981 created ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) and that many other users have indicated their intentions to "keep" as well. Moreover, you'll notice that other editors also post "keep per X" kinds of posts as well. Finally, as regards that particular criticism, please also remember that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is "not a policy or guideline and editors are not bound by its advice." In some of these discussions, few editors outside of User:Otto4711 and a couple others actively push for deletions. I have greatly reduced my participation in AfDs (check my edits for today, for example, and you'll see maybe 50 or so "welcome" and other article improvement edits for every AfD I've participated in. Someone (RobJ1981) who keeps nominating articles for deletion that a good number of fellow editors think should be kept might also benefit from re-reading policies. I replied to EVERY post RobJ1981 made on my talk page, but he continues to post there apparently ignoring my replies and efforts to discuss with him. Rob made this post at 21:53, 30 August 2007. I replied at 22:06, 30 August 2007]. As my edit history shows, after reading and replying to Rob's post, I have NOT participated in any additional AfDs. Yet, all of a sudden, I go to my talk page to see this post!? Why would you bring me here when a) I responded to your initial post and b) did not and have not posted in any AfDs since the last one I did which was at least a couple of hours before he even made the 21:53 post? You posted a comment. I replied and I have not posted in any AfDs since and even those I did earlier was while working with my mentor to learn how to contribute successfully in those discussions. Your behavior in this regard seems like a personal attack based on ideological grounds. Rob even suggested I get a mentor in his most recent post, which obviously ignores the fact that I do have a mentor in administrator Chaser, whom I have discussed many edits with on my talk page as any quick glance of my talk page would show. In fact Chaser is CURRENTLY mentoring me regarding AfDs! I do not "continue" to upload images that are considered inappropriate. Please look at my images and when I uploaded them in regards to any comments. I have replied to any posts about images on my pages and am happy to discuss and learn about what is acceptable. Rob, you are assuming bad faith out of your disagreements with me over popular culture articles, and are not accurately reflecting my efforts to work with my mentor (Chaser) to see how to better participate in AfDs or to try different ways of acceptable image use. Take for example the Reel Fishing images. After being cautioned about the close up image, being removed, I instead tried a further away not as good quality picture that did not just focus on the covers. I similarly instead of the close up of the Lethal Enforcers game cases, tried one of the game cartridge and light guns. Please check my image log history. After Image:Lethal Enforcers for SNES and PS.jpg and Image:All three Reel Fishing games.jpg were deleted, the ONLY two images I uploaded afterwards were the lower quality ones that did not highlight game box art: Image:Reel fishing games with special controller.jpg and Image:Lethal Enforcers and justifiers for SNES.jpg. In other words, I received input on images, and I worked to adjust the images to better follow policy. I would be happy to discuss whether or not these photos are instead better and these are the ONLY two photos I uploaded after the three were deleted a few hours back. For what it is worth, I have just asked an admin if the two new images are more along the lines of what would be acceptable and am awaiting his response. Please accurately reflect what is happening. Should I criticize you for constantly nominating "in popular culture" articles that a sizable percentage of the community obviously want kept? I am happy to cut back my time at AfDs even more than I have and to wait and see what an experienced editor thinks of the two new photos I uploaded today, but calling good faith edits undertaken in a civil manner "disruptive" is insulting and uncalled for, especially when I have sought mentorship and am trying (and learning) a variety of different ways to edit constructively on this site. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When this user first came to WP, I thought many of his AfD comments showed insufficient thought, supporting the inclusion of both worthy and patently unworthy articles, and, being myself one arguing frequently for inclusion, I thought such a pattern totally unhelpful, and I told him so, on and off wiki. Over time I think his comments have gradually become somewhat more thoughtful. The discussions on popular culture have been exceptionally divisive and bitter, and once more I find GRC supporting the same articles I do. I myself give very extended analyses at times, as do some of the people taking the other position. But the debates have however become somewhat repetitive, with the people urging deletion using essentially the same arguments for all articles, often identically the exact same words on dozens of articles, without necessarily showing the understanding of the difference between acceptable articles and unimportant subjects. When this user first came to WP, I thought many of his AfD comments showed insufficient thought, supporting the inclusion of both worth and patently unworthy articles, and, being myself generally an inclusionist, I thought such a pattern totally unhelpful, and the sort of thing that does not aid rational inclusion of what is appropriate, and I said so. Over time I think they have gradually become somewhat more thoughtful. The discussions on popular culture have been exceptionally divisive, and I find GRC often supporting the same articles I do. I myself give very extended analyses at times, almost as long as some of the people taking the other position. The arguments have however become somewhat repetitive, with the people urging deletion using often the same words for dozens of articles, and it is understandable that those on the other side might do the same. I try to resist the temptation, and the necessary custom-fitted replies have been taking over an hour a day. I do not expect everyone to have the same degree of intensity abut this as I. But I do wish he'd give fuller explanations that would help convince people more effectively. I've told him so several times. I too do not think "my students find it useful" a good argument. I've seen lots of bad arguments from both sides in thse and most other AfDs. If we brought everyone who said Idontlikeit, or metoo to AN/I, we'd turn into Deletion Review part Two. .... Possibly this will be discounted because we often support the same articles, but then the previous comment should be discounted for always opposing on many articles. As for images, I have not been following those discussions. DGG (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I appreciate your fair and constructive feedback. I am holding off uploading any new images until I hear from User:Golbez and I hadn't even posted in any AfDs for at least two hours before Rob made this post to my talk page, which I replied to and after which I have not posted anything in any AfDs in the first place. I will discuss AfDs further with Chaser and since you seem to be quite experienced with them as well, I will take your good faith advice to heart should I ever participate in any more in the future. I also wish that Rob's comments on my few postings in AfDs lately would have better reflected the diverse way in which I handle myself as I did here when I even provided some links that I thought could be helpful or here when I linked to essays that I thought made appropriate arguments applicable to that discussion. Again, though, I am awaiting image feedback from Golbez and AfD strategy feedback from Chaser. Maybe a useful idea would be for someone to suggest a random AfD for me to participate in and to practice making a solo argument and then received feedback from my mentor on what to improve on? Finally, I strongly agree with what DGG has said about the divisiveness of the in popular culture AfDs. I've noticed the same users nominating these and the same ones almost immediately posting similarly worded "delete" rationals in practically all of them. Perhaps the community should set up a special page for a discussion on these kinds of things as we obviously don't have consensus in the AfDs and I think a lot of us are either nominating articles just because they're "in popular culture" and wanting to keep them as well. I fear that both sides are pushing POINT a lot as well and so maybe a separate policy discussion needs to take place? Just some ideas and thanks again for the feedback, DGG. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm Roi's mentor/adopter.) I'm not sure what kind of administrative action Rob expects regarding AFD comments. We don't usually take action against editors for poor arguments at AFD even if the arguments are against deletion policy (which applies to articles, not editors). As Rob said, "Many of [Roi's] 'keep per whoever' AFD comments aren't even going to go noticed by the person that closes the debate." We similarly weigh arguments and give policy higher value at DRV. As to the images, I agree those are a problem, one that I brought up with Roi yesterday. Now I'm off to resolve that issue.--Chaser - T 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback; I will, as always, abide by your advice. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Le Grand Roi used to be disruptive - it's also true that he's obtained mentorship, sought advice, and made significant progress. If there's a complaint to be made about his behavior now, please base it upon diffs of his recent actions. Durova^Charge! 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, I appreciate your feedback and guidance over the past couple of months. I am, of course, about outraged to see this discussion here for the various reasons I included in my posts above and have been having a pleasant email discussion with Chaser regarding AfDs, which as you'll see from my edit history are an incredibly small fraction of my contributions as of late. You'll also notice from my talk page that Chaser and I are actively seeking feedback on how to tag images. I find this thread to have been posted in incredibly bad faith when it concerns matters that my mentor and I are in the process of reviewing and when they are a relatively minor aspect of my contributions as of late. Again, I thank you for your response and am as always appreciative of any constructive comments you have. Also, I have participated in the RfA of an individual that you nominated. I have only participated in a few of these thus far and would appreciate any feedback if my posting there is "good" or "appropriate", i.e. if that is the way to go in those discussions. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my advice to you has always been to tread lightly at AFD. Likewise, I ask other editors to cite recent diffs if they see problems: Le Grand Roi has been attempting to do what I ask of any formerly banned editor - make a productive return. We've always known he's an inclusionist. If he's learned to keep that within the realms of policy-compliant inclusionism then there isn't a problem. Durova^Charge! 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, I have consulted with two admins regarding how to phrase my AfD posts in the future and after receiving their feedback last night and this morning, I have participated in this discussion. You'll note that I use references and a much more elaborate argument. I hope that this approach is better and I look forward to continuing to improve. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451 (pt.2)

This was brought up here a few days ago and User:Fahrenheit451 was warned here to cease his aggressive and insulting behavior, but it's still continuing. See here. First he accuses me yet again of being in the cofs (Church of Scientology) then states (apropos of absolutely nothing) "We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender." (he now refers to me as "WPD" after being ordered to stop calling me "Trixi".)

Further, he followed up a warning I gave to a tendentious editor with this comment linking to a frankly paranoid and bizarre screed about OSA Agents working undercover at Wikipedia, and the edit summary "defense against the badgering". This sort of paranoid vendetta from someone I don't even know and who doesn't know me at all is really beginning to freak me out. wikipediatrix 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: In revenge, he's now placed a complaint below that my complaint here is false, even though he himself is linking to the very diff that shows him calling my religious affiliation, my motives for editing Wikipedia, and even more bizarrely, my gender into question for no apparent reason, as well as having the nerve to call another editor "uncivil" for defending me against his insults. This is increasingly frightening and disturbing. I want this person to stop making insults and insinuations at me and about me, directly and indirectly.wikipediatrix 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG deleted the rant wikipediatrix refers to as a bad use of userspace. ThuranX 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikipediatrix false reports on AN/I

Wikipediatrix harassed and badgered a user with a very uncivil comment. My comments were to the user who I have edited with and did not address her. Her post above is nothing short of a violation of WP:NPA.--Fahrenheit451 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the thread from the false accusations WPD made in the first paragraph of the posting here:[13]--Fahrenheit451 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I comment that WPD's "update" is more of the same attempt to create problems for me with false accusations.--Fahrenheit451 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that WPD and I have a mediation. Hopefully, this will settle the ongoing animosity.--Fahrenheit451 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

However, in the citation above, you wrote: « We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender. » Wikipediatrix has very clearly stated that she is a woman and not a Scientologist. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Your unsubstantiated insinuations are of no interest on WP. --Mathsci 07:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of

"What part of "do not use abbreviations of the editors username", and "do not use them in a familiar manner" are you having difficulty understanding? ... LessHeard vanU 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"

are you still having difficulty with? The editors name is wikipediatrix. You have been requested by both wikipediatrix and myself to not use abbreviations. LessHeard vanU 09:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)(struck per below. LessHeard vanU 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I am not a party to this discussion, but I'm curious what policy you're citing? There's nothing in NPA about it, and I've been called BB a number of times without incident. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. Fahrenhiet451 has been requested not to use abbreviations of wikipediatrix's username by the editor following instances when she considered he used them in an inappropriately familiar manner which she found to be unsettling. When I warned Fahrenheit451 regarding the harassment I specifically requested he keep his language formal, including using the concerned editors full username. LessHeard vanU 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Ironically, your misspelling of his own username runs the risk of turning up the heat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my typo's are generally to be found in the most inappropriate places... ;~) Sorted, cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really object to being called "WPD", although that may confuse other editors in the course of discussions - I do object to being called "Trixi", I do object to him calling it "badgering" when I ask another editor not to edit-war and to start using talk pages and edit summaries, I do object to his insinuations about my gender, I do object to being accused of being a Scientologist, I do object to being accused of being in the OSA. I'm not interested in going thru any drawn-out mediation rigamarole, I just want Fahrenheit451 to stop saying these things. Am I way off base for expecting that? wikipediatrix 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(I have struck my earlier comment per yours above. I would, however, suggest that in requesting Farenheit451 - and I've just noticed I've been transposing the "ie" - adopt a formal tone in your discussions that he doesn't use abbreviations; both for clarity and to stop precedent.LessHeard vanU 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

"Way off base"? no. Likely to get it? dubious. he ought to back off, but if he didn't the first time, and he's not the second time, as this section he opened proves, it's unlikely he's going to change soon. that said, I'd like to hear from him again in this section, regarding the discussion that's ongoing. ThuranX 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a mediation on an scientology-related article that has had a loong history of hostile edit-warring. WPD is one of the editors of that article. My aim is to get all the editors there in a mediated discussion to work out whatever differences we need to. WPD is welcome to participate and, I think, would benefit by the discussion. I project that a successful mediation on this particular article will improve editor relations for all article of that genre. Now to respond to some of the points above: I really got that WPD dislikes "trixi" and no longer use it. Curiously, another editor has called her "trix" and I saw no protest. I am often refered to as F451 and could care less. In the above thread, LessHeard vanU has called me Farenheit451 and Fahrenhiet451, both of which are mispellings. I am not offended. On this wiki, I have known one editor who represented themself as a male, and another who represented themself as a female. We made telephone contact later and I found that they were the opposite gender of their wiki personas. So, unless I know someone here in real life, I don't believe or disbelieve what they may claim about themselves. That has nothing to do with WP:AGF as malice is not presumed. That is simply healthy skepticism. Assuming my use of he/she is an act of belligerence is not appropriate. Employing a formal tone is a constructive suggestion, but I encourage wikipediatrix (I typed it out) to mediate at this point to clear up basic misunderstandings, even if she views it as "rigamarole". --Fahrenheit451 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange conduct by user Jasonstrayer

User:Jasonstrayer created Prisoner Dilemna Enhanced. User:BURNyA for obvious reasons tagged it db-nonsense, and so I deleted it. His reactions are in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Deletion Of The Prisoner Dilemma Enhanced : Abuse Of Power, Report To Higher Power etseq. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Prisoner_Dilemna_Enhanced note the two slightly different user names: both seem to be very new accounts: sockpuppeting? Anthony Appleyard 04:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. These accounts are obviously held by the same person, but I doubt the second one was created in an attempt to dupe anyone or abuse multiple accounts. It could be that Strayer lost the password to one of the accounts and had to create a new one. As for the deleted article and repeated pleading, why not just provide the deleted text and tell him to work on it off-wiki? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As for his request... I would recommend granting it. Restore the page and move it into his user space... then delete it in a few weeks. That should give him plenty of time to get his text saved somewhere else and do whatever it is he wants to do with it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I emailed a copy of it to him. Anthony Appleyard 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RMS Titanic

The entire page of RMS Titanic. I believe to PROBABLY be(Im not sure with this history of an article thing, I've only been around as a big funtioning member of Wiki. for 4 months) User:Wildhartlivie. Check it out please. Im not accusing him, yet.Philippe Auguste 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I for the life of me can't figure out why nothing is showing up on the page. I've tried restoring the text, but I can't get it to show up. I think it's something in the embedded warning at the beginning. Some help, would be appreciated. AniMate 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it.  east.718 at 05:38, August 31, 2007 

Um... it still isn't showing up. AniMate 05:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Viewing old revisions of the page, it's all blank. I'll look through the templates that transclude onto the page and see if one of those was messed up. WODUP 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how (the diff shows no diff.), but it looks okay now. WODUP 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. AniMate 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the blank page too, it'll show me diffs indicating changes but a blank page all the same. Anynobody 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? Anyone workout what the problem is? Viridae^Talk 06:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

its the hidden text. i think its gotta go. it useful, but its hurting the article. nat^tang 06:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...there's not hidden text and its still gone. nat^tang 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed... :-D nat^tang 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't view it, but now I can. Either it's fixed or the problem comes and goes. --Bongwarrior 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gone again... --Bongwarrior 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it either, so I've removed the resolved banner. AniMate 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be intermittent. I saw the page normally not ten minutes ago. (I was looking at its logs and wondering why the article looked blank when its most current revision (10:52 PM PST today) showed a change). Could it be a bug with the article? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Conflicted four times

The source now shows nothing where the content should be. My version was also fine after a purge, but now it's broken.  east.718 at 06:34, August 31, 2007 

I can frigging see it in its entirety! The frag?! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Intermittent viewing. I don't have to change anything, just keep hitting the preview button. . .sometimes it shows up, sometimes it doesn't (exact same text each time). R. Baley 06:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC) addendum: same thing happens with version (05:46, 29 August 2007 Morhange) signed again R. Baley 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Main article page is working for me, but some of the recent versions show up as blank and then show up as the full article next time I look at them which is quite bizarre. Of all the pages to have a curse on it. Any tech-wise folks know what's up?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using the history tab. I'm looking at the actual article page, and it's still here for me! This has to be a bug. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing it as well. The question is will anyone be able to see the article if someone tries to edit it again. AniMate 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dropped a line at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Occasional blank page at RMS Titanic. It's not a HTML bug because nothing is being rendered. {{otheruses4}} might be commenting out the entire pages but other pages with this template still work, so it's probably a server bug or something. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to work with decimal coordinates. Of course, it points to a blank spot in the ocean, so there are no relevant maps or aerial photos making the excercise rather pointless. Thatcher131 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Philip(inthe short term I guess) SCREWED UP. I went to far ahead of my and made it sound like I was accussing him. Boy am I an idiot. Oh shame. To User:Wildhartlivie I am very sorry. And take back what I said earlier. I am VERY, very, very, very, sorry. If theres anything I can do to make it up to you, let me know. Sorry.Philippe Auguste 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted interwiki

Unregistered user, User:91.150.77.43 has deleted the interwiki on five articles, although that interwiki linked to existing articles on hr.wiki. Vandalizing edits were this [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18], all on the same day, 28 Aug 2007., in a short period of time, of eight minutes. That gives the idea that he edited Wikipedia for the sole reason of vandalising. Here's a list of his edits Special:Contributions/91.150.77.43. Kamarad Walter 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a run-of-the-mill POV warrior to me. I've reverted him for now, but didn't leave him a warning.  east.718 at 07:28, August 31, 2007 

[edit] Admin User:Hu12 accusing me of 'personal attacks against policy'

[edit] User:Goethean

Could someone please explain to Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) how these contributions: [19][20][21][22][23] to what is otherwise a civil discussion are in violation of AGF, CIV, NPA, and treading into WP:HARASS? He clearly intends to continue to rub the CU thing in my face whenever he sees an opportunity, even though I removed any reference to that web site from my user page a while back. (See last diff, where he drags it out of my user page edit history, after he was encouraged by Gamaliel to be a little more respectful). I would request the deletion of my user page and then recreate it to avoid these incidents, but then he would likely start posting diffs out of the history of my RfA. I no longer wish to associate with that website on-wiki. I have made very few contributions there in the past months, and have committed most of my online time to Wikipedia. I shouldn't have to tolerate these constant cheap shots. - Crockspot 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) - User notified of this incident report. - Crockspot 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism at AfD

I've nommed an article, some guy doesn't like it so he keeps doing this- [24][25][26]. Help! Bravedog 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like vandalism. It looks more like a bad faith nomination. Maybe you shouldn't nominate the articles of obviously notable people for deletion. --Onorem♠Dil 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a civil user either [27], afding Jimmy Wales is not in good faith and the afd was closed as a rapid keep. Not the first time this user hasd done this. I explained to them that we cant be wasting editors time on an afd on a narticle that wont have a chance of being deleetd, SqueakBox 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD was speedy closed.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat

Diff link - Not merely a "legal threat" but a notice of pending litigation. Please indefinitely block. --Iamunknown 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Bouncehoper by Violetriga

Violetriga (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) just blocked Bouncehoper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for three minutes because of "edit warring". These two are engaged in a long-standing dispute over the usage of "sophomore" in various articles, and as evident from their contributions, they have both engaged in mass revert warring over this issue (and Violetriga abused her admin rollback tool). Administrators shouldn't block editors with whom they are in dispute. And this block was for three minutes, which makes it look punitive, rather than preventative. Melsaran (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We discussed and agreed a WikiProject guideline at WP:MUSTARD. Bouncehoper systematically went through my contributions and undid all my edits despite that agreement. The block was a very short one to finally get him to discuss it rather than continuing the edit war and came after numerous messages asking him to stop on his talk page. It worked and we are now trying to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it only worked to scare the crap outta me. Was that the idea?

