Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive314

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NewLabourNewLies 2 Selective undelete 3 User:Ryulong block review 4 Third attack on me via edit summary: now I'm pissed 5 Username block review 6 User:Cla68 6.1 My expedition to ASM 7 Leilani19 8 Figure out Ryan's afternoon 9 Another block review 9.1 Hello dear Friends 9.2 Section break 10 User:Lisaab 11 "Finger" on userpage 12 Problem with Bots? 13 Tired of being attacked by persons who don't agree with my edits 14 Problem with a project's editors 15 Sockpuppets with open proxies 16 JS security hole closed 17 Peri’ah metsitsah 18 Request Action on Special:Contributions/Havelove 19 Origin of religion 20 Longer term discussions 20.1 Potential problem concerning episode articles 20.2 User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John 20.3 Recent editing by PalestineRemembered 20.4 Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures 21 User:Angela Kennedy, User:MEagenda 22 User:Azukimonaka Eugenics in Showa Japan 22.1 Problem of Flying-Tyger 23 Bad Faith User 24 Nazi Punk 25 A little help please 26 Block of User:Voltron 27 Help with a vandal/sockpuppet 28 Personal attack directed towards me by LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs) 29 Odd behavior by Slickshooter001 30 Block review: User:Imbrella 31 Racist needs blocking 32 Block of vandalism only account and probable sockpuppetry 33 A little request? 34 Abuse of WP:TW by Neutralhomer (in Hal Lindsey) 35 Shakesomeaction (talk • contribs • logs) and WP:LEGAL 36 Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs) 37 User:Azstatelibrary 38 WP:POINT removal of sourced content by User:Pupluv 39 Duckhunter6424 40 Database problems? 41 User:Miltopia 42 Use of racial, sexual preference epithets - general policy? 43 User:Cooldude13233 44 Possible BLP concerns, old AfD 45 Attacks in Evangelos Venizelos article 46 Deer creek high school 47 Legal threats, insults and other personal comments 48 User:Rubbersoul20 (2) Persistent OR, POV, {fact} removal 49 Southampton City Council... 50 Physchim62 51 User:Zeq potentially violating ban 52 Deathrocker/Daddy Kindsoul/Soprani block evasion 53 Violation of WP:POINT? 54 BLP violations on Haroon Siddiqui 55 Faye Resnick 56 Second opinions 57 Issue with Mississippi governor article 58 Requesting Protection on Liberal Until End of AfD 59 Fellowship of Friends IP range block - reopening 60 user:Vulpes vulpes 61 Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy - aka Hamset Jeejeeboy - aka ... 62 Theft 63 Determined 64 Suspected sock of banned user 65 User Rollosmokes and the Drake Hogestyn article

[edit] NewLabourNewLies

NewLabourNewLies (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) Seems to be on a one person campaign to add many articles to the category abnormal psychology, as a quick check of his/her contributions will show.. He has shot well past 3rr on transgender, and has expanded his horizons to include Sado-masochism, pedophilia, transexualism, and Kathoey. I;m not here to debate the appropriateness of the categorization, but to point out that this is going on despite discussion or consensus, and is causing many editors of those articles distress and anger. There are several comments and warnings on his/her talk page; I think it is now time for stronger action. Could an admin please reign him in? Jeffpw 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• That should be username blocked. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done username blocked and requested only to request unblock for name change once they are ready to agree to play nicely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, on behalf of innumerable editors, thank you so very much! Jeffpw 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, maybe not done entirely. This is copied from the LGBT project page: While working my way through this, I happened upon Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal, which points to User:BiasThug, a suspected sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71... The claims of bullying in User talk:BiasThug and User talk:FisherQueen make me suspect that it may be the same editor. I think that this will need further investigation by someone more familiar with the editing style of DavidYork71. Not sure where to report this but I'm sure it needs reporting to somewhere... This time I'm going to bed and not getting up again until the morning. I trust someone else will sort this out while I'm asleep. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• The username "NewLabourNewLies" is politically loaded. It refers to the British political party called the Labour Party. Anthony Appleyard 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Since 99% of the administrators here at th present seem to be contemplating the collective Wik navel at the above Mikkalai block thread, I took the trouble to tag all suspected socks as such. No charge, and feel free to revert. Jeffpw 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective undelete

In the selective undelete, a useful new feature appeared "invert the selection". This useful feature has disappeared again. Please, what happened? When will it be back? Anthony Appleyard 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me on Opera 9. MaxSem 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still around. Try clearing your cache. east.718 at 14:56, 10/21/2007

What browser are you using? This is implemented in the new Sysop.js linked to Common.js, which was changed to make disabling Sysop.js possible. It may be related. — Edokter • Talk • 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Should work now, have updated Sysop.js. _→AzaToth 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ryulong block review

I received an e-mail from User:The Technodrome's Toilet asking for help after being blocked by Ryulong (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). It appears that Ryulong has blocked him/her indefinitely as a sockpuppet, without a checkuser, and in the middle of a Power Rangers content dispute. I'm no expert on the subject matter, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that the person is a sock. Hasty and overly harsh blocks have been a Ryulong problem in the past, posting here for review. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked because the evidence was damning at the time, and still is. In a checkuser that did occur, it did not turn up that he was either user who I suspected him of being, but then again, he was utilizing open proxies, and several other accounts were found.

Even though there is no evidence to show he is a sockpuppet via checkuser, he still has a bunch of edits that resemble both sockpuppeteers in question (baseball-related edits, Power Rangers edits, removing the "fictional" qualifier to an article on a particular character, trying to delete the page of that same character, etc.), as well as the hoaxes that he has admitted to. This block does not come from any dispute. I saw that he was editting a page that I have watched because I'm preventing it from becoming a page totally based on rumors, and I looked into his past edits that resemble two particular banned users that I've encountered.

We should not let a user who has admitted to screwing with the project be allowed to continue to edit it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocking on the basis of sockpuppetry seems a bit hasty given that the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EddieSegoura is pending. However, from his talk page and deleted edits, TTT seems to think creation of hoax articles doesn't offend anyone, so I'm not rushing to unblock. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining/looking into it. Like I said, I'm no expert on Power Rangers sockpuppets. Not sure why the user picked me to e-mail, except that I was involved in Ryulong's RfC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an episode list for a series that doesn't air until February 2008 and everything here is either nonsense or a hoax (mostly fake films or nonsense TMNT references, like his username).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I know that Eddie is still editing (he told me via some recent emails) but I'd be surprised if this him. The language and writing style seem very different to Eddie's. But that said, I agree with AnonEMouse with regard to hoaxes etc and don't feel inclined to rush to unblocking someone who has so blatantly attempted to undermine the integrity of the project. Sarah 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the block rationale to reflect the actual evidence that was received from the checkuser, as well as why he should remain blocked, even if it isn't Eddie or CBDrunkerson (who is believed to be Eddie, regardless).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These points make sense to me. For what it's worth, the username probably needs some work as well. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've declined his (third) unblock request. If the only reason he won't create hoax articles is because other people don't like it, he still does not quite get it IMO. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, isn't that a bit too much like keeping some guy in jail for a crime he didn't commit because of his bad attitude? Not very professional. Michael2314 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• CommentSo now you just keep him in jail and retroactively change the charges? Come on fellows, you're better than this. Michael2314 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to avoid this, but after my talk page was made inaccessable I decided to create a new account so I could state my case. I did whatever I can to request unblock, but I don't know what I did to make the lastest user to review my request to make editing inaccessable. I didn't use profanity. I also was criticized for attacking the blocking user's credibility when I pointed out the complaints filed againt the blocking user. Given the fact the I had no prior blocks, is it really asking too much for an unblock. I'm only human and I make mistakes. I can't change what I did but I think it's ridiculous that a small group of you are willing to linger on something that could be solved by deleting the articles, notifying me and moving on. The Technedrome\'s Toilet 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third attack on me via edit summary: now I'm pissed

The edit summary in question is:

(Undid revision 165772791 by ILike2EatShit (talk))

This is by anon IP 76.87.220.233. I trust this might get someone's attention here. The first couple of times I was annoyed but let it slide. Not this time. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried telling him that abusive edit summaries will not be tolerated? Any warnings, at all? ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Dynamic IPs mean blocking is ineffective, so I indicated semiprotection would follow instead. This is confined to a single article.--chaser - t 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, I didn't bother contacting them because 1) it's an anon. IP and 2) I'm basically a nobody around here w/no particular powers, and thought it would be better to have a warning come from someone with some authority. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who warns who; as long as the warn is given. Administrators don't usually block a user without warnings. And most vandals don't really identify users with authority anyway. The ones I come across stop after the first warning. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

comment i doubt this would have occured if you were more civil towards your fellow editor and stopped being rude and uncooperative with everyone. Your borderlining:"habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct" (see: WP:POINT) seems to antagonize many people.Cholga^talK! 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username block review

I'm going to WP:AGF here and believe the user. I blocked Cuntass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely as an obvious violation of the username policy. (It was a soft block). However, the user has contacted me on my talk page claiming that his name is Tass and he is from Cun, Hungary, and that he uses this username at other sites on the net. My feeling is that even if the story is true, native English speakers will read "Cuntass" as Cunt + Ass, which is blatantly profane, and against WP:U. I can't see how the user could be taken seriously with that username. I believe the username block should stand and that he should register some other username, but if there is consensus that I am wrong, I will unblock. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is correct. The problem here is that too many people will belive the name is referring to "cunt ass" and will lead to a lot of time wasted from uses checking through their contribs to make sure they are legit. I would appologise to the user, but say that the username is against our username policy as it is blatantly profane, even if by accident. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

agree. Viridae^Talk 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The person's explanation is quite plausible, and may indeed, be the intent, however, I think that a very small fraction of the Wikipedia population (if any) would realize this, and instead would see this as a severely offensive username. I would endorse your suggestion to the editor to choose the name Tass Cun, instead. Ariel♥Gold 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Alot of users would think that the username is referring to "Cunt Ass". Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 22:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the odds of this? Wikipedia says that Cún is located right next to Tass, Hungary. Somebody might want to check these articles to make sure we're not being trolled. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cún and Tass are about three hours away according to Google Maps. [1] –Crazytales talk/desk 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My god I found this incredibly hilarious for about 2 seconds. Just block the guy. Checkuser to see if he/she really is from Hungary. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) Two Google searches show multiple sources for the existence of both Cun and Tass in Hungary, and they are in adjacent counties in the south of the country. Amusing coincidence. (And Tyler, the user's already blocked). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My hovercraft is full of eels; this is the en-WP, we act according to the dictates of English language sensibilities. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, My hovercraft is full of eels is indef blocked. PrimeHunter 03:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But not due to a username block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a valid soft block. Even if one's intention is not to disruptive, it can still happen accidentally. This name would have been likely to be disruptive. 1 != 2 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious softblock. Endorse. Daniel 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cla68

Was blocking a user for asking a question really justified? *Dan T.* 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the issue is WP:POINT, yes. Crum375 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Especially considering this warning from Jimbo. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another yep here. Please see the above/read up on the history of the dispute. Shell ^babelfish 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan is perfectly well aware of the nature of the dispute, which is archiving from a talk page of a WP:BLP article a series of attempts to discuss and promote the agenda of banned User:WordBomb. But of course since WordBomb is a valued contributor to a certain site, our friend Dan appears to feel the need to pitch in. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Whereas certain individuals on Wikipedia feel themselves immune to aspects of Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. in their commentary; but then why apply policy when debating application of policy? LessHeard vanU 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• For some questions, yes. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of your comments are getting pretty close to personal attacks on me. *Dan T.* 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of us feel that you are actively harassing us and deliberately impeding good faith attmepts to improve the encyclopaedia by ensuring that people don't unwittingly act as a proxy for banned users, and some of us find that vexatious. And some of us are losing patience with your holy crusade to support your friends on Wikipedia Review, at least one of whose oopinions are actively being promoted in the talk page of an article on a living individual. My level of tolerance for editing as a proxy for that person - whether intentionally or as a result of a mistaken impression that what he says has some probvable objective basis - is at zero and dropping. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Some of us feel". That's always a difficult one to judge. Please permit me to do you the favor of giving you an unbiased, outside opinion.

I don't know Dan Tobias. In all of his writings on this subject, I had never gotten a hint that he was pro-WR. All he seems to be arguing -- rationally and eloquently -- is against unnecessary Wikipedia censorship, a topic which I happen to be pretty keenly interested in myself. Based on the number of times I've come out in support of Dan, you may have gotten the impression that I'm some kind of WR sympathizer or a Dan Tobias sympathizer myself, but I assure you, I am not.

I'm sorry you're vexed by Dan's continued questions on this subject. But it's a contentious subject, so those questions come with the territory. I understand why you feel harassed, but at the same time, from where I sit, it does not look like harassment to me; it looks like precisely as much of a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia as I know you believe your extensive activities to be.

I might also say that from where I sit, your activities look like just as much of a holy crusade, against WR and in support of your friends here, as you accuse Dan's of being. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody was seriously proposing blocking Dan for politely asking his question. As for Cla68-- I too hope he wasn't really banned just for asking a question, and although I've only spent 3 seconds looking at the issue, I'm sure he probably wasn't actually banned for that. Problem users being problematic get banned for their whole editing history, taken in toto--- not for the last straw that breaks the camel's back. --Alecmconroy 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Block log says only 24 hours. The message on his userpage also says 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx for catching me on that. One of these days, my hands are going to start typing block when I mean block and ban when I mean ban. But I'm not there yet. :) --Alecmconroy 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a good, valid reason for this block, given the long, embattled history of the dispute, but honestly I think a more detailed explanation for the block than simply "WP:POINT violation" would have been a good idea. WP:POINT is extremely broad and can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways; it would be better if the blocking admin had provided a more detailed reason for the block, so more of us can understand what is going on. --krimpet⟲ 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a rather peculiar block. Lèse majesté is not a blockable offense; neither is asking ill-considered questions, when done in good faith. While Cla68 may well view the matter as something of a personal one, for obvious reasons, the situation seems hardly so urgent or so critical that a few quiet words could not have served just as well as a block. I would suggest that Durova lift the block, as I can't really see any benefit from keeping it in place at this point.

Having said that, this whole mess with the Weiss articles has gone on for long enough, and I entirely agree with the broader effort to put things in some semblance of order. Kirill 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Viridae^Talk 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation was such that a firm hand was amply called for, and more than ample warnings had been given. WP:POINT was the obvious call, but it was also a rather snide remark at Jimbo. I have no regrets for this one, especially because a biography of a living person was involved and the individual was known to be a target of harassment. Add WP:NOT#Not a soapbox. This site's article talk pages are not fora for extended grievances. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova has now threatened another editor with a block for asking a question on Durova's talk page about this block. I think Kirill has it right, and I don't know what Durova is trying to accomplish with this but it's clear this threatened block won't do anything to prevent disruption to the site. Milto LOL pia 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article's talk page to not be drama central, blocking anyone who asks questions (and threatening to block anyone who complains, as JzG did above) is almost certainly going to be exactly what you do not want to do. If the situation involving this article is a long-running disaster... maybe overly aggressive admin action is also playing a role? From the outside looking it, it certainly seems like something to consider. --W.marsh 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The block seems to be attempting to make more of a WP:POINT than the question was. Uncle uncle uncle 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it seems that way, it's because people are taking small parts of the actual situation out of context and attempting to spin them. It's time to stop enabling that behavior. My second block warning wasn't for questioning the block - that would be absurd. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it seems that way, it's because the reason for blocking was poorly explained. Uncle uncle uncle 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in endless discussion here. That block had a better explanation than many others that go unchallenged. As a courtesy to Jimbo I've reduced it to six hours with a request to refocus on solid references and topical discussion. I extend that request to this thread. See WP:NOT#Not a water cooler. If that isn't a policy clause yet it should be. Durova^Charge! 01:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I was referring to Guy's above comment at 23:09, 20 October 2007, which seemed to be threatening Dtobias with a block for starting this thread. Or at least saying Dtobias deserved one. That really doesn't seem like an attempt to calm things down at all, it was just petty escalation. --W.marsh 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well Guy can address that if he wants. Let's encourage everyone to refocus on properly sourced encyclopedic collaboration at that article. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But the two things are related. Guy is, after all, apparently the point man on this whole thing... if he is doing things you say are absurd (your comment at 01:34, 21 October 2007), it seems like there are some major problems here. --W.marsh 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's let him speak for himself. And more importantly, let's return the focus to encyclopedic collaboration. That was the whole point of his intervention, after all. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy can reply whenever he wants. There's really no "encyclopedic collaboration" in his participation in this thread to focus on though, just an attempt at steamrolling, which is hardly helpful. I'm sorry, but if this is his approach to the dispute... no wonder the whole thing has been a disaster. Ignoring that won't help. --W.marsh 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken virtually no part in the dispute. I did what I thought best to stop the idiocy of endlessly rehashing Bagley's off-wiki allegations. If anybody has anything approaching a reliable source for those allegations (and I do think that if one existed we'd have seen it by now) then they can bring it to the Talk page. What is not acceptable is speculation and repeating the allegations of a very very banned user. Few users are quite as banned as Bagley. Even his website is banned. Cla68 and Dan Tobias are perpetuating Bagley's agenda, for no readily discernible reason. It's gone on for far too long. As I say, if a reliable source comes along then we can talk, but that article's talk page was a BLP nightmare, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why we are still allowing Bagley to dictate the agenda here. Gary Weiss is a biography of a living individual and we had better start treating it as we are supposed to treat all biographies of living individuals, which is to stick to what can be reliable sourced and neutrally stated. That is what I said on the talk page, and I absolutely stand by it. I interpret Cla68 and Dan's continued agitation as "surely we can talk about it a little bit more yet?" to which my answer is: no we can't. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the blocking of Cla68-- there's obviously a lot of history there, and i'd have to do a lot of digging to intelligently speak on it. It doesn't look good to block right after a mere question, but I certainly wouldn't want to go so far as to say it's wrong unless I actually knew what I was talking about in the Cla68 situation (which I don't)

I am however greatly disturbed by the block threats made to Dan T[2] and to G-Dett [3]. Obviously, there could be other explanations, but they really do look like they were threatened with blocks just for questioning/disagreeing with the Cla68 block. Hopefully there's another answer (friendly banter? satire mistaken for seriousness? other factors)-- because if we assumed the block threats were sincere, and really were issued just because of asking too many questions-- that's a big dang misuse of admin status in my eyes. Threatening a block that would violate blocking policy is 95% as bad as actually making the block. --Alecmconroy 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. Bear in mind that there's a lot of history at that article. The long and short of it is we're dealing with the biography of a person who's been harassed in real life, and there's substantial reason to believe that Wikipedia has been abused as a venue to perpetuate that harassment. Obviously neutral Wikipedians don't want that. I have nothing to do with the original issues behind that. A lot of turmoil had taken place at that talk page, with a fairly limited set of players contributing very little of positive subtance and attempting to raise negatives that had appeared in non-reliable sources. Guy had archived the talk page and basically said, This site has policies. Abide by them. We mean it. Jimbo and I agreed. I've got no problem at all with legitimate encyclopedic discussion, but two individuals immediately came along and tested those boundaries. I blocked one of them and nearly blocked the other, mostly because their comments really looked like attempts to push the envelope and engage in drama. They certainly weren't resuming the editorial discussion that ought to have been taking place. So yes, one camel had one straw too many and the other had one straw too few. But there are limits at Wikipedia, and I find it illuminating that rather than actually locate appropriate references and engage in topical discussion the same set of people who'd sidetracked that article talk page have raised so many complaints here and elsewhere. If they want to demonstrate that they're serious about writing an encyclopedia - if they want to establish any credibility - then the thing to do would be take up the gauntlet and improve the article in a legitimate and mature manner. My estimate of several users' worthiness as editors weighs heavily on that. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. Time to stop aiding and abetting the harassment. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Cla68's ongoing reminders about SlimVirgin and her mistakes made two years ago are enough in themselves...much to do about nothing really, yet he has continued to persist on that saga for some time now, even though it is very old news. Acting, for all practical purposes, as a proxy for banned editor Wordbomb, is also getting tiring. I hope he resumes his excellent FA level work and ceases to continue using Wikipedia for purposes that are not congruent with BLP.--MONGO 07:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful and reasoned comments and look forward to continuing to work with everyone here to build a better encyclopedia. Cla68 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My expedition to ASM

I just got back from ASM, where I spent FAR too long trying to understand the situation. After looking over things, I'm officially giving myself a kindergarten-esque gold star for not denouncing the Cla68 block. "Blocked for merely QUESTIONING authority!?!?"-- that's a tempting lure for an open content ideologue like me. :) Why just hearing the phrase makes me want to break out a copy of the bill of rights. :). But I just had a feeling this one wasn't all it seemed, so-- gold star for me.

