Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive352

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sock puppet, edits despite COI warnings, biased article 2 persistent posting of personal/unsourced information on a BLP 3 Please delete User:8thstar/ubx/Dead Marxist 4 Controversial userbox 5 Personal atacks 6 Static IP persistently vandalising after expiry of block 7 User:5dsddddd 8 Cityscape 9 Last time I'm doing this: Talk:Waterboarding (again) 10 Request for rollback review 11 Consensus discussion ignored 12 IP user being problematic 13 user Countdowncafe 14 User:Alfred Legrand 15 Liite Buddhism 16 I'd like some help 17 User:Heliac 18 Blocking User:UzEE on Checkuser findings 19 200.177.255.66 continually spamming 20 Talk page used as self-promotion? 21 Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE 21.1 Response by Ursasapien 22 Could someone take a look at this... 23 User:86.162.214.179 reverting my edits to Tony Hawk's Project 8 24 User:karmaisking 25 User:Gorwath 26 User:Athena Nikolo 27 Ricxster making borderline legal threat 28 Religious debates over Harry Potter 29 User:99.130.34.227 30 Removal of text by possibly interested party 31 Sock/meatpuppetry in Naruto-arena 32 Removal of rollback pending discussion 33 User:24.174.48.155 34 User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe 35 Unblock 36 58.167.250.161 (talk · contribs) 37 Hanzukik (talk · contribs) 38 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorudo 39 Help with fixing some bizarre pagemoves 40 User:Jon Awbrey and socks at it again 41 User:Jayjg 42 User:Turtlescrubber 42.1 The consensus agreement 42.2 Real consensus 42.3 What admins can do if you bring a dispute here 42.4 Oh Rly? 43 Apollo Victoria Theatre 44 125.26.162.120 (talk · contribs) 45 user:CreationSCS 46 Problem user Oni Ookami Alfador (talk · contribs) 47 Copyright?? 48 Chiefsfan364 account compromised 49 Page move vandalism by User:Moose Sheriff 50 Religious debates over Harry Potter (again) 51 Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder: he's back 52 Inappropriate (GROSS!!) picture in Wikipedia archive showing up in Google Earth for London, Ontario 53 Repeated edit problems from moving IP 54 User:Utcursch 55 Date warrior/ honorific deleter/ possible sockpuppet 56 User:Socks4life 57 User:TNTPRO 58 User:Philippe 59 Danny Williams (politician) 60 Harassment Notice 61 Concerns regarding Melanie McGuire article 62 Return of User:Mmbabies 63 Article abuse of Stan Polley 64 Self-made toy pictures 65 Ongoing personal attacks from User:MichaelQSchmidt 66 User:HPJoker 67 User:BernardL 68 Arbitration evidence tampering 69 tqbf (talk · contribs) 70 Redirect war at Gustav Horn, Count of Pori 71 blocking IP? 72 BigHaz 73 Co-operation and communication on Wikipedia

[edit] Sock puppet, edits despite COI warnings, biased article

I have been trying to 'clean up' the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance article and have encountered lots of problems in trying to do so by user Ghagele (talk · contribs). I have recently created a descriptive paragraph on the talk page to describe the issues I see thus far: Talk:Council_for_Refractive_Surgery_Quality_Assurance#Conflict_of_Interest_Analysis.2C_Editing_History_and_Glenn_Hagele

All in all, Ghagele (talk · contribs) has received two warnings about editing the CRSQA article and has continued to do so with no administrator intervention, to my great, great surprise. He has also now unknowingly admitted to using his IP as a sock-puppet to circumvent the warnings to edit the CRSQA article by editing the talk page without logging in as Ghagele.

I am desperately looking for some logical administration on the subject, as I believe the information I have provided on the talk provides provides premises for some pretty obvious actions. --SirDecius (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see implicit threats of legal action from Ghaegel by extensive references to legal action against web site operators elsewhere, and a discussion by both him and SirDecius about the true identity of Wikipedia users. 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) With respect to the article itself, attention is being paid to it by another admin. DGG (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG - If you are referring to Bearian he has declared: 'I'm moving on. I will not bother changing anything more' as per my talk page, which is why I have requested additional assistance. Thanks for your response, and I believe this will be my last attempt at cleaning up that article. --SirDecius (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SirDecius appears to have strong feelings about the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance and in the last month has edited little outside that area. The spirit of the WP:COI guideline indicates that editors with strong views should work very cautiously on articles relating to their intense interests. Over at the article talk page I offered to make a compromise draft that was as neutral as possible and avoided WP:BLP problems. SirDecius has so far not agreed to support this plan, yet he has made several requests for admin help. I encourage him to return to the Talk page conversation in a cooperative spirit. SirDecius strongly supports the inclusion of a link to an external website called http://www.usaeyes.info that describes the CRSQA as a 'cynical marketing ploy' and asserts that Glenn Hagele is engaging in false advertising. I have tried, so far in vain, to persuade him that BLP is not happy with this kind of a link. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] persistent posting of personal/unsourced information on a BLP

a block of user Lewinsky and IP 60.242.9.146 is requested for repeatedly posting personal and unsourced information on the page of Evan Thomas.

77.185.56.213 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP complaining here should list both User:Lewinksky and User:Lewinsky in this complaint. both are SPA accounts. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And maybe they should be informed as to why the info is being removed? So far there hasn't been so much as an edit summary explaining why, much less a comment on the article talk page or to any of the offenders. AN/I should not be the first recourse. Pairadox (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A note is on teh article talk now. should further edits occur, I will bring them here. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. You'd think I kibbitz here enough to check the edit dates more carefully. All this happened in August, not this week or month. I think an admin can mark this resolved, and we can be done with it. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete User:8thstar/ubx/Dead Marxist

This userbox was deleted at MFD recently, was recreated and deleted again per CSD G4, and has been recreated yet again. Please delete it again and prevent recreation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Already deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and salt it; since its deletion via WP:MfD it's been recreated twice. I also warned its creator to stop remaking it and visit deletion review if s/he disagrees with the verdict from MfD. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good call, that. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than opening up a new section, I am opening this one again as this is related. Following the deletion(s) of the above userbox, 8thstar has now come up with the following gem;

User:8thstar/ubx/Marxist

and inserted it into every user's page who used the previous one. Inappropriate? Pointy? Tarc (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitly inappropriate; however I'm struggling to think what it breaches. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of userspace policy... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems disruptive to me. Blood Red Sandman, I don't know if it violates any specifically laid out rule about user space, but there is a general prohibition against editing other people's pages, mostly out of courtesy. Obviously that doesn't count if someone is violating another, more important rule, on their user page, such as the fair use policy. But I think in this case the user is not right to be adding this to multiple user's pages. It also seems deliberately disruptive for the purposes of making a point. Natalie (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such prohibition, only a very, very general sense of "hey, don't be a jerk about it". I've never thought twice about editing someone's userspace; it's whether or not the edit is constructive that matters. In this particular case, the edits to other peoples' userspaces are perfectly valid, as he's only fixing a broken transclusion. The only objectionable element is what he's adding (a T1 speedily deleted userbox), not the editing in and of itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually the original deleted userbox, it's a new one created in response, it appears, to the deletion, that is being added. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

EVula, I guess I'm a little confused then, because a user's editing each other's pages when there isn't a compelling reason to (reverting vandalism, removing fair use or attacks, and so on) is generally treated as unwelcome. Obviously, I'm aware that no one owns their own user space or has ultimate control over it, but I've always gotten the impression that unnecessarily editing someone else's user page is considered rude. To clarify, I didn't mean prohibition in the sense of a policy, more like an aspect of etiquette. Natalie (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some users that, yes, specifically ask people to stay out of their userspace, but fixing broken links is different from, say, changing actual content on a page. By your own examples, I'd consider fixing a broken template a "compelling reason" (though not quite on par with removing vandalism or Fair Use imagery).
I suppose it can be considered rude, but I think it [editing someone's userspace] is too trivial to even call that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly aware he shouldn't be adding it to other user's pages. Shall we get to rollbacking the additions? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a WP:POINT violation, for the sole sake of spite and disruption. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort of a canonical WP:POINT violation, as he was politely directed toward WP:DRV to address his grievances and is instead spamming a userbox claiming he's been censored. This is on the heels of recreating the MfD'd userbox twice, necessitating its salting. I've blocked him for 24 hours; I'd suggest going ahead with the rollbacks. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started removing them. This would have been quicker if the closing admin on the XfD had removed the links to the deleted userbox, though. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial userbox