And as Violetriga has glossed over, I was making an effort to discuss, when she/he came onto my talk page and started getting crazy. I was only reverting their stuff because they were deeming it an "Americanism" and not bothering to link it, which would have been more beneficial than just deleting it and calling it something it's not.

Bouncehoper 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If he was blindly reverting he should certainly have been blocked briefly if that was the only way to get him to engage in discussion. It might have been a good idea to avoid even the appearance of personal involvement, by bringing the systematic reverts to the attention of other administrators who could discuss and take whatever action was considered necessary in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that

it would probably have been better to have an uninvolved admin to step in, but as it was happening at a fast pace I thought it appropriate to do it myself. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They were both blindly reverting across something like 30 articles today, and the same yesterday and last week. (90 or more reverts, but never 4 in one day, of course.) Blocking someone you are edit warring with is forbidden, even just to get their attention. Use of rollback in an edit war over content is forbidden. Edit warring over something as petty as the use of the word "sophomore" to indicate someone's second album shows poor judgement for an administrator. This is really inappropriate behavior for an admin. Thatcher131 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party. A block would be inappropriate if it were lengthy - this wasn't. Using rollback was acceptable, I feel, because my edit would only have served the same function and what he was doing was against our behaviour guideline (wikistalking). violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If as Thatcher131 says you were both reverting one another across multiple articles, well it's probably just a stroke of luck for you that nobody stepped in and blocked you both. That's very disruptive behavior, if Thatcher131 has it right, and saying "it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party" is missing the point. If the reverts happened often enough for someone to say "yesterday and last week" then that's too much warring. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid making generalizations here. 4 reverts in 24 hours is still a razor wire. Additionally, revert warring is also not allowed, true enough. But defining revert warring can only be done case by case. There are plenty of scenarios when Tony's example above ("yesterday and last week") does not constitute revert warring at all. It takes article-writing to be able to judge this reasonably (perhaps a suggestion?). --Irpen 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking means "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor". Checking someone's contribs for the purpose of mass revert warring because you know that they do edits you disagree with is inappropriate behaviour, but not Wikistalking. As you both were engaged in that same dispute, you shouldn't have blocked him. You should have left the decision to another administrator (and I doubt that a block was justified, by the way). And yes, you didn't go anywhere near 3RR, but mass-reverting each other over tons of articles is disruptive as well. 3RR is not an entitlement, edit warring can still be disruptive when you don't violate it. Melsaran (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What Bouncehoper did was to follow me around the wiki, edit the same articles as me, with the intent of causing annoyance. He wikistalked. The block was not a punishment but an attempt to stop the edit war that he was creating - if I had blocked for longer then it would be a very different story. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was most likely not with the intent of causing annoyance, but because he was engaged in an editing dispute with you. I do in no way endorse his actions, nor do I endorse yours, but a block isn't the way to handle it. Melsaran (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the rollback (I freely confess I've used rollback in "content disputes" when others have reverted already and the user's points have been debunked on the talk page: that is, when it's trolling): I can live with the block, too - but edit warring over something so petty? I mean, for that, both users probably should be blocked for 24 hours or so, if only for outstanding silliness - am I serious? Maybe :) Come on, people, this is not save-the-wiki stuff - no one needs to edit war, it can wait a day or so. Moreschi ^Talk 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't been on for a few days, and decided to check my watchlist today. Suddenly, I get all this stuff from Violetriga. What the crap?

I'm sorry about the reverting action; if it's going to cause such a headache, I just won't bother. But I originally reverted a few days ago, because Violet had not bothered to link anything as discussed.

I think we've finally come to the point that Violet's been hoping for, in that, I honestly don't give a sh*t anymore about the stupid word. This all started with trying to prove a point about the use of it, and Violet's taken much further than I had ever imagined. Screw the word; I've got more important things in my life to worry about than what someone is doing to things I've edited on Wiki.
If you feel the need to block us, whatever. I'll pop off for a day, come back, and probably have forgotten. Just as long as Violet doesn't harass me anymore, I'm fine. I'm sick of this crap, and I want. it. done.
(and lol, y'all, I'm a chick.)
Bouncehoper 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rare, noble woman! Thou hast gained a sense of proportion, and art all the better for it. Perhaps we can all disengage - forgive and forget? Moreschi ^Talk 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel bad about all of this, though I can't understand the claims of harrassment. I believe it all stems from a misunderstanding of what we agreed as, to me, it clearly states that we should avoid the word where possible. As explained my edits were going along with that and I haven't touched the ones that are already linked. If you think we need a better wording then we should discuss it at WP:MUSTARD. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see in the current MOS(?) it says "...should be avoided where possible and linked to its definition at wiktionary:sophomore when used." I see that compromise as kind of "leave it where it is, and avoid using it further." At least, so far as editors are aware of this guideline. It seems to me the least change necessary would be to link instances where's it's currently in use (and unlinked), not remove them. In fact, I'm honestly not sure why it would go the other way. I'm quite confused here. --InkSplotch 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS says a lot of silly things; this is one of them. Where? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)It's from WP:MUSTARD. For other hasty readers, this is strictly the use for albums. It's jargon, and it may be worth removing it as jargon, but revert-warring in a class of articles where many readers will understand it? Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word has been much discussed with many people saying that we shouldn't use it. The current wording is a compromise and says that we should avoid it where possible. The articles I edited benefited from the change and, since "sophomore" wasn't linked in any of them it was appropriate to change it per this compromise. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC

But it wasn't many people. It was just a few, and mostly everyone saw we were going at it, and just wanted it done. 'Sophomore' wouldn't have been linked in any of them because none of the original uses of the word were linked. Of course there would be no link if that decision had just been made. It was going to take awhile to link them anyways. You can't just say that there's no link, when beforehand there was no need of it.

Bouncehoper 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Violetriga was correct to remove these instances of the word "sophomore." In fact, I believe that it's illogical to grandfather the linked instances, and that they (excepting any direct quotes) should be removed too. It makes far more sense to simply use the word "second" than to use a word requiring a dictionary link for many readers to understand.
I also believe, however, that Violetriga's use of the administrative rollback function and three-minute block of Bouncehoper were extremely inappropriate. —David Levy 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've no opinion on the content dispute itself (and plan to militantly remain that way). My confusion just stemmed from previous experience seeing style conflicts float over to AN/I. Compromise can be hard to come by, and when some elements are left "in-between" like that it's usually seemed to me to be less contentious to grandfather them in versus deleting things. Just an impression, for which I have no real facts. I'll just say it's obvious both sides are passionate about the project, which is great, but nothing is so urgent about this dispute that everyone can't step back and flesh out the compromise y'all worked so hard for in the first place. --InkSplotch 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Violetriga's block (de minimis or otherwise) while engaged in a dispute with the blocked user was not appropriate. Please don't do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in my typical position of agreeing with Newyorkbrad. I don't care what the justification, blocking a user with whom you are engaged in a content dispute is inappropriate. - Philippe | Talk 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can even call it a content dispute. It would be natural for anyone to have the some position on the matter as Violetriga, and still come to the conclusion of blocking the user. How many times has a blocking admin agreed with "the other side" when they blocked someone, but just didn't say anything about it? Does it make it any better then?

Lets say this, a user thinks that all articles should have the first word in the article in red print, and starts to do this to tons of articles, and doesn't stop when asked to. Could you not say that it is a content dispute with those that don't think the first word should be in red print? The nature of this dispute is being ignored in this thread. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see a user being disruptive and being blocked for three minutes. Maybe if the situation wasn't obvious, I could understand Violetriga stepping back and letting someone else handle it, but this is painfully straight forward, dispute or no dispute. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A narrow comment: 3 minute blocks are never unacceptable and contradict WP:BLOCK blatantly, WP:BLOCK#Recording in the block log. If a user is a habitual stalker and an edit-warrior he may have to be blocked all right but what happened serves exactly no purpose and causes aggravation. --Irpen 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken, but for the sake of good faith, I'll assume it's more of a cool-down block than one just to write in the block log. I still stand by my other point (above), but ignoring all that, yeah, the block on its own wasn't the best idea to deescalate the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I agree with Ned Scott that the nature of the dispute is relevant, but I'd still classify this one as an editing dispute in which the block should have been done by another admin or not at all. Still, probably enough said here, with the hope this won't recur. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else mentioned it, but X marks the spot in policy: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#When blocking may not be used. Reverts, blocking for minutes, all that's not to the point, because you just don't do it as its against the rules. Easy to understand, hard to do. No excuses. Kind of hard to be fair if you're judge, jury, executioner and prosecuter all in one. You're all very civil, by the way, for not using the word s********c once, against anybody. Shows lots of restraint. TryCoolCareful 04:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

...what word?????? Bouncehoper 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop

I peeked at this again to see if things had calmed down before it rolled off the page. Peeking at vilotriga and Bouncehoper's contributions I see that not only has no further discussion occurred, it's started right back up again. Since their last posts here, Bouncehoper's up to around 4 or 5 "second->[[wiktionary:sophomore|sophomore]]" changes, and violetriga is up to twice that in "sophomore->second" changes, including reverts of Bouncehoper in a few cases. So, no one seems to be stalking anyone now, but you're still going off at cross purposes over something terribly insignificant. Can we please reach a compromise here before full scale edit waring starts or (mis)use of admin powers takes place again? Please? --InkSplotch 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This was posted to my talk page, possibly by somebody who thought I was an admin (should I be? didn't think I was ripe yet)

[edit] External Links on M.U.L.E. page violates Software Copyrights

This is complain for Wikipage on M.U.L.E. [[28]]

BLACKBEARD27K is linking to his personal Website. M.U.L.E. Software Download When that was deleted by the Admins, he is now (indirectly) linking to it via another personal Website.

(1) BLACKBEARD27K is offering, on the above Website, for download a pirated / modified / hacked version of the game M.U.L.E. without the permission of the original authors or publishers ATARI. This is a serious violation of copyright material.

(2) It is in violation of WP:EL as it is SPAM and he is trying to propagate his own web-site Forum here.

(3) Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links.

(4) Also, using common sense, no one should download any executable software from a very unreliable source (as above). Such software may contain trojans and keyloggers which steal your personal information (including Credit Card Nos & passwords)

This individual persists in reverting the deletions. I have deleted the offending link.

Hungrywolf 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

--Orange Mike 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange. The direct link was added in December 2005. It was removed a week ago. The link happens to appear within an article discussing the game, and Hungrywolf has already decided that it must be BLACKBEARD27K's site? Also...I think both might be over 3RR by now. --Onorem♠Dil 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the same two editors have been warring at the Field Commander page also. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be overly concerned. Enforcing copyright law is not our job, it is the job of the copyright holder. There's nothing illegal about linking to a page that links to a page where you can download something illicit. I'm not saying we should go overboard and link to full versions on TouTube for all movies and BitTorrent links to full downloads for all software, but I don't see this issue being so important that it needs to be brought to WP:ANI. --Cyde Weys 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By policy, we generally don't knowingly link to websites that violate copyrights. A site to illegally download a game would seem to be rather off limits, although I agree that it could probably be resolved without coming here. --B 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Our external links policy mentions about what to do about links with copyright offending materials, such as mp3's and video clips. But, it is a good idea to just avoid linking to pages which their only purpose is to download illicit goods. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone jumps into this, I have to say there's a history here. These two have been sniping at each other for weeks (they're bringing an outside feud onto Wiki). It has to do with an outside forum. The Evil Spartan 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do previously know of the other editor from the field commander forum from his posts there, but never had any feud with him. He is falsely accusing me of being someone else.Blackbeard2k7 02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen M.U.L.E. as abandonware. Are you sure Atari is the original publisher?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually i had blocked and unblocked them both yesterday after asking hungrywolf to not add links to forums especially that he acknowledges that Field Commander is a "dear subject to him". In parallel, i asked Blackbeard to not post the link to the allegedly malicious software at M.U.L.E.

Today, an established user who has been among us since 2003 User:Darkwind commented at MULE talkpage that the burden of proof lies on Hungrywolf (to prove the software is malicious). Well, i would agree w/ Darkwind though i'd be more cautious and would personally avoid such guidance. But anyway, what is clear is that Hungrywolf followed Darkbeard from FC to MULE. They were edit warring about other stuff at FC (a link to a forum dear to Hungrywolf). This user first claimed that the MULE external link is a fan site and now he says it is malicious. Fair enough. I clearly see that it is just trolling. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The user Hungrywolf has been following me around and reverting my edits, without any regard for anyone elses opinions. I'm sorry for edit warring with him, but it has gotten out of hand now, and he is Cyberstalking me, claiming to other users on Wiki that he has my address and phone # and knows where I work, etc, etc. and offering to exchange this information with them. I would like to point out a few things here: 1. I did not add the direct link to the atari mule web site. 2. the direct web site contains abandonware and freeware, and does not violate any copyrights whatsoever, nor is the software malicious in any way. It is a zip file containing an emulator with kaillera client built in, and the rom and disk image for mule, with some batch files that automatically configure the emulator to play online. One doesn't need to own the wbe site to be able to discover these facts. 3. I linked an article by a reputable source (which I posted my proof of) which describes the ability to play the game online, which coincidentally is only available at that web site and so yes, the article does have a link to the web site. Ultimately it was agreed that even the link to the article should not be added explicitly, but rather as a comment and a reference. I respect everyones opinions and so I added it as a comment with a reference. However, as you acn see, Hungrywolf has recently removed my valid reference and replaced it with an invalid one. The actual source of the abandonware files is gamespy, but the article on gamespy does not indicate how the game can be played online. In addition, the user Hungrywolf has been warned about editing peoples talk pages before and removing peoples comments from discussion pages, but if you look at my talk page, you will see he recently reverted my own edits to my own talk page, with personal attacks in the edit summaries. Additionally (yes theres more), the user Hungrywolf has in fact violated 3RR on Field Commander, without being reprimanded. I don't believe the block should have been lifted on him. He probably now believes he can get away with whatever he wants. Does any of this change your opinions?Blackbeard2k7 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problematic user; constant violation of NPOV

MoritzB (talk · contribs) has a long history of blatant POV-pushing and racist motivations. Please refer to his user talk page to get a good picture of how problematic he truly is, as is noted by so many other editors.[29] The latest offense comes from from the article on Dysgenics where he totally blanks out criticism pertaining to the alleged racist views of a particular researcher.[30]. The person edits almost entirely on race-based articles and virtually every edit is in support of a view that supports racism, where he definitely tries to push and give undue weight. Here he initiates an edit where, leading to a page block because he insisted on imposing the racist views of a Michael Levin into an article about "Afrocentrism" when the views were in no way relevant a it was not a critique of afrocentrism, not to mention that it is a fringe theory and discredited view.[31] He even defends this racist view and openly states his agreement with it, while literally fibbing and presenting the views as "mainstream", which is ridiculous.[32] On the article Race and Intelligence, the user again initiates an edit war which lead to a page block where he again, gives a fringe view from a noted racialist scientist undue weight[33], and to avoid 3rr, he was suspected as further reinforcing his view by using sock/meat puppets, which was even noted by the admin.[34]. Here, he is actually defending a blocked editor who was recently blocked for making egregious racist comments, and even justifies these comments.[35] I filed a case a while back in concern to wikistalking and pestering with tis type of racialist behavior, and personal attacks with racist overtones.[36], but I retracted it in hopes that he'd improve. As another example of what I consider undeniable pov-pushing on wikipedia, on the same page he pushes a fringe view from 1939 from another racialist scientist who is widely discredited [37], and another fringe theory which has been widely discredit by mainstream research and is on par with Alien visitation.[38]. As a part of wikistalk case a while back, he followed me to this article, merely to revert anything that I did and impose some new picture in the article with the person it was about being represented as a European-looking individual, when before hand he was represented on the page as African.[39]. He had no stake in this other than to promote his racial views imo since all of his edits were racially motivated. Here, he literally harasses User:Ramdrake merely because Ramdrake filed a case on him for sock/meat puppet.(his case), the cases he filed against Ramdrake in response (even though it was confirmed, it was out of spite and the admins made nothing of it really)[40][41] [42].