(I should be clear-- I'm not implying anyone was intentionally being deceptive by describing it as a "Blocked for questioning". At first glance, it did look that way.)

Now, everyone please, in general, remember this, and be nice to me when I don't get it right the first time, eh?

So, because everyone loves a backseat driver-- here's what our problem is. Durova and Mongo have tried to explain to me, here, what the scoop was, with the whole Gary Weiss article. Now for the regulars-- people who are always up to date on the latest controversies-- maybe you guys already all knew. But for me-- to even ascertain for myself the truth of Durova's and Mongo's statements took like, two hours of wading through archives and ASM. Because if you're gonna say "X is just a mouthpiece for Y"-- that means if I care about figuring out whether it's true, I've gotta go try to figure out who the heck Y is and what in the world crazy theory he subscribes to.

So here I am, an hour later. I literally have a piece of paper trying to diagram out the alleged conspiracy, and I still don't think I actually have a good conception of what's going on. And all this work is work I really would have to go through before I could edit intelligently on articles on this subject. And I definitely still don't have it. (You'll note, however, in all the verbosity, I've never once taken a stance on whether ASM is notable enough to merit inclusion (I hope that's true)).

So, here's our problem. We've forbidden on-wiki discussion of disputes of this sort. THat's fine, and if that's really the way people want to play it, I won't be the one to start it.

But, have you considered that by SV, GW, etc all not having a short statement of THEIR side of things, it forces me to go to the unreliably narrators, try to guess what worldview he subscribes to, try to guess what parts are inspired by reality, what parts are fabricated, what parts are spun-- then try to figure out what Cla and Dan and G-dent KNOW is false vs what they've been fooled into believing, and on and on and on. It's a gordian knot, and even having looked into it in the first place makes my head hurt.

It doesn't matter, in this case, because I'm nobody. But for the benefit of the other people who DO have to make editing and admin decisions in these cases, I just want to throw this out:

Maybe it would be better for the SANE people to put up their version of events somewhere. A short summary of the whole dispute, saying what parts are true, what parts are lies. You're under no obligation to do that-- if silence is how you want to respond, you deserve support for that too. But just consider,the best antidote for bad information is more information. Having ASM being the only source for someone who wants to understand that dispute--- that's just a bad idea. We might be far better served just talking about all the crazy allegations and publically debunking them, rather than letting them fester in the darkness, deleting references to them.

A statement: "Hi, my name is ____, and I do NOT work for the CIA, and I don't know where the lunatic got the idea that I did" might have gone a long way, and stopped the lunacy from making the frontpage of slashdot, for example.

Anyway, just a friendly suggestion. Take it or leave it. For what it's worth, I'm gonna personally apologize, on behalf of the internet, for all the crap you harassees have had to take. Please, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart-- don't anyone ever accuse me of supporting harassment. I knew it was an ad hominem insult, but I had no idea just how bad an insult it was until tonight. I'm still gonna argue on the same principles I always have-- NPOV should rule, BADSITES is bad, and all that... but just know I have a LOT of sympathy for all that you big-names have gone through. In particular-- I had no idea just how... invasive the attacks on SV were-- psychotically dredging up random trivial spats from college pubs 20 years ago, for example-- . Even assuming they're the tiniest shred of evidence to them all-- WTF is it supposed to show other than somebody has to be psychotic to try to dig up something like that!?

Anyway, all you pro-badsites people... You're still wrong, but you guys definitely have earned a hug. --Alecmconroy 09:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alec, you may want to look at a website called O-Smear [4], which is written by a techie who debunks Bagley's claims and also rips his methodology to shreds. The posts tagged "Wikipedia" and "Slim Virgin" and "spyware" are of particular interest. Other blogs respond to Bagley ([5], [6] - check out the same tags) but I think O-Smear may address your concerns the most comprehensively. --Mantanmoreland 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will look at them-- but let me be clear that after reading ASM, I personally did not have any concerns that myself needed to be addressed. I have a pretty good lunacy detector, and came away quite satisfied that the site was not a reliable narrator, to put it generously. When I asked for debunking stuff, it wasn't for me personally, so much as for the next guy who comes along. :) --Alecmconroy 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alec, well done for 'fessing up here. Yes, it is very complex, and has been running for a long time. Also, please be aware that BADSITES is absolutely not the only reaosn for removing any given link, the main reason links are removed is spam but in this case we also have active offsite harassment and in some cases offsite essays by banned users - banned users are not allowed to contribute to content debates. Especially the banned users I am looking at right now.

Now to the Weiss / SV situation. First and foremost, the only reason Bagley started out on his campaign against SV on ASM was that SV refused to accede to extortion. He said that if SV did not leave him to promote his agenda, he would publish hurtful things. The hurtful things are not his own work, they come in the main from Daniel Brandt, who in turn picked them up form some conspiracy theorist somewhere. The allegations against SV are and always have been baseless. They have been discussed before.

Consensus among those who deal professionally with harassment and stalking is that you do not engage in any way with your attackers. You do not make statements, you do not give them any leverage at all. The corrcet response to the allegations agaist SV is to remove them, inform the people bringing them here that they should refrain from bringing allegations without credible independent sources, and suggest that if they absolutely insist on discussing material in blatantly unreliable sources, they should do so directly with the arbitration committee by email.

Bagley is the latest in a series of increasingly dangerous zealots. Wikipedia's profile is such that these people need to get their mad theories on Wikipedia. The bigger we get, the worse they get. The way we used to deal with this madness two years ago does not work today because there are more registered users (hence the one in a million who will believe an obvious conspiracy delusion becomes three or four individuals), because one or two people keep sidetracking the debate to push another agenda, and because we as a community have not yet realised just how serious this is. We have had to call the police to deal with some incidents, by now, and female admins in particular are expressing significant and well-founded concerns about harassment and stalking.

Wikipedia is not Usenet. We are not obliged to discuss tittle-tattle. And we are absolutely not oblioged to let these people have an indefinite number of kicks at the can, whether they be Scientologists, LaRouchites, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, promoters of bizarre "scientific" theories or people like Bagley employed to advance the agenda of his employer by any means. Soapboxers, vanity merchants, fringe theory proponents - they can go away. We know what they think, and their input is not relevant to building a credible and neutral encyclopaedia.

One thing we do need to do, though, is to start documenting these cases in a way that forestalls the endless idiocy. SV absolutely should not be asked to lend credibility to Bagley by responding, but we, the Wikipedia community, should probably have a very short subpage somewhere that details the allegation, who made it and why, what investigation took place (or none, and why). Then, when each new unsuspecting individual is drawn in by the campaign to build and spread the meme, we can simply point them to that page. Debate can be centralised in that place and clerked to within an inch of it's life. So "Wah! I read that admin X did this Bad Thing!" would be redacted to "User Y expressed an interest in the case and was informed of the steps taken." Further debate - for example if people are dissatisfied with the collective response - belong at ArbCom. And if people are absolutely determined to discuss the allegations at WhackJob.com, they can take it to the mailing list where it won't distract people from building an encyclopaedia. I have written more on this at User:JzG/Harassment links.

Now bear in mind that in any sane society the ravings of obvious loons would simply be dismissed, and we would not be compelled to make any statement on it because when trusted people say they have investigated, then most reasonable people will accept it. Wikipedia has too many people, and the community is too diffuse and contains too many impressionable people, for this to work. Also, the kooks are getting very good at spreading their memes. Which is why I suggest a clerked, carefully monitored system for handling good faith attempts to raise these issues. They have, almost without exception, no merit, but they spread like a plage around the whole project because there is no one place where we can send people to say "there, that is what happened, now please drop it." Guy (Help!) 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously, there's some real pluses and minus to responding to the stuff vs leaving it alone, and I can see really good arguments for both, so, I just threw it out there. Maybe talking about it gives it strength, but maybe ignoring it gives it more strength. That's a question for wiser minds than mine.

One thing I would emphasize, which of course you already know, is that there's two types of harassment. The "namecalling, flamewarring, god that is REALLY REALLY rude" type we see on the internet all the time, and the "criminal harassment". Obviously, I would strongly encourage anyone who feels the second kind to tell law enforcement. If Bagley's threatened her in a criminal way, we (we being the foundation) should do whatever is necessary to see he's brought to justice. Based on his website, I don't get the feeling he's doing anything criminal, but of course, it appears I'm the least informed person on the entire project when it comes to the details of this, and the only people who should be making that assessment are the targest of the harassment . --Alecmconroy 12:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, your various suggestions here are thoughtful and productive. Please know, however, that I don't accept – and am seriously offended by – your insinuations that I have been somehow taken in by Bagley. I edit ME-related articles first, and literature/poetry articles second, and though my real-world interests are much broader I neither understand nor give a sh** about naked shorting, Wall Street scandals or any of it. Nor do I want to learn. I've never edited those articles and never will; nor am I an apologist for harrassers or corporate shills. I am told that Bagley praises me for questioning the banning of Piperdown. Bully for Bagley. If he thinks I'm his girl on the inside, he will be sorely disappointed. I have zero interest in the Bagley-Weiss wars themselves.

I am interested only in one principle involved, and that principle has nothing to do with harassment or linking to attack sites. It has to do with what happens to NPOV when you have "superbanned" users like Bagley. Bagley has been so egregious in his sockpuppeting that admins have taken to shooting on sight. That all sounds well and good, but we've reached a stage where not only Bagley's puppets but Bagley's opinions (and not his theories about intra-Wiki politics but his positions on matters of public interest) in effect have been banned. This presents a problem to my mind. NPOV in article mainspace should not be a reflection of which real-world actors are in the good graces of Wikipedians and which ones (due to megadisruption) are not. This problem is an important one in my view, one with broad implications for other subject-areas in Wikipedia, and it is logically fatuous to define it as part of "Bagley's agenda."

I had this problem in mind when I commented on the Weiss RfC; I wrote that material considered notable by the New York Times should be considered notable by Wikipedia, regardless of our feelings about the actors involved. I have since reflected that weighing in on a specific editorial question regarding an issue I know nothing about (in this case, Gary Weiss's disputes with others in the business world) simply because of the principle involved comes perilously close to making a WP:POINT. That is true no matter how important the principle involved. Hence Durova's threat, high-handed as it seemed to me at the time, in hindsight makes sense.--G-Dett 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

G-dett, I sincerely apologize for giving you the impression that I thought you were somehow 'in league with' or 'taken in' by ASM. I wasn't trying to comment on you at all-- I haven't looked over your actions, I wasn't commenting on them in the slightest. When I refer to being deceived by the overly-simplistic explanation of Cla being blocked just for asking a single question, I do not in the slightest mean to imply someone else deceived me. It was my own first impression that the Cla block, but after a lot of examination, i just realized the situation was really really complicated.

Anyway, please know I wasn't trying to criticize you in the slightest. I was just trying to apologize, because I've argued so strenuously against BADSITES, I realized that even though that principle is, in my opinion, correct, I should have been far more considerate in my arguments, and a make my compassion for the people who have been harassed a little more explicit, rather than assuming it's implied. --Alecmconroy 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries Alec. The part I was reacting to spoke of trying "to figure out what Cla and Dan and G-dent KNOW is false vs what they've been fooled into believing." I don't mind criticism – bring it on – and I didn't mean to be tetchy. The very issue I'm concerned with is how broad and all-encompassing our working definition of a "Word Bomb meatpuppet" is becoming, and your comment seemed to me to play into the logic of that. No harm no foul.--G-Dett 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alec. Nicely written. And I think you've hit upon an important problem. If you just get some random pages on ED, or look at a few threads on WR, or skim a bit of ASM, they don't seem particularly offensive. Unlike, say, the Time Cube guy, they are not instantly dismissable. It takes research.

Something that summarizes the issues, or even a place where reliable, uninvolved contributors can report back like you just did, would be a great help. As Guy says, we don't want to place the burden on the targets.

I do wonder if in talking only to traditional harassment experts we might be making a mistake. One other thing that's important for people being harassed is to make people close to you aware of the problem, as they can be a great source of emotional support and pragmatic help. But in a public environment like Wikipedia, the two directives conflict. I wonder if we could find advice from people who handle PR disasters or political mud-slinging could give us useful advice.

Oh, and if you do end up with a diagram, please send me a copy. :-) William Pietri 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, honestly, I have a harder time figuring out the deal with Time Cube than I did the deal with ASM. LOL. My experience was never that ASM came across as reliable, but it isn't clear at first glance how... cruel and petty the content is. Honestly, if our only goal were to convince people that ASM is nonsense, the best the we could do is plaster links to it all over the place-- reading it for itself conveys its meanspiritedness in a way that no summary really could ever capture. (obviously, our goal is write an encyclopedia, not convince people ASM is evil, so, yeah, no need to take that "plaster ASM links everywhere" as an actual prescription, please).

Honest to god, there really is a diagram. Not particularly coherent, but it does exist.. I wish I had a scanner-- I'd show it off. :) --Alecmconroy 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Several people in the thread above have wondered if there is a place to give short summaries of things like this. Comments like "Something that summarizes the issues, or even a place where reliable, uninvolved contributors can report back like you just did, would be a great help." The closest thing I know of to this is Wikipedia:Long term abuse. This has archives and subpages dealing with various long-term abuses by several people (links to the archives and subpages are on that page). It is mainly set up for long-term vandalism, but could be adapted for harassment reports as well. The main concerns would be to avoid give the harassers recognition (though the page I've linked to there makes clear that the motivations for vandalism and harassment are different) and to avoid privacy concerns. Oh, and to clearly change the structure of any reports page to make clear it is about harassment, and not vandalism. I also agree wholeheartedly that criminal harassment should be dealt with by the police, and that we need the advice of people experienced in dealing with specifically internet based harassment, as opposed to real world harassment (though I recognise that that has taken place as well). Carcharoth 18:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't work for the CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5, or any other spy outfit. If I had my pick I'd take Inspector Clouseau over James Bond - I like a guy who makes me laugh. There have been a few odd things claimed about me elsewhere on the Internet, most of which are rubbish, but I'd like to officially thank the trolls for spelling my name right. ;) Durova^Charge! 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leilani19

I feel as though Leilani19 (talk · contribs) is harrassing me. I have tried to leave multiple contributions of information I know is fact. That person repeatedly slams me with threats saying that I have been reported for vandalism. This is not the case. I feel as thoguh this person is purposely doing this to discredit my information. At one point in time, I accidently deleted a page, I am still fairly new to this website and am still learning the ins and outs. I did not mean to do that on purpose and I filed a report to the proper department. Several occasions, I find my tlak box filled with messages from Clue Bot, in which I write back to defend myself. I cannot take this harrasement anymore. Please help me to fix the problem. I understand how things go as far as celebrities are concerned, and there will be young girls and guys out there who do not want to hear the truth. But that simply does not justify them turning around and falsely accusint me and discrediting my sources and my credibility. (Ryan782) —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been adding information to Leland Chapman, but you've not provided a reliable source, something that is mandatory for biographical articles. It doesn't matter if you know it to be true; it doesn't even matter if you are Leland Chapman; information has to have a reliable source that we can verify, otherwise it absolutely positively cannot be in the article. Also you blanked the article (this edit), which is indeed vandalism. And you've chosen to personally attack Leilani9 in this unacceptable edit, a violation of our no personal attacks policy. So you're not being harassed; you've chosen to break Wikipedia's rules repeatedly, despite being asked to stop, and you've chosen to attack those who defend Wikipedia. You're very close to being blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how blanking the page is not vandalism? Corvus cornix 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figure out Ryan's afternoon