User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist

I just wonder that how after deletion this userbox can be restored. This userbox is clearly supporting Iraqi insurgency. How this userbox is being tolerated? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a userbox that only states a belief/opinion that isn't hate filled or otherwise offensive is against the rules. I wonder if anyone would be so keen to delete one that supported the French Resistance? Otolemur crassicaudatus seems to be on missions to delete anything his/her sensibilities doesn't agree with. The consensus spoke in the DRV. Leave it at that. --WebHamster 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The userbox was restored following the deletion review. Whitstable (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can still take it to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:MfD is you disagree with the box and the community will decide. CharonX/talk 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal atacks

User:Theaveng is being disruptive to the discussion on Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats and is now engaging in personal attacks with rather vulgar language [1] --Ray andrew (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him. In the future, try venues like WP:WQA, since this does not (strictly speaking) require admin intervention --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, he did remove those comments himself moments later, and you never told him about bringing this to WP:ANI. --Haemo (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Static IP persistently vandalising after expiry of block

• 208.108.81.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The 24h block expired November 10 2007, and it is a shared IP (see the IP's talk page). — Edokter • Talk • 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:5dsddddd

Hello. 5dsddddd has made an unblock request. He was blocked for making a disruptive sock puppet. He says that he will "I will help translate articles. (english -bulgarien [sic.]). I will fight vandalism and also review articles. I will help stop sockpuppetry and assume good faith."

There's a few problems I have with this. Before his block, he did his share of vandal fighting. And although he states he wants to crack down on sock puppetry, he appears to be using a sock puppet 69.113.203.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) himself. Perhaps another admin could weigh in on this? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My impression of the original unblock request could probably be summed up quickly: neither particularly hopeful, nor particularly hopeless -- sort of a nether spot where I'm not entirely comfortable unblocking or leaving them blocked, at least not without more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think the 1 week block is fair. Considering that the account is blocked for 3 more days, if someone wants to unblock feel free. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cityscape

A vandal moved Cityscape to a nonsensical title, a move which I reverted. However, I believe two identical page histories now exist, one with the spurious title. Maybe someone can remedy this? Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sometimes there are problems with the display of the page history after a page move or a history merge. Setting the history length to anything other than the default of 50 usually fixes this problem. However I've deleted the redirect. Graham87 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! JNW (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last time I'm doing this: Talk:Waterboarding (again)

Tonight's reading of total warfare:

First read: Talk:Waterboarding#New_rules_for_this_article

Second read (next section down): Talk:Waterboarding#Violation_of_new_rules_on_Waterboarding

I expect this to end up at Arbcom in 1-2 weeks in a major politically motivated mess if something isn't done. I have no idea what needs to be done. I'm very sorry if people are sick about reading about this; I'm not going to touch that page again myself. It's a complete madhouse now from crazy IPs and SPAs. Lawrence Cohen 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to piggyback on MastCell's suggestion above for Neutral Good. Would there be a general suggestion to set three-five NEUTRAL administrators (one who have not posted on the article) who would be willing to act as monitors for this article, say till the end of Feb 08? Let's say any monitor can place any particular edit-warrior or incivil account on probation, to be defined as 1 Revert per week on Waterboarding and any article that can relate to waterboarding, as well as civility parole? If some one on probation continues to edit war, then they can be topic banned or blocked. I'm willing to volunteer, but there needs to be consensus on this. SirFozzie (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't object to anything up to and including riding crop beatings at this point, to be frank, and will only watch that page. I pre-authorize ANY admin to block me 5 minutes as a reminder if I post on Waterboarding or any talk pages under it between now and the 2008 Elections are over here in the US. I really want nothing to do with it again. I would also recommend this parole thing for the article and related pages to last until November 4 2008, by the way. Lawrence Cohen 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the article to full protection again after only 5 hours. When (if?) the article next comes off full protect it needs heavy oversight by the rougest of admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think SirFozzie is on the right track. I wouldn't oppose his suggestion, but the problem with appointing "neutral" admins to arbitrate is that inevitably they will get sucked in to the dispute. I don't think we need a protracted course of hand-wringing here. In a bar fight, the bouncers don't wait for consensus to develop and for the combatants to agree on a neutral set of referees. They just grab people, starting with what appear to be the worst offenders, and eject them to go home and sober up. I've given my reasons for starting with Neutral Good (talk · contribs). But s/he is obviously not the sole problem, and if it becomes apparent in his absence that someone else has taken over the role, then we can go from there. Also, 3 months away from waterboarding is not, pardon the expression, torture. Wikipedia is full of things to do. Work on something else for awhile, then come back. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, protecting gives us some breathing space to discuss how to make work on the article more productive. Of course, you can't *actually* work on a protected article, so when the time comes to let consensus do its work again, the article will have to be unprotected. <scratches head>

So the "new" (actually very old) rules don't look too bad. Those might help. Also, splitting out the controversial material from the article might sound like a bad idea, but it might help as a temporary solution. That way you can have a pretty solid article about waterboarding before 2001, and we can later figure out a way to include information from 21st century sources, once people are done fighting over it.

Does that make any kind of sense?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. Why aren't we just throwing them into an arena? One side can be the Jets and the other the Sharks. Best dance number gets their way? ...no? then how about heading to ArbCom, and ULTRA-LIBERALLY topic blocking all involved, including the mystery IP. This is as bad as the Irsaeli-Palestinian Conflict mess, which has also made it to ArbCom. I think community patience withe POV warriors of all stripes is wearing thin. This is as serious an issue as is the constant litany of excuses and policy-wonking that gets some editors 50 to 100 chances to get away with bloody murder, and I suspect we've got three or four major issues that should also go to ArbCom. I kind of wish we could have a consensus by polling page, where we could get registered editors to vote on things like " per these 10 sources, Waterboarding is Torture, per these 10 sources, waterboarding is just plain silly fun. Waterboarding is A) torture, B) silly fun, C) a disease caught from tacos.

Really, this needs the long term examination of a group of serious, trusted, generally outsider editors, which is what ArbCom is. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favor of jamming to arbcom, though I consider the recent influx of arbiters to be fantastic. But I happen to believe a firm application of wikipedia policy fixes the problem without any need for rancor or appeal to any higher authority. If I have a blind spot that is making me silly in all of this it is simply that I really believe that the fix is already found in policy.

With regard to outside editors something interesting happened. A group like that did look at the article. Although not trusted, they were reasonable and took a serious look. They came up with a solution to the core issue. They came up with this. I found it interesting in that it would require everyone to bend and I thought of the old hack about compromise -- a solution that makes everyone equally unhappy.

I have thought about mediation, but I despair that it would not work. Some people are not willing to consider any alternatives to their perfect ideal. There is no way that they will compromise. I think the fastest way to get consensus would be to ban anyone who refused to consider various alternative wordings. If the only editors left were people who ... while retaining their views, were also open to alternative wordings (and compromise) the article might be workable. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to an experiment of that nature. We'll have to try some things out sooner or later, right?