That is wiki bullying and trying to impose desired results, sneakily using every tool at his disposal to scrutinize an editor who was merely protecting against his constant and relentless pov violations. Most of what he tries to submit is very culturally sensitive stuff and offensive to many people, and I hardly ever see that type of info displayed in such a manner in any mainstream encyclopedias, so it is clear that what he's doing is in direct violation of wiki policy. I'm not sure what I'd like done, but by all means, one way or another, this needs to stop permanently, and this goes to all users who commit similar crimes.Taharqa 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While the views aren't as blatantly racist as those of another recently indef-blocked editor (mostly because they are inserted using and espousing outdated but published views), there has been a very visible record of tendentious editing and POV/edit-warring which has proven disruptive on a number of articles (I can name: Race and intelligence, St. Maurice, White people, European people, Afrocentrism, Race, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few still). This kind of behavior should deserve admin scrutiny, if it hasn't already attracted it.--Ramdrake 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that MoritzB has decided to switch his focus. Bye-bye edit wars on race-related articles but hello edit wars on homosexuality and pedophilia related articles. Technically, no 3RR or gross incivility and I don't think blocking him would do much good. Still, he's creating unnecessary tension and probably wasting a lot of time for the group of patient editors who are trying to explain WP:FRINGE to him. On the long term though, we can't have him start edit wars all over the place. It was on Michael Jackson a few weeks ago, on the race-related articles three days ago and now this. His defense after a recent block for edit warring was "I have been very careful not to violate the 3RR". Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB is also canvassing regarding that issue [43] [44] [45]. I believe a block would be appropriate. Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As would I. Moritz has not made editing on race-related articles any easier - quite the opposite. But branching out into tendentious editing on pedophilia-related articles pretty much proves he's trolling us. Edit warring, incivility, canvassing - definitely needs a block. Picaroon (t) 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that a community block should be considered in this case. This user's POV pushing has quickly become a major disruption to numerous articles. --Strothra 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. These criticisms are totally without merit. This attempt to ostracize an editor with unpopular political views is against everything a free encyclopedia should stand for. The recent article about dysgenics is a good example. I corrected a factual error and made a post to the talk page about it. [46] However, Taharqa and her friend reverted my edit without any good reason and now the article is again in a logical contradiction with the reference. [47] In other cases Taharqa simply misrepresents my opinions.MoritzB 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Totally without merit"? I think not. It is totally disruptive. This type of editing and talk page discussions is a pain by attempting to illustate a point by constant cherry picking and pushing certain POVs, WP:SYN, and a very obvious bigotry slant. This is not stormfront. Since his "buddy" editors, that were in his camp have been blocked, he's moved on to other controversial articles doing the same thing. This is very disruptive to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a soap box as this editor seems to do often. It is very frustrating and time consuming dealing with this behavior. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's pretty clear that your contributions are motivated by these unpopular political views, we do have a problem. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a soapbox: you just can't go around firing up every talk page you can find. Pascal.Tesson 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I am a conservative but it is obvious that even many Communists would endorse the edits I made. Friedrich Engels shared my views of homosexuality, Andrzej Wiercinski and other Polish and Soviet physical anthropologists agreed with my views of race which is perfectly mainstream. Even many left-wingers would say that it is reasonable that Michael Jackson's mugshot is included to the article.

Besides, the suggestion that I am from Stormfront is a terrible personal insult as I have indicated my philo-Semitism on numerous occasions.

MoritzB 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But the article isn't about your personal viewpoints on homosexuality. And, while you may want to feel included by putting your viewpoints in the article, this is a general encyclopedia, not necessarily a place to network for like-minded folks. There are plenty of places all over the net where you, with your viewpoints, could be made to feel like a welcome part of a group. Please seek one of these communities out and enjoy yourself. KP Botany 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please look at my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=154665614&oldid=154664842

I made it in good faith and quoted a 2004 peer-reviewed scientific study. No original research or personal opinions.

MoritzB 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did look at your edit. I'm also familiar with the study and subsequent research, and the researchers involved, and the journal, and other journals which published related research, including a 2006 article about this very article. I could, myself, appropriately use that article and subsequent research in various articles on Wikipedia. However, unlike you, I don't have a political agenda for Wikipedia articles, and, again, unlike you, I'm not particularly interested in the article on Homosexuality, certainly not interested enough in it and that one jounral publication and my own political agenda to connect dots in ways they don't connect, then use endless time trying to continue forcing it on folks. You've admitted your political agenda trumps acurate and neutral information. I believe you. KP Botany 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a political agenda here. However, some left-wing editors have inferred that I am a conservative and try to block me because they disagree with my opinions.

However, as I have pointed out before even many Communists could agree with my edits.

When I am constructing a new section I do so in steps adding information about scientific studies as soon as I find them. It is not helpful when others are deleting information instead of adding it. And if you note an editor immediately expressed support to my edits in the other article in question [48] and now reverted the article back to my version. [49] MoritzB 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your comments lack credibility interlaced with all of your notations about your political viewpoints. If you want to deny you have a political agenda, you simply have to leave your political agenda out of conversations. As long as you fail to do this, people will see you for what you give them to see: your political agenda. KP Botany 03:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Engels' views of homosexuality are completely irrelevant. This thread is not about whether or not you are correct in believing that there's a causality between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's about whether you have read and understood WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE which have been cited to you time and again. Pretty much all of your edits on Wikipedia have lead to edit wars and your reaction is always that this is due to left-wingers' censorship. Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that you're doing something wrong. I'm trying hard to assume you are indeed acting in good faith when you create an article like Negro problem or when you defend Fourdee or when you decide to switch to a new controversial topic once you've exhausted everyone's patience on one talk page or when you decide that [50] this is a really important thing to mention about Elbaite. But Picaroon's explanation that you're just having fun creating problems is more and more convincing. Either way, I don't think your presence on the project makes much sense. Pascal.Tesson 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I've just stumbled across this, having been working over on WP:RPP. The pedophilia article has now been fully protected due to edit-warring per request. Also, MoritzB and others have been final-warned for WP:3RR on the homosexuality and pedophilia articles - Alison ☺ 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem with the article about Negro Problem which was inter alia about the famous book of W. E. B. DuBois named the Negro problem and Gunnar Myrdal's book. Just a Google search is enough to establish the notability of the phrase. There is also an article about the Jewish Question which was a Nazi concept. The article should be restored. MoritzB 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was this version which begins with The phrase 'Negro problem' has been used to refer to the problems caused by the presence of blacks in the New World, especially in the United States (which in essence establishes the fact that the presence of blacks is a problem) then follows up with a lenghty quote about the disastrous consequences of miscegenation. It also happens to be a fork of African American history and Race in the United States. Pascal.Tesson 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please make the appropriate changes. Do not delete an article which clearly satisfies WP:NOTE Also, I put there a longer quote about the desirability of miscegenation. It was a historical concept and historical views are also relevant. I also included the Marxist perspective. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1948/revolutionary-answer.htm

MoritzB 07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to "fix" a content fork. Pascal.Tesson 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungrywolf

I am not sure where to go at this point to resolve the issues I am having with Hungrywolf (talk · contribs). The user has been making false accusations against me, reverting my edits, and ignoring all discussion and third opinions. This is going on for over a week already. He has gone so far as to revert edits I've made on my own talk page, now making personal attacks "Let everyone see what u are". I need some serious administrative intervention here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blackbeard2k7&diff=154749794&oldid=154746104 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbeard2k7 (talk • contribs)

Blocked for 72h because of edit warring at your talkpage especially that he was blocked before and that he has got many other warnings from admins. You are also blocked for 48h because you just came from a 24 block edit warring yesterday. You were both edit warring at M.U.L.E. today as well. Do not edit war whatever is the case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved. You lifted your 72h block against Hungrywolf, and he immediately continued to revert my edits, make false accusations against me, and is now Cyberstalking me, petitioning on other users talk pages claiming to have and offer personal information about me. I would not consider this resolved until the user is re-blocked for his obvious disruptive and uncivil behavior.Blackbeard2k7 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I left him a clear message at M.U.L.E talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranga

An extra eye on this article would be nice. I had to go back around 30 revisions just to bring this page back to the disambig page that it was. Semi-protection, if for a little while, might also serve to improve the situation. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. How did all that slip through? Agreed on the semiprotection, so, done. Neil ム 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just as surprised. It had been mutilated into a whole mess of an article with images and a section noting the "creators" of the page. Thanks for the SP. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! Same with the article red hair, which is a constant target of vandalism. I'm mystified as to why, though - Alison ☺ 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think Blonde would attract more vandalism. hbdragon88 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP Vandalism on this page

We have had a series of problems with an unknown editor which is using various IP's (usually in the 6's, though the last edit was in the 7 range) adding the following to the Talk:Miley Cyrus page (which is already protected)...

"I bet every inch of Miley Cyrus tastes like candy"

Is it possible the user is operating as a sockpuppet master? WAVY 10 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore... rinse and repeat as necessary. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that important, but I seem to remember that form of words "...like candy" coming up at a previous noticeboard. Sockpuppetry or returning vandal, I concur with WRE. LessHeard vanU 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got you now. The only reason I brought it up here was that this was continuous vandalism. WAVY 10 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

EVula has blocked the address. They requested an unblock. Want to guess what the unblock reason was? LessHeard vanU 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See comment in quotes for my guess. WAVY 10 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You win a stick of candy. LessHeard vanU 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another "fan" of Miley Cyrus has appeared. - 69.150.84.197 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS).
I'm assuming we don't need to issue any warnings before blocking as an obvious sock. --Onorem♠Dil 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Block on sight. That's the only way to lick 'em! LessHeard vanU 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone's going to have to explain this whole Miley Cyrus obsession thing to me one day. Meanwhile, a quick Google search turns up the following:

• Cinder Maiden (talk · contribs)
• Prettykittyinachair (talk · contribs)
• Hannahmontana12 (talk · contribs)

Note the lack of contributions, etc. Might as well blow them up now. --Calton | Talk 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...two of the three are presumably Miley imposters. Definitely take those two (Cinder Maiden and Hannahmontana12) on. WAVY 10 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dole Sart (talk · contribs) and Sole dart (talk · contribs)

It's a little too early, and I'm not thinking clearly enough to figure out exactly what's going on here...or if any Admin interaction is even necessary.
I noticed a strange undo while recent change patrolling. A couple of names seemed very similar.
Sole dart (talk · contribs) was created in June. Dole Sart (talk · contribs) was created in August.
Both seem to be SPA's related to Northwich Victoria F.C.. It appears most of their edit histories have been reverting each other, or each other's IP's, for the last month.
CVNF (talk · contribs), Ram4eva (talk · contribs), and Eir Witt (talk · contribs) may also be involved according to the sockpuppet tags being placed. --Onorem♠Dil 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dole and Sole are socks of Eir Witt, I'd wager. CVNF and ram4Eva look like editors Eir Witt decided to go after. ThuranX 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am Dole Sart, a name deliberately like Sole Dart to draw attention to it. The pages I edit were evidently created by Eir Witt's puppets. As blocking him has no effect, I decided to irritate him. Admittedly the Northwich vics page has nothing wrong with it, but I don't see why a sock puppet should have pages for his convenience. The VICS page is incorrect as VICS is not an abbreviation of Northwich Victoria FC.

I am actually a regular editor who returned to Wikipedia earlier this year, having had a break sick of comments left on my page. Having seen how ram4Eva was treated I decided to keep an eye on the Northwich Victoria, Witton Albion, Jon McCarthy etc pages. By his own admission the vandal attacks other pages(see User:Tricky Victoria). Not wanting to suffer vandalism to my 'real' account, I created this account to protect myself. As you can see I do not edit elsewhere with it. He seems to think I am ram4Eva, maybe anybody who stands up to him gets called ram4Eva's sock puppet. Feel free to block this account and Sole Dart, but blocking him has no effect so the pages ought to be protected. My account has now achieved its aim. Dole Sart 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Irritation" is a form of harassment, and creating a secondary account for the sole purpose of irritating another user qualifies this account as an abusive sockpuppet. By Dole Sart's own admission, his account should be blocked indef. - Crockspot 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. And Dole Sart's edits are mostly accusing Sole Dart of being a sock puppet, including redirecting actual pages to Sock puppet (note, not Wikipedia:sock puppet, the actual article sock puppet). Dole Sart blocked indefinitely. Looking through Sole Dart's edits to find if they're worthwhile, but it's hard, since they really are mostly reverts of Dole Sart's edits. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. That really is all that they did, revert each other. For days and days. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a waste of time. It's obvious he's an abusive sock puppet but he lives to vandalise another day. If wikipedia isn't able to protect itself against the likes of him, can you blame folk for creating additional accounts for reverting pages edited by abusive puppets. It's simple, create enough identies from different IPs and trash what ever you feel like. 86.142.103.156 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once again, RJ CG (talk · contribs)

Could someone please explain once again to RJ CG whether it is appropriate to use edit summaries such as "I feel for fragile state of your brain, but either explain your reverts or seek professional help. WP isn't shrink office." [51] or comments like "sickness of your nightmares and is more of your problem" [52]? Sander Säde 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I left this message regarding the concerns raised here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now blocked for edit warring. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism and page blanking

By IP 198.61.20.129]. Please block IP from further vandalism and account creation. See here Thanks Taprobanus 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

*COUGH* HalfShadow 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked by another admin for one month.Rlevse 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT edits disrupting AfD

Burgas00 has twice edited this entry ([53],[54]) to make some sort of WP:POINT, which thus far has mislead at least one editor on the AfD. Considering his block log and history of disruption, I'm not quite sure of how to get him to stop this behaviour, much less of how to make him appreciate why it is wrong. Perhaps someone has an idea? Tewfik^Talk 18:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Come now, Tewfik, he's trying to edit the article to make it more accurately and honestly reflect its subject matter. Feel free to note at the AfD debate that the original nominated version didn't say this - put an addendum to my nomination of you like. But don't label everything that makes you mad as WP:POINT (the most worthless and overused epithet on the site after WP:SOAPBOX). Eleland 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT and WP:AGF - he's changing the text of the article under discussion at AfD to create a massive NPOV violation that will mislead editors, and thus get them to agree with his argument. Tewfik^Talk 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page requesting that he refrain from editing the article any further until the AfD closes. In general, making highly controversial edits to an article under active discussion at AfD is a bad idea - there's no deadline, so if it's kept he can argue about it then. If he persists in editing the article, I think a block (until the AfD closes, at least) is appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pixelface

Could someone talk to about User:Pixelface [55]? I may be over reacting, but I think it's pretty out of line. Pete.Hurd 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to also point out that I've had civility and edit-warring issues with Pixelface on Reality film, where WJBScribe was needed to be called in as a mediator. --David Shankbone 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, that makes me feel a bit better actually. Part of my concern was the nagging suspicion that the verbal abuse was at least partly to do with the fact that the topic was related to LGBT studies. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Takes two to edit war. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I assure you, Pete, that's way the f*** over the line. --Orange Mike 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The user's comment may be a bit unpleasant to the eyes, but it does seem to be just dry humor against the article up for deletion. I don't see anything really administrator-attention worthy unless he starts directing this language at other editors.. Cowman109^Talk 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to suspend WP:CIV just because the topic of discussion contains a "naughty word". This is a term that I've documented being used in peer reviewed academic papers, and I see no reason why the notability of the topic cannot be discussed in a civil manner. Just because the topic broaches adult topics, that's no excuse to act like a bunch of juviniles, in fact quite the opposite. User:Pixelface's comments made liberal and gratuitous use of obscenity to dismiss a topic he seemed incapable of addressing on substantive grounds. Notwithstanding his [reply] to me on my talk page, I see absolutely nothing in this language which contributes to the project, or the environment in which it is constructed. In fact, his reply to me makes it quite clear that he thinks I have some sort of problem for defending the article. I don't see any debating here, I see insults. Pete.Hurd 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I LOL'd android79 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Hmmm, ok, maybe I'm over-reacting, umpteen !votes for deletion because the topic contains an obscenity, or offends the christian sensibilities of various editors, and I overlooked the fact that this one was supposed to be a joke. I forgot: wikipedia 10% encyclopedia, 90% children's playground. Pete.Hurd 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  For very small values of umpteen, anyway. android79 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  *laugh*, you are correct ;) Pete.Hurd 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, I found it funny. I'm not alone, but not everyone shares that sense of humor. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe everone understands the concern, however it doesn't appear to be malevolent. I too got a chuckle. I would focus on the constructive comments they are the ones that matter. --Hu12 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd imaginefuck the closing adminfuck will discountfuck WP:IDONTLIKEITFUCK arguments, too. Fuck. — Scientizzle 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And just in case anyone thinks it gets even funnier the third (or whatever) time the joke gets told, please by all means read on for Pixelface's totally sarcastic insulting "apology" [56]. Maybe it's time to work on an encyclopedia kids. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface's last comment was certainly an over-the-top eye-rollin' screed, but Kolindigo's response was perfect. Let's all move on now. — Scientizzle 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}} tag & attendant edit-war

For two days now an edit war has been waged over inclusion of a "neutrality & factual accuracy dispute" tag at Battle of Jenin; a group of "pro-Israeli" editors is saying... well, actually I'm not sure how they're justifying the removal. Anyway there's an ongoing dispute, and as WP:NPOV says, "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

I won't re-capitulate what has been an extensive and exhausting debate since at least early July, but suffice it to say that it's very, very clear that... the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed. In addition, at least one of the people removing the tag has had no involvement going back as far as March 2006; he simply showed up on 30 August and started removing the tag.

Since my postings on the talk page are having no effect, I would like an administrator to make clear that maintenance tags are not removed without consensus or something near it, and that continually removing tags will result in sanction. Eleland 00:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

see WP:RFPP Rlevse 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated deletions of page

Protection is requested for the article: "Please Delete This Page". Editors have continuously deleted the article without regard for its noteworthy information. For unknown reasons an almost identicle article "Please Do Not Delete This Page" has remained unscathed.68.244.216.29 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't appear to have, or ever had, either of those pages. --Haemo 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is actually a quite beautiful example of irony. HalfShadow 02:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA: comments in the Question for the candidate section

Is it considered ok to comment in the questions for the candidate section on an answer the cadidate has given, without asking any further question? I moved the comment to the talk page and notified the other user, but was reverted. I'm not going to re-revert, but would welcome additional input. —AldeBaer 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with your change and disagree with the revert. I would suggest moving it to the "Discussion" section just above the "Support" section, and note it's a reply to QX. However, ditto the request for further input to ascertain consensus before re-reverting. Daniel 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, there's no really clear protocol, but that's not usually done. If a user doesn't like an answer, they can put it in their "oppose" reason is "discussion". I'd let the admin candidate cover it, though. --Haemo 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both. —AldeBaer 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivil User

202.156.11.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been blocked before, and is currently blocked for 72 hours. However, these two edits to his talk page (1 and 2) are highly racist and uncivilized. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I protected the talk page so he and other unregistered or new users can't edit it for 24 hours. That should put him on hold for at least a little while. DarthGriz98 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that resolves it. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 03:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Quadell, User:Jim62sch, User:KillerChihuahua, etc.