I woke up this morning with a pretty bad hangover and I need to stay in today - so here's a one time offer: The first person who gives me an admin task that they think is backlogged will get three solid hours of my effort in that area, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable. I'm going out to lunch, I'll check back when I get back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• SSP has been backlogged for ages. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, three hours of sockpuppets to sort out. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Ryan Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bah, I showed up too late to suggest CAT:CSD. Damn. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you send a case of strong liquor to Ryan if you want your backlog(s) to be dealt with... LessHeard vanU 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I closed a bunch of sockpuppet cases, the ones that remain are all either under the review of another admin, have been remanded to Checkuser, or are too horrible to deal with. With some extra time on my hands, I suppose I could check on CSD... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In CSD I found Image:Mariko Morikawa.jpg marked as "for educational use only." (Admins can take a look - I think it wins for ironic license tag) Alas, it was deleted. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly notable. ;) Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ryan, if you're still looking for things to do, UFAA has been backlogged all afternoon. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my vote for initiating the Booze for Backlogs program. --bainer (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another block review

I have indef blocked Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on the basis of a report to WP:AIV, and my review of the diffs provided. Per my comment when placing the notice on User talk:Beh-nam I recognise that the tariff may be inappropriate, and I am open to any admin who wishes to investigate further to vary or lift the block as deemed fit. I also concede that the original report may be motivated by reasons that are unencyclopedic and I therefore blocked on the basis of the incivility as evidenced by the language. LessHeard vanU 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See this thread above. User:Beh-nam, User:Aspandyar Agha and User:Dilbar Jan have been participating in adolescent insults to each other on various talk pages, and calling each other sockpuppets of some User:NisarKand. I should have delved deeper into it last night as I thought it was just restricted to one particular spat, but it looks like it is a bigger Tajik vs. Pathan issue. -- Samir 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I had dealings with Beh-nam some months ago and always found him to be a good-faith contributor. Please be aware that the person who placed that report is apparently NisarKand (talk · contribs), one of the worst spreaders of ethnic hatred and long-time sockpuppeter. NisarKand is indeed a serious problem. Dealing with him can be exasperating; I don't think anything Beh-nam may have done while dealing with NisarKand ought to be held against him. I'll look further into this; might recommend unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse the indef blocking of Beh-nam, for this edit alone. The problem vandal NisarKand is irrelevant to this issue, which is Beh-nam's conduct, and there is no justification for that kind of hateful speech. Neil ☎ 17:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Still skeptical. A one-off outburst under the kind of constant provocation caused by the NisarKand socks is not necessarily grounds for indef-blocking. I notice Beh-nam was doing some useful work in pinning down copyvio image uploads which Nisar was trying to hide behind a multi-sock smokescreen, as usual. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing some useful work does not give anyone a pass for that kind of racism and intolerance. I saw a thread about this further up one of the Admin Noticeboard pages recently. Of particular note is [7] - the history of User talk:Sodaba shows that Beh-nam did not make a "one-off outburst" - he made five edits over 17 minutes honing and adding to his name-calling and bigotry - this was not a one-off edit made in a fit of passion, this was a carefully constructed and considered piece of hatemongering. Neil ☎ 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that even a 17-minute fit of rage is still just a fit of rage, and, after the truly exceptional history of year-long disruption by NisarKand, potentially forgivable. But I'll let this rest until Beh-nam actually comes back online. He hasn't commented or posted an unblock request as yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed User:Dilbar Jan's contributions more thoroughly and there are heaps of hateful ethnic commentary. I've blocked him indefinitely. -- Samir 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides him, judging by editing times and similar evidence, the following are certainly Nisar socks:

• Wmmr (talk · contribs)
• Freeman2006 (talk · contribs)
• Pollinghigh (talk · contribs)
• Sodaba (talk · contribs)
• commons:User:Executioner
• commons:User:Wikireporter

Can some commons admin please take care of all their image uploads? They are most certainly copyvios. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that the individual who placed the unblock request (since denied) on Beh-nam's talkpage is likely to be the user in the section below. I believe Beh-nam should be allowed to make their own presentation. LessHeard vanU 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of making an indefinite block on Beh-nam for the one outburst. Neil is right that it was honed a few times, but if was still basically one episode.

However, I have also found [8] (more racist abuse), [9] (foul edit summary), [10] (more abuse), [11]. Digging back further, I don't find much more in the same vein, and quite a lot of reasonable behaviour -- not always super-polite, but nearly all of it well within acceptable bounds. I had an encounter with Beh-nam last month, and it was rsolve politely and resaonably: [12].

So I think that I would suggest that the blocking admin should reduce the length of the block, to something which reflects the seriousness of this spat but doesn't go so far as to say "never again" in the way an indef block does. Maybe one month, but with an explicit warning that any further racist abuse would lead to an indef block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I recognise that the tariff does not have consensus, and that there may have been ethnic/ nationalistic considerations in both the making of the report and possible provoking. I would prefer to have Beh-man's response, but I have no problem with another admin varying the period if it is considered appropriate before then. LessHeard vanU 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aspandyar Agha, who has commented below, has made much worse racist attacks than Behnam. Here are some examples of his racist attacks: [13], [14] and of harassment of a user who has left wikipedia: [15]. There is also the case of the "insulting match" with Dilbar jan([16], [17]). Most of his edits are tendentious, and indicate a strong prejudice against ethnic pashtuns. If Behnam's behaviour warrants an indef block, then this user certainly deserves some kind of sanction. Raoulduke47 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello dear Friends

Beh-Nam is not NisarKand because Beh-Nam is a Tajik and NisarKand an Awghan, an ethnic Pashtune. Dear Admins, plz check that out also his IPs. They are two different User. While NisarKand and DilbarJan are one and the same User and a nationalistic one but Beh-Nam has nothing to do with such activities. DilbarJan(/NisarKand) claimed he would helping Taliban but since Beh-Nam is a Persian and the Taliban were looking for cleansing Tajiks who could he be NisarKand self since Dilbar is allready NisarKand!? Plz dear Admins, unblock him. Beh-Nam is for a long time on Wikipedia and he didn´t do sth bad either against any nations nor against any User or any articles. The admins of Wikipedia now banned two or three of Tajiks who were one o the important ones here at least they were the sole Tajiks who were active. Plz Admins, ban DilbarJan who is writing articles from his nationalistic view. With best regards. --Aspandyar Agha 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing Aspandyar Agha's editing, I have indefinitely blocked the account. Neil ☎ 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

I don't know much about this case but looking at it here i think Fut.Perf. and BrownHairedGirl description of the situation is more accurate. If it was his second i'd certainly support an indefinite block. But having the same fate as NisarKand is really bothering. He's always been a disruptive editor. But the difference is that this is the first time Beh-nam drinks while driving whereas NisarKand drinks all the time while driving. A month is enough for a first blatant violation of policy. If repeated it would be the last one. But in this case the block of Dilbar Jan would be probably treated the same way unless he is a sock of NisarKand. Any thoughts? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Dilbar Jan most certainly was Nisar, if there was any doubt left about it, the latest anon trolling here on this page dispelled it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, i've got no doubt about that. Whenever i see a disruptive editor starting editing Wikipedia w/ a long discussion at a talk page followed by many similar others especially when saying "...so according to Wiki rules, we must stick to the majority." at his first ever edit, i just confirm he is a sock. i don't care of whom he may be but blocking indef on the spot is the correct action. I just don't understand why he was left editing till today. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I absolutely do not endorse any reduction in the length of this block. Editors like this, irrelevant of who they are "fighting with", are tendentious, abusive, racist POV warriors, and should not be welcome. I strongly reccomend leaving at indefinite. Neil ☎ 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Beh-nam's charming comment was "You are big time benamoose watanforosh. You are living proof that Owghans are treacherous, dishonest, fascist, selfish, racist, thieves, delusioned, and cannot be trusted with anything. Stop making sockpuppets you idiot kooniwal." I'm not sure what "benamoose" or "kooniwal" mean, I think they're Afghan slang, but "watanforosh" is traitor. Neil ☎ 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what those words mean either. But I know what "treacherous, dishonest, fascist, selfish, racist, thieves, delusioned and cannot be trusted" means, and I don't think they are in the spirit of WP:NPA. Raymond Arritt 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lisaab

According to this block log, [18] this user was blocked indefinitely on 7 October. However today, 21 October the user was able to make this edit to the user talk page, [19]. Was this user later unblocked but not recorded in the log or is there something wrong with the block? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked editors are able to edit thier own talk pages. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course. Apologies, I was a bit confused as alot of them are protected. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Finger" on userpage

Is this page:User:Dinote suitable or allowed? I wasn't 100% sure so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed by Maxim (talk · contribs). ~ Sebi 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember Jehochman mentioning Wikipedia:Five pillars yesterday. I think it is better to not be used in user space. However, Maxim could have left a cool message at User talk:Dinote before removing it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a message after I removed it, just asking him not to do it again. I think he should know better. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Bots?

It appears that SnakeBot is out-of control - see [[20]] as well as SieBot - see [[21]] Zagubov 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? Both of those are valid interwiki links (although WHY any other language Wikipedia has articles on counties in Kentucky isn't clear). -Amarkov moo! 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The English Wikipedia has articles abut provinces and lower-level political organizations of other countries, why should other language Wikipedias be any different? Corvus cornix 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies- I've not seen this kind of thing before and mistook it for vandalism needing reverting.. I'm using an updated Firefox on Mac OSX and didn't realise my systems limitations. Zagubov

[edit] Tired of being attacked by persons who don't agree with my edits

The title says it all. I have ignored a couple of few personal attacks and warning the other users that I was not going to pay attention to it. Seems like these group of people just want to do in Wikipedia what they feel like. I've made my edits according to the official guidelines and policies, wich this user thinks are stupid and somehow "delete" the entire article, or "doesn't help" Wikipedia.

The personal attack can be seen in User_talk:Cosprings#Tasco made by User:Real Compton G. Diff.

Now, I know this is not a high level threat or attack, by I've been recieving some of these and I am tired of it. I think the user should have a message delivered by an administrator warning about the guidelines and respect them. If he doesn't like others user's edits, don't insult him/her.

That would be all, I hope you can understand this issue. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note left. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I really wanted. I hope he can understand now.--Tasc0 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with a project's editors

I discovered, via Talk:Decommissioned highway, that the term "decommission" when applied to highways is a neologism, and readers will not understand it. This was confirmed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Decommissioning. So I started changing to more appropriate terms. Several people are now objecting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned?, and at least one - Scott5114 - is reverting my edits. What am I to do? This is clearly not an appropriate word to use, but the editors of the project have determined that they don't care. --NE2 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment. Discuss it, try to reach consensus. This isn't really something requiring administrator attention. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken issues like this to this board before and had them discussed. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well this isn't really the area to asks for broader consensus on those types of non-administrative issues, though I'm sure you'll get some new editors commenting. Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Try getting bogged down in bureaucracy? Riiiiight. --NE2 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how I'd do that; this isn't about a single user, a single article, or a single policy. --NE2 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And now they've started an RFC on me: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 3 I need help. --NE2 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets with open proxies

Can you please block those open proxies:

• 189.22.223.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 222.36.2.38 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 209.87.243.254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 211.174.63.148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

ForeignerFromTheEast 01:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Mr.Z-man 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the anon vandal is registered though, on Krste Misirkov. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked, page semi-protected. MastCell ^Talk 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a part of a larger problem with multiple account abuse:

• Wreasuma (talk · contribs)
• Picatikoyama (talk · contribs)
• Jaditrici (talk · contribs)
• Zambez (talk · contribs)
• Szbgm (talk · contribs)
• U prolazu (talk · contribs)
• Cefar78d (talk · contribs)
• Ufdo Jegamstre (talk · contribs)
• Objektiven tip (talk · contribs)
• Daepten (talk · contribs)
• Porebio (talk · contribs)
• Onojstobesetamu (talk · contribs)
• Geek Arabic Malaka from Hellass (talk · contribs)
• Daveebamugz (talk · contribs)
• Norisou (talk · contribs)
• Oligopotamia (talk · contribs)
• Ltpao (talk · contribs)

More open proxies:

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

ForeignerFromTheEast 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All IPs reported to WP:OP. Dean Wormer 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JS security hole closed

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitrary_.js_security_hole_closed. This is something that I think as many eyes as possible need to see, especially those that write these user js scripts. Please discuss on AN (Administrators's noticeboard). Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peri’ah metsitsah

I created this article based on information from Christopher Hitchens' book, god is not Great. Eliyak asserts that the information is wrong, arguing that Hitchens is not an authority on Jewish customs (Hitchens converted to Judaism when he married his current wife, though he's currently an atheist), etc. Eliyak changed the material without a citation, and left a citation tag in the article. Although Eliyak appears to have done much work on Judaism-related articles, I tried to explain to him/her that the WP standard is Attribution and Credible Sources, not truth. Eliyak insists that the name of the article is wrong, that the procedure it describes is incorrect, that its origin is Orthodox rather than Hasidic, that the frequency of its practice is greater than the article asserts, etc. He moved the article to a new name, and changed the material, and even added a source, but does not go into detail as to how that source contradicts the material. My position is that when two sources disagree, the article should incorporate both of them. I tried to revert the article to reflect both sources. I even tried to look for a link to Hitchens' website in his article so I can contact him over his sources, but his article has none. Eliyak reverted the title's page, and again altered material in the article, relying on his/her personal knowledge, rather than wait until the conflict can be clarified through collaboration and more in-depth investigation. Any advice? Nightscream 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Hitchens is not an expert on Jewish Law. Secondly, there already exists mention of metzitzah in its proper place Brit Milah. This article is a POV fork. -- Avi 04:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected the article, where sources including Talmudic scholars and Medical personnel are brought, and not investigative journalists. -- Avi 04:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The article I wrote was not intended to be POV, however, I have read the sourced articles regarding the procedure on the brit milah article, and am satisfied that it covers the material well enough that a separate article is not needed. Nightscream 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request Action on Special:Contributions/Havelove

This account appears to have only been created to insert pro-China propaganda POV edits into the Dalai Lama page. K. Scott Bailey 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Three edits, all reverted. No warnings, not even a post on their talk page. At least first tell the editor about NPOV and see if they act unreasonably. Then we'll see. Assume good faith first. Otherwise, what would you like done? Personally, I certainly am not going to block someone purely due to how they're editing, until they are disruptive. If a user trolling to edit Hitler isn't a clear block, this one certain isn't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear in my summaries that if the POV pushing didn't stop they would be reported. It didn't stop. They were reported. Nothing was done. Fine. K. Scott Bailey 05:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying, at least post a warning on the talk page. That way, someone will be sure that the user is seeing it. It is possible that a new user don't see the edit summaries. If they violate 3RR or are uncivil or whatever, report that and they will be blocked. Besides, a content dispute will not result in an immediate blocking. I'm sorry, that's just the way I see policy. Anyone disagree? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. I know Dalai Lama is controversial (duh) but is this editor posting some language that is a repeat of some other user (like a banned one, you know a WP:SOCK?). I just wanted to check. If so, then a block is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They're very similar to ALL the pro-China vandals/POV pushers I revert on a daily basis. And it would seem that when an account is created, and then proceeds immediately to POV-pushing, that some admin action would be warranted. K. Scott Bailey 06:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of religion

I am seeking comments regarding a recent incident regarding an article titled Origin of religion. I created this article over a week ago. However a number of editors were unhappy with the article and nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. The article was deleted because it was deemed to be a "Inappropriate content fork of the article Development of religion" and was OR and WP:SYN. It is my opinion that this decision was incorrect. This is because I do not believe that the title "origin of religion" and "development of religion" are the same topics. The apparent consensus on the deletion discussion indicates that the editors do believe that there should never ever be an article titled "origin of religion" but there should only be an article titled "development of religion". The admins redirected the page "origin of religion" and also protected it to ensure that no editor ever creates an article titled "origin of religion". To start with the thesaurus does not indicate that "development" and Origin are synonyms [22], [23]. Furthermore the some of peer reviewed scientific journals and books cited in the article use the term "Origin of religion" for example

Sources cited

The sources cited include:

• "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553. The author is is professor of anthropology at The College of William & Mary,this is her profile and these are are reviews on her book.
• "Nicholas Wade - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8 p. 165" ISBN 1594200793, he is a science journalist for the New York Times. I figure since this is one of the most reecognized newspapers in the world, he qualifies as a reliable source.
• The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion Matt J. Rossano, he is a professor of psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University, ::his profile
• (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3. by Steven Mithen, Professor of Archaeology, University of Reading, his profile.

I am therefore requesting input on this. If editors feel that origin of religion and development of religion are the same, I will proceed to add the relevant information to the development of religion article. Muntuwandi 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article was deleted, I think you want deletion review. (Or you could talk to the admin who deleted it). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I used the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 16. However the admins were only interested in procedure and not content. Muntuwandi 05:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to have been a valid discussion there. I don't think it's fair to dismiss the conclusion of the DRV debate as overly focused on procedure over content. While you may not like the conclusion reached, I'm not sure the best approach is to keep asking different people until you obtain a favorable answer. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my last request as I have mentioned that if editors here feel that there should never be an article titled "origin of relgion", then I will proceed to add the relevant information to the article development of religion. However even in DRV procedure, no editor addressed the issue of whether the title "origin of religion" is a valid and distinct topic. I requested a response on this question and nobody provided any answer. Muntuwandi 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It WAS settled there. Now if someone could please take a look at my legit request above, I would appreciate it. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors took votes but the underlying question still remains unsettled and will definitely resurface again. For example some editors have already began suggesting that development of religion is in a mess and should be merged with other articles Talk:Development_of_religion#removing_synthesis_tagMuntuwandi 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longer term discussions

[edit] Potential problem concerning episode articles

Moved to /Episodes. Mercury

[edit] User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

Moved to /User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John. -- Cat ^chi?