Since people don't typically enjoy being banned on an experimental basis :-P, It should be made easy for anyone so banned to get themselves unbanned again after a short period of time for review.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And if any old group of uninvolved folks can't get anything to move, even though they certainly COULD have socked in a new consensus, (and we're glad they didn't), then there's really nothing left but ArbCom. as to "the recent influx of arbiters" we're getting dismissed left right and center, be the editors like myself, or admins. It doesn't matter WHAT happens. There are some editors who refuse to see waterboarding as torture. Why we can't get a simple solution is beyond me. The 'controversy' section title, as edited by Black Kite, seemed a great approach, as it could detail the US government's position on the issue, and how that has changed since it was considered torture. We could detail how the US Gov't now describes the differences. But we can;'t even get that. This (article) is circular, pointless, and aimless. Let's get Arbcom here. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read this, posting a diff because it'll get archived sooner or later. The problem is that both sides fundamentally see NPOV differently. Unless we get everyone and their second cousin to watchlist this, and weigh in on the NPOV matters, and the true, real way of how NPOV should be is held up by everyone with no way around it (either way, "is or isn't torture"), this will never end without arbitration since people are digging in deeply with political stances. It's an absurd binary question, based on sourcing. Is it, or isn't it? If the US conservative POV has more weight, it isn't. If the global, sourced historical worldview has weight, it is. Neither side is willing to give an inch, and the various uncivil people are just making everyone go round the bend, making things worse and unproductive. Lawrence Cohen 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I too came to this article as an uninvolved admin. See Talk:Waterboarding#Protection. It is becoming more obvious that the only way of fixing this problem is via ArbCom, who, especially with the newly elected arbs, I have every faith will see through the fog created by a number of users.BLACKKITE 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow I had it on my watchlist and was meaning to keep an eye on it, since I knew it would remain a mess, but that really getting ugly now... And that's probably a sock fest. Since I think any controversial measures will be contested up to arbcom anyway, it might be a good idea to launch the case. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now done so. WP:RFAR#Waterboarding henrik•talk 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of sending it to ArbCom is that their verdict will have more legitimacy than something decided by a handful of admins on WP:AN/I. On the other hand, ArbCom is a relatively slow process, and prone to being overloaded. It would be nice to see some sort of community mechanism for handling these issues as a means of off-loading ArbCom a bit (with the proviso that anyone could take the case to ArbCom at any time if the community-based measures seemed inappropriate). As maligned as the old community sanction noticeboard was, some good decisions came out of it. Some disputes were fairly adjudicated, by the community, without recourse to ArbCom. I'm not saying we need a revival, but I'd encourage some thought into the kinds of community-based approaches to these problems proposed here and by User:SirFozzie below. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for rollback review

• El_Greco (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback

I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my edits on a daily basis are unduing some sort of vandalism. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, you have a 3RR block from September. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done Visit WP:ANI and get consensus, and this will be done. GDonato (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment for review I don't think a 3RR I had with an IP user, who unfortunately got on my nerves should be the deciding factor in RFR. How many users haven't had an encounter with 3RR? I've cooled off since then and will discuss any content related issues. I felt there were too many photos on the Athens page (sort of making it look like a tourist advertisement) and the IP user disagreed, but in the process which spun into a 3RR the IP user kept reverting actual edits, and that's basically what happened. As per my reason above, I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my daily edits are some sort of vandalism related, and I watchlist 1,200 articles (so I can see a lot of it). I mean the first thing I do when I log on to Wikipedia is check my watchlist for vandalized pages. _{El Greco}^(talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the rollback tool is about judgment, and rightly or wrongly there are some users who question yours. My advice: sit it out for a while, ask again later. - Philippe | Talk 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(u)The block was back in September, El Greco's explained what went on, and, appears to understand how to handle the situation in the future. Also, I've looked through a couple pages of El Greco's contribs, and, they seem to use "Undo" just fine. I see no reason to withhold rollback. SQL^{Query me!} 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do now to proceed? Resubmit my request for rollback or is it done through here? Or should I wait a little longer? _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have granted User:El Greco rollback. On balance the editor has explained the situation regarding the 3RR block, and his recent edits show both a demonstrable need for the tool as well as the ability to use it correctly. Pedro :  Chat  15:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro!!!! _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus discussion ignored

At: Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article came off full protect today and not long after, Reginmund (talk · contribs) removed a section that he has been quite uncivilly fighting on the article's talk page to remove and which is why the article was on full protect in the first place. The consensus discussion on this particular section he keeps removing has not reached a consensus but he took it upon himself to remove it anyway as soon as the article was finally unprotected, and when he did so, he cited "no concensus". As I understand it, content is not to be removed until a consensus is reached and the discussion closed, which is not the case here. This diff is where he removed the content after the article was unprotected. This diff is where I restored the content because the consensus discussion was still ongoing. This diff is where he has removed the content again.

An admin needs to restore the content pending the outcome of the consensus discussion and I feel the article should go back on full protection. -- ALLSTARecho 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying is that the article is currently The Wrong Version (tm)? Admins are not empowered to rule on content disputes. FCYTravis (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is in fact unprotected since 09:12, 9 January 2008. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP user being problematic

This isn't really vandalism, so I brought it here and not WP:AIV. There is an IP user, 24.59.103.158 (talk · contribs), that continues to revert edits of other users, and refuses to engage in any talk page discussion, despite repeated attempts to do so. The issue is largely around the article American football. Several users collaborated at the talk page, and decided to make changes to the article. These changes represent a full consensus at the talk page, and this IP user simply reverts them without edit summary or comment. Good faith would at first indicate that the user disagrees with the changes, but despite MANY attempts to get them to take it to the talk page, they simply refuse to do so. What can be done? Can an IP address be blocked for this? Its usually not more than 3 times per day, but it is still disruptive and has been going on for several days now.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I already submitted this user to WP:AIAV. Some users have to be blocked for a very short time just to get them to notice that they have a talk page. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - as far as I care a violation of the 3-revert rule is vandalism. -- kainaw™ 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. I continue to leave messages at his talk page, and I don't want to get nailed for a 3RR myself, but this is getting annoying. What can be done about this? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears he has a 24-hour block now. -- kainaw™ 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that will get his attention. I would still like to keep this "on the record"; this users has shown this behavior over several days, he may continue the same behavior once the block expires. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user Countdowncafe

I am not sure whether this is the right place to report this. Countdowncafe is adding external links to articles which are pointing to his own site. This is clearly against Wikipedia:El#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. The importance of the links which the user is adding is being debated at [[2]]. He is basically adding links to movie trailers on a movie article. I tried talking to the user on his talk page but was not able to convince him. Can someone help me in getting him to follow the policy?. Thanks. Anshuk (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alfred Legrand

This user has major problems keeping things civil and avoiding personal attacks. He just left this on my talk page. In addition he has been leaving uncivil remarks and personal attacks on User:ImmortalGoddezz talk page. I believe he deserves an immediate block. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#uncivility.2Fattacks for more info. Bstone (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of R.S. Wenocur (the subject of an article whose deletion seems to have led to this mess) but, I fully endorse a block. Alfred's been warned many more times (9? 10?) than regular vandals without any sign of improvement. --Kyoko 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been indefinitely blocked. -- ALLSTARecho 05:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a thread about this user, related issues and possible sockpuppetry above. Mathsci (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liite Buddhism

Article tagged with AfD and that has been removed.Awotter (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The deleting user was warned on her/his talk page. If it doesn't happen again, I'd say let the matter drop. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article was G12ed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And recreated as Local Church of Witness Lee, it appears. Pairadox (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else have a look at this? The copyvio and self-admitted OR problems are the same, but I would like to have someone else review this matter (I deleted the article the first two times). Kusma (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we doubt his story that the blog's his, I don't see a speedy rationale. I've opened an AfD for the new page; if it results in deletion, any future clones can be G4'd. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church of Witness Lee, if you're interested. MER-C 11:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like some help

As those who know me know, I'm not much involved with anti-vandalism patrolling. I revert merely when I notice it. Which, by corrollary, means that I don't do much blocking (again, typically only if I come across some incident, or whatever).

That said, I find myself currently dealing with two separate users who are evading indefinite blocks/bans.

The first is merely a POV pusher who became disruptive, and refused to change/learn in spite of months of trying to help the user understand. They still are doing the same, and now it's a matter of chasing down IP addresses, and multiple accounts.