Greetings. I've run into some drama, and I'm looking for outside opinions and possibly assistance from other administrators. I've been an admin since 2004, and I'm frequently involved in the contentious area of image deletion debates. (I try to keep a cool head, but I'm not perfect.) I ran into what appeared to me to be incivility from User:Jim62sch, some of which was directed towards me. I left a note on his userpage,[57] asking him to be civil and refrain from personal attacks. I was under the false impression that Jim62sch was a new user -- he's actually been around for years -- and I left him the {{uw-npa2}} template. This was a mistake (don't template the regulars and all that), and he wasn't happy with the note, saying it "borders on admin abuse". User:Bishonen and User:KillerChihuahua (both administrators) asked me about this on my talk page, asking what I had seen as incivility on Jim62sch's part and looking for further clarification. I've answered them to the best of my ability, but there still seems to be quite a bit of bad blood stirred up. The unfolding saga is primarily at user talk:Quadell/archive34#NPA template. I'd like to invite comments on my behavior, as well as that of other administrators, to see what could have been done better, and what should be done from here. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I really identify as tipping toward a personal attack may be this comment he made here. The only error in judgment I see on your part was placing the Npa template (but I do understand it can be accidental). Probably wasn't the best way to help the situation. I don't see much evidence of admin abuse or oversensitivity either but it would have been more constructive to leave a polite response to the "harsh" criticism rather than slapping an Npa. I believe you haven't done anything drastically incorrect though.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps you should also consider that although several people asked, Quadell declined to explain what he was talking about until today. No one knew what he was objecting to. When asked, he said "no one is going to dig up evidence" among other dismissive comments. I consider that at least as problematical as the template, and almost certainly more so. If I tell someone they've made a personal attack and they, and multiple others, ask "where? diff?" I promptly supply a diff and explanation. I don't understand not doing so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Quadell's is a legitimate concern. Some people want diffs to support any statement, and others think that a collection of diffs qualifies as "wikistalking" or "collecting evidence", and the malign those who collect such diffs. It is kind of a lose-lose situation. --Iamunknown 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that Jim asked for a diff. Quadell wouldn't give him one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's inexcusable not to see this as a genuine request for information. ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Did I say Quadell was right or wrong in this instance? No. I mentioned that his is a legitimate concern, identified a (imo) common contradiction, and noted that it creates a "lose-lose situation". You don't have to convince me, because I am commenting neither in favour or against anything... --Iamunknown 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, point taken, my error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what further action is required at this point on Quadell's part. Diffs, links, and explanations have all been provided. As I said on Quadell's talk page, it's turned into shrubbery-demanding at this point to keep pushing the issue. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Diffs, links, and explanations have all been provided." -- not by Quadell. Are we reading the same page? •Jim62sch• 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he gave an explanation here. ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Jim makes this edit, invoking Godwin's Law besides other niceties, and has the cheek of asking in the same breath where he was uncivil? And Quadell responds with this perfect sample of civility and self-restraint. I couldn't have blamed him if he had just dropped the conversation altogether at that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he asked where he'd made a personal attack meriting a template with a block warning. There is a difference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Puppy, I don't like warning templates used on non-newbies, but Quadell expressed regret for that part of it, so I think that aspect of it ought to have been dropped immediately. It wasn't an egregious offence, anyway, just a little patronising. And Jim himself, as I pointed out on Quadell's page, left this "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning for Jimbo when he was annoyed with him (I know you said it was a joke, but there's a difference between a friendly little joke between people who are on good terms, and something like that which seemed deliberately inflammatory), and more recently, Jim left a template warning for Abu badali, with whom he was annoyed. So I think too much entirely has been made of the fact that Quadell left a template warning. It has to be the case either that Jim doesn't think there's a problem with using template (and so can't complain) or uses them himself with the intention of being insulting (in which case he has no right to complain). ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not Godwin's Law if we really want to get technical, and quite a propos and effective given that a mention of Pinochet's or Stalin's or Mao's or Pol Pots secret courts would not have meant diddly. Additionally, had you carefully read the whole post, rather than quotemining for one phrase, you'd have noticed that I was being sarcastic throughout, given my frustration as Quadell's inexplicable refusal to supply a diff when asked to do so by 4 editors (3 of them admins). Have we now banned sarcasm as well? •Jim62sch• 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds that participation in "image deletion debates" has been increasingly interpreted as a free pass for intemperance, peremptory tone, and highly defiant replies to critical remarks? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds that those trying to impose increasingly onerous restrictions on the use of "fair use" images can be rather insensitive when having a go at particularly contentious articles, and play games of putting book cover images up for deletion when they're already being legitimately used to illustrate articles solely about the books in question? .. dave souza, talk 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to press the issue, but I want to make it clear that Quadell's record is not spotless. I don't have any problems with the acitivities of most "image patrollers", but Quadell's deletions often strike me as injudicious. One recent example is the speedy deletion of the chart from Spartocids, which was uploaded by one of the few authorities in the field with the notion that it was self-made. The uploader was too inexperienced to add a tag, although it was clear from the note that the chart was self-made. Quadell deleted it without a second thought, although it contains material which is hard to come by. It is fortunate that the uploader returned to Wikipedia to readd the image.[58] --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how many improperly-tagged or unsourced images there are on Wikipedia. It's sometimes almost depressing to look at the backlog awaiting deletion. I'm sure I have deleted images where the problem could have been fixed. You have another hundred to get through, you're getting very little help from other admins. You take a quick look to see that the correct tag really isn't there (since sometimes people add it and forget to remove the other tag). Then you delete and move on to the next ninety-nine. Since images can be undeleted, it's not a big deal. I'm pretty sure I've deleted images, and then undeleted them or offered to undelete them if the correct information was given. I can't imagine that Quadell would refuse to do the same. ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have your talk page on my watchlist (as you may know), Quadell, so I noticed the conversation, read through it, and came here to comment. I agree that quite a lively (and somewhat dramatic) discussion is ongoing on your talk page! I have been relatively absent from IfD debates recently, so I examined the diffs, of which I was previously unaware.

They are not the worst seen, nor are they all-out personal attacks, but they are uncivil. By uncivil, I mean that they [Jim's comments] seem to me to be, "...personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" (WP:CIV). I understand that "personally targeted" is debatable with regards to some of the diffs, but the comments certainly are creating an atmosphere of greater conflict and quite possibly stress (on your part, I assume ;-)), and they do seem to be a pattern.

As I said, reading the discussion on your talk page, it seems quite a bit of drama has been created. Sometimes that happens. Hopefully, however, something good can come out of it. One good thing - you understand that leaving a template warning was probably not the best thing to do in the case. One good thing I hope for - Jim realizing a pattern of what some identify as uncivil commentary, and abating it. Let's make achieve something constructive out of this situation. :) --Iamunknown 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is a statement I can agree with wholeheartedly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First, this [59] comment was 5 days before Quadell posted a notice on my page, and Quadell was quite active in that time. Aside from it not being uncivil (a bit sternly worded perhaps, but hardly uncivil), I don't buy it as being the cause given the time lapse. •Jim62sch• 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he took a Wikibreak completely on 25-26 Aug and wasn't particularly active on the 24th or 27th. If I received a post like that on my talk page, I would probably wait to cool down before replying also. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC, topposting Jim) I'm making no judgement, but I note that Jim made that post at 21:33, 23 August. Quadell replied to it 21:43, 23 August 2007. Then he placed an NPA template on Jim's talk page at 13:02, 28 August. It does seem to appear that Quadell was referring to something else, since he'd already replied to the post Jim made on his page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And that would be your choice. However, I imagine you would have talked about it, rather than place an unmerited template on my page.

Also, there seems to be a bit of a disagreement as to what constitutes incivility. Had I said, "What the fuck are you doing you pretensious little dickhead", you'd have a point. But I didn't, and I don't feel that you do. Look, Wiki might be a nice place to escape to, but it ain't Nirvana, ain't Utopia, ain't Shangri-La or even Care Bear Land. If yoiu're seeking some meek, mild mannered, "nice" society, I wish you well on your search, but I doubt it will be fruitful.

Oh, by the way Videmus omnia is a truly creepy phrase with some nasty undertones. Perfect for a Strat Recon Group, but not quite appropriate to Nirvana. •Jim62sch• 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good grief Jim, that's uncivil at best and certainly aggrevating the situation. You might want to consider copyediting that and/or striking it. (What *does* Videmus omnia mean?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"We see all"? I am missing the creepiness. I don't see how insulting Videmus omnia's uname is anything but harmful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"We See Everything" -- think of the Police song, "Every Breath You Take". •Jim62sch• 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, that's just reaching. I still think you're being rude and should strike that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point everyone walking away might be the best idea. Neil ム 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you like me to strike? My explanation that VO would have discussed it? My explanation of incivility? What Wiki is not? My wishes for VO to find a peaceful society? My patience with this project is wearing very thin: it is only by exchanging our thoughts, beliefs, ideas, etc., openly and honestly that we can progress: shutting up and pretending nothing happened is not conducive to same. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The bit about his uname being "creepy" and Neil is right, this is going nowhere fast. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Second that, was just thinking of Big Brother (Orwell rather than the fortunately near defunct Channel 4 show), but any suggestion of insult should be graciously withdrawn. .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Neil. No need to drag this through the mud further. Why is there still discussion about providing diff links, the civility levels of talk page comments, and creepiness when this matter is basically closed. Whats done is done, time to move on.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla above. Some users invoke "we are doing an image patrol and enforce and 'unpopular' policy" as an excuse to justify the blatantly poor conduct. This is not an image policy issue. This is the issue of the conduct of the image patrollers.

It looks like an experienced administrator Quadell learned too little from the recent Abu badali drama. His being right or wrong on the image issues aside, insensitivity and stubbornness of some of our self-appointed image patrollers is responsible for much of the grief and bad blood their actions spill. This also makes these image patrollers by far less effective in getting the users cooperate with the legitimate concerns about free content policy and the need to find the right balance between WP's informativeness and its freedom.

Here Quadell treats experienced users in good standing (who may admittedly be mistaken about the image policies) with threatening patronizing templates as if he does not know that WP:DTTR is an essay that is approved by the widest consensus (time to promote it to a guideline IMO), then he arrogantly and repeatedly brushes off some very justifiable and reasonable questions where the offended party and several other admins ask him for diffs of an alleged PA that warranted a block threat and then, after failing to convince those who saw him wrong, coming here trying to get the opinions he wants to hear after hearing the exact opposite from several other users.

Highly inappropriate, arrogant and divisive admin conduct. --Irpen 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, speaking as someone involved with image work, I have the impression that Quadell's strict interpretation of image policy is more in keeping with the Foundation's than the interpretation of those who criticise him. ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not civil. A mere NPA template in response shows levelheadedness and restraint. Yeah, I know, WP:DTTR, but if the shoe fits . . . -- But|seriously|folks  23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But it is not merely a simple case of DTTR. Read Irpen's post. There is a history here. Then look at how several people tried hard to get Quadell to explain what his grievance was, with him brushing off all questions and concerns. And it goes on. I appreciate what PPG said, and it certainly looked like this thread might turn into a train wreck, but that's the only reason I agreed with Neil - nothing has been settled. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he really brushed off the concerns. Jim's first response (which made a few gratuitous snipes at me, because I had praised Quadell) was not one that in my view had to be seen as a sincere request for information. Quadell then explained to others that he wasn't referring to a particular incident, but to a general behaviour with lots of incidents of minor incivility. When pressed further, he answered further. I don't think he was ever refusing to give an explanation; he just didn't understand that any particular response was not enough. Incidentally, while this was going on, Orangemarlin, who has the same group of friends as Jim, left an inappropriate template warning on the page of someone who had removed Jim's banner. And it didn't provoke a long, long thread on his page. I think this is just a bit out of proportion. The bottom line seems to be that Jim made various uncivil remarks, Quadell left an inappropriate template, which is something that Jim does himself. There was no threat to block — just a standard warning that personal attacks can lead to blocks, not a statement or implication that Quadell would block him. I highly doubt that Quadell would have blocked him anyway. Then everyone got over upset at Quadell doing to Jim something that Jim does to others. And it escalated to this. Cup of tea, everyone? ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rereading my comments, I feel I should clarify one thing. I don't in any way mean to criticise those who left multiple messages for Quadell about the template and ignored the fact that Jim recently used a template and that Orangemarlin used one while this whole dispute was going on. They may not even have known. And even if they did, we can all fail to see imperfections in our friends that we see in "the other side". I just want to point out that templating the regulars happens. Both sides do it. It's a bit patronising. Jim had been uncivil. Quadell recognises that using a template wasn't the best approach. The original request for diffs was not made in a way that one would have to see as a genuine request for information. Quadell answered the queries left by KillerChihuahua and Bishonen on his talk page. When asked to be more specific, he was. There was no refusal to explain, just an original explanation which others did not find adequate, followed by further attempts to explain, upon request. I just feel surprised that it developed into such a big issue. ElinorD (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best feedback would be for all concerned to re-read EQ, respond constructively to questions, and avoid escalation, regardless of who dunnit first? .... dave souza, talk 17:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that (by his responses on his talk page) Quadell has learned that his course of action was not the best. In what other way would you prefer this issue be resolved? --Iamunknown 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not the best" is a big understatement. That's for one. Two: were is Quadell indicating that he learned anything at all? I would as much happy to see that as anyone would. --Irpen 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a time lag of five days between "this" a "mere" NPA template in response. It shows no "levelheadedness and restraint". It is a provocation that was bound to escalate the issue that has already de-escalated. Quadell was asked what particular entry he was referring to? A fide-days-ago one? Are more recent one? And in what way that kind of "restraint"-response was going to help? --Irpen 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As has been asked numerous times, what further administrator action is required here? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem that Quadell started this thread with the request of the administrative intervention. He started it to ask for a feedback and advise.

Where is the request for an administrative action in the initial post? As for the advise, my suggestion is that Quadell could use some mainspace content writing that really helps administrators to get closer to the real Wikipedia concerns. I did not spend much time on analyzing, but from the first glance, I find just one content related edit Quadell made in the whole month: addition of 3 short sentences to the Josh Woodward article. While racking up an impressive 4k+ number of edits, just one content one seems somewhat too few and this idea may point towards the solution that may help. --Irpen 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I suggest you look at Quadell's edit count. And that doesn't count the articles that Polbot has created. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive indeed. And an excellent bot as well especially since there is a not so rare opinion that while "anyone can write and article, only few can program."

Note, though, that I did not talk about general editcontitis. Rvv is a count. Removal of an image is a count. Writing a page of brilliant prose is also a count. I meant not counts but maintaining content writing a balanced part of the wikipedia activity in order to "remain in touch". --Irpen 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A point well taken. Perhaps article authors should also spend more time on image patrolling, spam removal, or vandalism reversion to "remain in touch" with other necessary functions of the encyclopedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To some degree yes. And most already do. However, lack of content involvement by some, so to speak "professional admins" (there are some even without real admin buttons), if addressed, would alleviate much of the WP problems of inter-user relations. At one time I even proposed having mandatory admin-sabbatical periods where admins are barred from using buttons. But that would be a separate subject, perhaps for the new essay that Geogre may write some day. --Irpen 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Can we please close this issue and archive this thread now? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia, Quadell started this thread to ask for feedback. He's gotten feedback from Persian Poet Gal, Irpen, Iamunknown, and a not too specific (although certainly helpful) comment from Ghirla. Most of this thread is you protesting this thread and responses to that. You're derailing the thread. You state several times you don't see what Admin action is required, then say its been asked numerous times - well yes, by you. The answer is: there never was any action required other than posting feedback asked for. Its not a request for admin action, its a request for feedback. You keep saying its time to close. I don't know if Quadell will get any more feedback on this or not; but three is a small number of people from whom to get feedback when you ask. Leave it alone. If you don't like it, don't read it any more. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Just everybody stop posting. Me included ;-) --Iamunknown 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Reading KC's post above, I realize I may not have been clear. Once everybody stops posting, then the discussion is over. I'd prefer it not be archived with a purple background or a "resolved" tag on top, but that's just me  ;-) --Iamunknown 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hu12 clarification

User:Hu12 has been following me around with a cloud of bad faith ever since an AfD we disagreed on, making it impossible for me to avoid his mini-conflicts. He has falsely accused me of "personal attacks," and I wish for intervention against his new focus on me. I can't get away from conflict if he has decided to follow me around creating new mini-conflicts left and right. Italia^vivi 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive, created new section. --Hu12 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt to re-open a closed discussion[60] (above). This is an issue for MfD, not here--Hu12 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is User:Hu12 being allowed to archive discussion in which the disputed behavior is his? How is this fair to me? Italia^vivi 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from User_talk:Hu12: You have made quite a few assumptions of bad faith against me (accusing me of "secretly enjoying the thrill" of conflict when I was obviously trying to avoid it), made unwarranted warnings against me related to content disputes you and I are both involved in, and are now trying to wikilawyer my userspace into deletion. You have let this become personal -- your first "official" warning of me for disagreeing with you at the Administrator's Noticeboard was evidence enough of that much -- and I would appreciate it if you would put some space between us while I try (once again) to find a new niche free of conflict. I would also advise you to consult in advance with another unrelated administrator before taking any further sysop-related measures against me. I am trying to contribute to the project, and your following me around with nothing but bad faith (creating mini-conflict after mini-conflict) is not helping. Thank you. Italia^vivi 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. --Hu12 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Being followed around by someone with sysop access who is carrying around a cloud of bad faith and conflict everywhere he goes warrants administrator intervention. Quit archiving a discussion where the behavior in question is your own, Hu. You've been giving me nothing but grief since I disagreed with you on an AfD, and I'm tired of it. Leave me alone and let me get back to editing instead of having to spend all my logged in Wikipedia time battling you and your newest mini-conflict. Italia^vivi 07:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chrisjnelson

I've blocked User:Chrisjnelson for 24 hours for continued incivility. I have tried to ask to stop, but he doesn't really care. An outside admin might like to look at his talkpage, and possibly look at his unblock requests. Maxim_(talk) 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've declined his unblock request, though I admit to looking at the wrong AN/I thread at first. The block appears appropriate under the circumstances. Other opinions welcome, of course. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris has accused me of improper bias.[61] Posting here proactively in case others agree with him: should I recuse myself from using the tools in future with regard to him? I don't think so, but am willing to keep an open mind about it. Durova^Charge! 03:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Football metaphor method was at all successful, but that isn't relevant as regards the question of bias. I would comment that I do not think that there is a question of bias as regards your actions as an administrator with this editor. Your interpretation of policies and guidelines are going to differ to that of the editor, otherwise you would not need to be interacting with the editor. They may wish to have your actions reviewed, but that should only be after you have acted according to your understanding of the rules. LessHeard vanU 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse and accusations on technical analysis page (along with Financial Astrology and William Delbert Gann)

Please see the Technical Analysis talk page. The person using jonkozer, happytech, and recently the IP address of 65.11.202.71 is attempting to show that financial astrology is part of technical analysis. Although there are people that use both, prior admins warned him against trying to make this leap of WP:SYN and WP:NOR. However, this is not my main issue now.