[edit] Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

Moved to /PR. Mercury

The case on me here looked terrible while it was on display on the board (at least, I presume that's the reason people with respect for the project moved it out of sight). It's taken even more sinister directions now it's "hidden". It died once and was closed. It's now sprouting more allegations that are, yet again, completely baseless. Please have a look at this - Jaakobou has re-opened it in order to accuse me of sock-puppetry. There is nothing whatsoever to link me to the anonymous IP. User:Jaakobou has previously made at least one other reckless accusation of sock-puppetry against an editor in good standing. And this comes less than 2 weeks after he was warned and apologised for "Forum Shopping". I don't know what it will take to stop him wasting everyone's time. PR^talk 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

[edit] User:Angela Kennedy, User:MEagenda

I have indefinitely blocked the above users, in line with the Wikipedia policy on no legal threats, for this edit from Angela Kennedy and this very similar edit from MEagenda in particular. I have informed the users that they can be unblocked at any time if they rescind these threats of legal action. Would appreciate feedback, having never really taken action on legal threats before. Neil ☎ 10:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. My only problem is the daft idea that, after those who made the threats (typically grudgingly) rescind them that we do indeed unblock them. Legal threats are a spiteful attack on members of the Wikipedia community, with the clear goal of intimidating them into compliance or silence. Those who issue unambiguous threats, such as this one, should be permanently excluded for Wikipedia, regardless of whatever post-hoc wailing they make when the find their bully tactics have repercussions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Finlay's response was before I mentioned MEagenda was also blocked (although I think the response would be the same?) Neil ☎ 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusly so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by (somewhat) involved editor: My personal impression is that AK is doing two things here: (1) accusing JzG of libel and (2) requesting information/material to be used in possible legal action against Prof. Wessely. However, I can see how it may be interpreted it as a legal threat and would hesitate to propose unblocking. I would advise the editor to accept Neil's offer and retract the problematic text. (A request for said information/material can be made via foundation e-mail; since the editor appears to be corresponding with Mr Wales, who was the designated contact last time I checked, it would be easiest to simply ask him). PS The same applies for MEagenda. Avb 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These blocks seem completely unfounded, since the 'no legal threats' rule applies only to legal threats against users, not outsiders. There is really not an obvious legal threat, either. One can see a limited potential for a legal action, but it has not been announced. I am therefore kindly requesting to unblock both users. Thanks, Guido den Broeder 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guido, they will be unblocked when they retract any legal threats. To me, it reads like they are threatening the preparing of legal cases against Guy Chapman / User:JzG. That is, by definition, a legal threat. Without even looking, I guessed you were not neutral to this, and a quick look of your contributions shows you are not. Neil ☎ 13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Can someone other than Neil take a look at this? There is no legal threat against anyone. There may be a legal issue with Wessely, who is not a user, and that's all what can have been implied. Guido den Broeder 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. User:Angela Kennedy: "Guys comments here... are libellous and defamatory, and this is not the first time he has made libellous and defamatory comments against myself. I am currently engaged in corresponding with Jim Wales about Guy’s previous libel... I therefore call on ‘Guy’ to supply those emails... to me directly so that I can forward them to my solicitor. I should remind ‘Guy’ that even if Professor Wessely HAS made such comments, ‘Guy’ is still guilty of libel and defamation by repeating false claims in this way." ([24])

User:MEagenda: "If Mr Guy Chapman holds any documentary evidence from any source (including from Prof Wessely, himself) that supports any claim or implication that I might have "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, then I suggest that he set them before me in a paper letter or in electronic form in order that I might forward them on to my solicitor to deal with." ([25])

Either those are textbook legal threats against an editor, or we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, most likely, both of the above. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How about: She wants to go after Wessely. If Guy thinks she has libelled him, forward the evidence to her so her lawyer can deal with them (IE, Defend her). That is what I get from the gist of the whole matter. Legal threats against Wessely and defense against Guy. Spryde 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I still read it as threatening to unleash a solicitor upon Guy, and I note Angela Kennedy has not denied that on her talk page in response to the block message. Even if we go with your version, Spryde, whoever they may be against, they are legal threats. NLT does not draw a distinction betwen legal threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or non-Wikipedian groups or people, and nor should it. Neil ☎ 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just pointing out another angle people may have not considered. That is all. Spryde 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Point by uninvolved editor: It probably should raise some red flags when someone's username contains "agenda". shoy 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Point by involved target: I never said who did the harassing, and certainly not down to the level of individuals, only that Prof. Wessely told me in an email that he had been harassed and threatened. It looks very much as if they were trying to iport their external battle, whihc is what they've been doing all along. I have no real opinion on the block, other than that it probably saved a tedious ArbCom case. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'm very serious, I'm inclined to consider this an abuse of power. It further troubles me that after my comment above, I have been called a liar by Neil, and suddenly the article ME/CVS Vereniging was deleted without discussion. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to? Guido den Broeder 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the admins on this: these are legal threats. However, why was User talk:Angela Kennedy deleted to remove the history? Also, why was Guido not alerted to the addition of the speedy tag to ME/CVS Vereniging (eg with {{nn-warn-deletion}})? Guido openly admits a COI in this matter; I hope the admins here hold themselves to a similar level of openness and transparency in their actions. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the ME/CVS vereniging discussion should go to DRV, rather than be shlepped along here for an unrelated reason. Guido should not have created the page to begin with, and it most definitely did not assert notability. We don't have articles on very large UK and USA patients' organisations (thankfully) for CFS/ME patients.

As for deletion of Angela's and Suzy's talkpages, accusations of libel were being made on Angela's talkpage. When I attempted to challenge these accusations, my posts were reverted. The only upside was that the user briefly stopped making threats. The wikilawyering would have continued on these very talkpages.

The subject of the article in question, Simon Wessely, has a number of critics. One is Malcolm Hooper, associated with MEaction.[26] Another is Martin Walker.[27] Most of the criticisms have been made on websites and in blogs, in self-published books, and in publications by membership organisations. A big WP:V problem, in other words. The only external sources on the conflict that we could identify were a newspaper article in The Guardian (which was challenged) and a short mention in an unofficial report by MPs (the "Gibson Report"). The latter source makes an unsourced mention of harassment by patients' activists, which is why Kennedy & MEagenda attacked its use so vocally. Never did JzG or myself directly accuse any person of harassment, and this troublesome comment was never actually part of the Wessely article.

I would hope some admins would be kind enough to keep Talk:Simon Wessely on their watchlists. The feelings that have fed the most recent spate of edits are not going away. JFW | T@lk 10:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct way to address the removal of ME/CVS Vereniging, an article that was added in light of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands, is to approach the administrator who removed it. This I have done; I am now waiting for a reply. Please refrain from suggestive remarks v patient organizations ("thankfully"??). Guido den Broeder 11:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my user talk page. Basically, the article clearly fell under Speedy A7, as it made no assertion of notability whatsoever. If you disagree, take it to WP:DRV. Fram 08:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to JzG's accusations, see [28]. Guido den Broeder 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I said "thankfully" because any article on a patients' association is fraught with WP:V problems. Also, I am entitled to my opinion. I am more than a bit worried by this user's further attempts at reopening the debate on Talk:Simon Wessely,[29] as well as less than pleasant remarks at MastCell (talk · contribs) on Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis.[30][31] JFW | T@lk 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Azukimonaka Eugenics in Showa Japan

User:Azukimonaka has been carrying on with what has been rather Tendanacious and Disruptive editing on the article on Eugenics in Showa Japan.

The page has probably suffered from breach of the 3RR - see history [32].

User:Flying tiger has been working to improve the article by finding references and supplying further information. He has been accused of innacuracy and anti-Japanese bias. See [33]. This has including deleting sourced content that he deems innacurate[34].

User:Azukimonaka has been active on the Talk Page

However, he is quite obviously not a native English speaker. His sentances are very hard to understand, and he displays repeated signs that he is unable to understand the sentances or meanings of other editors actions.

He contends that permitting see also to related topics of Japanese socialism, facisms and war-time history link Japanese Eugenics to Japanese war-crimes. He also doesn't seem to understand that the article is not only about official legislation.

I have tried to address several of his valid concerns, as well as pointing out that several of his points are based on his misunderstandings of English. I even attempted to breakdown an edit as to why it was being reverted [35].

I think a (temporary) topic ban may be needed.--ZayZayEM 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is an article that relates to Japan. Therefore, an original source is Japanese. They are rejecting an original source though I pointed out the mistake of the translation.

They are advertising the cruelty of the war crime of Japan though I confirmed their edit histories. (I do not criticize them because I understand the reason why they dislike Japan. )

I do not deny the Nanjing slaughter. However, Eugenics of Japan is a topic of the medicine and welfare. Neither the war crime nor the fascism relate.

For instance, it is not the military but the Japanese doctor societies that promoted the Eugenics law of Japan. Moreover, Birth control of Japan was promoted by Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes. They relate even Recreation and Amusement Association established to defend the public peace of Japan to eugenics. (They falsified the source. )

This article is confused by their violent edits.

It was deleted by them though I wrote Eugenics in See also. And, they wrote. Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, Xenophobia in Showa Japan, Reproductive rights, Japanese military-political doctrines in the Showa period ...etc. Recently, they added the Leprosy quarantine policy of "Korea under Japanese rule". This is a topic besides eugenics. 　

I proposed to make Timeline so that they might understand. I proposed to make them Timeline. However, my proposal was disregarded for the reasons that my English ability was low.

I think the eugenics of Japan to be an article on the medicine. However, they insist that the eugenics of Japan is a war crime of Japan. I think that it is useful to make Timeline to understand this article. Can they agree my proposal?　--Azukimonaka 09:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is obvious. I worked a lot to translate the obscure sentences added by User:Azukimonaka, meanwhile, it is impossible to do the same with his exclusive japanese sources. His english is far better here than it is in the article.

The main problem is however User:Azukimonaka keeps deleting sources and categories from many weeks. I warned User:Orderinchaos about it on 9 October. [[36]]. Currently , he is accusing me of "falsifying sources" even if I just want to keep in the article a clear reference (with page number) from a well-known history book. He earlier acted the same way on Manchukuo but finally renounced.

We tried to explain him that we do not want to refer to eugenism in Shōwa Japan as "war crime" but simply keep the categories about the military and social context of the era but he keeps arguing this is Japan-bashing. There is simply no way to discuss with him as he has been agressive to me from the start, repeatedly changing my pseudonym and accusing me of being "bad faith" and ignorant of the "basic history" of Japan. --Flying tiger 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic is an event of Japan. Therefore, the first information becomes Japanese.

And, eugenics is a history of medicine. Therefore, the history knowledge of the medicine of Japan is needed. Moreover, the knowledge of the welfare policy of Japan is also necessary.

You like to indict the war crime of Japan. (The east Asian who wants to advertise cruelty in Japan is not unusual. )　

You are groundless though you added Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, and and Xenophobia in Showa Japan etc. Do you relate eugenics to the war crime of Japan based on what grounds though I define eugenics as the medicine policy of Japan?--Azukimonaka 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If Timeline is used, it can explain the relation between the militarism of Japan

and the eugenics of Japan is low. (For instance, compulsory sterilization was done in 1948 though the law of Leprosy was approved in 1905. Flying tiger is being written that sterilization was begun in 1905. )

Could you agree to the description based on the Timeline?　--Azukimonaka 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will answer to your comment even if it is not the place to discuss about the content of the article but about user's behavior and reporting incidents.

Your tendency to make superficial judgments makes you wrong once again. First, I am not "east asian" as you insinuated above. I am canadian and white skinned... Second, all the categories you keep deleting were in the article since the beginning (I warned you about those deletions on 4 september [[37]] but you did not even answered) while "xenophobia" and "military-political doctrines" were added by ZayZayEm. We explained to you a hundred times it was linked to the political context not "war crimes" but you keep arguing about "crimes". Third, I never wrote "sterilization begun in 1905" . Where is your source for 1948? This article [[38]] indicates that 57 seven babies slain between 1924 and 1956 were preserved in research center. "More than half were collected prior to 1948...." even if the law of 1907 did not permit therapeutic abortions. Fourth', this is an english site, if you want to write here, the least you can do is to bring english sources in priority. One or two can be OK when there is nothing more but ALL your sources are in japanese. How can this be useful for other users ? Do I bring french or italian sources here? Five , you have no excuse for your arrogant behavior and accusations of falsifying sources. The citation from Bix is clear, the Higashikuni and Shidehara cabinets had power to make administrative decisions whether you like it or not. Six, what is this "Timeline" stuff, I never read anything about that. What would be the aource ? Would it be in the article ? Please, answer in th article.--Flying tiger 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not about content. It is about behaviour. User:Azukimonaka has repeatedly deleted sourced content without valid explanation. He has misconstrued other editors behaviour and repeatedly deleted additions (namely relevant see also) under bad faith, and refused to accept other editors rationale for inclusion. User:Azukimonaka has displayed an inability to communicate and understand communication in English - I really hate to use this as a point, but when your lack of English comprehension creates edit warring scenarios, it is an issue. User:Azukimonaka also has a clear agenda to minimize any reporting of Japan in a negative light. This article does not really portray Japan negatively, nor does it tie Eugenics with any war crime or military movement, yet he insists it does.--ZayZayEM 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you do not refer Eugenics very much. This article is protected now. I keep persuading slowly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem of Flying-Tyger

1. Headline

Flying-Tyger wrote. Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.^[1][2].

The content being written in two sources is "The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well." He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior.

"while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. Source 1 is written, "Only hereditary disorder". Source 2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948. 　--Azukimonaka 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Faith User

Budlight (talk · contribs) recently tagged two articles I created (both over a month ago) for speedy deletion under G1 ([39] and [40]). This came minutes after I nominated a page he created for speedy under G1 [41]. He's obviously trying to make a point. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this because your page is on my watchlist. It seems quite obvious that Budlight was trying to retaliate by nominating an article you created for CSD. Clearly a violation of WP:POINT. I suggest that a warning be left for this user before any action is taken. Ksy92003(talk) 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a warning (and removed the other speedy deletion tag). — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can an admin also remind him that I can remove what I want from my talkpage. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I linked him to WP:USER in my last revert. I'll leave a note for him on his talk page. I also left him a warning of a near 3RR violation here. Ksy92003(talk) 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison (talk · contribs) and I have just left him notes on his talk page about this. Alison has said that if Budlight re-instates the comment, then she will view it as disruptive and act accordingly. Ksy92003(talk) 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see that Budlight just left Sasha a warning for 3RR, which isn't valid because Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Don't readd removed comments allows her to remove comments from her own talk page at will. If this continues, then a block should be in order for disruption. Ksy92003(talk) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are super-stubby, but they have context and notability. Pretty obvious POINTy retaliation to your proposed deletion of his joke (even if a pretty funny joke) Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does cuerden mean anything in Spanish? It sounds like a Spanish word to me. This is killing me, because I speak fluent Spanish.

Anyway, the one thing that kind of made it clear that this was just retaliation was the template that Budlight used: {{db-nonsense}}. This is at least the wrong template to use because it isn't patent nonsense, the text is coherent, and there is meaningful history behind The Four's (best sports bar in the country by SI) so it was even the wrong CSD template to use. It seemed quite obvious to me that this was just a disruption/retaliation move by Budlight. Ksy92003(talk) 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite. (Also, Cuerden is a suburb of Preston, Lancashire. I'm told it's an Anglicisation of the Welsh word for Rowans.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't think of cuerden anywhere in the Spanish language. The only way it could possibly be a real word was if there was a verb corder or cordir, which I'm almost 100% certain don't exist. But the "uer" and "den" syllables are quite common in Spanish verbs. Ksy92003(talk) 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

People always say that, or French. I think it's because it's such a little-known place, and similar to words like guerdon. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this was poorly handled. This wasn't a "Bad Faith User" as the title proclaims. This was someone positively contributing to the encyclopedia who was affronted by a mistaken characterization of his work as 'nonsense' and acted badly in response. There actually IS a popular rephrasing of the 'Golden Rule' as 'he who has the gold makes the rules'. The only CSD this might have been speedyable under would be A7 (no assertion of notability), but even that is debatable as he did say it was a popular take on the concept... and no way no how was Golden_Rule_(Competition) a G1. Yes, his subsequent actions were disruptive... but so were the tagging and deletion under an incorrect premise and the fact that nobody took him at his word that he was trying to improve the encyclopedia rather than writing 'nonsense' or a 'joke' as has incorrectly been claimed. He was trying to add a valid use of the term. It is debatable whether there is enough notability and non-dictionary content to that use for inclusion (I think there probably is - though he had not yet provided evidence of such), but the article and his repeated statements about it being a serious effort should not have been dismissed out of hand as they were. --CBD 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Golden_Rule_(Competition), I came here as a result of looking for that wiki page. I am searching for the history of the phrase, and similiar variations. If anyone can help me with this please leave a note on my talk page. - ---Wolfe (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Punk

I'm taking heavy-handed action against pro-motional links which for long have accompanied the entry. ^[42] El_C 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes, do just that. 90% of those are promotional, not reliable sources. Nuke away. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Just noting that I was met with limited opposition. ^[43][44] El_C 11:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I do not wish to furthur my involvement in this debate, I give reasoing for my original decision to revert here. [[Guest9999 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Note that Guest9999 now agrees with me & apologized for reverting (which I gladly accepted). Unless someone objects, I'm staying the course. El_C 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little help please

Two days ago, I protected Bălţi for six hours because a slow edit was about to escalate. That got the two soldiers Dc76 (talk · contribs) and Moldopodo (talk · contribs) talking. I did remove what I believe to be a personal attack from Moldopodo user page (twice) and as a result, they are now fighting it out on my talk page. I expressed that I cannot give any more advice as my knowledge in the matter is absolute zero. I'm hoping someone more knowledgable in the subject is willing to step in as a mediator. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They've asked me to become involved, but I have no knowledge about the subject matter. Corvus cornix 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Voltron