The second is just a "mess". This is someone mostly preoccupied with userspace/user templates (userboxes)/user categories. That would be perfectly fine with me (how someone chooses to positively contribute seems immaterial to me), except that the user was indef blocked in relation to several disruptions, including a suicide note/claim. Since then, the user claims to have edited using a friend's account, and just generally has been freely evading their block, including harassing other good faith editors.

Note that I didn't link to anything above, and just posted some general information.

I just want to know what can be done to deal with those who evade blocks in this way.

I will say plainly that though I did a fair amount of reading, and feel I now understand range blocks, and so on, I'm somewhat insecure about it, do to the concern about accidental fall out.

(Note that I did ask User:Daniel who gave me what I felt was a good answer, and I've asked a checkuser about that on their talk page, but received no answer.)

So is there anything else that can be done? Or just checkuser on the range, and (hopefully) range block, and continually watchdog and revert on sight?

If the latter, I think I'm going to ask if someone else would help be the "watchdog".

So anyway, that's the help I'm asking - information, and possibly some volunteers. - jc37 12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you gave us the details of the relevant users, we may be able to give you better help. If you're complaining about sock-puppetry, try WP:SSP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jc37, if you are quite sure that another account is being used, I'd just indef and be done with it. For the first user, there isn't a lot else you can do, short of filing a RFCu and applying a range block, if the range is small enough. But if this has been a long term consistent problem (i.e. a new account shows up every few days or so) a range block won't even be especially helpful, as they are supposed to be short-term blocks (under an hour, I think).

If the second user is socking to harass people, I again would say that blocking on sight is perfectly fine. It would be one thing if they returned and made a good-faith effort to contribute, or ask for their block listed, but they've decided to use someone else's account to mess around. Personally, I'd indef block the "friend's" account, with a clear block reason and message on the talk page. If there really is a friend, and that person is interested in editing, they will keep their goof-off friend off their account from then on. If there is no friend, or the friend is just as interested in nonconstructive contributions, then the indef block is perfectly justified. The information about range blocks from the first situation also applies - you may just have to monitor, block, and ignore. Eventually they'll get tired of it and go away. Natalie (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. At what point do we just throw up our collective hands and give up? If it's clear that we really can't stop the problems, then why try? - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, as for the request for more info, for the first example, here's a subpage with some information (User:roundhouse0 has quite a few more sub-pages): User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne

And for the second example, here's a note that I placed on User talk:Coelacan [3]:

Of the two, (if I have to choose) I think I'd really like someone else to "take over" patrolling on the second. (Though, since I've now gone through nearly all the editor's edits, I have no problem being a "helpful resource".)

Thanks for any and all help/insight/etc. - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Restored from archive, still hoping for some help.) - jc37 11:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not anyone actually reads the archives (and I'd rather not resurface it—I'll leave that to jc37), but those involved in this discussion should know that the user in question has a history of mental instability and irrationality. I very much doubt that he will simply tire and go away (his performance up to this point certainly proves otherwise to me, on review). Note that I am not an admin, nor do I play one on TV; just a user who got involved in this debacle at the beginning, and who wishes a solution would be found. Octane ^{[improve me]} 14.01.08 2129 (UTC)

[edit] User:Heliac

• Heliac (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback

I'm an avid vandalism patroller, who has been forced into early retirement by recent developments in popups that make them broken in internet explorer 6, my browser of choice. This new privillage would allow me return to wikipedia. I promise never to use it abusuively. thank you--Heliac (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst I take your comments on board about your browser, I am nervous that you have made no edits at all in around seven months. Reversion is not the only thing to do. I am concerned that you will have sufficent policy/process knowledge due to your apparent extended break. This is not an out and out decline however, and I would appreciate other admin input. Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done extended break only just returned. Gnangarra 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that's a valid reason to decline? all you're doing by setting this precident is encouraging anon vandalism, by showing them what rediculous hoops you have to jump through to get an effective, internet explorer 6 compatible revision tool.--Heliac (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there isn't really a lot of hard and fast policy associated with this process at the moment. The best I can advise is to take this thread to WP:ANI for a further review. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits from today ([4] [5] [6]) leave me with little faith in your ability to use this tool correctly. John Reaves 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the concern here is that a user's recent contribution history (say, 3-6 months, per the talk page) is what admins review in granting or declining Rollback tools. In this case, unfortunately, there is not much in that time period to review. As Pedro rightly notes, there isn't much firm policy on the matter, either. My recommendation, and this is purely as a non-admin, would be for you to edit without the tool for a while, showing that not only are you back for good, but that you are familiar enough with policy to properly deal with vandalism. Then, I'd re-request, and see what happens. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Echoing John's comment, above, I'd note further that IP edits are not always vandalism, and that you should show that you are exercising due diligence in making sure that you are reverting vandalism, and that your reversion properly removes the vandalism (instead of keeping it, as with this edit). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I stated originally that my comments were not an "out and out decline" I'm afraid that the diff's given by John would harden my position in delcining. I do understand the browser issue, but that is not enough reason IMHO. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking User:UzEE on Checkuser findings

I usually directly block, but the check is 4 days old and I fear this might be taken as punitive if there is no discussion beforehand. User:UzEE was reported at WP:RFCU by User:Smsarmad for vandalizing his, and an other user's page. (case). Where it gets interesting, is that User:Smsarmad was blocked for a week at the end of December for oh wait abusing multiple accounts after being reported by User:UzEE (RFCU case). My guts tell me to block User:UzEE also for a week, but I'd like to have your opinion first. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Previous ANI case about this issue -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Well all I would say is that I would abide the decision of the board. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 200.177.255.66 continually spamming

200.177.255.66 has been repeatedly adding (and repeatedly warned about) spam links to information security-related articles. Perhaps blacklisting the adblog address would be the best bet since it merely flogs unrelated software and has no redeeming qualities and the spam links have come from a few other IPs over the past month. -- Jzerocsk (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops...didn't realize there is an AN dedicated to vandals/spam. I will post it there, sorry. -- Jzerocsk (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adsense pub-8580952291424433

• guidetocissp.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

related

• zoabonito.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Accounts

201.21.98.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
200.177.255.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
201.1.184.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
82.5.236.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
201.42.119.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
201.26.172.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

seems to be some significant cross wikipedia spamming also. see →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#guidetocissp.com --Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page used as self-promotion?

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but could some editor take a look at User_talk:Funk999? This doesn't seem like an appropriate use of a talk page. BuddingJournalist 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I think the user was creating Islamictube.net but does seem intent on recreating it (see the User talk:Funk999#Banning) and deletion log. Perhaps a few questions to the user might help? x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE

As some may be aware, there has been a lot of discussion of late over whether WP:EPISODE should exist as a guideline or be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The guideline was tagged for merging on December 21st by User:Ursasapien [7]. Discussion commenced and there was no clear consensus for a merge (equal number of supports and objectors with valid arguments on both sides.[8] Despite the lack of consensus and on-going discussion, on January 7th, Ursasapien decided to "be bold" and redirect WP:EPISODE to the MOS with the edit summary of "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP."[9]. It was reverted as vandalism after a few hours[10], but Ursasapien just redid it minutes later now claiming it was based on consensus[11]. His redirect was undone by a different editor[12] and a note left on Ursaspien's talk page. On the 8th, Ursaspien tried a different tactic and replaced WP:EPISODE with a "disambigutation" page[13]. I reverted as, again, there was no consensus and the discussions were still on going.[14]. I also left a note on his talk page. He redid within minutes[15], and a different editor reverted moments later[16].

Despite now having four different editors undoing his actions and even more telling him to stop, he continues to try to argue the case. He claims he is "enforcing" policy and removing "guideline cruft"[17]. He is deriding those who have undone his edits as a "local consensus" and only acknowledges arguments supporting his own position. He also put in a call for more comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). In his message there, he blatantly lies by falsely claiming there was consensus for his actions and in claiming that the people who reverted his edits never participated in the discussion (while at the same time claiming two of the people who have reverted his attempts to clear WP:EPISODE as supporters of his efforts on his talk page). (historical links in case of changes: talk page discussions and his post on the Fiction MOS talk page.