I am quite sure I know who this person is. I know he does not believe the TA/astrology thing. However, he consistently puts words in peoples' mouths. He recently took quotes out of context from a book by John Murphy, a well-known author in the field of technical analysis. I checked with Mr. Murphy, and he confirmed what I thought. When I posted this, he said Mr. Murphy did not know who I was, and that he said exactly the opposite. I have the emails to prove this. This user needs to be blocked, and the pages for technical analysis, william delbert gann and financial astrology probably need to be blocked from anonymous edits. Of course, when he was correct, and I checked, I admitted to it.

I asked for a block and wjbscribe felt is was a content dispute. When I further explained the issue, he suggested I post here.

The relevant sections are:

[[62]]

and

[[63]

See specifically where I quote an email with Mr. Murphy, and he states that Murphy does not know who I am and that Murphy told him the opposite. When I accused him of a lie, he said that truth was not required in Wikipedia, just verifiability (essentially implying that my email was not a reliable source, but his fabrication was).

He also makes statements that my posts are policy of the Market Technicians Association, which it is not. I am a board member, but I do nothing and write nothing in that capacity. If I did, I would clearly state it. Please see my page sposer. These statements can be found in the first link above.

Thank-you for you time in this matter. Sposer 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm engaging with the problem user. They're responding to warnings and talk so far. Georgewilliamherbert 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite starting to discuss it, and despite being 3RR warned, they edit-warred past 3RR (out to 5, if I count right) and are blocked for 24 hrs. I will keep monitoring in the hope that fruitful discussions resume tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert 03:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evaded with 130.94.91.28‎ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). 6RR. That IP is blocked for 1 week, blocks on Jonkozer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 65.11.202.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) extended to 72 hrs for evasion. In addition, on User talk:65.11.202.71, the editor attempted to bullshit me with by pure random luck pretty much the one example statement about financial analysis that I could clearly tell is in fact a blatant lie. This appears to be a troll, though they played nice for a little while. Georgewilliamherbert 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jimfandango and socks

I suspect Jimfandango (talk · contribs) is a sock of Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs) and 70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs), and I'm started a sockpuppet case about it, but that's not why I'm writing. It seems Jimfandango (talk · contribs) only recently emerged after the IP had a run-in with another editor named Jmfangio (talk · contribs). Given the similarity in usernames, I'm wondering if Jimfandango should be blocked for inappropriate username? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note the following sequence:

• Chrisjnelson blocked at 17:00, 31 August 2007.
• IP 70.113.76.108 becomes active at 17:22, 31 August 2007.
• The IP immediately edits several football articles and defaces a page in the user space of Jmfangio - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson.

I've blocked Jimfandango indefinitely as an impersonation account and recommend checkuser. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Have requested checkuser at the arbitration case. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow - thanks. I didn't know about the Chrisjnelson stuff. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:STALK, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, WP:BATTLE and WP:EW by user:Iberieli

User:Iberieli is a single purpose account dealing with Georgian nationalistic articles. He has a long history of assuming bad faith and being uncivil about my edits. Recently he stalked me into the article Khojaly_Massacre which was obvious stalking because it's a subject which he does not contribute to and started edit waring with me. [64] [65] I presume this was triggered because I made a good faith nomination of one of his articles for deletion. I have always been nothing but cordial to Iberieli and when he started stalking me I asked him to stop on his talk page but he deleted my message on his talk page and continued his stalking. [66] Below is a sample (by no means complete) of Iberieli's behaviour before the stalking:

Assumption of bad faith

[67] [68]

Hostility and Personal Attacks

[69] [70]

Disruptive Editing

[71]

He repeatedly removes a tag requesting better sources despite more than one user asking that it stay and leaves snide remarks in the summary

[72] [73] [74]

Battles along ethnic lines

[75]

See the edit summary for this edit (more battling along ethnic lines)

[76]

I have been nothing but cordial to him

[77]

He merely reverts well explained edits on the talk page by merely calling it POV and vandalism

[78]

I ask that you take this matter with seriousness, I suggest that either a mentor be assigned to guide Iberieli. If a neutral mentor cannot be assigned, I regretfully ask that a lengthy ban be given to Iberieli. You might want to also take a look at the copyright justification of a recent image that he uploaded, it looks questionable.[79] - Pocopocopocopoco 04:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's relevant/useable, but this checkuser request might shed light. At any rate, I think it's fair to say it warrants further investigation. IronDuke 04:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopoco himself engages in personal attacks when accusing Iberieli of being a "single purpose account dealing with Georgian nationalistic articles." Following this logic, Poco is also a "single purpose account" dealing with Russian satellite quasi-states. His behavior has already aroused a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. As for the image copyright status, I don't think that this is relevant here, but he has not given any valid reason for his allegations of copyvio. On the other hand, his POV outlined on his own userpage can give a clue to his hostility to the picture depicting the memorial dedicated to the Georgian victims of the War in Abkhazia and Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia. I'm afraid this is an attempt on Poco's part to get rid of the opponent.--Kober^Talk 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, behavior of Pocopocopoco is highly questionable. He tried to remove an image from Khojaly massacre article, and when an admin explained him that the image shall remain [80], he attached some completely unjustified tags to the article. So far I'm familiar with that user's contributions only on that article, but I don't think Pocopocopoco has much room for accusing others, when he himself is involved in POV editing. Grandmaster 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The admin haven't said anything about the merit of that image. Since it comes from a partisan source it is indeed suspicious. Alæxis_¿question? 09:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note how User:Pocopocopocopoco claims that User:Iberieli "started edit waring with" him, while normally any form of warring involves two sides, one of which is User:Pocopocopocopoco. In addition, he also assumes bad faith by accusing User:Iberieli of being "Georgian nationalist".

User:Pocopocopocopoco has further engaged in attempts to remove an image of Azeri children, victims of Khojaly Massacre, an action which by itself cannot be interpreted other than driven by fueling conflict along national lines. He further initiated the edit war here [81].

User:Thatcher131 clearly explained [82] the procedure, and the image shall remain on the page, because it is an image taken from Khojaly Massacre. Meanwhile, since User:Pocopocopocopoco is so adamant about the removal of this particular image, we should also bring up the issue of relevance and authenticity of these images [83], [84] appearing on the page about the claims of Armenian Genocide.

I believe in light of the recent ArbCom Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, User:Pocopocopocopoco's deliberate image removal and edit warring may need to be brought to ArbCom's attention. His action fall right within Armenia-Azerbaijan issues discussed at the recent ArbCom. Thanks. Atabek 10:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom does not enforce decisions. Any admin my apply the civility parole, revert parole and probation to any disruptive editor after following the notification requirements. Thatcher131 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins. This person has long history of POV pushing and implementation of politicaly motivated POVs. Its is to no surprise that he now strikes against me. First he tried to delete a well sources article because it did not suit his political POV. Overwhelming majority voted to keep it [85] . Even aftet that he tried to damage the article again by trying to move it to unrelated article. As for wikistalking. I read numerous Azeri related articles and happened to see his another attempt to remove an image due to his po POV on this issue. I reviewed the image and its sources. It had no copyright or any other infringements and restored it accordingly. Again, he tried to remove it. This person has personal problems with me due to his anti-Georgian attitude on Wikipedia (he also personally attacks me as being nationalist) and also as you can see he has anti-Azeri agenda as well. Now he is trying to ban me because im strong opponent of his personal POVs and political agenda on Wikipedia. Please review his contributions and will will notice them. He also is engaged in wars against other users and has same pattern of applying for incidents for users he does not like or agree with[86] [87] Iberieli 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, I ask that you don't fall for any of the smoke and mirrors that others have posted about me above, they are just trying to blame the victim of wikistalking. I urge you to merely read between the lines of what Iberieli has just posted. He wrote "First he tried to delete a well sources article because it did not suit his political POV. Overwhelming majority voted to keep it". He obviously took my nomination for deletion of his article personally. Please have a look at his edit history he has stuck to Georgian related articles (Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Georgian related) until my nomination for deletion and he followed me to an Azerbaijani related article. This all follows from a pattern of hostility not just toward me but toward other users who disagree with him. I posted a link to a hostile ethnically based response he made to user:Óðinn above, here is another hostile assumption of bad faith he made to user:Sephia karta whom I find to be one of the most knowlegeable and calm editors on wikipedia. I reiterate that I tried to resolve this issue directly with him on his talk page but he merely deleted my message. My desire is to nip this in the bud so that things don't denegerate further. My preference is that he be mentored from a neutral mentor but if a neutral mentor cannot be found, a ban might be advisable as a last resort, I will take no pleasure if a ban is instituted but I believe his bad behaviour should be stopped. I don't feel that I need to repond to the victim blaming others are directing towards me, they are just raising these issues because they disagree with my content.

I will respond anyway:

A couple of people point to a checkuser run against me and user:William Mauco, this was initiated by banned arch-sockpuppeteer user:Bonaparte using one of his ip addresses. This was all because Bonaparte didn't like a question I posted to talk:Transnistria. [88] Bonaparte continues to vandalize my user page on a regular basis.

A few people say I engaged in personal attacks by classifying Iberieli as a single purpose account dealing with Georgian nationalistic articles. Just look at his editing history and see for yourself. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a nationalist or editing nationalistic articles, my definition of nationalism is the love of your country. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a single purpose account, some of the best contributors to wikipedia are specialists that edit in only one topic. There was no derogatory intention in classifying his editing style, merely a statement of fact used to reflect that he does not edit Azerbaijani articles and hence his actions were most likely stalking following on the heels an emotional response to my delete nomination.

user:Kober also classifies me as a single purpose account dealing with Russian quasi states. This is completely irrelevant, but I invite anyone to look at my editing history to see that this is false. user:Kober also stated that my userpage outlines that I have POV and am hostile and want to get rid of an opponent. There is nothing POV on my userpage, I was just trying to initiate a discussion on the use of the term "international recognition" in wikipedia and I might start a WP:RFC about the use of the term. Furthermore, I do not want to get rid of Iberieli, I want him to calm down and stop stalking and I suggest a neutral mentor may help do this. If you look at user:Kober's userpage, you will find far more POV than mine, especially with his "aggressive separatism" userbox. Frankly, I am hurt by Kober's actions here, I thought that he and I had a good collaboration on an article in my sandbox that is going to resolve a dispute. Rather than try to calm down a fellow member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Georgia_(country) he blames the victim and continues to assume bad faith in my editing history.

user:Grandmaster and user:Atabek are merely piling on with their contributions here simply because they didn't like my good faith edits to Khojaly Massacre. My view on that image is shared by more than one user as well as administrator user:Francis Tyers. Furthermore, they have already tried to misrepresent what administrator user:Thatcher131 said about the image in question.

I realize that the above is a lot to read but I urge patience to anyone reading. I also ask that you don't simple say "a pox on both houses" and punish everyone. This is a simple case of hostility and wikistalking. Pocopocopocopoco 02:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recalcitrance

I have made several edits in Chalukya Dynasty deleting sources that did not qualify WP:RS and included information supported by RS. The deleted sources were personal, biased and unofficial websites such as www.kamat.com and www.ourkarnataka.com. My edits were being consistently reverted by User:Dineshkannambadi branding them as vandalism. In addition, this user has deleted my input from the talk page of Chalukya Dynasty, which is a highly unethical act. I appeal that User:Dineshkannambadi is given a warning.Kumarrao 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits may not be outright vandalism, but there is certainly some concern about them, especially as you are making drastic edits to a featured article that has passed a stringent review process. I suggest you engage with him on the talkpage, and read about our dispute resolution process. Hornplease 07:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified speculation, accusation of vandalism

Londo06 (talk · contribs) insists on adding information about "possible run-on teams" - his guess at what starting lineup a given rugby league team may or may not send out in the future - to rugby league articles. Despite consensus at the rugby league Wikiproject clearly finding that such teams are merely OR / speculation, they contravene WP:NOTNEWS, and the obvious concern that these are entirely unverifiable and therefore anti-policy, Londo96 informed me on my talk that I am wrong, and accused me of vandalism in an edit summary when I removed the unverified information. Various other editors have expressed frustration at having their cleanups reverted. I wonder if someone could help Londo understand why this information is not in line with policy, the importance of verification, and the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 07:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice left on his talk page. Sandstein 07:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Shalom Shabat Woggly (talk · contribs) moves some Russian billionaires (of Jewish descent and others) from the Russian billionaires category to jewish billionaires category at an amazing speed despite having been warned at his talk. Alæxis_¿question? 09:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is more distressing than Alaexis makes clear, because the categories Shalom Shabat Woggly is adding at incredible speed have been deleted and salted. Someguy1221 15:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italia WP:DISRUPT Harassment on MfD

[edit] Help needed

Hello. I once created an article on a Russian band named Dvar. I'm not their fan but i just know how importent and notable they are on the Russian goth scene. The article was 5-lines and bad so it was nominated for deletion and deleted by concensus. Now i restored it and re-wrote it adding a history section, making a nice discography, trivia and style sections, added an infobox an offcourse, informatiom. But it was deleted by another administrator. I tryed to explain him on his talk page that this band is notable and that it is now better but he just won't listen. I offered him to restor it and then nomi nate for deletion and let the editors decide, but he refuses. Since it's hopeless with him as i see i hope another administrator could restore it and nominate for deletion to let the editors decide. M.V.E.i. 10:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't you tried WP:DRW instead? -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 10:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I read it. The band is notable and it doesnt fit the deletion policy. M.V.E.i. 11:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand from your message that the band is notable enough. What i say is that the DRW is the right venue to get the article undeleted. There you can argue about its notability. I've you have added enough material to prove its notability than i am sure editors would go for undelete. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See what you can do at DRV. Explain the notability. It may just be able to get the article restored. Good luck. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats this DRW? It'll be nice if you could give me a link to it guys. Thamk you. M.V.E.i. 13:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review; follow the instructions at the top of the page — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] legal threat to another user by Nuwaubian Hotep

User:Nuwaubian Hotep made a legal threat against another user on the talk page of Dwight York. Hope you can help. I'm no good at the technical thing of putting diffs in yet, so hope my effort works.[97] Thanks.Merkinsmum 10:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I love reading about these "legal threats". The "threat" in this case was "Please provide a direct reference for this artice quote or face libel charges from Wikipedia." To paraphrase Robert Klein, that kind of "threat" is on about the same level as the warning on a mattress tag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a legal threat, but a rather, a clumsy, legalistically-worded invocation of our Biographies of living persons policy. At the event, it appears that a reference was, in turn, provided (although, whether the aforementioned party will find it acceptable remains to be seen). El_C 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

please provide or 'face libel charges' or whatever he said, sounded a bit intmidating to me. Anyway I'm univolved I just happened to read the quite aggro style of debate on the talk page. Some talk pages are like that I suppose, and tend to get owned by fans of the subject.Merkinsmum 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was intended to be intimidating. It's just funny to me that someone would actually be intimidated by such a lame "threat" and treat it as anything but a bad joke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly constitutes a legal threat, but IMHO not really a blockable one.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it a "legal threat"? Is the wikipedia organization in the habit of filing libel suits against its own editors, as the author seems to be saying? If not that, who does he anticipate will file charges against said editor? And how? Has wikipedia ever been compelled by lawyers to divulge personal information about its editors, in civil cases? If none of the above, then there is no actual "threat", it's just being mouthy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

It wasn't a legal threat. The concise wording was "face libel charges from Wikipedia" not as in a "court of law". In addition a link was provided to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard indicating as such. Nuwaubian Hotep 17:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say that it's not a legal threat. It clearly is. It's not a particularly effective or convincing threat, but it's a threat nonetheless. -Chunky Rice 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight I probably should have used terms such as "admonishment" or "page removal" instead of a legal term such as "libel". It was not written to be understood as a legal threat. Nuwaubian Hotep 19:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded the phrase to read as such "Please provide a direct reference for this article quote or face possible disciplinary action and/or page deletion as detailed in this Wikipedia forum" Nuwaubian Hotep 19:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article contains a BLP violation, just delete the offensive passage. There's no need to ask, threaten or cajole. If that fails to resolve, open a case at WP:BLPN. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blanking, borderline vandalism

user:24.127.156.41 is continuously blanking one section of the eXile, cites WP:BLP in edit summaries despite multiple reliable sources, has refused to engage in any discussion for over one week despite many requests for discussion on talk page. I reported this at the vandlaism noticeboard but was told this behavior was not blatant vandalism. I would have consulted a simple arbitration process like 3O but this anon has shown no interest in discussion of any kind and has no other edits. Dsol 11:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have commented at the BLP page currently open on it. The Evil Spartan 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review help required - Copyright violations - User:Scifireal

An OTRS ticket came in from the author of an essay which had been partly ripped off to form most of the content of Thierry Delva. I reviewed the source and article and determined that yes, Scifireal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who authored it had committed a copyright violation.

What concerns me is that their edit history contains a large number of generically similar art-related biographical articles done around the same time, and I fear that they're copyvios too.