Based on behavioral evidence collected by myself and Sarah, as well as checkuser evidence brought to me by Dmcdevit, I have concluded that Voltron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user EddieSegoura (talk • contribs • block log) and have blocked the Voltron and VoltronForce (talk · contribs) accounts indefinitely from editting. Because Eddie has not used the Voltron account abusively, but constructively, I have brought this matter up here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I have also gone through most of the pages solely created or editted by this account and applied CSD G5.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the account is making constructive edits, it should be allowed to edit. Common sense dictates that. Since we know that this dude has a history, the moment Eddie lapses and starts making destructive edits, we can go ahead and ban him quickly. MessedRocker (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I gave this fellow a barnstar in good faith, but I won't unblock him because banned users aren't allowed to edit. If he wants to return, he has to do so through official channels. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned users are simply not allowed to edit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) If there was an official community ban somewhere (I'm not familiar with the history), then there needs to be an official community unban too. Until then, out. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've denied the unblock request. He was disrupting the above thread about Sadi Carnot. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I stated policy. Whether EddieSegoura is banned or not, i don't know. To unban a banned user is to follow formal channels and consult the authority who took the decision of the ban. AFAIK, banned users cannot get back whenever they want to. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong asked me to review this account and I am as certain as I possibly can be that this is Eddie. He told me some weeks ago in some emails that he was still editing (he also contacted me a couple of weeks ago to protest that User:Malmindser who requested an appeal of Eddie's ban on CSN was an impersonator and had nothing at all to do with him). Generally, if a banned person is able to return, reform and edit productively without notice, I have no inclination to hunt them down. However, I disagree with Messed Rocker's comment and I don't think we should turn a blind eye towards editors who have been banned by an overwhelming community consensus when we become aware of them editing under a specific account. If Ed wants to return legitimately then he needs to follow WP:BAN, as he knows full well, otherwise he risks his accounts being blocked when they are identified. Also, I don't like the idea of block evading banned vandals giving others advice about their blocks, objecting to multiple community sanction proposals, butting into unblock requests, objecting to sockblocks, and involving themselves in blocking policy and checkuser discussions and so on. That this account was being obviously and openly geared towards adminship also concerns me and I'm very glad that Ryu picked up on it now. Anyway, I endorse the block and agree with Ryu's statement. And yes, Eddie is most definitely banned as the cross-project "Exicornt vandal". The disruption he caused was unbelievable, particularly here and on Wiktionary and his vicious harassment of User:BunchofGrapes was really disturbing. ban listed here Sarah 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, Voltron/Eddie has just emailed me and confessed. He asks me to send his apologies to the community. He says he meant no harm and was trying to be a constructive editor this time. He says, "I truly regret my past" and that he was thinking about appealing legitimately for a second chance when the impersonator account User:Malmindser posted to CSN, but he insists that account has nothing to do with him. Eddie, thank you for being honest. Sarah 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party, it seems to me that a truly reformed vandal is something that anti-vandal partollers such as me live to see happen. The Voltron user's edits have been strongly supporting the overall project, and with no mention of his "past life" or behavior. I would support a lifting of the blocks on this user, with the understanding that a certain amount of extra scrutiny will be given to his behavior in the near term. Arakunem 01:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Voltron's participating in the Sadi Carnot community ban discussion above. Disruptive or helpful? You decide. This fellow hasn't been quietly minding the articles. He's interjected in administrative discussions and policy matters. Disruption can be subtle too. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All I see above is him saying that we should leave a user banned for a few weeks for cool-off, then re-evaluate. Doesn't seem disruptive to me, but as I said above, I'm going solely on prima-facie without any history behind the user and his history. Arakunem 01:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• For better or worse, there's ample precedent for blocking "reincarnations" of banned users, even ones that were extremely helpful and productive (such as User:Gzornenplatz). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with a vandal/sockpuppet

Can someone look at the activity from Pitarnaken, Utah History and IPs like 98.202.84.191 to see if they are the same person? I believe that they are and other then protecting about 10 articles, I'm not sure how to stop this vandal. Vegaswikian 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles do not appear to exist. El_C 08:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are accounts. Articles include; Salt Lake City Union Pacific Depot‎, Shavano (passenger train), and San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad. Vegaswikian 08:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can add a little background, here. I'm pretty positive these are the same person ... he's also appeared using the IP 75.144.10.217, and one or two others. This all started when I reverted some of his edits to Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad, explaining my reasons on the talk page. He went into attack mode from there, vandalizing my user page, turning a redirect (San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad) into a competing version of the original page, and creating a sockpuppet account that is a variant spelling of my account. I'd definitely appreciate some sort of intervention, as well, and at the very least would appreciate it if the sockpuppet account (Pitarnaken) could be indefinitely blocked. Thanks. Pitamakan 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack directed towards me by LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs)

I left a warning on this users talkpage after they vandalised One Night Stand (2007) (see edit history). As I write this, they have just done it again. They left a fairly unpleasant message on my talkpage. Block for a month at least. They have removed the warnings, and have left me a warning. Thanks! Davnel03 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is just not true. he is adding information this isnt in any of the other wwe ppv articles and he threatened me saying he would ban me if i didnt agree with him.LifeStroke420 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked for violating 3RR. -- Merope 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd behavior by Slickshooter001

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but there seems to be something wrong with the User:Slickshooter001 account. This user had been largely inactive since the end of April (and before had primarily been interested in their own user page), but today added false protection tags to nearly 50 articles in the span of 25 minutes without being blocked. Perhaps somebody got the password, or the original user just went on a spree? J. Spencer 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Jehochman indefintely. Davnel03 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The account has only been used for vandalism. I've blocked it. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the quick action! J. Spencer 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review: User:Imbrella

Hi - I'm here to submit a block for review. The victim is Imbrella (talk · contribs). This account's first edit was to an "evolutionist" editor's talk page. Subsequently s/he has engaged in a long-term and refractory pattern of talk-page abuse and soapboxing - note the complete absence of anything but talk-space edits. A number of editors have brought up the talk page guidelines, specifically the prohibition on using article talk pages as a general discussion and debate forum, to no avail. Ultimately, shunning was considered. This led to a series of outbursts ([45], [46], [47], [48]). At this point, this single-purpose account seems dedicated to abusing the talk pages of controversial articles and using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and has had a unconstructive and refractory approach to Wikipedia. I've therefore indefinitely blocked the account. Review is welcome, though based on the user's recent posts (along the "GOOD RIDDANCE!" lines), I suspect they will likely not request to be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm EVula, and I approve this block!" EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also approve. After all, he did ask for it. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. I suspect this is banner User:Raspor, based on the interests, the argument style, and the nature of the meltdown. Guettarda 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Obviously we're not talking about a user worth defending here [49]. •Jim62sch• 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. repeated disruptive trolling on talk pages, similar subjects and arguments to those used by Raspor – implying more sockpuppets are likely. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racist needs blocking

This rascist needs to be blocked, SqueakBox 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for blatant vandalism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a junior high school kid. Corvus cornix 18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of vandalism only account and probable sockpuppetry

I indef blocked J-melz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and and apparent sock of him as Wikifreak99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). J-melz had only created a page and made some vandalism on a userpage, when the page went up for speedy deleted, Wikifreak99 was created to support the page. _→AzaToth 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little request?

I know I flipped out here about the bot tagging my new articles as copyvios and over reacted for while I am very sorry. I hope I have not lost credibility over that. I'm calmed down now and I followed User talk:W.marsh's instructions and undid my disruptive copyvio postings as W.marsh requested, and hope to make amends. I have one little problem now which I was hoping someone could snuff out before it gets bigger. User:Cyborg Ninja seems to be following me around and entering comments on my page and the pages of others seeming to try to stir things up about me. I do not know why this person is so interested in doing this to me. Examples:

• User:Mattisse [50] using my user page as a community board not notifiy wikipedia what an awful, disruptive person I am.

[51] He is not involved in this issue. I think this kind of canvas

• User talk:Kranar drogin[52]

• User talk:IvoShandor[53] Ivo got unresasonably mad at me over a compliment I made him.

• Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) [54][55]

• User talk:JLaTondre[56] General question about how she had been following me around and thought my tagging was strange and troublemakeing.

• User talk:W.marsh[57] - told her what a terrible, disruptive, bad for wikipedia person I was.

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 20/Articles [58] I did baack things in copvio page.

• User talk:Dreamafter [59]more of the same

Would it be possible for someone to please ask this person to stop. (I'm just a little edgy and raw now or perhaps it would not bother me.) Thanks! --Mattisse 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you provide some background on what's going on? Personally, I know that there's something I'm missing. I also took the liberty to inform User:Cyborg Ninja so that he can respond if need be.[60] -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The only people I spoke to besides Dreamafter (he's part of a project for answering questions for other editors) were people who specifically had problems with you. Not canvassing. I'm asking them for comments to avoid inciting anything or getting administrators involved. I was raised to believe that problems among adults shouldn't involve authority unless absolutely necessary. Maybe it's a cultural thing? Anyway, what I talk about with those other users is allowed. And after all, you told me not to post anymore on your Talk page after I made a reply to two users, one who you moved my comment to their Talk page (W.marsh). I added the message to the copyvio page because you erased evidence of your disruption rather than striking out those messages. I and another user had referenced it in our discussions. I'm not here on Wikipedia to cause animosity; but I have noticed a strange pattern with your actions and am keeping a close watch. I really don't want to have to go further into this at the moment. I'm still working out the details. - Cyborg Ninja 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All I can add is that once before I asked for help with Cyborg Ninja continually accusing my of bad faith and LessHand, I believe, told us both to calm down. At that time, Cyborg Ninaj was acusing me of bad faith constantly. I finally put a personal attack on her page, which I have never done to anyone before.

Cyborg Nina and another editor filed an RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 on me because of one AFD I nominated for consideration, and admitted in the AFD that I was confused about the article and did not recommend deletion. Cyborg Nina got no support on the RFC. The co-filer of the RFC apologized to me and moved on and he and I have had no interaction since.

As for anything else, I cannot explain it. The RFC was over one article, Drapetomania, that I nominated for AFD, perhaps a bad judgment on my part, but no one seemed to think it was an earthshaking offense, and I withdrew the AFD within hours after posting it. Also, it was an article that Cyborg Nina was not involved with previously, the other editor who has since moved on was quite involved with it but seemed to take the outcome of the RFC in stride and go on to other things.

The RFC responses said I was justified in putting the personal attack warning on his page, but he maintained constant accusations of bad faith were not personal attacks.

Since the RFC petered out, the Cyborg Nina and I have not worked on any articles in common or had any contact until today when he posted a bulletin on my page to warn the community at large that I was a bad person. I am quite at a loss to explain why he persists in being interested in me. We do not edit the same kind of articles at all. Cyborg Nina as indicated that I have a false persona on Wikipedia, I am pretending to be someone I am not and that I am constantly disruptive and need to be stopped. He seems to be canvasing for support in his point of view. He made comments today on Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) which another editor and I have been discussing for some time and we have dropped at this point. So I do not know why Cyborg Nina choose to enter in now. That is all I can add, unless you have more questions. I just wish Cyborg Nina would leave me alone. My occasional, but rather normal problems I have, are not unlike other editors who stress out now and then. I have never been rude or uncivil to Cyborg Nina. We really have no reason to interact and and to not know why he is canvasing for opinions about me. --Mattisse 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Cyborg Nina has now posted another comment derogatory comment on a page where it is inappropriate, on the DYK talk page. I am an active participant there. He is not. sing against me is unwarranted and causes ill will when the rest of us are trying to avoid it. Mattisse 06:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Cyborg Nina posted a bulletin to the community at large on my talk page, warning the community at at large that I was a bad person, and as Cyborg Nina alludes to above, he is apparently working on getting the community to take action against me of some kind that sounds bad. I left the bulletin on my talk page (it is still there). I merely copied it to Wmarsh because it seemed more directed to Wmarsh than to me. I also said my talk page was not a bulletin board to post community warnings about me on it. I removed the copyvio on the copyvio page because that was what I understood Wmarsh told me to do. He did not say strike them out. Wmarsh said they were not really copyvios and should not be there. I do not know why Cyborg Nina would be linking to anything there as none of those involved her. Please help! --Mattisse 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Drapetomania was the article this who incident was about. I see that Ricky81682 has edited the article which explains his personal messages to Cyborg Nina. I would prefer any other person be involved if possible, if there is a chance of any fairness here. I'm sorry. Mattisse 08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I call tell this is hopeless. I will not waste people's time. Thanks anyway. Mattisse 08:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, wait a second; I've fought through like 10 edit conflicts to try to get something here; you post a wall of text, post "Help me!" on user pages, don't let anyone respond and them delete the whole thing with a forget it? I just want to know where you are implying my adding a single space here to the article is the reason I informed him? I don't care about the article or any of this; I told him because it is fair of him to be able to respond. Second, there is obviously more going on than you are suggesting; why is there a large amount of "remove copyvio" edits from you? Are you removing the bot warnings because there was no copyright violation or were they in fact copyright violations that need to be wiped out? Along with that, why did you remove the listings here? You say all of that was done per User:W.marsh but I can't piece together where he told you to do that. Is any of this even related to Cyborg Ninja's conduct or not? I can't figure it out. The RFA just ended which I assume is probably related to this. I also notice that in all of this, you have yet to actually talk to anyone you are accusing. You tell Cyborg Ninja not to post on your talk page, you mentions he says some stuff to other users, you don't ask anyone else and you come here. There's complaints from you that he posts on other pages, including DYK where you edit, ok, but no response from you at all anywhere. He posts something on your talk page, which you have the complete right to remove, but instead of removing it and simply proving a link to us, you keep it up and point it everyone here. You make accusations against me now before because I added a single space. What would you like people to do? Are you suggesting that someone should block him?

I'm sorry but I would suggest fully explaining what the background to this whole thing is, preferable in a short paragraph (which bot? what does W.Marsh have to do with it? is any of this related to Cyborg Ninja?). Please provide some diffs as well. If not, focus your point to specific conduct; if someone else wants to drag it out, let them. Otherwise, this is really a complete waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the off chance that you are really interested, the long story is that I had been repeatedly personally attacked by Cybor Nina. Admin (sandyGeorge) recommended I template her for personal attacks for the repeated accusations of bad faith. That incident and also the brief ( a few hours before I withdrew) the ADF for Drapetomania. She was angry. She filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 which dragged up settled issues from years ago and hardly addressed the issues at hand. It clearly got cleanup up in the process. which did not get the response Cyborg Nina wanted. I had done nothing worthy of an RFC. Since then she has been posting inappropriately posting derogatory statements about me on my and other users pages.

Examples of current following and polstin nasty thing about me:

• User:Mattisse [61] - a community notice board post telling the wikipedia community members how bad I was.

• User talk:Kranar drogin[62] saying she had noticed he did not like me and that she was collecting data against me more further actions as I was disruptive. (This was based on one post Kranar drogin made on the DKY page in support of his friend, Ivo, who was angry at me regarding a misunderstanding.

• User talk:IvoShandor[63] Ivo had got unreasonably angery at me because I had complimented him and called me a variety of derogatory names including profanity. His friend supported his incivility, personal attacks, and profanity.

• Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) [64][65]

This dis cussion was settled and over. Cybor Nina added a post that was a repetition of a direct quote from of PereclusofAthen.

• User talk:JLaTondre[66]

• User talk:W.marsh[67] telling W.march was a horrible, disruptive person I was

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 20/Articles [68] - although Cyborg Nina had no business on that page, she complained that links were gone so she was probably going to link to some of my entries as evidence of my bad, disruptive, horrible behavior.

• Cyborg Nina has now posted another comment derogatory comment on a page where it is inappropriate, on the DYK talk page. I am an active participant there. She is not.[69] are statements against me that are not called for and are merely a duplication, almost word for word of what was already stated about. It is unwarranted and causes ill will when the rest of us are trying to avoid it.

A far as Wmarsh is concerned, I was angry because a bot was deleting my new articles with in 25 seconds of their creation. I use poor judgment, and I listed all my recent articles as copyvios. Wmarsh said I was being disruptive and to please remove the copyvios from the article and from the listing page with I did, each time with the edit note per instructions of Wmarch, just to prevent what Cyborg Nina is doing now -- making a big deal of a monetary dust up that I apologized for to Wmarch and fixed according to instructions. The entire episode lasted half a day and everyone was satisfied with the outcome. There is no reason for Cyborg Nina to be involved at all, it did not concern any of Cyborg Nina's Created articles. Cyborg Nina was not a part of it in any form and there was no reason to link to it, unless Cyborg nina wanted to make a WP:Point of some kinds. None of this, nor any of the other bulletins posting for the comunity at large on my talk page were appropriate. She seems to be stalking my contributions and entering into frays that have nothing to do with her. The Caisson (Asian architecture) was over before she entered. Also, she copied word for word another entry on the subject from PericulesofAnthes, just as she did on the temple talk page. She say she is

Not canvassing. I'm asking them for comments to avoid inciting anything or getting administrators involved. I was raised to believe that problems among adults shouldn't involve authority unless absolutely necessary. Maybe it's a cultural thing? Anyway, what I talk about with those other users is allowed. And after all, you told me not to post anymore on your Talk page after I made a reply to two users, one who you moved my comment to their Talk page (W.marsh). I added the message to the copyvio page because you erased evidence of your disruption rather than striking out those messages. I and another user had referenced it in our discussions. I'm not here on Wikipedia to cause animosity; but I have noticed a strange pattern with your actions and am keeping a close watch. I really don't want to have to go further into this at the moment. I'm still working out the details.

I told her to not post on my talk page as previously she used if for personal attacks against me. This time she was using my talk page as a community bulletin board for attacks against me and to rally support for her cause to attack me for whatever awful thing I have done. I left the post on my talk page, but I copied to Wmarch as it seem more directed at him as it certainly was not directed at me.