At first, Ursasapien was given the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's only been editing for about a year and seemed to be acting in good faith, but his actions are becoming more and more disruptive. He waited just long enough on his last revert to not quite fit 3RR, but he continues to ignore multiple editors telling him he is not acting appropriately. I feel at this point an administrator needs to deal with this as he has made it very clear that he does not care what other editors think or what consensus is dictating. Collectonian (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Ursasapien

I have been editing WP since September 7, 2006 but many of those edits were before I registered. I have been very active in television projects but I have varied interest. There was a long discussion regarding whether or not WP:EPISODE violated WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. This led me to propose a merge and redirection of the disputed guideline into WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Further discussion ensued, but since it was over the holiday break, it was agreed that discussion should continue through January 7th. Discussion appeared to have ended by January 2nd. The discussion seemed to be split between those who saw the merge as a good idea and those who said, despite this guideline violating policy, they liked it or needed it and it should be kept. I boldly implemented policy and consensus. I was reverted. I discussed and made the change again. I was reverted a second time. I reopened the discussion and answered objections. I got further guidance and won over those who had previously objected. I boldly attempted to implement the change again but was immediately reverted. Despite Collectonian's contention, I feel I have not been given the benefit of the doubt, have been sujected to bad faith, and have been treated uncivilly. My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast. I have not been "disruptive" by any stretch of the imagination. I consider this report to be vindictive and just another attempt to wear down opposition to policy violations. However, I have agreed to wait for further discussion and to get another editor to make these corrections. Ursasapien (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any admin action here. We're all a little frustrated about these things, that's all. Given a little time, this should be fully resolved on WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I might agree if Ursasapien had acknowledged he made an error and acted hastily. However he continued reverted despite multiple editors telling him otherwise and only stopped when he would have violated 3RR. He also continues to state that he is only enforcing policy, despite not having a clear agreement that WP:EPISODE violates any policy, and seems to be out to make a WP:POINT more than anything. He continues to discount the words of other editors, repeating the same mantra over and over. Perhaps he will be more willing to acknowledge and adhere to remarks of an administrator. Collectonian (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant for the sentence, "My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast," to be an admission that I messed up. I have not seen an apology regarding your incivil discourse, assumptions of bad faith, and vindictive filing of this request (despite the situation already being resolved). You appear to discount everything I have said and assume the worst motives on my part. I welcome an administrator looking at our respective post, but I think it is a waste of time as this "content issue" is resolved, for now. If you have a problem with my editing, I encourage you to work through the steps of dispute resolution. Ursasapien (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing vindictive in my filing. I don't ANI people just cause I don't like them. I feel your actions need reviewing and possible admin comment or action. You decided on your own that consensus had been reached, when it clearly had not. You decided to take action against the guideline and what that action when be (without even knowing the proper way to do it). You then continued trying to remove the guideline after you your first attempt was undone and you were told no, consensus wasn't reached yet and you shouldn't be doing it by no less than four editors. You arbitrarily decided that discussion from December 22nd was no longer relevant to justify your saying that those who reverted hadn't participated in the discussion (when, in fact the comments are recent enough to still be very much relevant). While you stopped shy of breaking 3RR, I feel you were disruptive to the point of needing administrative attention. This isn't a content issue, it is a much bigger issue regarding your inappropriate actions regarding a Wikipedia guideline that some could view as vandalism, and your snide and uncalled for remarks against anyone who reverted your efforts.

I also find it disturbing that you are keeping an "interesting editor list" that seems to be more of a like a list of editors you don't like, and it seems odd that you would have such a list for any good purpose considering the remarks and diffs you've made by some of them. Collectonian (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has to go. Considering I had to remove a whole two people from -my- userpage listed under "list of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button", that is way in excess. Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of editors keeping list of other editors. This list serves many purposes. This list has nothing to do with editors I like or do not like. To be honest, some of the list was used to compile evidence of incivility. Others are editors that I truly admire and wish to emulate. Some editors turned out to be sockpuppets, as I suspected. Perhaps the list needs to be trimmed a bit, as some of the editors are no longer interesting to me. There is nothing derogatory like Jtrainor's list. I find it disturbing that Collectonian's assumptions of bad faith have now sent him on a witch hunt. Ursasapien (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm a she not a he. I am not on a witch hunt. I stumbled on the list after you added me to it. Collectonian (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a list of editors is not necessarily a bad thing. As part of my efforts as a member of the Kindness Campaign, I keep a list of my favorite fellow Wikipedians, i.e. those I admire or who have been kind to me. This positive list helps me when I want to post holiday greetings on editor's talk pages or serves as a reminder of who to ask for advice from, exists also to make those editors feel appreciated, and so on. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone take a look at this...

Resolved, reviewed and fixed by Rschen7754. Edit Centric (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I filed an SSP case against a user. This evening, upon returning to Wiki, I see that the case has been closed by one Ember of Light. I've checked the list of admins, he / she is not on it. First question: shouldn't this SSP case have been closed by an admin? Secondly, the SSP template was removed from the puppetmaster userpage. Second question: shouldn't the template's resulting "confirmed" page have been updated to reflect the additional confirmed sockpuppet instead? Next, there is absolutely no indication that either user has been blocked, however Ember of Light states that the puppetmaster account has been blocked for a week. (Please see Talk page discussion, and the archived case at EoL states the user blocked for a week. Could an admin that is experienced with the particulars of closing an SSP case please take a look at this? On the face of it, this looks like the case was closed by someone inexperienced in dealing with these instances... Edit Centric (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.162.214.179 reverting my edits to Tony Hawk's Project 8

Basically, in the article, someone put that 2 extra skaters, Neversoft Mascot and Voodoo Doll are available on the XBOX 360, however, I have the game, fully beaten and they aren't there. Then User:86.162.214.179 came along and re-added back in. I asked him not to revert my edits, but he's done it twice now, so I figured I'd report him here. 70.49.204.73 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Two interestingly intertwined issues here. The first is that your playing the game isn't Wikipedia-standard evidence for putting something into or removing it from an article. It's original research and won't do. The second is that the person adding disputed material must provide a reliable source for it.

The problem is that you two are both IP editors. When a dispute like this breaks out, I'm inclined to semi-protect the article. But this would lock both of you out of it. And I'd semi-protect whatever version was on the screen when I hit the button, regardless of the issues behind it. There's therefore little that can be done, other than for you to find a reliable source saying for certain that the characters aren't in the game, which changes the equation: the other IP is then, in effect, removing sourced material and can be done for it. It might help to try to talk to the IP, although I appreciate that is awkward with IP addresses - as you know. Therefore it might also help if you logged in or created an account. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the other IP isn't producing reliable sources that the characters are in that version of the game, either. Remember, the burden is on the person adding the new information - not the person removing it, as 70.49 is doing - to provide sources. 70.49 here was doing the right thing in removing the information, although Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is where he should've taken this to. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And 70.49 did try to talk to the IP, but IP of the adder seems to change on a daily basis (note all these edits by IPs from the 86.x.x.x range adding the same info: [18], [19], [20]), so communicating with them would be near-impossible. Frankly, protecting the article would be the only solution at this point. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire list is unsourced, so all of it should be removed (along with most of the article). However, I'm inclined to discount the 70.49 IP edits because he's basing his edit solely on the fact that he played the game. The full list probably came from some gaming site or product documentation and just wasn't noted. Pairadox (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:karmaisking

User has previously been blocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and soapboxing (see the user's talk page and checkuser. There is also a previous ANI discussion archived.