If anyone has some free cycles, if you can look at Scifireal's other contributions and see if you can find any sign if they're also copyvios, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted a similar note about User:2me2me the other day; unfortunately, I received little attention. I wonder if we could make another page to deal with likely copyvios without proof. The Evil Spartan 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we have Wikipedia:Copyright problems but that doesn't seem entirely appropriate for "wider investigation required" notices, which is why I came here. What's the issue with 2me2me? Georgewilliamherbert 22:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I had previously worked with User:Tyrenius in an ad hoc project regarding an editors contributions that required reviewing a mass of contributions. Perhaps you may want a word with them? I would be willing to put in some time on it on that basis. LessHeard vanU 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First one I looked at, David Askevold, has chunks of copyvio from http://www.artleak.org/askevold.html and a bit more from http://umanitoba.ca/schools/art/galleryoneoneone/askevol.html . Tyrenius 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a great sign... Georgewilliamherbert 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the issue with 2me2me? - The issue is that nearly every edit he's made is a coypvio. To this very second, a good number of the articles he wrote have copyright violations - mostly plot summaries. The Evil Spartan 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Rita McKeough, also written by Scifireal is also a copyvio and so tagged, and his two sandboxes are copy paste jobs from other websites. I'm still looking through some of his other articles. Someguy1221 02:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] José Manuel Barroso

An anon and Joaonobre are tag-teaming to repeatedly add a BLP violation to José Manuel Barroso; I've just reached the 3RR limit as regards it, could someone else do whatever needs doing... — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. It is silly to have that on the lead section → {{trivia}}. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting User:Daddy Kindsoul

This user refuses to discuss controversial changes on the talk page, despite being asked to do so by an admin.[98] Instead of discussing his changes he just reverts[99][100][101][102], and when I revert back he falsely accuses me of vandalism.[103] In addition to this he also deletes any negative warnings that he gets, to make it look like he has no wrong-doings.[104][105][106][107][108] On top of all this he was uncivil with me on my talk page after I confronted him about this.[109] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hoponpop69 blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and incivility. Daddy Kindsoul (formally Deathrocker) blocked for one week for violating his ArbCom-imposed revert parole. Thatcher131 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive talk pages needing deletion

I'll let these speak for themselves:

• User talk:Clone 3
• User talk:Clone 4
• User talk:Clone 5
• User talk:Clone 7
• User talk:Usernamevio
• User talk:Fucarrrs
• User talk:GUARDiannn (not blocked)
• User talk:Cydrick Wayward

It should be noted that these messages were posted three months after the accounts were blocked. I'd also recommend they be salted as well. MER-C 05:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All deleted. I don't think they should be salted as of yet, although another admin may do so if he/she is inclined to. —Kurykh 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, all of them were already blocked, so I used the general one-month-after-indef-block convention. —Kurykh 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THF and DavidShankBone

Can some admin whom these two have not yet alienated please tell them to just stay the heck away from each other? I've tried refereeing to no avail, and after the last exchange on my talk page came about this || close to blocking both of them for WP:POINT and, well, acting a fraction of their ages. Now it looks like it's Raul's turn to host the merriment. I'd really rather things didn't get out of hand, as both of them are smart guys and can be good contributors. But whatever I've been doing hasn't worked, so could someone else step in? Raymond Arritt 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Untying this gordian knot is second on my list of things to do after scheduling some more main page FAs. Raul654 03:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've twice reached out to David and reached agreement that we would disengage, even after he sent me off-wiki threats using the Wikipedia e-mailer, and David has twice broken that agreement. I am happy to have a disengagement agreement a third time if David agrees to stop forum-shopping false COI accusations against me, which has historically been treated as problematic behavior. I ask for guidance how I am supposed to respond when David makes a false accusation against me, since asking David not to do so or rebutting the accusation or asking for guidance on the COIN page is being perceived as wrongful behavior. Per WP:COOL, I'm going to bed. THF 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

false COI accusations against me - COI is a matter of perception. And several editors besides David have suggested that you have a COI. Regardless any strict definition of COI, I wonder what the Wikipedia community or the Real World would think of adding non-controversial information related to the organization to which you are affiliated.[110] --Iamunknown 04:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Seriously? At this point it is THF going around ranting, opening COINs about himself simply over a question on a Talk page to Raul654. The threat THF keeps referring to in his effort to continually paint himself as a victim was no threat at all as I continually have explained to him, and I have continually invited him to bring it to ArbCom. But to not say he was threatened would hurt his quest to obtain victim pity. If you look in the last week, THF has been in arguments and had to cite WP:COOL and WP:HARASS and a number of other wiki-linked policies and guidelines to about 5 to 10 editors. Are all these people out for him as well? User:Turtlescrubber? User:GaryLambda? User:Guettarda? Those are just the ones today. You can't always see these arguments THF continually engages in because he takes them off his talk page. Seriously - Check out that diff to see what THF considers a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. How can anyone take his claims serious when those are are personal attacks according to him? That's just one diff. Yet THF continually claims I am the disruptive editor? --David Shankbone 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI query by Iamunknown

Apologies, one last edit for tonight, since Iamunknown raises a different issue than whether I am harassing David by responding to accusations he has made against me.

In response to the specific diff Iamunknown raises, I requested comment on my World Health Organization edit at COIN, and people got mad that I even asked, and not a single person there said I violated COI. I am simultaneously criticized for being too diligent and for not being diligent enough. And noone questions a Harvard professor who inserts a cite to another Harvard professor in an article.

There is a COI guideline that states what violates COI and what doesn't, and I have followed it. I am not the first editor on Wikipedia affiliated with a thinktank who has sought to edit in his subject area, and precedent has stated that controversial experts are permitted to edit. Having a strong POV is not a COI. Is it really the case that Wikipedia has one set of standards for fellows from left-wing thinktanks and another set of standards for fellows from right-wing thinktanks? I hope not. And User:Cberlet edits a much higher percentage of articles directly in his subject field, while I have been accused of violating COI because I edited a subject that was loosely related to a client of a former employer.

Separately, I ask that Raul654 be recused from investigating this matter, as he has already prejudged the issue, and his position expressly contradicts WP:COI, arbcom precedent, and consensus at the COIN discussion where I opened an RFC on myself.

As I am trying to disengage from David Shankbone, I will not respond to the false accusations he makes against me, but hope that readers will take them with a grain of salt. THF 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• What's great about the arbcom precedent that THF keeps referring to says "provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground." Yet THF, in the midst of talking about Box Office Mojo's documentary rankings, used by all the mainstream media, decides it is wrong they don't include Eddie Murphy Raw and Jackass Number Two, writes his own articles, gets his employer to publish it, and then argues to have it included on 25 film articles (the ones on his list). How does that jive with ArbCom precedent? THF is real good about citing policy, guideline and precedent, just not following it. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but we can all remember THF's instigation of "Wikipedia vs. MichaelMoore.com". I like that THF doesn't want Raul654 to be involved because...well...he has an opinion that THF disagrees with. This paragraph, and the one above, are about all I need to say. Look at THFs contributions, and look at mine. What did I spend the day doing? Writing a mighty fine article called Reality film and cleaning up vandalism and copyediting. I added some photos of two subway stations and Burt Neuborne. Look at THF's edits: battle, battle, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, policy cite, COI accusations, argument with editor 1, argument with editor 2.... The diffs, the histories and the actions of THF speak for themselves. --David Shankbone 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • This mischaracterizes THF's action: Wikipedia is not a battleground, but we can all remember THF's instigation of "Wikipedia vs. MichaelMoore.com". When a Web site makes statements about a Wikipedia editor as a Wikipedia editor and when those can reasonably be construed by some as an attack or harassemnt, it isn't "instigating" to bring the matter up before Wikipedia administrators. The assumption in David Shankbone's comment above is that not only do others disagree with him on whether the Moore Web site was on the attack, but that it wasn't even a reasonable disagreement, and even that the subject of the attack was unreasonable in thinking he was being attacked. When a Web site says you must be contributing to Wikipedia on your work time and wouldn't that be of concern to your bosses (a point about the attack which should have been addressed much more in the discussions on Wikipedia), then at the very least there can be reasonable disagreement. Therefore David Shankbone should stop treating those who disagree with him as people simply battling and fighting and "instigating" and instead tone down his language in a way that indicates he's working toward consensus. Noroton 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • About that last sentence: it's something I've been guilty of in the past as well (the difference being, I'm trying to stop). Noroton 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, could you provide diffs for "Wikipedia vs. MichaelMoore.com"? As I recall, it was other editors, including remnants of the SlimVirgin minority who fought the war on his supposed behalf, unless asking a question on a noticeboard counts as marshaling his troops. You two should just avoid each other. And stop rehashing a talk page suggestion that THF made two weeks ago. He closed the RfC himself when it was clear consensus was against including his article. Jesus. Cool Hand Luke 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, Luke. Here, under the heading "Attack site" THF asks "What's the standard procedure for de-linking attack site [111]?" The link showed every michaelmoore.com had on the site. Just a simple question? That's a bit coy. He didn't ask "Is this an attack site" he asked what the procedure was to de-link it. You may remember User:Noroton began removing the site from Wikipedia, for which he was blocked - and you unblocked him. Then he started to remove the link again. You have supported THF, and his efforts to agenda push, at almost every turn, which included your support for having with having his unnotable attack piece on Moore disguised as a new way to rank documentaries inserted into Sicko (so it's not surprise you don't want that issue "rehashed"). --David Shankbone 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The most reasonable assumption about THF's state of mind once he'd seen what Moore had on his site was for THF to think he was under attack. You seem to have completely discounted the idea that he would have had that very human response. This fits a pattern in the way you've responded to others in this disagreement: You give the impression that their disagreement neither stems from sympathy to someone they honestly think is under attack, nor an honest belief in what Wikipedia policy is. Minutely examining the tone of someone's language as he just reports he's under public attack, describing his words as "a bit coy" (when you could just as easily have assumed he was trying to be restrained) isn't the way to bring a "battle" to conclusion but to keep feeding it. It assumes, that THF, even in the face of an attack that had just been made, only acted under calculation to disrupt Wikipedia for bad faith reasons. You don't treat a disagreement over a person the way you treat a disagreement over nonpersonal content in an article. This was a human dispute, not a content dispute, and therefore requires more sobriety than you, I and loads of others here had given it. Luke actually was one of the more sober contributors. I've reflected on my own actions and seen where I could have reacted better. Reflection's useful. I recommend it. Noroton 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fine there. I was not the only one to support including it—in the footnote and not in the body of the text. I have no problem with anything I said there. I just think it's unproductive that you keep chastising him for a civil content dispute resolved weeks ago that never even reached the mainspace. Cool Hand Luke 13:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly that issue is not resolved, and if anything, it goes to the very heart of the problem with THF. Considering that he is not an expert on film, or on documentaries, or on how to rank them, and considering that he was attacking Box Office MoJo's rankings by attacking Moore, this was a WP:WEIGHT violation that you supported. --David Shankbone 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I recall, I was the first person to point out that it was a WEIGHT problem, and I specifically crafted my footnote suggestion to take that into account. I'm glad you now agree that it's a problem with WEIGHT and not OR. Cool Hand Luke 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• You don't make yourself look any better by spinning my answers. It was a problem with both. It was OR to declare Eddie Murphy Raw a documentary, or to say that IMAX films should be included in highest-grossing documentaries when they did not audit their box office until 2005. That's OR. That's what THF did, and he's not a film expert, he's a legal expert. --David Shankbone 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that I did anything wrong. Attacking editors for talk proposals is a little Orwellian, dontcha think? Cool Hand Luke 21:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think you've misused "Orwellian" - but this issue caused a too much disruption (leading to ANI, COIN, et. al.), and the article had no standing, not even in a footnote. Your support of it (since you support its premise) added to it. This should have been an easily disposed of suggestion, instead, it took up the Sicko board (and others) for days. --David Shankbone 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it took days...three weeks ago. I thought it was a good faith and not totally unreasonable suggestion. If article-oriented good faith talk page discussions are crimes, why not just go whole hog and sanction users for thinking unwiki thoughts. Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • As I recall, you voted that "Ted Frank" was a notable pundit in the field of politics. Why would you object to citing his work as critical commentary on political topics? --Tbeatty 06:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, in response to Tbeatty, I am not at all complaining about the results of or seeking to reopen the good-faith content dispute to which Tbeatty refers. The content dispute took place entirely on talk pages, with no mainspace edits. After some difficulty deciding where to centralize the discussion, it was centered on Talk:Sicko. There were 54 comments in that discussion, and I made 9 of them. Another editor made 17 comments, another 7, two others 6 each, with the other 9 split up among several editors. Consensus was reached against my proposed edit after an RFC that I closed on 10 August, three weeks ago. (The "25 pages" allegation comes in response to a talk-page argument that if the cite about 25 films was put on one page, why not put it on 25 pages, and I agreed with that assessment.) The talk-page content dispute resulted in a COIN complaint, and the consensus of that was that I did not violate COI by making a talk-page request, which is exactly what WP:COI says to do. In the aftermath, there was extensive discussion at WT:COI, and a proposed change to the COI guideline to restrict talk-page discussion, explicitly aimed at me, was overwhelmingly rejected. THF 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, THF has no interest in either the success or failure of any of Michael Moore's commercial enterprises. As for politics, MichaelMoore is left of every conscious human being so I don't see how being "right" of Moore creates a conflict. THF's organization does not benefit from any sales or lack of sales for Michael Moore goods or services. Even the drug case that michaelmoore.com cited on his web site is not a conflict as Michael Moore is not a party to the suit. THF, in a testament to his character, has fully disclosed his affiliations. By the standards that are trying to be set here, anyone who donated to any cause including union dues or who voted in elections has a conflict of interest and it's ludicrous. --Tbeatty 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, "Michael Moore is left of every conscious human being"?!?! That statement clearly establishes your POV. FCYTravis 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that statement is humorous attempt at showing where Michael Moore stands. In the U.S., he is left of Ted Kennedy. In the rest of the world he is solidly left of center. That's simply a fact. --Tbeatty 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your post-facto attempt to dismiss that clearly-aimed comment as "humor" is unpersuasive. FCYTravis 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dismiss it. It was humour. And MM is a leftist. That's my POV. I'm surprised you think this is somehow controversial. --Tbeatty 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To assume that pharmaceutical companies have no interest in denigrating Sicko is pretty naive. Therefore, working for an institute paid by such corporations to spin public opinion on their behalf seems to me to constitute a WP:COI.--Raphael1 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical companies have lawyers regardless of the success or failure of Sicko. To assume that they do have an interest in denigrating Sicko is pretty naive. And then to add a thrid degree of removal by trying to extrapolate it to AEI is even more ridiculous. if we want to get even more ridiculous we could simply say that modern pharmaceuticals have impacted the lives of every living human being, therefore every living editor of Wikipedia has WP:COI since they have an interest in denigrating Sicko. Or the other way, Sicko highlights serious and even dangerous conditions of U.S. healthcare, therefore all editors that wish to live have a WP:COI in it's success. Seems silly to expand it to that many degrees of freedom. --DHeyward 07:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty, that may be humorous, but it's sure as hell not accurate. Moore is to the left of centre in US politics, but the centre of US politics is well to the right of centre to start with. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MM is leftist by European standards as well. He would be leftist Labour in UK. Socialist in France. Come on. He is left of the vast majority of people in the world. --Tbeatty 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to get out more. He's pretty middle-of-the-road by any standards but U.S. I've dealt with real lefties; he ain't it, and it's sad that American discourse has deteriorated to the extent that he is perceived that way by some folks in this country.--Orange Mike 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've lived all over the world and I am not speaking from an American point-of-view. The fact that MM concerns himself with American issues doesn't make MM centrist just because the U.S. is less left than other countries. He is leftist by international standards. Let's put it this way, Chavez of Venezuela is a well known non-American leftist. No one would argue he is not leftist. MM is at at least as left as Chavez. --Tbeatty 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How long will you take that 1-dimensional discussion?--Raphael1 22:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which discussion? The mistaken belief that American leftists are somehow always centrists everywhere else or the mistaken belief that Michael Moore is not a leftist? --Tbeatty 03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore is a centrist with some leftish views and some definitely right views. There is no way that he is as left as Chavez, or to the left of UK (or Australian) Labour. Orderinchaos 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible remedy with THF and David Shankbone

What say from this point on, should THF or David mention the other in any forum, an uninvolved admin blocks the provocateur for sometime between 12-48 hours (or an escalating level), sorta like how ArbCom editting restrictions work?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept. I have no complaints with David other than his repeatedly attacking me and mischaracterizing my history, and I could be more productive in a day than rewriting Weaknees and resolving a BLP/EW dispute if I didn't have to defend myself. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and I'm here to edit an encyclopedia. THF 05:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I know how much David can be stubborn at times but your COI issue is really relevant. As mentioned above by Iamunknown "COI is a matter of perception." Just tell me how many voters who have participated at T.F. AfD voted rationally and objectively, including the nominator? All i see that everything you and David are into has got something to do w/ COI. The community is a bit anxious and bothered. Do you have any suggestion on how to sort this out? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be very easy for the community to sort this out: enforce its principles even-handedly and make it clear that Wikipedia welcomes "controversial experts" and discourages harassment of them. Wikipedia has dealt with precisely this question before. There is no difference between my case and Cberlet's or William M. Connolley's. The difference is, when User:BabyDweezil repeatedly called Cberlet a "paid propagandist," he was blocked indefinitely for violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE, and Berlet continues to this day to edit his own articles and articles of the people and organizations and movements he is paid to write about, all the while having a strong POV, but, like me, making Wikipedia-compliant mainspace edits. When someone does the same thing to me, admins join in, and of course people are encouraged to make uncivil and false attacks against me if they feel it will help push their POV. If the rules were enforced, there wouldn't be a problem, because people would know not to harass me. I have asked for comment at COI/N, explaining why the COI accusations are false, and was told both that (1) I am not violating COI, and (2) I should stop asking COI/N about it. What more can I do? THF 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, a good first step in 'accepting' a restriction against mentioning David would have been to not use it as an opportunity to complain about him again. --CBD 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• THF has an agenda, he pushes it, he WP:GAMEs the guidelines and policies, and he continually asks for this Board's blessing. Here's a suggestion: Why don't you guys all discuss it, and THF and will I stay out of the conversation? If you have a question for one of us, or need to see diffs, ask on our Talk pages, which is where we'll answer. During the discussion, we won't engage each other, and we will refrain from editing Michael Moore pages, because 90% of the issues stem from his edits and Agenda on those pages (IMO). Now doesn't that sound reasonable? I'm happy to answer questions presented on my Talk page, supply difs, what have you. But once we get into it on this board, we take it over. --David Shankbone 11:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend arbitration. The behavior of both editors needs to be examined in a thorough, deliberate and sober manner. - Crockspot 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that this probably will reach arbcom in the end, but think it's worth one last try to settle things in a less agonizing way. Raymond Arritt 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1 should be included in any arbitration, too, since he also insists upon repeated accusations of WP:COI violations based on facts that do not violate WP:COI, though he has been told by neutral parties that his accusations are silly, and consensus was against him at WP:COI/N#Sicko. THF 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was just reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy and thought this comment may have some relevance here: "Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards neutral point of view in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial." It's not a stretch to suggest that THF has an "exceptionally strong professional commitment" to a certain POV in respect of Moore. THF vigorously asserts that he does not have a conflict of interest, but ArbCom seems to define COI in terms which arguably would apply. This is not going to be sorted out without wider input, and the only question is whether THF would accept the opinion of anyone other than ArbCom. Such opinion having ventured numerous times here and been rejected by THF, I wonder if perhaps it may be futile to try anything other than arbitration. This is not to prejudge the issue, only to call into question THF's willingess to accept any outcome other than to endorse his continued editing of these articles. However, it is undoubtedly time for David Shankbone to step back and leave it to others, as it is plain that THF will not co-operate with any attempts he might make to resolve the issue. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• How can I be accused of "not co-operat[ing]" with any attempts I might make to resolve the issue? I've preemptively asked for guidance at COI/N repeatedly. Each time I was told--including by people who said that they found my views "disgusting"--that I was not violating COI. I haven't had to accept the opinion of anyone other than ArbCom, because not once has there been a consensus that I was violating COI. The more relevant Arbcom unanimously said A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia. THF 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• [EC] I didn't say that, what I said was that you are unlikely to accept any attempts by David to resolve the issue, so his continued involvement is not going to help anyone. There is a difference between holding a POV and making money by expounding it. I know you don't think there's any problem publishing criticism of Moore and also editing the articles, but what you think doesn't matter overmuch in the end, it's what others think. I also don't believe that you will accept any answer other than the one you want, unless it's in some binding and formalised form, as witness the fact that you argue with anyone who suggests that a conflict might exist. My interpretation of the ArbCom ruling is that there is at least grounds for disquiet over your editing articles relating to Moore, but what I think doesn't matter overmuch either, it's what the community as a whole thinks (in as much as it thinks anything). If ten admins were to tell you that you have a conflict, or at least enough of an appearance of one that you should restrict yourself to Talk, would that be enough for you? My hunch is that it would not. So I think this is a job for ArbCom, none of whom are involved thus far as far as I can see, so none can be accused of being involved. I have removed the duplicate of your post from my Talk, as that kind of thing seems to have served thus far only to spread the dispute to an ever-increasing number of venues. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)`