I want Cyborg Nina to stop following me around, to stop posting on pages that I have been posting on regularly and she has not, the purpose of her posts being to alert others to my wide spread horrible behavior. I want her to leave me alone. We are not working on the same thing, we have on reason to interact. I am sorry that she is miffed that her RFC against me failed. Mattisse 10:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The who copyright issue was between me and the bot. W.march stepped in and told me to remove template and entry's on copyvio page. None of this had anything to do with Cyber Nina until she chose to involve herself by leaving a comment about me on the copyvio page. Please ask any questions you are not clear about. Mattisse 11:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Following Mattisse's comments on my talkpage, and reviewing the diffs provided, I left a level3 NPA warning on Cyborg Ninja's talkpage - commenting that if they had any concerns regarding Mattisses editing that they should use the appropriate venues, and not place comments on the talkpages of third parties. Should Cyborg Ninja continue with this campaign I would request that another admin review the situation and determine what sanctions, if any, would be appropriate as I have been previously involved in this matter and would therefore have to recuse myself. LessHeard vanU 12:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky and other users, please keep in mind I have never made personal attacks against Mattisse, though he continually claims so. He's done the opposite, and if you really want me to cite those attacks (rare for me, but he has done multiple towards other users), then I will. If you read my comments, you can see that they're kind, helpful, and contributory here. As for Less's comment here... I'd appreciate it if you looked into, read, and played close attention to words on both sides. For one, I can't just talk about Mattisse's edits on article talk pages because they include 300+ tagged articles a day. I mentioned this to DreamAfter, which is why I first contacted him, asking him if it was allowed. So where do you think I should go if I'm asking for commentary if I can't go to a project member who listed himself as being available to answer questions by other users, or people who personally had problems with the subject? Just AN/I, which IMO should only be a last resort because it ends up with misunderstandings and undeserved warnings, or worse, blockings? - Cyborg Ninja 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL you called Matisse "passive-aggressive" and probably other things, I don't know all the instances. How is that kind, friendly and helpful?Merkinsmum 02:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Merkinsmum. You can't say you never used personal attacks when you use words like "passive-aggressive." When you say you can't talk on the article talk pages, what is the issue that seems to permeate over the hundreds of pages edited a day? Does it fit into some policy discussion? If it is all related to just Mattisse's edits, and he asks not to respond on his talk page, then you need to find other people who agree (it sounds like maybe Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts fits). If it is just you and him in disagreement, tough luck. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of WP:TW by Neutralhomer (in Hal Lindsey)

Upon looking up information on Hal Lindsey (who I had never heard of until today), I find that one of the key sections (on his prophecies that didn't come true) has been mass deleted with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (I guess I could use the same argument to delete Nostradamus's prophecies...?) So, I reverted saying that his rationale is not correct and that he should discuss it on the talk page first. He reverted with the summary "Reverted 1 edit by Brian0918 identified as vandalism to last revision by Neutralhomer. using TW" — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 16:13Z

Let's assume that he hit the wrong button. I've done that myself. Why don't you mention this in a friendly way and see what he says? In general, it is a good idea not to revert good faith users without talking to them first. You could start by asking why this section is not appropriate, and he'd probably give you a friendly explanation. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to stay friendly when you see such an idiotic mass-deletion - obviously the section should exist, and obviously his quarrel is not with the entire section, but with maybe a word or sentence in the section. So why delete the whole thing? Laziness, I suppose. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 16:25Z

Try to talk to the user. If that fails, select from the menu at dispute resolution. This page, WP:ANI, isn't part of that process. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I reported it here because it was misuse of a revert script. That's a separate issue from the (currently non-existent) dispute about the article's content - I only started down that path when you suggested possible dispute resolutions on this page in your first reply. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 17:20Z

There has been a massive amount of cruft, mostly from User:Bee Cliff River Slob to this page. It is my understanding that Wikipedia doesn't do "predictions" (ie: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball). Perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems to fall under that category. Brian, yes, it was a mistake on my part by reverting your revision as vandalism, but I think we need a group comment on the content of this page. I personally have zero stake in this article, I am mostly just trying to clean up edits made by User:Bee Cliff River Slob. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is a difference between wikipedia making predictions (which is what WP:CRYSTAL is about) vs reporting on predictions made by a (presumably) notable individual. There would also be WP:WEIGHT issues if this material were included in Book of Revelation, but no such issue exists where it stands (assuming these predictions are a substantial part of what he's notable for). —Random832 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As predicted, this is a content dispute. Please work it out via your talk pages, or dispute resolution. As a footnote, we have millions of users, and we can't have an ANI case every time somebody accidentally hits the wrong button. Please try to make at least one effort to resolve problems by talking before reporting them here. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakesomeaction (talk • contribs • logs) and WP:LEGAL

I responded to this comment from Shakesomeaction by leaving them this message. I received the reply I don't appreciate this and will be filing sexual harassment charges later this week. While I do not think I am at serious risk of legal action here I would be grateful if somebody could have a word with them about our legal policies. Of course, if anyone feels I have acted in any way inappropriately I would welcome constructive criticism. Thanks, --John 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What was the sexual harrassment supposed to have been? From the looks of the discussion, I think Shakesomeaction misinterpreted your comment, and for some reason, took it personally. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss myself. Perhaps it was meant to be a joke of some sort, but this is not a good thing to joke about. --John 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the sense it makes (or doesn't), I've blocked for WP:NLT. -- Merope 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. --John 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs)

This user is an spa, who registered to defend the now deleted Marion van de Wetering article, and to hound users whom he feels have somehow wronged Van De Wetering's husband Mark Bourrie. Now that said article was deleted, he resorts to repeated recreations of it. Not to create an article, however, but to fling insults at the people who he holds responsible for the deletion of Marion van de Wetering. Oh, and this lovely message was only just posted on my talk page. Someone please block this highly obnoxious spa, who contributes nothing to the encyclopedia.--Atlan (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block a newbie without at least trying to reform him first. I've left a warning on his talk page asking him to play nice. Let's see if he takes any notice. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As if it's a newbie trait to insult and harass. Oh well.--Atlan (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You know not everyone in the world is aware of Wikipedia's rules on polite debate. Actually being rude is pretty much the norm on most other websites. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I just thought ignorance wasn't an excuse. Doesn't matter, I'm fine with your warning.--Atlan (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: As he readded the personal attack to Atlan's talk page I've blocked for week. This will give him the chance to cool off and the deletion review debate the chance to go ahead minus the insults. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Azstatelibrary

Azstatelibrary (talk · contribs) apparently is attempting to use Wikipedia for their own purposes, which do not involve writing an encyclopedia. Their User page as well as the articles they have created and the edits they have made to existing articles appear to be problematic. Corvus cornix 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Newbie who go mixed up over what wikipedia is all about. Has asked to be removed so I wil;l delete their user page and blank thier talk page for them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Theresa. Corvus cornix 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT removal of sourced content by User:Pupluv

After an extended effort to add a non-notable at Clifton High School (New Jersey), User:Pupluv has gone on a WP:POINT rampage, removing a notable alumnus with a Wikipedia article, claiming that the source does not meet his definition. This comes after an earlier rampage in which WP:POINT warnings were provided by other editors, in which Pupluv was removing content from other articles I have edited. Any assistance in this issue will be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can you state this request so that even an admin can understand it.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:Pupluv has repeatedly removed Ronald F. Maxwell as a notable from the Clifton High School (New Jersey) article, claiming that the entry lacks a reliable source to demonstrate notability. This is in retaliation for an entry he had attempted to add to the article for which no sources were added to demonstrate notability or a connection to the school. He has removed other content from other articles and been warned by other users for WP:POINT violations. Alansohn 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note that I can use even simpler words if that would help. Alansohn 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It does read a "sour grapes" power play, and I've commented as such on the talk. ThuranX 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duckhunter6424

User Duckhunter6424 refusing to participate in discussion [70], and keep pushing his original research by brute force without any sources provided [71] [72] Necator 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Database problems?

I wasn't sure about some of the others, but I know for damned sure I didn't make this edit. Are we having database issues?--SarekOfVulcan 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the edit I made with that summary was removing a {{notability}} tag -- I didn't touch anything else.--SarekOfVulcan 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you weren't looking at an older version when you clicked "edit"? This diff looks like what you did, i.e., you opened version 166171808, then clicked "edit", then removed the tag, then saved. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Miltopia

[edit] Use of racial, sexual preference epithets - general policy?

My natural inclination is to come down pretty hard on the use of racial and other epithets but there doesn't seem to be a blanket policy. User:Lunkhead2 caught my attention as a potential problem a while back and I noticed this recent edit. I blocked for 48 hours, but I'd like to make sure I'm not over-reacting. The epithet was directed at a bot, after all. Any input? Ronnotel 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Offensive enough that nobody is likely to give you flak over it. I wouldn't. — Coren ^(talk) 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's definitely excessive and blockable. I think the relevant policy is just gonna be WP:CIV, where under "more serious examples" we see "Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs" listed as personal attacks. --Masamage ♫ 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Use Common sense when no specific policies describe what to do.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cooldude13233

Can someone take a look at this user's contribs? Seems to be a long history of copyright violations, uploading under misleading tags and removing speedy tags from pages. Latest is Michael Kuss - there are copyright violations left in the edit history, speedy tags being removed and the picture has been uploaded and tagged as a poster when at best it's a promotional image. Exxolon 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, at least Image:140 ddb-aen.gif was uploaded with false copyright claim. I'm too sleepy to decide anything but he probably should be blocked IMO. MaxSem 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Another instance, [73], is a copyright vio of [74], which he labelled a "poster." I believe the rest of his image contributions are thereby false, given his poor track record of labelling images with correct licensing information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible BLP concerns, old AfD

Can an administrator please review and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda as needed? This AfD is now seven days old, and there were extensive BLP concerns surrounding the subject article that were covered on ANI last week. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks in Evangelos Venizelos article

I want to ask your keep an eye at the Evangelos Venizelos article. The article is about a greek politician. At about a month ago some people "inspired" by an article in a greek newspaper the started vandalizine the page. After that Venizelos wrote in his blog against WIkipedia and said that he will move against the persons who wrote against him using the Law. In the next days, me and other users discussed the subject in the article's talk page we ended up in a very neutral reference to the article story (since it the subject was covering in the following days by many Greek media), always taking WP:NPOV under consideration.

Some Venizelos' followers, ignoring the consensus and the discussion in the talk page, using anonymous IP adresses, are trying to remove the paragraph they think it's against him. (Obviously the still have in mind an early version made by anonymous users from the other side). I requested semiprotection until the end of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement leadership election, 2007 (November 11) where Venizelos is candidate, twice but it was rejected. Me and two other people are reverting (seldom) vandalism attacks but it's not nice at all to revert personally this kind of attacks. I am usually delaying to revert a vandalism attack on purpose in order to discourage edit war, so maybe the attacks don't look to happen so often, but in reality they are constant. What can you do for that case? -- Magioladitis 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. That seems like any easier solution. I have semiprotted until the 11th, but I may remove the semiprotection earlier if things quiet down. JoshuaZ 00:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the things will calm down in the next days. -- Magioladitis 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deer creek high school

I have been advised that admins can view deleted articles. Can this article be looked at to see if the school or others should be contacted regarding the content please? SriMesh | talk 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The only eyebrow raising line is "Deer creek high school is the one school that would get bombed by one of its students." But, in context, it just sounds like it's a statement about how much the editor who wrote it thinks the school sucks. There's a bunch of griping to frame it. It's not a threat, in my opinion. --Haemo 03:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is frustration, not a threat. Keegan^talk 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it looked very problematic, and the news said the last school disaster in the USA said it had started out in writings of homework submitted to teachers that wasn't looked at seriously. So I am glad, compared to other Wiki articles of deletion, this one is not a cause for concern. Kind Regards J.

[edit] Legal threats, insults and other personal comments

Dear Wikipedia staff,

I am a new and inexperienced editor and I am being harassed by other editor William R. Buckley, as follows: really lengthy comment, which has an entire discussion thread copied, verbatim, redacted by ElC

Charles Michael Collins October 27, 2007 4:25 am (EST) Fraberj 08:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you summarize the above for me, please? Also, what's with the uppercase title? El_C 08:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Capital letters make everything more truthy. :) Kyaa the Catlord 08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Without reading the wall of text, I'll summarize it for you: William R. Buckley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made a legal threat, specifically: "That would give me clear reason to sue you, for slander. Believe me, I am one who will sue you. When I get done, you will no longer hold that patent. Instead, it will be mine, and I will make it public domain. Be very, very careful of your slanderous remarks." [75] east.718 at 08:43, 10/22/2007

Wow, how did you...? Wow. You must read fast... Thanks! Anyway, user warned. El_C 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was your intent, but you removed one of my comments which contained pointed out real-life stalking, which probably would have warranted a block anyway. east.718 at 13:58, 10/22/2007

It's not resolved. If I'm right, if a user violates WP:LEGAL they are blocked indefinitely until the user in question retracts the threat. So why has this user only been warned? Quote from WP:LEGAL:

Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding. - so block indef please. Davnel03 11:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The content of Talk:Self-replicating machine is a concenr, particularly Mr Buckley's comments on it. I have redacted all his legal threats and a few nasty and very personal insults. Neil ☎ 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I was doing that CambridgBayWeather has blocked William R. Buckley (talk · contribs) until he agrees to stop such threats. That's probably the best course of action. Neil ☎ 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks clearly like a legal threat to me and I've blocked them until they withdraw it. Bleeding edit conflicts. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Some users get blocked indef for legal threats, but some don't. We need things consistent otherwise people will just get away with it. Davnel03 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it must be a reflexive reaction if the policy is to be effective. We also need to be consistent for, er, legal reasons ("why was my client blocked when others were not?"). Raymond Arritt 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to block for NLT on-sight, then change the policy to dictate such action. Until then, I will continue to use my discretion on whether to warn or to issue an immediate block. If it's something pressing, it's sensible to excerpt it, as I'm unlikely to review voluminous text. El_C 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is not dictated, it does state that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." There are always exceptions possible, but as a general rule, I see no reason not to follow this. Fram 14:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Post archive update: Point taken and noted for future reference. I have granted the user's unblock request, however (see his talk page). Thx. El_C 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rubbersoul20 (2) Persistent OR, POV, {fact} removal

About Rubbersoul20 (talk · contribs), sequel to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive310#User:Rubbersoul20_-_Persistent_harassment.2Funcivility.2C_OR.2C_POV.2C_.7Bfact.7D_removal

• August–October 2007: OR and {fact} tags removal: [76][77](POV/weasel list he's untagged ever since)[78][79][80][81]
• 15 October 2007: Ricky81682 warned him for his "penis" insults (then blanked as is his wont) and left the tag removal thing for another time.
• 22 October 2007: back to tag removal and even more OR/POV/weasel dump: [82]

— Komusou ^talk @ 11:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. He gets warned for an entire day, blanks the page, and does it again. He needs to learn to actually talk to other users. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southampton City Council...

... have made me accidentally commmit libel against one of your administrators (JPS) and are now making death threats against me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pls provide details with diffs/links, that's nowhere near enough info to go on. Rlevse 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Busy @ work, will do later, possibly tomorrow morning. 81.149.250.228 14:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean this nonsense — iridescent 14:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With additional illumination to be found at this talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that in this case, "Registered to Southampton City Council" translates as "Public terminal in a library". I very much doubt that Council representatives are actually making edits to Catchphrase (game show), Auto Trader, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and The Greasy Chip Butty Song. Just a hunch. — iridescent 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope you're right, but, given some politicians, who knows? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have issued a 24 hour block against User:81.149.250.228 for disruptive editing and WP:CIV. A glance at his contributions finds disruptive edits outnumbering useful ones. Ronnotel 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physchim62

Physchim62 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) had unblocked Sadi Carnot, against the evidence and consensus established above. After Sarah (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) reimposed the block, Physchim62 stated that he was not going to wheel war. [83]. He then reverted maintenance tags that I had added to an article that Sadi Carnot had vandalized, without fixing the problems and without discussion. [84] He also reverted a sockpuppet tag from an account that had been used by Sadi Carnot to avoid scrutiny, again without discussion. [85] I have no idea why Physchim62 is tendentiously reverting all my actions with respect to Sadi Carnot. He just issued me a warning.[86] Could an impartial administrator look at this and provide input before the situation gets out of hand? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a quick scan through and I see no wheel warring, Phychim62 simply remove the original block, then sarah reblocked - Phychim62 hasn't unblocked since. The removal of sock tags may be a little disruptive, especially when I see no discussion into it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For record, I modified my remarks to make sure they are not inflammatory. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

JH, I'm not sure that I see any point in tagging that IP as a sockpuppet. No edits have been made with that IP since May, 2005. Or is there more to that IP? Sarah 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I am open to discussing this. My concern is that Sadi has been shifting identities. It would be useful to have a sockpuppet category with all the accounts he's ever used in case he returns with a new identity. If a new disruptive account appears, and there's a checkuser, knowing that IP could be helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO User:Physchim62 has acted in opposition to a clear consensus to indef block User:Sadi Carnot for promotion of WP:FRINGE. The block is clearly justified by the need to protect the encyclopedia. Ronnotel 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to this, I've proposed new wording at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Community Bans, and have requested arbitration to review the actions of those involved. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zeq potentially violating ban

User:Zeq had been indefinitely banned from editing the articles 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus due to disruption and tendentious editing. He is, however, now editing Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (i.e. here, here and here), which had been forked from Palestinian exodus about a year after User:Zeq's block.

I don't know what the policy is regarding forks of blocked articles, but if this is a violation, I would be thankful if any admin could intervene.

User:Zeq has been warned on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus here.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 15:25

It is important to note what prompted this complaint by user:Pedro Gonnet. I participated in discussion on talk page (I am not banned from the talk page of any article) and user:Pedro Gonnet suggested[87] that my views will be ignored. The discussion has been around the sources for the article and the view I suggested was that we follow WP:RS policy. Zeq 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in raising the question at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have raised the question to ArbCom. If they rule that I should not edit that article I will stay away from it.(I will also avoid editing the article in question until we get a clarification from ArbCom. In any case I would appriciate it if an Admin could leave a note to user:pedro gonnet informing him that:

1. The previous ban apply only to the article but I am not banned from discussion on talk pages.
2. He can not suggest that my views on talk page will be dismissed (because of the ban)
3. WP:RS is the policy about sources.