1. Since the expiry of the block (today/yesterday), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karmaisking&curid=14651378&diff=183379896&oldid=183345966#Soapboxing soapboxing has begun again (despite warning from an admin), along with the following:
2. Personal attacks: "So, I gather from this that his main "interests" are monetary theory and dope smoking. What a combo!". "It immediately gets deleted by all-seeing, all-knowing Coren as "soapboxing"." "who knows what motivates these sickos?", "Don't let troll Zenwhat discourage you", "You guys are yella," "Instead of engaging in pointless edit wars with idiots,", etc. (See also the pages [21], [22].
3. Repeated intimations and references to violence and pornography (anal rape?): ". It's sitting there as naked as an innocent little girl in a Seymore Butts film", "They then go ahead and put the knife in. ", "Contentious enough for the argument to be concluded with an assassin's bullet", "if someone wants to take the time to actively "terminate" me ON MY OWN TALK PAGE, they can't expect to do it without a fight and some risk to their own... how should I put this... tranquility."
4. Lack of civility (see all of the refs above, including edit comments or talkpage comments such as "NOT ONE OF YOU has had the guts to comment or provide references"), as well as an admission of an inability to act civilly: "The question is not my manners, which I acknowledge are non-existent".

The pattern of behaviour is consistent and does not appear to have changed from the time of the previous block and talkpage protection.--Gregalton (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So, is this a request for some manner of community sanction? And what sort? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I leave that to administrators to decide; I'm not sufficiently informed on the sanctions available to admins or the policies to suggest specifics or to figure out what may work best.--Gregalton (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a couple of notes on this user's talk page. There are serious civility issues here, and Karmaisking is off to a bad start by using meatpuppets, soapboxing, and generally being uncollaborative. I'm looking at the situation (I was the one who blocked him for meatpuppetry), though I would welcome any outside input. I'd like to make one last effort to see if this editor is willing to work within Wikipedia's environment. If the answer is a resounding no, as it's been thus far, then I don't see the need to belabor the issue. See User Talk:Karmaisking (the bottom) for recent discussion along these lines. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I count as "outside," but I've dealt with Karma before, alongside Gregalton, in cleaning up articles on Monetary theory so that they represent mainstream economics as depicted in my economics textbook. View our edits and you can see our constructive edits, particularly Gregalton's (I admit I've focused way too much on silly essays and policy disputes). Overall, there is a serious problem with monetary crankery (see the theories about the Rothschild family, the New World Order, Austrian economics, etc.) and it is often difficult to deal with. Karma's main modus of operandi was to edit the POV fork debt-based monetary system. I was terrified to engage the man for fear of being reported for 3RR and having Arbitration ban us both out of a false compromise. I had to write a long, desperate cry for help on WP:Help desk until User:Transhumanist renamed the article "Criticisms of fractional reserve banking," which still isn't really that much better because it's still a POV fork, and Wikipedia is still making these theories more notable than they are. Now the troll is up to the same old behavior and when Gregalton posts the issue on WP:ANI, the first admin to respond acts if he's completely blind to the blatant policy violations. Zenwhat (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my patience with this incivil POV warrior is entirely exhausted; his only interests are to expound on his financial theory, attack anyone who dares disagree, and use whatever fora at his disposal as a soapbox. The only reason why I have not already reblocked him is that, as a target of his bile and venom, I might appear to be retributive— but I certainly wouldn't raise an eyebrow if someone else was to block him. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I've been "blind"; after all, I did block the guy for a week, and most recently warned him that he's a few mouse clicks away from being blocked indefinitely. I'm pessimistic that this user is going to shape up, and I've never been accused of excessive tolerance of single-purpose tendentious POV-pushing accounts before, but I viewed this as a last-warning kind of thing. If he keeps going in the same vein, I'm prepared to block him indefinitely. Again, other opinions are welcome. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a checkuser may be needed on User:BigK HeX. Approach appears very similar. Big long essay and linking exclusively to own POV articles. So far, no egregious personal attacks, and I have not tried to do a detailed analysis of the writing style, etc., so not yet in a position to say that this is a clear case of sockpuppetry (meatpuppetry). And, of course, if I am wrong, then mea culpa.--Gregalton (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, based on his subsequent edits and responses, it's become evident that he has no intention of amending his desire to spread The Truth^TM to include collaborative editing or consensus. I've blocked his account for 1 month; more justification for the block is on his talk page. If he returns with more of the same after the block expires, or if he continues violating WP:SOCK, then the block can be extended to indefinite. Comment and review welcome. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse mastcell's one month community ban, with a request that after the month ANY repetition of the "pursuit for truth" lead to a permenant comunnity ban from the entire project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gorwath

User has pesistantly removed sourced content and engaged in edit wars on Tokio Hotel. Has been warned but refuses to accept that his/her personal opinion is not justification for removing content. Has also made personal attacks [23] and is generally incivil. Is not involved in any other editing. --neonwhite user page talk 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a definite personal attack. I'll warn him on his talk page and watchlist the page for a week or two to see if this is an ongoing problem.--Phoenix-wiki 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Athena Nikolo

There is apparently a real person named Athena Nikolo who runs an Emma Watson fan page (based on what I can find on Google). There are also apparently people who don't like her. Since she has her own page, it would make one curious as to why she would come here to apologize for her bad behavior elsewhere, then begin a campaign of racist vandalism. This feels to me like somebody trying to do a Joe Job on her with the comments on the User page. Should the User page be deleted? The account has been blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as pure vandalism (by me). ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ricxster making borderline legal threat

Ricxster is having a dispute with Tvoz, and left what I interpreted to be a legal threat on Tvoz's user page ("I have case for defamation and believe me, I am very angry."). I warned the user about making legal threats. See User talk:Pagrashtak#Ricxster and User talk:Ricxster#Do not make legal threats for the back-and-forth. Ricxster has indicated to me that he or she does not consider this a legal threat, and has refused to remove the sentence. Ricxster has since altered it to "In law, there exists case for defamation - "not explicit in what I will or wont do".", which is not fully satisfactory to me, as it sounds like it leaves the window for legal action open. I haven't blocked based on Ricxster's insistence that it is not a legal threat, but I'm still uncomfortable with the wording. I would appreciate it if another admin could back up my request for removal of the statement. Pagrashtak 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:LEGAL. An administrator should explain this to him and, if he refuses to withdraw it, block him. There's really no ambiguity there at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Up with this we shall not put. Clear legal threats - not borderline at all. Blocked for an indeterminate period, with a requirement to categorically withdraw the threats before s/he is unblocked. I'm happy for this to be reviewed; I'm happy for fellow admins to remove the block when the threats are withdrawn. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Churchill. Thanks—I hate blocking, it's not why I got in the admin business. Pagrashtak 23:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For background, the whole dispute stems (I kid you not) from an edit war over the inclusion or exclusion of the word "was" from the lead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and from discussion at the talk page (found here). I tried to calm things down, to no avail. While I can see why Ricxster may be angry, this was taken way, way to far. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, one for WP:LAME there then. Anyone care to add it? ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I might later. It really is one for the ages, isn't it? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, fellas, I wasn't in an edit war over this at all - I restored the text exactly once in line with consensus on talk, and tried to reason with the guy, after which he went ballistic. I do appreciate the fast action against what was clearly an attempt to intimidate with legal threats. Thanks for the help. Tvoz |talk 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have declined this user's unblock request until he unequivocally withdraws his legal threats (or threats of future legal threats, etc) BLACKKITE 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious debates over Harry Potter

This anonymous user is currently engaged in an edit war over this page. Said user continuously re-instates an unsourced and highly POV commentary into the article without explanation or discussion, despite repeated warnings and one 24-hour block. Said user is not technically in violation of the 3-revert rule because the commentary is rewritten each time. Request that a longer or indefinite block be put in place. Serendi^podous 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The user can't be blocked indefinitely, but I did extend the block to a week. DarthGriz98 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Serendi^podous 01:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:99.130.34.227

User:99.130.34.227 is repeatedly adding and reverting unsourced commentary on child support and feminism. [24], [25]. Normally I'd just revert and re-revert as necessary, but he or she has now moved on to vandalizing my User Page as well, [26] so I'm bringing it here. DanielEng (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave a final warning. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ETA: He or she appears to have logged in as User:Akulkis, and now is including personal attacks which appear to be specifically directed against me. Apparently I'm now a woman and a Stalinist too! I'm amused, but since this person seems to have a personal grudge now, could someone look at this again?