I think THF has a point here. There are too many issues being conflated in this discussion. I have the same problem as THF form the opposite side of the political spectrum. Some Wiki editors claim that since my views are progressive, that what I write and get published outside of Wikipedia is automatically a COI problem. I disagree. I think Arbcom already has a position on this issue, as mentioned by THF above. It is what is reflected in the actual Wiki edits that matters. Otherwise any published author will end up being banned as having a COI. That would be just sillyy and self-defeating for Wiki.--Cberlet 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are paid to write opinion pieces about a subject, and then edit the subject in WP, then it looks bad. Always will. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Particularly if you edit tendentiously, insist upon the inclusion of your most esoteric viewpoints in articles where they are not notable, and use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Then it obviously crosses the line from "experts editing in their field of expertise" to Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and COI. --Marvin Diode 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Do you have a diff where I have edited tendentiously? The worst thing I have done was to make 9 comments in a 54-comment talk-page thread about the inclusion of an a piece I wrote, and most of those comments were rebutting personal attacks. I withdrew from the discussion when JzG asked me to withdraw from the discussion, and I closed the RFC myself and accepted the consensus three weeks ago, and haven't sought to reopen the content dispute again since. Ironically, the editor who three weeks later is most angry that I made a talk-page suggestion about the possible inclusion of an op-ed inserted it himself into a different article. THF 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding to the comment by Cberlet. My post was not directed at you, sorry for any misunderstanding. --Marvin Diode 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's a convenient way to spin what happened. If anyone is interested in a short, concise explanation of where all of these problems began, I explained it on User_talk:Cberlet#THF. --David Shankbone 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Any chance we could perhaps tone down the rhetoric? The problem here is actually pretty straightforward: the article subject, some editors and some admins, think THF has a conflict. There is some basis for that in recent ArbCom decisions. THF, with some supporters, says not. There is some support for that in ArbCom rulings too. Obviously it's never going to be THF's call whether he has a conflict or not, so we need to decide on a forum which is appropriate, will deliver the necessary decision, and whose verdict all parties will be prepared to accept. There are not many options. I'd say ArbCom is the only one, really, since mediation might repair the interaction between THF and David but it won't fix the underlying question of whether THF has a conflict. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implications of punishing users for disclosure

I am starting to notice a trend: editors in a content dispute turn to COI/N to try to squelch the other side. We should not be falling into the trap of punishing editors who have disclosed their affiliations, especially when the accuser himself has not disclosed anything. (For all we know, one of the anonymous COI accusers could be Michael Moore himself!) We should be dealing with edits, not editors here, and I've still not seen one single abusive edit by THF. Until someone produces real evidence of POV-pushing by THF, this is nothing more than an overblown content dispute. ATren 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• We aren't arguing content. The issue here is what, if anything, should be done about mine and THF's feud. --David Shankbone 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's easy...stop feuding.--MONGO 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dang, you beat me to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I Agree with ATren. Disclosed affiliations are easier to monitor. If we prevent disclosed parties like THF from editing on their topics of expertise, we will only deter disclosure, not COI editing. THF exemplifies our ideal COI policy, but some editors seem bent on driving all potential conflicts of interest into anonymity. Cool Hand Luke 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NB also that I have been so solicitous of the COI guideline that I have not touched the Ted Frank article, even though it is rife with at least eight factual errors or misleading statements, though COI and BLP permit the correction of such errors. I abstained from the AFD, though I have an opinion about guideline application to that AFD that has not been stated by any of the other 60 !votes. I even asked readers of my blog not to participate in the AFD. When someone asked me to stop reverting vandalism and to stop responding to fact tags in the article about my employer by filling in cites, I stopped making those noncontroversial edits, though WP:COI explicitly permits such edits. I have adhered to WP:BRD and not edit-warred. I'm here to help write an encyclopedia.

I have objected only to attenuated claims of a COI, simply because those attenuated claims of COI contradict Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes a COI. If JzG or others think the COI guideline is too narrow and should be applied to the subject area of former clients of a former employer, then modify the guideline, and I will follow the new consensus guideline, but don't ask to apply a non-existent guideline to me that isn't applied to left-wing thinktank members or other opinionated academics and attorneys who participate on Wikipedia. THF 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument, unless you can actually find a "left wing think tank member" this has applied to. While I'm opposed to any hard measures being taken in this case (especially considering your continued participation in what is a rather unique debate to date), let's not go smearing nonexistent people to make a point. Apparently this refers to Chip Berlet/User:Cberlet. Hrm. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your own page - My understanding of COI is that if there was any doubt as to whether you could or couldn't (not so much WP policy as "would it look bad?"), raise the contentious points on the relevant talk page, provide evidence of what you say, and leave it to the community to decide what happens. Most likely you'll get half of what you want that way if the points can be verified, and noone can ever argue COI. While verifiability does not equal truth, it would be nice to see as close to the truth as possible in as many instances as possible, and if this would further that aim, then I'd suggest it. Orderinchaos 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If THF is a public figure whose primary agenda is to "correct the record", be it against Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh regardless, he should be booted. He already has his forum. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We would like knowledgeable people to contribute. The way to make sure they do that neutrally is to critique the content, not the contributor. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How well is that approach working in this case so far? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How well is that approach working in this case so far?

1. The concept of the heckler's veto is relevant here. User:Cberlet seems to be doing fine editing articles about subjects in which he is paid to write about his opinions and in which he has a strong point of view, in part because when people repeatedly accuse him of COI without addressing content, they are blocked. The question is whether the same principles can also be applied to permit right-wing editors to focus on editing an encyclopedia instead of defending themselves against people violating WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. This was never treated as a close question before (the BabyDweezil CSN ban !vote was 11-1), and I still don't understand why it is being treated as a close question now. If the straightforward policies were being applied evenly, we wouldn't be here.

2. WP:COI is also straightforward, and I haven't violated it. Are controversial experts welcomed at Wikipedia, or not? I've only "violated" a version of the COI guideline that doesn't exist, has been consistently rejected at WP:COI when people try to expand the scope of that guideline, and isn't applied against Cberlet, or WMC, or any of the multitude of other non-right-wing editors who attract people unfairly accusing them of violating COI when there isn't POV-pushing. I'm here as a hobby. I've been a productive editor, and I've been careful to participate in a number of Wikipedia administrative tasks, and cleaning up articles and mediating disputes like Andijan massacre and Richard Rossi where I have no interest so that there is no question of me being a SPA. (Compare Cberlet's or WMC's edit histories to mine: Cberlet (talk • contribs • count); William M. Connolley (talk • contribs • count); THF (talk • contribs • count)). Am I wrong to expect that a right-wing thinktank fellow who writes about trial lawyers should be treated the same way and with the same courtesy as a left-wing thinktank fellow who writes about the Christian right (and makes 103 edits to Christian right)? If I am, I'm happy to leave: what attracted me to Wikipedia was NPOV, and if that core principle is just spin and there isn't any intent of enforcing rules neutrally, I don't want to be here.

3. Not only is Wikipedia not a battlefield, but I don't want it to be one: if I am going to spend time writing legal briefs, I want it to be on a more important subject than whether I should spend time on a hobby--I just turned down an opportunity to write a Supreme Court amicus brief on the dormant commerce clause because of other deadlines, and I'd have trouble spending time looking in the mirror if I was instead spending weeks at an Arbcom when no one can identify a single mainspace diff that violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'm not a neo-Nazi or a Velikovskian: I have political views well within mainstream American political thought. And if that fact means that whether I should be treated with civility is a debatable proposition that I need to spend time defending, then that speaks far worse about Wikipedia than about me, and I'll get more real-life writing done instead. Have a happy Labor Day weekend. THF 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't find it reassuring that people who raise the issue of COI concerning Cberlet are blocked. I think that there are more examples than just BabyDweezil, and I think there are those among them who were in fact addressing content issues in a very responsible way, including User:Don't lose that number and User:NathanDW. I was also dismayed that the RFC that I filed concerning Cberlet's behavior was deleted by User:El C. So I would suggest that THF concentrate on providing a justification for his controversial edits, rather than adopting the argument that "Cberlet is getting away with this, why can't I?" --Marvin Diode 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THF's comparison between Ted Frank, Chip Berlet, and William M. Connelley is not entirely correct. Berlet and Connelley are not paid to give their opinions. One is a journalist and the other is a scientist. They are paid for researching topics and reporting their findings. I don't believe that either of them works for a think tank.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Berlet and Connelley are not paid to give their opinions" LOL so Chip works for free then? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm paid for researching topics and reporting my findings (and for editing others' research) and have complete academic independence. Berlet works for a thinktank, Political Research Associates. WMC's non-peer-reviewed punditry is cited throughout Wikipedia, and he writes for Environmental Media Services, which in turn is affiliated with the partisan Fenton Communicationssee also. I'm not saying WMC is doing anything wrong by editing articles on matters he and his EMS colleagues have directly written about: he's not, so long as his edits comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But he's no less "tainted" than I am. THF 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, the reliable answer to your question is going to come in the form of admin action or inaction, not words on talk pages. If Wikipedia offers progressives a more generous standard than conservatives, that's not a problem for conservatives. The more clueful progressives realize that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding MD's concern about users being blocked who raise COI concerns, those users were blocked for being sock puppets of a banned user. Sometimes when it appears that there are many editors saying the same thing it turns out to just one editor using many accounts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the reason given by the admin who blocked them, who was SlimVirgin (same admin who blocked BabyDweezil.) --Marvin Diode 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• THF seems to be framing the argument over whether he has a right to edit articles, and articles related to his field, in particular. I do not dispute that he does. But he isn't a film expert, he's a legal expert. A film article is not the place to insert your OR about which documentaries should be included in a box office ranking. A film article is not the place for criticizing the way the World Health Organization compiles its data and the weight it gives certain categories, so why does he want this criticism in a film article not about the WHO? Instigating a war with MichaelMoore.com because he points out you edit his articles, when you are a public critic of his (who seems to have no concerns about voicing who you are and what you think in the mainstream media), is disruptive - Wikipedia is not a battlefield, as you point out. The American Enterprise Institute is not the only source, or even the best source, you can use for many of your edits. These are the issues you defend yourself against, which comes down to disruption (WP:DISRUPTION) and an agenda WP:NPOV. You are constantly embroiled in arguments with multiple editors over these issues, not that you are who you are. --David Shankbone 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• And you created an article, with no sources, to a 9 minute home-made propaganda commercial, Uninsured in America, and you put it on the Sicko, Healthcare in the United States and Canadian and American health care systems compared. This is an agenda. This is why people have problems with your edits. It's not content, it's WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR (in the case of your documentary listing, which you still feel is justified), and WP:DISRUPTION. --David Shankbone 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a comment, if I may (though some of my remarks are reproduced because I don't have the skill or the time to find new words to express the same thoughts). To begin, I agree entirely with David when he observes it is the totality of THF's edits -- his agenda, disruptive editing, and warring with other users -- that gives cause for serious concern. That agenda, even when he appears to be editing farther afield, often comes back to the same thing: Michael Moore and his new movie Sicko. Allow me to elaborate (with diffs).

THF has repeatedly intimated that there is some left-wing conspiracy afoot, a systematic problem in Wikipedia "where left-wing polemics are consistently treated differently than right-wing polemics." [112] [113] He derides Reuters News Agency as 'left-wing'. [114] His political differences spill over into edit summaries. [115] Sixteen times he mentions the 'left-wing' on Sicko's talk page. Sixteen. At one point User:Bi politely asked him to stop because such "comments will only serve to fuel some people's flaming that Wikipedia is a hotbed for left-wing hysteria." [116]

THF has also compared Sicko to The Great Global Warming Swindle on four separate occasions. They should be treated the same, he argues. [117][118][119][120] Three editors remarked on this, and each one (Ryan Delaney, Viriditas and myself) rejected the comparison. As was pointed out to him, Moore has been upfront about his starting point, unlike Martin Durkin, the director of TGGWS. Moore states clearly that it was his intention to express the other side of the story. He maintains there are many excellent qualities in socialist systems (fact) and these should form the backbone of a new non-profit American system (opinion). That's partly what his film is about. Highlighting the good things and making people aware of the alternatives. On the other hand, The Great Global Warming Swindle is opinion masquerading as science. Durkin's film championed research that was sneered at by peer review journals, and in many cases outright rejected. The production team were found to have altered scientific charts and graphs, etc etc.

THF's bulletin list of "omitted Sicko criticisms" rapidly descends into farce on the same point. At the beginning of the film, Moore makes reference to the number of uninsured people but then proceeds to say the film isn't really about them; rather, it is about those who have cover but whom get into all sorts of difficulty when they require medical assistance. According to the notes and sources on Moore's website, the uninsured figure comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov). Clinton used these stats. Bush uses them. Amazingly, THF hopes to turn this into yet another criticism of Sicko because there happens to be a non-governmental report that says the number of uninsured is lower. Stop and think about that for a moment, in light of the artificial comparison above. Moore fleetingly cites a widely accepted report that has almost certainly undergone some form of peer review, but because THF found a report that says the figure is lower, he wants to make this a direct criticism not of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but of Sicko! (Newly released figures from the US Census Bureau corroborate those of the CDC.) And the same is true of the United Nations World Health Organisation. Moore cites one of their reports briefly after criticising Hillary Clinton. This is a credible organisation that produces independent reporting. Take a stab at which Wikipedia page THF has recently been editing with a view to making the same criticism stick on Sicko? [121]

THF created a new page for Uninsured in America, a nine-minute infomercial (for want of a better description) that barely registers on any radar. (This infomercial also challenges the accepted wisdom of the number of uninsured people in America.) It doesn't even merit an entry on IMDb. It has obvious notability issues, yet not only did THF go ahead and create a page for it on August 5 at 18:05 [122], but five-minutes later at 18:10, he embedded a link to it on Sicko. [123] This is not a good example of an editor providing fluid access to existing Wikipedia content.

In addition to the criticism piece he had published in The American, THF said in August that "rather than research and write a section on factual inaccuracies on Sicko for Wikipedia, I'm going to research, write, and try to sell such a piece for wider publication." [124] I wish he would. Because the kind of criticisms he is stretching to make here don't belong in an encyclopedia. smb 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting summary, have you submitted it as evidence at the ArbCom? ThuranX 07:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enough already

Anyone think this is going to die down any time soon? Me neither.

I've asked ArbCom to rule. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#THF_/_Michael_Moore. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Carlstar3 vandalism

User:Carlstar3 (Talk|Contribs) is a single-purpose account, only editing Sanjay Gupta, persistently reverting sourced material in an attempt to whitewash the page. I previously warned him to stop deleting sourced content but the behavior continues. Request warning and/or temporary block of User:Carlstar3. Ripe 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the user should be blocked for a short period, because he is inserting libelous information on a biography of a living person. Yet, alas, I can only suggest. I am not an administrator. Miranda 07:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlstar3 again deleted (diff) sourced content, with no edit summary. Ripe 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a low-level edit war between reporting user and reported user, and Carlstar3 (talk · contribs) may be a single-purpose account. I've given him the benefit of the doubt, asking him to contribute to the talk page and defend proposed edits there, but if he fails to, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be blocked for disruption. Orderinchaos 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User has made another edit but not a full revert (has removed one sentence and two references) - can someone check this out? Orderinchaos 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User blanked two sourced sections with no edit summary. Ripe 20:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The above diff was an older edit than actions described above - nevertheless another admin has protected the page so it's not necessary to block the user at this time. Unless Carlstar tries to establish consensus on the talk page, however, I could see his time on Wikipedia lasting not much longer than the protection on the article. Orderinchaos 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bart Versieck

Despite having been blocked several times in the past for editing other's comments, he continues to do so

Examples: [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]

These are just some of the examples from the past two weeks alone. Here's one from a little earlier where he completely deleted someone's comment.

When confronted about this on his talk page, he responded disrespectfully to the user's request.