Tnx. Zeq 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. You're banned from editing those two articles, it also applies to subarticles and forks. Will ^(talk) 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What you quoted is nither a policy nor it is relevant to this case. The question has been refered to those who should answer it. Zeq 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of the probation conditions imposed upon Zeq. I have blocked Zeq for 24 hours due to the violation. Kaldari 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This complaint against me came after I had a disagreement in a talk page with Pedro Gonnet. Since I was blocked it drove that discussion to an end without my participation. Prior to that Pedro Gonnet made the argument on the talk page that my views should be ignored. I have no idea if such behaviour violates any wikiepdia policy - I wonder if there is a policy that require a "fair play" in all dealing on talk pages and ask that editors will actually listen to one another ?Zeq 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not quite correct. When I saw User:Zeq's comments on the talk page, I was instantly reminded of the endless -- and pointless -- discussions with User:Zeq regarding the re-insertion of bogus sources and disruptive behaviour which had gotten him blocked in the first place. Then I saw that he was not only editing the talk, but also the article, which is when I posted here. Apparently, the matter is now settled. Cheers and many thanks to all involved, pedro gonnet - talk - 23.10.2007 07:21

At the request of Sandstein I have unblocked Zeq (as he has agreed on his talk page to follow both the letter and spirit of the ArbCom probation). I still stand behind the legitimacy of the block, however, and will reinstate it if there's any more funny business. Kaldari 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pedro Gonnet confuse between the timing he found out about things (firts he noticed talk and only later he notice the article) and the timing rdits actually took place (first minot edits to the article and later edits on talk on a different subject)
• Since Pedro and the blocking Admin made the same mistake and the blocking Admin noted the timing as the reason for the block (i.e. it is based on wrong facts) it seems that a review of the block is needed and if it is wrong it should be noted on my block page. Thanks. Zeq 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're the one confusing (or rather obfuscating) the timing of things. I saw you on the talk by coincidence and then went to look at the article history to see if you had inadvertently opted-out of your ban. I have a job, so I don't have the time to systematically comb the histories, but if you insist, I'll try to find the time to systematically keep an eye out for you ;)

Oh, and I don't see how the timing is the reason for the block. You edited the fork of an article you were banned from. Period. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 24.10.2007 08:26

[edit] Deathrocker/Daddy Kindsoul/Soprani block evasion

Deathrocker, who later changed his account name to Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), was under sanctions as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. This user was blocked for one year by me on 2007-09-18 for continued edit warring. Within hours, this user set up a new sockpuppet, Soprani (talk · contribs), which was just brought to my attention. I have blocked Soprani indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and have reblocked Daddy Kindsoul indefinitely with a note that this user should not be unblocked for at least one more year. --Yamla 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This sockpuppeteer has already set up at least two new abusive accounts to continue vandalising. These were caught by another editor and have already been blocked. It may be time to move for a ban against this editor. --Yamla 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"i could easily just stop doing the work and instead focus on making his editing time here hell" from yet another abusive sockpuppet, Revelinit (talk · contribs) (now blocked). This user appears to be hopping IPs, anything we can do about this? --Yamla 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we're not giving him another chance. I am fully involved in Italian football articles, and he always proved to be a very good editor, I find all this fuss as pretty excessive to me (including all the rollback you made that generated a mess in all my watchlist). --Angelo 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. He's had a second chance. And a third chance. And a fourth chance. And a fifth chance. And a sixth chance. And many more. He has proven time and time again that he has absolutely not the slightest intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines and has been a problem user for about two years now. --Yamla 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I judge users according to their contributions. And his contributions always looked very informed and valid to me, so I really fail to see the problem around. In my opinion, he evaded the block mostly because of his desire to contribute on Wikipedia. In my life as an admin, I always refused to block valid editors. And please next time look at what you are rollbacking rather than just doing it because of the contributor's name. --Angelo 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. DK has been and still is more incivil than Ley, who got blocked about a year ago. If he's not getting the point after X blocks, let's bump it to indef. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla blocked my account (Soprani) without showing any evidence of his claim, he did not get a sock check and just banned my account... I have created much good articles on here, created lots of templates, uploded lots of images with correct rationeles, improved lots of articles and not once "trolled" or "vandalised".

This guy Yamla, blocked my account with no evidence and then went on to destruct Wikipedia by removing all my works (in some cases back to vandalised versions), deleted all the articles I had created (hundreds), deleted all of the images, and everything else. Including on high level articles like A.S. Roma which I'd improved to almost featured article content (thankfully, Angelo has now undelted the images).

To combat this, I created some anti-vandalism accounts today to get rid of his trolling roll backs (I couldn't however undelte the images, templates, articles he'd taken off). I would like to see my Soprani account unblocked, and all the deleted Yamla made to be undeleted. What he has done is destruct Wikipedia and its work, what I did was create, improve and much more possitive work on Italian football articles, etc. So today I Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to combat his destruction... I am willing to come back and continue the good work on Wikipedia, I have contributed much to improve this project, Yamla seems determinded to push me away from that desire to build this project, he wants me to become a troll (which isn't my preference). - Sooperani (Soprani) 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You aren't seriously claiming that you aren't Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), are you? Nobody is going to believe that and in fact, your unblock request on this basis has already been declined. The evidence that Soprani was an abusive sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul was blatantly obvious, no checkuser was necessary. --Yamla 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence at all, that is why you don't have the dignity to do a "checkuser". Looking on that users page, it was blocked for going on a USA band page [88] when I have 0 edits on there. Your only argument is that i edit on italian football pages and Football in general. What are you going to do now, will you block everybody who ever went on an Italian football page?

you have totally no indentions of improving this project have you? show me examples of any articles you actually do lots of work on compared to my football work? it would seem you are using wikipedia as a play thing, because that is the only place you are incontrol of anything (in showing that you deleted hundreds of pages, free images, templates of work which IMPROVED wikipedia). this is why you are trying to push away the hours of work i've put up here... you're not a big man, you're overcompensating on here because of the real world. Pathetic. - Sooperani1 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On the principle of WP:DENY, I will not be responding any further to this obvious sockpuppet. If any admin (or unrelated editor) wants to discuss this matter further, I will be happy to do so. Note that this vandal has threatened me on my user discussion page (here, in Italian, roughly "I'm going to make your life a living hell. I am devoting all my effort towards this end," though my Italian is iffy at best). --Yamla 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You will not be responding further, because you do not have the goods (or any proofs) to answer up to anything of anything i said above.... you do not have an answer as to why you thought it would be clever to destruct our articles on football, taking off hundreds of perfectly good ones, do you? you do not have an answer for the fact that i dont go on that USA bands page and my only music edits have been opera so far.

you can try to troll me Yamla like you did with all my works, but you're not going to "win"... just because you don't like to see people actually doing hard building of documents here like all my works on Italian football, doesn't mean I'm going to let you flex your little e-muscle and troll me. Yes it is true that I wrote that message to you... but when did i write it prey-tell? after you trolled me and removed hundreds of pages of my works (weeks and weeks of document making), deleted tens of my templates and free images: basically after you destructed football on here.. it is clearly my attention you want, not the works on the project, and this is why you are desperate to prize me away from doing work into something like this.

oh, by the way: i am compiling a very interest sockpuppet case which involved YOU. I hope you will enjoy it! because to my eyes it makes for very fascinating readings. - Sooperani3 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin and I am going to ask for a checkuser, I want to be very sure he is actually Daddy Kindsoul. About the Italian-language message on your talkpage (a little broken Italian, btw), it means "Your (plural form) time here will become hell. Now you have all my attention, infamous". --Angelo 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the sockpuppets but I happen to be all for unblocking User:Daddy Kindsoul or deathrocker or w/e as I have seen many of his edits and thought they were useful...but this is just my opinion.Navnløs 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the history of blocks and sockpuppets, and I'm sure I'll get shot down for saying this but Yamla's reversions are destroying a lot of good work, reducing the quality of wikipedia by erasing perfectly good images [89] [90], undoing good edits and reinserting poor ones [91]destroying good information, [92] [93] in this case reverting it back to Daddykindsoul's edit, the guy he's supposed to be erasing. In fact of all of the reversions I looked at not one improved the page in question. The images that have been deleted have now had their links erased by the imageremovalbot, so in a few days they will get deleted as orphaned even if they get recreated. The whole thing looks like a knee jerk over-reaction. If the guy was vandalising, people involved in football related articles would have noticed and stopped him. To me, removing hundreds of valuable edits, deleting loads of verifiable articles and images with proper rationales, reinserting poor edits and acts of vandalism, looks itself like a grotesque act of vandalism. I'm appalled that so much decent material can be jetisoned on a point of principle, and apparently without doing a proper checkuser. In conclusion I completely oppose the use of rollback on users who have made numerous useful contributions, and think that this case is a perfect example of an admin with a grudge (justified or not) reducing the quality of wikipedia. King of the North East (T/C) 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This was on the principle of WP:DENY. Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) (and Deathrocker (talk · contribs) before him) has a long history of abuse back to about two years ago. The one year block on Daddy Kindsoul was upheld as valid but this abusive user was unwilling to accept this. If we do not roll back all contributions, this user will continue setting up yet more sockpuppet accounts (as indeed he has done today) and continue blatantly ignoring our policies and guidelines. As I have mentioned already, this user has been given numerous second chances in the past and has blown them all. In these circumstances, it is entirely legitimate to roll back all contributions from the abusive sockpuppet account. Please make sure you have read the RfA on Deathrocker (as he was known there). --Yamla 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, WP:DENY is a essay and has no official value. In any case, I want to assume good faith, hoping next time you're going to look at the diffs before pushing the rollback button and thinking over before deleting good quality and notable content such as articles, templates and valid images. We all learn by past experience. --Angelo 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:DENY is an essay and has no official value. However, deliberate block evasion is a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK) and thus a form of vandalism. While contributions from abusive sockpuppet accounts are not always reverted, I believe it is often appropriate to do so. I believe this is particularly the case here so as to strongly discourage this blocked vandal from further abusive sockpuppetry. If someone wishes to reinstate some of these edits, taking personal responsibility for them, they are free to do so and I would not object (provided they are reinstated, not rolled "forward"). Now, Angelo, I believe my reversions are not out of line. This sort of general rollback is often performed in similar situations (though clearly not all cases call for it). If you believe I am mistaken and that administrators never do roll back the contributions of abusive sockpuppets, please let me know. If you believe this is not a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry, I'll have to strongly disagree after looking through literally hundreds of contributions, some of which were IDENTICAL (though this is not the only evidence). But please let me know if this forms the basis of your argument. Alternatively, you may believe that general roll-backs are often performed but that you disagree with them. That's a fair point of view, though one that I disagree with. Of course, you may be disagreeing with me for other reasons; if so, please clarify. Thank you. --Yamla 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Edits by indef blocked editors evading their block can be reverted regardless of the actual merits of the edits. There is nothing new about that; that is established policy. Beyond that, Deathrocker (talk · contribs) or whatever he is calling himself nowadays may have made beneficial edits to football articles, but that is offset by the tendentious and skewed editing he did on music genre articles; I daresay he's ruined as many of those with POV editing as he's improved football articles.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, valuable contributions are never vandalism to me, we are an encyclopedia in the end, aren't we? All you did by rollbacking all of Soprani's edit was to encourage him to create lots and lots of sockpuppets. I think admins should rollback contributions only when they are abusive/vandal-like, and this was not the case, as you deleted also entire articles about Italian nationwide football players and manager. You were right in blocking Soprani if you felt that sure he is actually Daddy Kindsoul; but you were not right in rollbacking all of his edits, many of them being quite valuable contributions. I am not the only one to feel this, since some WikiProject Football users noted it as well.

Isotope23, ban is different than indefblock. For all I know, Daddy Kindsoul/Deathrocker was just indefblocked, but never banned, so WP:BAN does not apply in this particular case. --Angelo 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an indef block that no other administrator is willing to overturn is in practice a ban, so WP:BAN does apply here as long as the individual behind these accounts is continuing to edit through sockpuppets while the original account is indef blocked. The editor can request an unblock if he feels he should be reinstated. Until that time though all edits through socks are subject to immediate removal, which is why socking to get around a block is rather pointless.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul/Deathrocker was under ARBCOM sanctions. WP:BAN applies. As Isotope23 points out, rolling back contributions from an abusive sockpuppet is certainly acceptable in a case like this. You are free to disagree but as you are now arguing about official Wikipedia policy, I'd ask that you please make your case to change this policy in the appropriate forum. To be clear, you are entitled to your opinion and are clearly acting in good faith, I'm simply stating that you are now advocating a policy change and this discussion isn't really the right forum. --Yamla 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy says "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban", so it's not a mandatory thing. Your actions comply with the policy, but I still think it would be better to have a look at what you were going to revert before to push the rollback button. In any case, this is my last comment, let's close this discussion here. We have just different opinions, it can happen, there's nothing wrong in it :) --Angelo 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:POINT?

MinsiPatches (talk · contribs) appears to be creating several AFDs on scout camps after an article in which s/he was apparently heavily involved was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Minsi. Katr67 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is not disruptive. If he honestly believes the principle under which one article was deleted applies to other articles, he should be free to nominate those other articles for deletion as well. "Then delete those too" is a very common response to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yet we accuse people of violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point when they actually do so? —Random832 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, just to clarify, are you saying those articles should be kept? Then maybe you should add some references to independent sources and assert notability, rather than complaining about who nominated them. —Random832 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback--you're right about "other stuff" vs, "point" in Afds. I have no opinion as of yet whether the articles should be kept, I'm really only interested in the Oregon one, which is part of WP:ORE. I don't have much interest in scout camps, I just wanted to make sure this wasn't somehow a bad faith nom. Also s/he quoted pretty much the nomination rationale from the deleted article, so that kind of seemed pointy to me too. I suspect this isn't a violation of policy, but it made me uncomfortable to let it go by without mentioning it somewhere. Katr67 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)MinsiPatches is reiterating the deletion reason for the Campi Minsi deletion. But is this strictly a POINT violation, or is the user saying "well, if that's the standard we have, then we should apply it fairly". Katr67, incidentally, it would have been helpful if you had asked MinsiPatches what the reason was before bringing this matter here. On briefly looking at some of those nominated, such as Treasure Island Scout Reservation and Resica Falls Scout Reservation, they do indeed appear to not assert notability beyond being a scout camp (no-one famous went there, nothing notable happened there, etc.). If MinsiPatches had nominated a huge swathe of articles (I count 7, I think, hardly massive) or if the articles nominated were clearly notable and the nomination reason was bogus, then that might be POINT, but I don't think this is. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's how this can happen entirely in good faith:

1. User sees other scout camp articles, figures it's ok to have an article about one, decides to post one about the one he went to (since it's not there / he knows stuff about it / etc)
2. It gets nominated for deletion, because it's not really notable. Ok, so maybe those others didn't get noticed (maybe because they're from an earlier time when the winds were blowing in a more inclusionist direction, maybe just because they slipped under the radar of the NP watchers.) So, apparently scout camps aren't inherently notable, and ones that fall below a certain threshold get deleted
3. User nominates the other non-notable articles for deletion.

At this point, none of us have any business thinking otherwise. WP:POINT is often misapplied because its most commonly used shortcut does not mention disruptiveness. —Random832 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(In partial reply to Finlay McWalter above) The problem here is that some of the nominated articles are notable, some extremely so. Treasure Island Scout Reservation is the founding place of the Order of the Arrow. E. Urner Goodman, founder of the OA and thus one of the most notable scouting figures in history, was the first director there. It is also one of the oldest, possibly the oldest, continually operating scout camps in America. Other articles nominated meet the notability standard by providing multiple independent sources, which the copied-and-pasted nomination claims do not exist. This implies that the nominator is simply trying to find articles about scout camps and nominating them for deletion without even caring what camp they are about or the content of the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see one broken link to an area newspaper. Which articles are sourced to multiple independent sources? —Random832 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Treasure Island has several sources, and as noted is inherently notable anyway.

Camp Pioneer makes a link to an article that mentions the page, and sources several other papers. As I noted in the AfD for that page, several do appear to be trivial, but there are at least two that would appear to be of some use. Two = multiple.

The remainder I do agree are not notable, however as stated above I don't think the nominator actually bothered to check on them, just noticed they were scout camps and slapped 'em on the board. Perhaps it would have been better to phrase the above "some are notable, one extremely so", but the point still stands. No attempt seems to have been made to find sources for these, no attempt seems to have been made to make a good faith nomination. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think this is not bad faith set of noms, check this: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#What_a_bunch_of_pussies] and this: User_talk:MinsiPatches#What_kind_of_.5Beditor.5D_are_you.3F, which originally had the words User_talk:172.134.136.206#Welcome! (Regarding User_talk:MinsiPatches#What_kind_of_fucking_idiot_are_you.3F). Rlevse 17:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to go off on a tangent here, but my favorite thing I saw... That IP essentially engages in personal attacks while posting a rather pointless screed, and they get a welcome template instead of a warning. Fabulous.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of the intent, it certainly appears to not be an overly successful set of AFDs. I'd say at this point, let the AFDs run course, stick the template on the talkpage when these are presumably kept (or not if they are merged), and if the editor continues with noms after that, deal with it at that point.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violations on Haroon Siddiqui

An anon account [70.181.35.102] has been singularly interested in violating WP:BLP in Haroon Siddiqui article for the last 10 months. Only interested in adding negative information, that too from blogs such as [94],[95].[96]. Looks very peristant. I have also reported it at the BLP violation notice board Thanks Taprobanus 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Necator has a habit of pushing his own POV and falsely reporting people who go against him for stuff such as violating OR. This should be looked at in a bit more depth. Jtrainor 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faye Resnick

To whom it may concern: The above article was PRODded on October 19; the PROD notice was deleted without justification or reason by an anonymous IP, which comprised his/her sole contribution to Wikipedia.

Can the PROD 5 day notice be corrected/given credit for the time since October 19, so the PROD will expire on October 24 as it should have done as no one else has contested the PROD, instead of expiring on October 27?? Thanks. 216.194.3.161 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If I read {{PROD}} and WP:PROD right, anyone can remove a PROD tag if they disagree with it, and explanations are strongly encouraged but not required. I think if anyone removes your PROD tag, your only recourse is to go to WP:AFD. Also, there's no reason to automatically think that this is their only contribution to Wikipedia; they could very easily be on a dynamic IP. Unless, of course you have only been here two days too... --barneca (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Barneca is right; IP users are allowed to prod and de-prod, just like people with registered accounts. If it was de-PRODded, and you still think that it should be deleted, AFD is the next step. You'll need to register an account in order to nominate the page there, though (per WP:AFD#Before_nominating_an_AfD). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinions

Any second opinions about this? The editor is a 13-year old who I've recently taken on as an adoptee.--chaser - t 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the right course of action, based on the lack of information in his comment. It's hard to tell if he's asking you to keep away the predators, or if he wants you to tell the kid to go play outside every now and then. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (and tell him the basics of ID protection, for the former, and tell him the latter flat out, LOL.) ThuranX 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should perhaps inform him of certain things, such as the fact that Wikipedia is not censored, and direct him toward related pages etc. That's my 2c. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with Mississippi governor article

User:Govtwatcher comes out of the blue and removes sourced content from Ronnie Musgrove then warns me for vandalism. I haven't touched the article since October 11 until today when I reverted the this users vandalism of removing sourced content and warned him/her for removing sourced content. User came and warned me again for vandalism and a ban threat. As of this writing, he/she hasn't reverted to the edit that he/she did earlier that removed the sourced content but I expect it to take place any moment. See Ronnie Musgrove history, and my talk page with users 2 warnings against me. Would someone calm this person down and get them off of the article and stop them from removing sourced content? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppet of User:Capitolcap by an admin. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 12:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Protection on Liberal Until End of AfD

And also requesting a look at User:Macosx’s behaviour.

I expanded the liberal article from a redirect using information available under a GFDL compatible license. Macosx chose to take the page to AfD, something I have no problem with and am willing to defend my changes in the discussion.