[27] [28][29]DanielEng (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes you a what, Stalinette? Already blocked by User:Orangemike. I suggest other admins read the latest comments on User talk:Akulkis. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text by possibly interested party

It seems that some text was removed from the Australian Navy Cadets article by a user, ANC AsstDirInfoSystems, with a name that suggests they have a conflict of interest Whitstable (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As a disinterested party, it was a misch-masch of unsourced original research and biased material, and any editor should have deleted it. But not that one, obviously. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Close to my own thoughts - the text should have been removed (I've not reinstated it) but I was just slightly uneasy with the account making the edits Whitstable (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to leave a {{uw-coi}} on the page, but user is now blocked.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock/meatpuppetry in Naruto-arena

While going through the article I noticed this article upon examining the history I found that it seems a large number of single-purpose accounts had been working in this article. I thought that I should bring this matter up here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article did not assert its significance in any way, shape, or form. As such, I've deleted it as a non-notable website under WP:CSD#A7.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of rollback pending discussion

[edit] User:24.174.48.155

• 24.174.48.155 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) - On User_talk:Jeff_G. (diff), after final warning, the person at this IP Address forged a warning to me from me on my own user talk page. Evidently a mischief only IP Address.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this from AIV for a reason. This IP vandalized twice and left that comment 10 hours ago. No action is needed here. John Reaves 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe

[edit] Unblock

The following IP addresses were pulled from block logs and determined from three to five random checks over the last 48 hours to on longer be a TOR exit node.

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

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

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

Thanks M-ercury at 11:43, January 11, 2008

Done. - auburnpilot talk 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 58.167.250.161 (talk · contribs)

This user has only made vandalizing edits. The user has been warned, but continues to do the same thing over and over again. --Maitch (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hanzukik (talk · contribs)

Do we have an indef block category for obvious troll?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hanzukik

-- Avi (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorudo

Would somebody mind closing this one? The user who objects (RavenPurity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) keeps deleting the AfD tag, calling people vandals, and being otherwise disruptive. I think it would be best to end this, as there is a clear consensus for delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that, but I'm involved, so I don't want to take action. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. BLACKKITE 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with fixing some bizarre pagemoves

Earthbendingmaster has created a maze of redirects with some recent pagemoves, and I think an admin may need to go through and fix them. I wouldn't know where to start. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix it. Please check if I got everything right. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jon Awbrey and socks at it again

Hello, this another request for page protection due to vandalism from Jon Awbrey and socks he has instigated here. Could someone please get all the pages that are unprotected? You can find them in this user's contributions. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Was an IP check ever done here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Most of the users anyway are now blocked and tagged with {{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}} , but more and more keep getting created. I thought IP addresses of usernames could only be obtained by checkusers - correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few IPs originally, but I can't find them. Let me look for some. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser can indeed find the IP addresses of usernames - there's an IP check section on WP:RFCU. Jon Awbrey has been suspected of using 12.75.19.10, 217.237.149.143, 12.75.18.31, 12.75.20.26 and 12.75.22.13 which looks like a dynamic range to me. All the articles he blanks are now semiprotected so he's forced to use sleeper socks to blank the pages. Hut 8.5 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IP check section is what I was referring to. I am no expert on ranges, but is there no way to knock out most of those with a range block? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in IP checking, since it's hardly likely Awbrey doing this. There is an oustanding request over on WR for anybody to come over here and disrupt these articles. It's more likely these people are meatpuppets. And what purpose does doing an IP check accomplish, anyway? The vandal will get blocked, the pages reverted, rinse, repeat. Corvus cornix_talk 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Last time CheckUser was run it turned up a number of sleepers. Awbrey is clearly not going to give up, this obsession behaviour is part of what got him banned, so it's not a waste of effort to run checkuser when a new batch of socks starts to mess about - better than locking the articles, since that reduces the chances of their being expanded and/or merged. Andif anyone feels like starting that logic of Charles Peirce article to merge the stubs on terms only he really used, now would be a good time :-) Guy (Help!) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i have nto been folowing the controsversiy but it hitnk that it would be betetr if jon awbery were listened to. he might have some valid auobjections to the way wiki proceudr eworks sna dit would be betert to listen tohim and get his input to se eif he is genuinely trying to be construcitve or is actually just an ordinary vandal. if he is genuniately trying to be constructive, then it would be best to appease him by bbaning all of his sockpuppets except one andf orce him to use his remaining account to take on a leading role in repairign adn reorganizing the articles he damaged. i am a firmly believer in diploamcy as a way for encyclopedic success sand he current fascist slash-and-burn tactics of only hunting down the symbtoms of a potential vandals' behaivor rather than the root cause is antithetical to both the idea of fredom of speech and that of diplomacy. Smith Jones (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I gather from all the activities of the sock/meatpuppets, they seem to be blanking the pages based on a remark made by SlimVirgin on User talk:Jimbo Wales Awbrey's work; according to them, she said "... it's probably all original resource for which a realiable source might be hard to find." Awbrey took offence at that comment and instructed users on WR to blank the pages. Am I correct? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(side-remark,

• The related discussion is archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#JzG
• A subsection of that section (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Original Research accusations) dispels at least part of SlimVirgins contentions.
• Making a link to that archive subsection (e.g. in an edit summary [30]) appears to talk sense to those who thought wise to follow JA's advise.

Hoping for non-confrontational solutions... --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

iv that is indeed the case that it would be beter for this issue to be taken to arbitration betwen slimvirgin, jw awbrey and this thugs, and user; jimbo whales to discuss this issue. baning random sockpupets wll only increase teh amount of restnetment int hte atmosphere, leading to a rbeakd own of order on wikipeida and a lot of hurt feelings on either side. it might ahve the neegative efect of even driving away awbrey and causing him to even stop blanking th pages, which would be an unfortunate since the loss of ANY editor, no mater how seemingly problematic, robs this encylcopedia of a valuble and priceless source of experince, dedicaiton, and wisdom. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more of an overreaction to one editor's comment by another editor. I don't think ArbCom is required for something like page blanking and simple vandalism, even if it is on behalf of the author; I'm fairly certain that Awbrey's work on the logic articles (in fact, pretty much all of his article space) Never mind, it was universally agreed upon that that is not true; only logic-related articles were useful. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) was much appreciated; however, in Wikipedia- and other spaces, he created several disruptive pages (see here for the discussion that let up to his ban). Wiki-editors make comments that others construe as offensive. Maybe we should accept that everyone here does not know everything and move on. ArbCom is not needed for something like this. Awbrey was warned to stop with the "project-spam" and didn't. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

you may be right about arbcom but then again i never actally mentioned Arbitration Committess- that was an issue that you brought up, wich many people might see as a strawman argument. when i said the word 'abritration' i meant an informal dispute resolution betweenthe two users either on the talk pages, on this page, or privately via email or osme kidn of chat program. obviously slimvirgin and awbrey are having an intense, unresolvable dispute regarding whether or not certain thigns should have been said or not said, but that does not mean that we should rnadomly accuse someone of vandalism and block the to solve the problem. arbitray rule-enforcements only isnpire resentment and lead to further vandalism and bad faith assumptions down the road. the best and the onyl realy moral and decent path is conflict resolution that invovles both parties on an equal disucssion ground rather than having one person act as an inquisitor and the other serve as a tdefnese. this is really disturbin and if the behaivor does not stop then a permanent ban from the internet might be required but it woudl bemuch better if this can he headed off since it would be far beter to have awbrey continue to blank pages here than to have him banned forever and lose anoter great mind that can help use improve this encyclopedia for both our generations and genreations to come. Smith Jones (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... From what I can tell, the general term for taking something to the Arbitration Committee is "arbitration." The more general term is "dispute resolution," which is I now see what you actually meant. Also, as said above, it may not be Awbrey himself that is doing this, but rather a parade of meatpuppets. The proposition about letting Awbrey come back to edit is an interesting one - however, this is a community thing, so the Wikipedia community should be the one to decide whether or not Awbrey merits a second chance. As an aside, this is getting a bit long, maybe it can be moved to a user talk page? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

whose talkpage?> i dont like it when peopel post things to my talkpage a lot and im not sure tha tit belongs on your talk page either. mayb e if jon awbrey could login or somethign twe could continue it there. and i agre ewith your reservationsr egarding the community; my sugestion was only a suggestion that the admins or the wikipeida community at large to consider. a full iunvestigation sohould be launched to make surte that it s acutally aubrey who deserves to be baned and if there is no other way to resolve this disupte otherwise. oh, and i dont think that the word "abritration" was invented by the Arbcom and they shouldn tbe the only ones who can control that words meaning. Smith Jones (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues between Awbrey and Wikipedia are not at root a personality conflict; at least, nobody's personality except his. Awbrey considers himself an expert on certain subjects in which he is not considered by many to be an expert, and in which he has no formal training to the best of my knowledge. This led him to attempt to write a number of Wikipedia articles slanted towards his own personal POV without sourcing in most cases and without regard for bias and undue weight, since his ideas and theories do not conform to the established academic consensus on them. When informed that Wikipedia's policies forbidding original research and unpublished theories did not permit what he was doing, he attempted to change Wikipedia policies to let him publish his theories here and was disruptive in so doing.