I hate to be a tattletale, but his edits are becoming disruptive. For example, on Marie-Louise Meilleur, he continues to revert my attempts to format her lifespan per WP:DATE, claiming that he doesn't need to follow the MoS. I'm not exactly 100% sure whether he's right or not, but it was my impression that WP:DATE should be followed unless there is an exceptional circumstance. I cannot even fix it today, because I'd be in violation of the 3RR. Cheers, CP 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can try being Bart's mentor? I've tried to do so in a sort of unofficial manner for the last few months (search his talk page archive for my name to see our many discussions), but I don't seem to have really gotten through, since the editing-others'-comments problem has come up again. Ideally, if there's an experienced editor out there who's fluent in Dutch, I think mentoring could make a big difference, as Bart is clearly a productive editor, just one with issues surrounding following the rules/observing good Wikiquette. Pinball22 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much a mentor will help - he's obviously not interested in following the rules, because even when alerted about a discussion concerning editing other's comments he continues to do so, even to the point of breaking someone's link: [135]. At least a third editor came in and put a stop to the Marie-Louise Meilleur edit war. Cheers, CP 15:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Still: [136]. I wasn't even looking for them anymore, it just cropped up on a page I was editing. Cheers, CP 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bart Versieck is just trying to help out and correcting peoples spelling mistakes. I don't see anything wrong with this. King Lopez ^Contribs 09:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please see here on why it is a problem. The page says that guidelines on the page should be met with "an occasional exception," and I don't think 11 times in the past two weeks alone counts as an "occasional exception." Secondly, he has been blocked four or five times in the past for this behavior, so he has no excuse to be continuing it. Third of all, in one of the cases I pointed out above, he completely deleted someone's comment. In another, he edited someone's link so that it was broken. So yes, for the above reasons, it is a problem. If this was the first time he'd ever done it, you're right, it wouldn't merit attention here. But after four or five times being blocked for the behavior? I think it does, not to mention that WP:TALK isn't the only guideline he chooses to ignore. I'm not particularly here to complain about the rest of it, except for above when the anti-MoS edits were becoming disruptive (but that has been resolved now). Cheers, CP 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UNCIVIL User

Hi. I'd like to report a user who, despite frequent and strong warnings from multiple parties continue to make inappropriate comments and personal attacks against other users.

Grandia01 has been warned multiple times, see here and here for the more recent warnings relating to this AfD. (At present there are ~7 personal attack / rude comments from the user there). After his last warning at 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC), he continued to make rude comments at the AfD. See this made at 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

As best I can tell from his contribs, this is not a single purpose account, so hopefully someone will see fit to respond in a way that persuades him to contribute in a more productive manner. Thanks --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comes off as being quite young, probably in need of some expert guidance to get him going (he's been in trouble for creating articles which are basically copyvios, one from the Columbia Encyclopaedia, one from I think a UN website). Orderinchaos 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grandia01

User:Grandia01 has been warned twice in the past and three times in the past day over personal attacks. He has gone past his final warning. He doesn't seem to or doesn't care to understand that calling a person stupid or calling a person's contribution "bullshit" constitutes a personal attack. Smashville 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Support block. This kind of behavior needs to stop, and letting it continue would hurt. The Evil Spartan 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See also this above — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...he decided to lob one at me now...[137] -Smashville 21:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So is someone going to block this user or not? This behavior is unacceptable. The Evil Spartan 03:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Is this going to happen? Can someone please block for an appropriate length of time please? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He also deleted the warnings here claiming some sort of bias...which I don't understand...I don't know him from Adam, I don't know how I could possibly have a "bias". Smashville 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He's allowed to delete the warnings per Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_warnings--danielfolsom 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet more attacks on his usertalk page. Smashville 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody has done anything about this User yet. Corvus cornix 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's been over 24 hours...and he's well past his final warning... Smashville 23:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

However, all of his warnings came over basically the same incident, from the same people. This can be seen as provocation, especially with an editor who's so far shown an inability to handle criticism. The whole incident seems to have blown out of someone posting a rather unintelligible comment at an AfD of an article the user had written, and another person writing one which included the word "bullshit". (It wasn't strictly bullshit, it was copyvio.) I'd suggest laying off him unless he does something drastic, most of this is over a single AfD. I've left comments at the user's talk page as well. Orderinchaos 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matter now appears to be resolved, with the user saying: "i'll try my best to calm down first hopefully to see the big picture before i judge anything". If something flares up again, that can be dealt with as a new issue. Orderinchaos 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, you wrote, "However, all of his warnings came over basically the same incident, from the same people." Actually, Grandia01 has been warned on many occasions to refrain from personal attacks, beginning with the very first messages to his talk page:[138],[139],[140]. More recently, he left an extremely vulgar message on my talk through an anon IP (which he never denied), as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268#Abusive use of anon IP by User:Grandia01; however the report was terribly mishandled, and nothing was done. As here, he removed this discussion from his talk page.[141]Proabivouac 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My review solely addressed the present incident, where it seems there was overreaction on both sides. From what I can tell the user involved is a very young person (as in, *well* below 18), and as I said above, has a very low threshold for criticism of any kind - something which they will need to address if they intend on sticking around. I've seen a fair bit of this kind of thing before, some have ended in community bans, others have ended in unexpectedly productive and useful editors who cringe at their earlier contributions. Orderinchaos 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Advise Me

If I am using an image from wikipedia which in public domain on the Front Page of my magazine, is it compulssary to give the credit to wikipedia as [Source: Wikipedia] or shall I mention the source without bolding it.Kaystar 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If, and only if, an image is marked as public domain, you can use it without any conditions at all; read the linked page for more information. You can click on an image to view its copyright conditions. --ais523 12:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Although, you may want to check it really is public domain - some images are tagged incorrectly. Wikipedia doesn't own the copyrights to the images (or text, for that matter), so you need to find out who actually owns the image and make sure you have permission from them. --Tango 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos would be nice! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned number of places wikipedia and credited a few of the Users who have downloaded the images. My regards for your concern. Thanks.Kaystar 12:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calton...again

As asked by admin El C, I have had zero contact with User:Calton, have not posted to his talk page, have left him be.

A discussion of radio station articles with VigilancePrime somehow drew the attention of Calton and this response. Calton was not apart of the conversation nor is he apart of the group in question, WP:WPRS.

I responded on VigilancePrime's talk page, as the "advice" Calton had given in his unrequested post was incorrect and I don't want VigilancePrime having bad information.

About 25mins ago, I am greeted with this beautiful post on my talk page. An incivil, ranting, demanding post, again stating the same bad information quoting on VigilancePrime's talk page.

It has become obvious that Calton is not going to curb the behaviour that many admins have asked of him, for us to leave each other alone, which I have. Posting on VigilancePrime's talk page about radio stations needed no response what-so-ever from Calton. I am tired, oh so tired, of asking for help with Calton and would like it very much if he would curb this behaviour and leave me alone as I have him.

So, I kindly ask an admin to please have a word with him, it probably won't do any good as he doesn't respond well to messages from anyone especially criticism from admins and even people work Wikimedia.

Many thanks for any help that can be provided. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Calton is absolutely right here, your assertion was false, having an entry in a directory s not and probably never will be a qualifier for inclusion on Wikipedia. Your best way forward here is to stick with the policies which do govern content, notably verifiability, neutrality and attribution. When giving advice to others I advise the use of qualifying terms. So: in general having an entry in the directory is taken as an indication that the subject is likely to qualify. That would be unproblematic. Was that the kind of help you were looking for? Guy (Help!) 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's my experience -- and I'm being perfectly serious here -- NeutralHomer doesn't track nuance or qualifiers. He wants everything black-and-white. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• All right, NeutralHomer is at least partially right: I mixed up -- God knows how -- his reply as being in response to a message I left for VigilancePrime on August 29th, not to an earlier message (which I'd forgotten about) I'd left for VigilancePrime on August 23rd. I blame sloppy reading, and I apologize for that.

On the other hand (and I note he left this out, despite my putting it in my message linked above), it seems obvious he HAS been stalking my Talk page. The chain:

• User:WarthogDemon leaves a note on my User Talk page about a suspicious user page at 03:26, August 26, 2007 [142]
• Twenty-five minutes later at 03:51, before I even have read the original message, NeutralHomer responds to this message left on MY page to WarthogDemon's User Talk page [143].
• Later, after seeing the notification on my User Talk page, I go to WarthogDemon's page and discover that NeutralHomer has been, in effect, "reading my mail" (despite an admin's friendly advice to stop the stalking) and has gotten there ahead of me. I am irritated, but too busy to respond.
• Today, while scanning the Talk Page history VigilancePrime, I see NeutralHomer's name, and respond -- sloppily -- as above.

And you might want to take some of his "evidence" with a grain of salt: eight of them concern the same editor, who was blocked for edit-warring over adding tags to an article -- followed about an hour later by vandalism to my user pages by an IP from said editor's city [144]; and two are simply my adding a {{trivia}} tag to said article. His padding the evidence ought to give the reader pause.

While I was wrong on the most recent incident, as far as I'm concerned I'm right on the specifics: he's been trying this stunt for months, of watching my edits, putting his oar in where he can, running off to tattle to WP:AN/I in hopes of getting me banned, and pouting when it isn't done. Rinse, lather, repeat. And I'm getting tired of it. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton, your confrontational manner of talk page posting seems to be escalating relatively minor editing issues into personal grudges. Might I suggest that you'd be much more effective with a little politeness? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Calton was right about policy, and the supposed complaint is extremely thin stuff that would be laughed out of court in any kind of dispute resolution. Now would be a good time to chill, people. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am only commenting on the policy (as I am not allowed to comment on anything else). As far as I have been told as apart of WP:WPRS, radio stations are allowed an article. LP stations, given their small broadcast area are as well, but will more-than-likely be deleted because they reach like 12 people. The same "if it has an FCC link, it has a page here" ideal is what gives us pages for almost 98% of all TV stations in the US on Wikipedia. Which is what is trying to be done with the radio stations.

Again, I will only be commenting on the policy and nothing else, as again, I am not allowed. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, either you remain consistent to that, or you don't. But you cannot play both ends. El_C 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, what you are saying is that you are attempting to make a directory of radio stations. But Wikipedia is not a directory. No amount of consensus among people interested in a single topic area will trump Wikipedia policies. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On the WarthogDemon related incident... I note that Neutralhomer apologizes for taking so long to get to it. Which doesn't make alot of sense in relation to something posted only 25 minutes prior... on someone else's talk page. WarthogDemon responded with a simple 'no problem' message. Are we sure that there wasn't some prior notification of this issue that Neutralhomer was following up on?

Given that the page in question was deleted as spam at 3:44, 18 minutes after WarthogDemon's message to me but 7 minutes before NeutralHomer's message to WarthogDemon, it's pretty clear to me why NeutralHomer apologizes to WarthogDemon for the "delay" -- but that should have been easy enough to check, even for a non-admin, and an admin could certainly have checked the page history for added tags or whatever during the time it took to compose the sentence above. --Calton | Talk 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure of the whole thing going on here. I just dropped by this page and since I saw my name pop up. I'm not sure if I've caused any confusion/problems. But in any case, I will throw in my recap if it helps clear up anything.

I sometimes browse usernames for inappropriate use of userpages. (Usually I do this by going to the User Creation Log, selecting whatever name is at the top of the list, and putting it in Special:Listusers.)

In this case though, I came across it in Recent Changes. Now admittedly enough time is past that I don't remember if it was band promotion or something else. I do remember not being sure what it was, or what to tag it with. So I decided to bring it to Calton's attention, figuring he'd be in-the-know. So I did and moved on to other Wiki-editing stuff.

I do like to check back on my Recent Contributions. (Various reasons: Too see if I've made any mistakes others have corrected, check on users I've talked to recently, etc.) Plus I also wanted to check the Rome User's page in case Calton had already tagged it. Checking Calton's page again (since I made no edits to Rome's page), I found Nihiltres had deleted Rome's talk page and so I went to Calton's page to say it had just been taken care of. Nothing further on that until I got a message from Neutralhomer. I didn't think anything odd of this; I just assumed that Calton and Neutralhomer were working together or something, so I just told NeutralHomer "no problem" and that was that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I found my name using this. As a bored Wikiholic I sometimes get curious of where things are linked to. Saw my name here and wondered if I had messed something up. I hope I haven't and that my recap clears any confusion. (And hopefully doesn't cause more...) -WarthogDemon 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As to Wikiprojects having, "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil" authority... technically true, practically inaccurate. In 'The Great Road Names Debate' state road wikiprojects which had established and updated the relevant pages to a particular naming standard were given deference even when that standard contradicted a later general standard for road names. Many of the notability and manual of style guidelines for particular topics have been drawn up by the related Wikiprojects. Et cetera. It is certainly accurate to say that Wikiprojects have no inherent authority. However, Wikipedia works by consensus and the consensus of a group of people actively working on a particular topic (aka 'a Wikiproject') is seldom going to be over-ruled in relation to that topic... basically only when the community at large disagrees. So, no, Wikiprojects 'have no authority'... but groups of people working on a topic and establishing a consensus about it do. And that's what a Wikiproject is. In the absence of a community holding to the contrary, the consensus of the people actively working on the topic is alot more than "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil". --CBD 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

and that's why the special interest groups (Wikiproject is the wrong word, it implies a level of professionalism that is absence from most) we have are so dangerous - especially on the cruftopedia side of wikipedia - those SIGs are self-selecting groups of fans who work in their best interest of their fan-based interest not wikipedia. Yes I agree, that they might have some authority when left unchallenged but we should be ever vigilant against those SIGs and constantly challenge their ownship of articles. --Fredrick day 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Noone owns articles, that's the whole point. And I agree that some WikiProjects are unprofessional or in some cases even unnecessary (then there's the cases of the one-person wikiprojects)... however, many projects are professional, organised and well-maintained, and are able to handle internal differences of opinion and are often better at reaching consensus than official or semi-official Wikipedia processes. Orderinchaos 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD is somewhat missing the point, since NeutralHomer kept making reference to the "rules" of his particular Wikiproject -- not special interest, not special knowledge, rules -- and declaring implicit ownership over such pages. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. Clean up the verbiage and what he was saying was, 'this page meets the established notability standards for radio stations'. That's not a declaration of ownership. It's an argument against deletion. Yes, he called them 'rules' rather than 'notability standards' but the distinction is not always understood. That these standards are established 'only' by the Wikiproject on radio stations does not seem, to me, the damning indictment it is above made out to be. Absent a consensus to the contrary by the community at large the consensus of a group specifically devoted to and working on this topic carries weight and is a more than reasonable guide to follow. Not 'rules', but far from "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil". A polite discussion of the distinctions, if you felt the need to 'follow' that edit link you saw with his name on it at all, would have been preferable to that hostile and not entirely accurate denouncement. --CBD 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• NeutralHomer is clearly not getting the message. Worse, he appears to be personalising the dispute to a quite unacceptable degree, see this diff. I have blocked hiom for 24 hours while we decide what to do for the best. Will an RfC be necessary? Or do we simply need to spell out the fact that Wikiprojects don't override policy? How best to progress in correcting a pattern of problematic behaviour form this editor? Guy (Help!) 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with this block - that comment was pretty below-the-belt - and In light of Firsfron's diff below, I have struck this part of my comment. I'm a bit amazed now. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) An RfC might be a very good idea, considering this NeutralHomer v/s Calton farce has been going on for long enough. I do have to say at this point, however, that Calton does not go out of his way to interact politely with his fellow users. In most of the interactions I've noted I've seen what I can only describe, and forgive my bluntness, as an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people. I realise this is not a violation of policy, and I value straight talk as much as the next person. Calton, however, seems to take this to another level entirely. This is not merely with Homer, but in most cases, so I don't know whether he's been pushed into such actions by these disputes, or it's just his style. IMHO the actions of both contributors need to be examined. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Riana. Carlton is usually right about policy, but some of his responses are so unpleasant that minor issues grow into these unproductive feuds.--Kubigula (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Riana and Kubigula. I really can't understand why we keep turning a blind eye towards Calton's rude and contemptuous behaviour. I haven't had to deal with him since his proposal to community ban User:GordonWatts where he was generally patronising and nasty, down to referring to User:Musical Linguist as "my dear", in an obvious attempt to antagonise. Sadly, I see nothing has changed in intervening months. I really don't care if he is right about policy or not, there's no excuse for his abuse. I also agree with Riana that there seems to be "an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people." I honestly don't know why we keep turning a blind eye to his abuse and the fact that we have done so for so long just plays into the apparent sense of superiority over everybody on the project. I would support looking at the behaviour of both parties, this provocation and abuse really needs to stop. Sarah 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I"m inclined to agree with Riana here. This has been going on some time and Calton has been rude in the extreme. Looks like NH just had the wrong buttons pressed in their exchange. No excuse for that, mind, but the circumstances show a certain provocation here - Alison ☺ 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, issue a general reminder to everyone to be just a little more civil, and try DR/mediation/RFC for any other lingering issues. Moreschi ^Talk 12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not endorse this block. It is clear Calton has acted equally incivilly as NH in previous disputes between these two, and talk page edits in June indicate JzG is not exactly a neutral party. NH's comment that JzG can go ahead and laugh at him is met with "Thank you, I will do just that." and this comment ("I will be standing in line when it comes to time to ban you ") worries me, too. Baiting users into giving them blocks should be discouraged, and the blocking admin shouldn't escalate the situation by insulting the user. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block - we're talking about a 24-hour, not an indef here. That is not to say there is not issues which need resolving on both sides, but some of the stuff that has been going on on this page with new sections opened up in short order seems a bit disruptive to me. WP:DR is the place for it. Orderinchaos 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here or not, but I am the person who informed NeutralHomer of the comment Calton had left on VigilancePrimes user page. So if Calton is trying to accuse NeutralHomer of wikistalking him, that is incorrect, rather Calton came across (was stalking, I don't know) a comment NeutralHomer left and couldn't stop himself from running NeutralHomer down. As far as I can tell, that is supposed to be against the rules. I saw above that people are trying to defend Calton because he was quoting policy correctly. That's fine, but what about adding the rude comment about NeutralHomer? I ran into Calton a long time ago, and as a result have not edited Wikipedia since. I watch his talk page because I am constantly amazed at what he gets away with, and that is how I knew about his past problem with NeutralHomer, and that is how I found the comment left on VigilancePrimes page. I have no doubt that if I was incorrect to post here, or if I have said anything inaccurate Calton will pounce on me, but I wanted to make sure that people know NeutralHomer wasn't looking for a comment from Calton, I saw it and informed NeutralHomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to question why on earth NeutralHomer was blocked and yet Calton is not? Is Guy a close friend of Calton? I don't edit Wikipedia, as I said above, so I don't really care if I am blocked or whatever for saying what I think. I think what Calton gets away with is ridiculous. NeutralHomer came here for help, because Calton made an unwarranted comment about how he thinks NeutralHomer doesn't have a good grasp of policy on a different users talk page, and some admin or whatever Guy is, (who already has a problem with NeutralHomer and obviously has wanted a reason to block him for some time) blocks NeutralHomer, and doesn't do a darn thing to Calton, who started this particular fight. Calton is nothing but a bully, and everyone allows it! He single-handedly drove me away from editing, I wonder how many others he has done that to? And yet no one seems willing to do anything about it! Are people afraid of him? Does he have a couple of admins in his pocket? (The block on NeutralHomer certainly makes it seem that way) Why, why, why are those who have the ability to stop Calton doing nothing??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate that we are all busy people with multiple focuses, I think it would be nice for JzG and/or Calton to respond to some of the above concerns. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)