However, Macosx keeps changing the page back to a redirect in direct violation of two guidelines surrounding the AfD process:

• The article must not be blanked until the end of the discussion
• The AfD notice must not be removed until the end of the discussion

I have reverted his edits twice requesting that he leave the information in place and reminding him of the two guidelines he was breaching, [97][98].

I have also brought the matter up on the article talk page, Talk:Liberal#Blanking and Redirecting, however he has failed to respond to the issues I have raised and instead has claimed first that the information was stolen (it is in the public domain) and then that I was a vandal. After the second time he reverted the link I posted a notice on his page requesting that he doesn’t remove the notice or blank the article until the end of the discussion, he proceeded to call me a vandal again [99].

As such I am requesting that the page be reverted back to the article that was nominated for deletion and given full protection so that it cannot be redirected in contravention of the AfD policy until the end of the debate. I am also requesting that an admin consider Macosx’s actions in knowingly disregarding policy and assuming bad faith against my person and take appropriate action. Thankyou Conservativechuck 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me that you didn't create an POV fork on liberal by cutting and pasting the relevant text from Conservapedia. That site's policies are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's, for reasons that your edit should make abundantly clear. The only "appropriate action" that might be warranted is to remind you not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing your contribs, you're pretty clearly not a new user either. The "block troll" button is calling me. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect this has got nothing to do with the content of the article or its source. An editor has chosen to take the article to AfD, and until that discussion has finished the article must not be blanked or the AfD notice removed, these are guidelines clearly specified on the notice. By redirecting the page Macosx has continually violated these guidelines without providing any reason. Furthermore he has persisted in assuming bad faith in labelling me a vandal.

I am more than open to discuss any content disputes on either the article’s talk page or the relevant AfD page. I see nothing disruptive with posting a request here that wikipedia’s policies are upheld, that the article is reverted to the version that was nominated and given protection so that it cannot be turned into a redirect in contravention of the policies required by an AfD.

And no I am not a new user, nor I am currently using any other account. I see nothing trolling about i) expanding an article using a GFDL friendly source ii) attempting to ensure that the AfD process is upheld by abiding by the regulations clearly specified on the notice and iii) requesting page protection from an admin to ensure step two is taken to avoid having an edit war Conservativechuck 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia's copyrightt status is not compatible with the GFDL. Individuals are of course welcome to dual-liscence content, but that's not what happened here. I'm therefore speedy closing the AfD, deleting the difs and adding the redirect back in. JoshuaZ 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Conservativechuck: That's just it. You've imported material which obviously and blatantly violates Wikipedia's core policies, and now you're demanding that a different policy be upheld to the letter rather than the spirit. That's Wikilawyering and it rapidly exhausts peoples' patience. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I was under the impression that the content was available under the GFDL license. I shall go and see what I am able to take and re-expand at a later stage.

In the meantime can I request to know what measures will be taken against Macosx for violating AfD regulations and assuming bad faith? Conservativechuck 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] MastCell, just because you do not agree with something doesn’t mean that it is in “clear violation of wikipedia’s core policies”. Macosx was clearly violating both the policy of the AfD and was assuming bad faith, it is not a question of wikilawyering to adhere to the blatantly obvious notice that you can’t blank the page or remove the sign and then request page protection when someone continues to edit war in clear disregard of these policies. The article went to AfD, and it should have stayed on the article that was nominated, not turned into a redirect before the discussion was finished. I wonder what your response would be about Macosx complaining about me violating policy… Conservativechuck 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a moot point anyway, Chuck. Best to move on. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a copyvio, and was deleted. The outcome was readily apparent. I don't see any administrative action here, since there's no possible prevention anymore. We're not punitive. --Haemo 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it would be helpful to know the puppetmaster of Conservativechuck. Any ideas? Raymond Arritt 15:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A single-purpose role-account sockpuppet importing inflammatory material from Conservapedia and then demanding sanctions against another editor for failing to assume good faith? The possibilities are endless. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fellowship of Friends IP range block - reopening

I am reopenig this case because no decision has been made. At this point, I suspect that Yamla's IP range block on 10/11/07 for a supposed COI at the Fellowship of Friends article was a mistake. Because of the IP range block, 70 people at the organization's building are not able to edit any Wikipedia page from their offices. Note that the building rents offices to businesses that are not related to the organization. Please take a look at the exchange below and tell me what you think. Thanks. Mfantoni 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is related to the IP range block at the Fellowship of Friends page. I am an editor of that page and my company rents an office at a building owned by the Fellowship of Friends. Sometimes I do edits from the office, but since last Thursday I am not able to edit any Wikipedia page if I connect to the interned through the internet connection that I have at the office. Note that besides me there are more than 70 people working in this building that can’t edit any Wikipedia page at the moment. The reason that was used for blocking the building's connection is COI. I can’t understand this. Why is it that a person editing Wikipedia from this building is a case of COI but the same person editing from anywhere else is not? Wikipedia should block editors, not IP ranges, so I am asking for the IP block to be released. I am copying several administrators in this message. Mfantoni 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that rather a lot of people who work on a building and are supplied with Internet by the Fellowship of Friends are actually editing that page. Could you please let me know exactly how you, for example, are related to the Fellowship of Friends. Perhaps you are entirely unconnected except that you are employed by a company which rents office space from them. Perhaps you are employed by a company owned by the parent company (if one exists). Perhaps you are employed by a company that has a closer relationship to the Fellowship of Friends than simply being a tenant. Anyway, if you could please let me know. There are some seriously troublesome issues at work here but please understand that I am not accusing you of anything. The problem is simply that a significant number of people using the IP addresses belonging to the Fellowship of Friends is editing the Fellowship of Friends article. --Yamla 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:COI applies regardless of where a person is editing from. If a person is associated with the Fellowship of Friends and is violating WP:COI, they would be violating this guideline regardless of whether they edited from an IP address owned by the Fellowship of Friends or edited from a home address. The IP address range is blocked because of the substantial undisclosed conflict of interest problems with that article. However, this should not be taken to mean that it would be appropriate for people with a conflict of interest to continue editing from other addresses. Nothing could be further from the truth. --Yamla 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try to clarify the situation. I am a current member of the Fellowship of Friends, and that is my only connection with the organization. I am not paid by the Fellowship of Friends to edit Wikipedia, or to do any type of PR for the organization. My company rents an office at the Fellowship of Friends building, and I share a Fellowship of Friends internet connection with other 70 people. Mfantoni 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I believe it inappropriate for you to edit the article on Fellowship of Friends. It would still be appropriate for you to discuss the article on that page's talk page, however. Are you aware of anyone on that IP address range who is not associated with Fellowship of Friends (not a member, not employed by them, not employed by a related company) who is currently blocked from editing as a result of the IP address range block? --Yamla 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that being a member of the Fellowship of Friends is a reason for me not to edit the article? Are members of the Catholic church forbidden to edit the article on the Catholic church? Are French people not appropriate to edit the article about France? This looks like discrimination to me. Mfantoni 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are a member of the Fellowship of Friends. You are editing from an IP block owned by the Fellowship of Friends. Do you seriously not see why someone would not think this is a conflict of interest? In fact, it appears that you have a management position in the Fellowship of Friends, at least according to this source. Please reread WP:COI. --Yamla 18:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

May be you are not familiar with religious articles. Vassyana, an administrator with experience with religious articles that worked as a mediator in the past, mentioned that any page about a religious organization has editors that are current members of the organization, former members, and people that never belonged to the organization (I can find the diff if you wish). Finally, the link you mentioned above states that I was part of the management team of Kelly Services, not the Fellowship of Friends. Mfantoni 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, I can bring this matter up on the conflict of interest noticeboard, WP:COIN. Do you believe this would be an appropriate forum? If not, I can come up with some other suggestions. --Yamla 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also without reservation apologise for claiming that you were in a management position with the Followship of Friends. You are correct, the link I provide indicates that you are part of the management team of Kelly Services. I want to also reiterate that I am concerned about COI on Fellowship of Friends but even if you are "guilty" of violating this guideline, please understand that I am not claiming you have been acting in bad faith. It's easy enough to violate one of Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines while having nothing but honest intentions, as I believe to be the case here. --Yamla 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize - this case is not easy and you are trying to collect as much information as you can. Thanks anyway. Mfantoni 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mfantoni, members of a faith may edit pages about their group. However, this is a case of members of a group editing from internet access owned by the group. If an employee of Ford Motors were editing from a company IP, or a member of the Community of Christ were editing from a church IP, there would be similar concerns about a conflict of interest. It is not purely membership which is a concern, but also editing from a Fellowship owned site. It is difficult in this instance, to say the least, to distinguish between edits from official Fellowship offices and those originating from leased offices in the same location. Please consider the situation and understand how outside sysops may view the matter. Vassyana 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding the difference between somebody editing from a company owned IP (or site) and somebody editing from a church owned IP (or site) is that in the first case the editor is probably being paid by the company (he is probably an employee or a contractor) but in the second case the editor may be a member of the church with no financial compensation. I examined WP:COI in depth and couldn't find anything mentioning that affiliation to a religious organization and editing from that organization's IP (or site) is a case of COI. Mfantoni 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the IP address range for Fellowship of Friends clearly did not resolve the COI as editors with possible conflicts have continued to edit, presumably via other addresses. This is why I have protected the page. My offer to take this issue to WP:COIN still stands. My concern is that this article is being edited repeatedly by people who either work for the Fellowship of Friends or at least work in the same building and in many cases, are members of the Fellowship of Friends. This does not necessarily violate WP:COI but I am more than a little concerned that a significant proportion of the edits are coming from the Fellowship of Friends IP address range. I'm not singling out individual editors here. --Yamla 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any evidence that anyone not related to the Fellowship of Friends has been editing this article from the Fellowship of Friends IP address. Can you please provide evidence of this? And please note that I have blocked all edits to this article due to COI concerns. I am not taking sides here. --Yamla 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yamla, what sort of evidence? How do you know you are not talking to a non member of the Fellowship of Friends right now? You have to prove what you say, not claim for evidence on the contrary! Baby Dove 07:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, why is it necessary to find an editor of the FOF page that works in the Fellowship building and is not related to the Fellowship? This implies that somebody should go to each office in the building and ask everybody (that's 70 people), "Are you editing the FOF page in Wikipedia? If yes, are you related to the FOF?" I think that you will agree that that would be a violation of people's privacy. And if somebody finds a person editing the FOF page from the FOF building that claims that he or she is not related to the FOF, will you then unblock the IP range? How can we be certain that he or she is not related to the FOF? I would appreciate if you could explain to me the rationale behind your request. Thank you. Mfantoni 09:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Without going into details, there's clearly a substantial conflict of interest going on here. The current position of WP:COIN appears to be disallowing anyone working in the Fellowship of Friends building from editing the Fellowship of Friends article, as per WP:COI. If you truly do not see why it is a conflict of interest for a person to edit the Fellowship of Friends from an IP address range owned by the Fellowship of Friends when we also have no reason to believe anyone who has done so is not also a member of the Fellowship of Friends then I would dispair of explaining things further because it clearly would not do any good. Yes, there's a possibility that we may hit some non-members but there's no reason to believe this has been the case so far. --Yamla 14:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, tell me where in WP:COI is the text that says that members of an organization can't edit articles about that organization if the internet connection they use is owned by the organization. I read WP:COI several times and couldn't find it. Thanks. Mfantoni 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If an editor edits a page on an organization (religion, theatre group, store, whatever) that they are involved with, they need to be *exceptionally* careful with their edits in order to avoid conflict of interest and NPOV. I work for a store that absolutely should have a Wikipedia page (it has several unique features and a 20-year history, as well as having articles about it in the papers constantly and mentions on BoingBoing by Cory Doctorow). However, I would not be able to edit a page on it; I would not be able to do so without bias. Someone else who works at the store might well be able to. I cannot.

Now, take a look at this edit of yours[100]. Your summary reads: "removed the word "heterosexual" because it is editor's interpretation (not present in the quoted source". However, I was easily able to find this line in the cite: "Sanders claimed he felt betrayed when he discovered that Burton made a habit of having sex with rank-and-file members, most of them heterosexual males and many of them married.". So the cite is there, and you removed it, despite the fact the quoted source did indeed state that. You've mentioned being a member. You've removed things that may reflect negatively on the organization. You're editing from work at a marketing company, on an IP address registered to the Fellowship of Friends, and you're their tenant. This sends up a huge COI flag. WP:COI reads, in part: Note that if you only correct bias against your company and its interests, and not bias in its favour, your editing will be different from that of a regular Wikipedian, who would be expected to do both. I do not see that you have much of a history with that page of allowing what is good, and what is bad, as long as it is cited. --Thespian 06:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thespian, even there is a "huge COI flag", as you put it, what you are saying applies only to me, not to the other 70+ people that have been banned with the FOF IP block. That doesn't sound fair, does it? Mfantoni 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is going to sound unduly harsh, but, having not seen a complaint from any other editor on that IP address that they can't edit the FoF page is an indication that the only person who wants to edit the page in question is you, with your clear COI. Either other editors who would be editing the page are avoiding it because they understand the COI rules and that by being on an FoF-controlled IP, they would be violating them, or no one else is actually interested in editing the page, so they don't trip the block. I have to go to work, or this would be longer, but I do believe this case is fairly clear cut. --Thespian 15:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound harsh because it is incorrect. Editors Baby Dove and Love-in-ark declared that they are being affected by the IP block. There are 6 active editors at the FOF article at the moment and the IP block is affecting 3. Mfantoni 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:Vulpes vulpes

user:Vulpes vulpes continuously involved in questionable activities, [101] and was informed that such approach may not fall into acceptable conduct frame [102] . However newest examples shows that user:Vulpes vulpes approach not changed, when he/she attacked good faith editor labeling his actions as vandalism, falsification and urging for ban. [103]. Can uninvolved contributor inform once more particular user:Vulpes vulpes that such approach is not acceptable. Thanks, M.K. 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, over anglicization issues. Think you'd best go through the dispute resolution process. Rdfox 76 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy - aka Hamset Jeejeeboy - aka ...

Sir_Jamset_G_Jeejeeboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Personal insults, false accusations and talk page disruption (for instance here, here, hare) by recently blocked sockpuppet Hamset Jeejeeboy. - DVdm 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blockity blocked. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

...and score another one for Mike. I guess I'm off that guy's Christmas card list eh?--Isotope23 ^talk 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theft

This page has been under vandalism attack by an anon IP for the last three weeks or more. The change of wording is the same in each case but he does not get the message. Could the page be semi-pp yet again please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 11:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected due to ghosts. El_C 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Determined

I call attention to the Hurricane High School (West Virginia) page, and an individual who has been defacing and forcing exaggerated personal information onto the page for several months. The user has been using public terminals for a majority of edits, but through tracking the defacements made by IPs to the page and translating the times of the edits to Eastern Time, I believe I have found the defacer's home IP.

The following is a log of all evidence of defacement:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_High_School_%28West_Virginia%29&oldid=142193651
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_High_School_%28West_Virginia%29&oldid=142331120
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane%2C_West_Virginia&diff=prev&oldid=142324626
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_High_School_%28West_Virginia%29&oldid=144250173
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_High_School_%28West_Virginia%29&oldid=166192990

As this IP appears to be the only one defacer that has edits to other articles than the high school's page, has remained the same for over one month, and is in the pattern of previous defacements, I believe this is the disgruntled student.

Would it be out of line to request the page be blocked from edits by unregistered users for a period of time?

This is the high school from my old hometown. Please help me keep it safe. Thank you!

--TarrVetus 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for 3 months to give you a bit of a break. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I hoped you would do. Thank you very much, Theresa!

--TarrVetus 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sock of banned user

Could someone look at Vatiskaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? I strongly suspect this is a sock of the banned long-term abuser Roitr (talk · contribs). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think so? It doesn't look like you and he have crossed paths that much, and the only thing he and Riotr have in common seems to be that they've both edited pages on military ranks. I'm not that familiar with Riotr, so I'm sure you have more insight into that than I do. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Rollosmokes and the Drake Hogestyn article

Rollosmokes has repeatedly made statements that were personal attacks and statements directly indicating he will not assume good faith. Another editor tried to assist User:Firsfron and he was told on his talk page [104] that he refuses to work with me within the context of the article. See here for his refusal to be civil and assume good faith as well as here for personal attacks. And here where he refuses to take back insults. As you can see from the history of the Drake Hogestyn page, I'm am only trying to clean up the page, remove redlinks by correctly directing to the proper pages, adding citations, etc. While it does appear to be a lot of changes, that is because there are quite a few additions as well as grammatical changes to improve the article. All changes have been a good faith attempt to improve the article but Rollosmokes appears to fail to see that. I have tried explaining that the single incident where quotation marks were used was because they were part of a quoted passage. He fails to understand that. He claims to be making changes where none need to be made, i.e. directing the page to Tampa, Florida over Tampa both links going to the same page. The same is true for Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Two separate, varied links are included in the article, but he keeps changing them to go to the bottom of the article. I leave one and he is not satisfied and becomes aggressive, something Firsfron has agreed with me on.

I'm simply trying to improve the article, and was compliment in doing so, but Rollosmokes is refusing to look at the article, just the edits, and is attacking me based on a single incident in a series of changes. Assistance with this hostile individual would be appreciated. IrishLass0128 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There was also this personal attack/act of incivility, that should be noted. I did edit it to be more welcoming to others who might pass by. IrishLass0128 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this more as a content dispute, I'll protect the article and hope you can resolve the issue on the talk page. _→AzaToth 17:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And yea, you shouldn't change others comments. _→AzaToth 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the protection. In all actuality, I believe you are half right that it is a content dispute but it is has also lead to personal attacks by Rollosmokes, and likely CelticGreen. I have tried to combine both editors versions and I was attacked, as acknowledged by Adminstrator Firsfron who warned Rollosmokes, at which time Rollosmokes told Firsfron he would not take back his attacks. Again, just looking at the talk page you can see the admission that he lacks good faith and will not attempt. He has even failed to see that I have used his edits claiming I unilaterally removed them all, which is far from true. The article has been expanded and improved, but Rollosmokes continues to be aggressive and make personal attacks. Again, thank you for protecting the page, maybe cooler heads will prevail once the block expires. IrishLass0128 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And yea, you shouldn't change others comments. _→AzaToth 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ~~ I was previously told that if a comment attacked people, it was acceptable to change it. Sorry if that was wrong. IrishLass0128 17:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)