Essentially, Awbrey was banned for being a disruptive user who refused to accept certain set-in-stone policies. Whether or not any personality conflicts resulted, I submit that the results would not be changed either way; Awbrey's beliefs and attitudes conflict with what we're trying to do here and thus with fundamental Wikipedia policies, and he has been extremely disruptive when Wikipedia users and admins prevented him from ignoring Wikipedia policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One slight complication is that Awbrey apparently has, or has had, some sort of proxy- or account- sharing arrangement with other abusive users such as MyWikiBiz - previous checkuser requests have come across nests of sockpuppets that seemed to have both Awbrey and MyWikiBiz sockpuppets intertwined with each other. But either way, if a sockpuppet is disruptive, we can simply block it no matter who it is. :) krimpet✽ 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my contribs from January 7, you'll see that using checkuser, I blocked a whole lot of Awbrey socks. I think I got most or all of them that existed at that time. I also range blocked him to make sure he can't register anymore. If you see any new Awbrey socks popping up (new as in they edited after Jan 7) please let me know. Raul654 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jayjg

On 3rd January I suggested here and here the deletion of this section on the Khazars page and it’s replacement with a summary on the grounds of relevance (for it’s current detailed form). Some editors agreed and the section was deleted by another editor. Several editors disputed and reverted. These editors gave reasons such as the deletion violated WP:NPOV and was WP:Fork but none addressed the issue of relevance. I replied to this stating I had no problem with the reliability of the sources used but that my concern was that the section was being used to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given by the sources. I had already given a RS that reached this same conclusion so my concern had a basis apart from my own OR. I pointed out that a WP:RFC would not be reliable due to WP:COI and asked for reasons for relevance instead. At this point Jayjg posted basically accusing me of anti Semitism. Jayjg posted the following examples of edits I had made over the previous year as proof of my “interests”:

• I claimed Israeli’s were responsible for 9/11[31].

The edit actually made no claim of responsibility and Jayjg ignored other 9/11 edits I made that debunked Israeli involvement such as this this one, this one and this one.

• Israel was culpable in the liberty incident. [32].

This was a reply to a question from another editor in talk and I made no claim at all.

• David Irving is a legitimate historian [33].

I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.

• I ”Passionately” defended Ernst Zundle on the Zundle talk page [34].

I was defending the inclusion of NPOV content not his views. In the previous edit I said Zundle was "an idiot with ridiculous ideas" which supports this.

• Jayjg claimed that because I had edited the Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles this was a clear indication of my bias. However he did not point out any edits as proof.

I was, and am, deeply offended by being accused of anti semitism on such flimsy grounds. These were obviously the worst edits he could find as he had to go back up to a year to find them which would have taken considerable effort. The accusation seems to be for no other reason than an attempt to discredit my work and I asked for an apology. I also asked for an explanation of why the section is relevant. Not only did he not apologise but replied to me saying “the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus”. I have used Jayjg's talk page before when we've had conflict and his "I am right, you are wrong" attitude has led me to believe doing so for this would be a waste of time and also pointless as he has offended me in public. This arrogance has upset me to the point that I am reconsidering continuing with WP if this behaviour is condoned. Because of the high profile Jayjg has on WP I feel I can expect to now be dismissed as an anti semite whenever I try to edit anything remotely controversial in future. Something should be done to censure Jayjg and clear my name with the WP community. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, as I'm sure you're aware, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most bitter dispute on the Internet, and tempers will flare. Personally, I've decided to steer clear of it for now, despite having some expertise in that area, because I'm sick and tired of being accused of bias. It becomes especially difficult when an administrator is making the accusation against you. Please be patient. If an admin hasn't addressed this situation within the next few hours, I'll try to get someone's attention. Neutral Good (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread gets out of hand (not aimed at the above comments but at the usual result of threads regarding this) you may wish to take part in the ArbCom case regarding this and present your evidence there. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on one editor, these types of conflicts need to have a permanent neutral mediator assigned to the articles to maintain stability on a daily basis. I recommend that the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee get together to try and figure out a solution. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just given an outside opinion on the articles supporting the inclusion of the material as supported by the scientific consensus--basically supporting Jayjg's position. But the comment made by Jayjg is entirely out of line, and seem to represent a straightforward personal attack. No WP editor should be making dubiously based accusations of anti-semitism about another editor on an article talk pafge. If I were to do it, i would expect to get immediately blocked. DGG (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, can you point/link to the post where Jayjg accuses this user of anti-semitism. I don't see it above. TIA --Tom 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne appears to be referring to this edit. Thatcher 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite unfair a comment to make. It goes against both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, this issue was discussed in the Arbcomm on Allegations of apartheid. At the time, editors expressed concern about the chilling and poisonous effect such comments have on the editing environment. Jayjg's name was mentioned at the time, but the arbitrators chose not to include anything on the subject in the Proposed decision. The entire case was closed without any conclusion. Perhaps this should be taken to the Arb Comm currently in place for Palestine-Israel articles here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If any more parties are added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict RfArb, I think the conflict itself will end before the RfArb for it does. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done then, Tariqabjotu? Tiamut 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban them all and let God sort it out. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a personal bias. From each person's point of view, one's own views are precisely neutral and everyone else has some bias or other. To interpret what Jayjg wrote to be an accusation of anti-Semitism, one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that Jayjg thinks everyone who has a bias other than pro-Israel is anti-Semitist. Please assume that Jayjg is assuming good faith. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can a personal attack be in good faith? If I showed a marked bias then maybe, but I ask you to check the above edits and decide if they support what Jayjg intimated they did. The problem I have is that most editors wont check them but accept Jayjg's word (implication) that I'm anti semitic. I'm sorry but anti Semitic is the only word I can find that applies to these "interests" I supposedly have and is a word many who read his post will assume. Wayne (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please strike out the words "Jayjg's word that I'm anti semitic" in your comment above or provide a supporting diff in which that word and that allegation actually appear. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out the "word". What "personal attack"? You claimed that you "have no personal bias" and Jayjg disputed that. You've also implied that others are biassed mentioned COI and POV in connection with other editors-- were those personal attacks? Re checking the edits: If you wish to discuss factual errors, my suggestion is that you post corrections on the article talk page or an appropriate user talk page, or if really necessary, bring it to this noticeboard, but not in a thread in which you also make an exaggerated and inflammatory accusation. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg disputed my claim by posting my edits and making incorrect claims for their intent. When this was pointed out, by me posting corrections on the article talk page, he refused to apologise (which i would have accepted) as he should and would have done if he had made the claim in good faith. That makes it a personal attack. As you appear to support Jayjg's attack on me as justified I ask you to point to what in those four edits even implies possible prejudice on my part. I didn't claim bias. As there were no actual facts in dispute and none of the dissenting editors would support their claim of relevance despite being asked, my claiming COI (personal interests) and POV (a mental position) was justified and not a claim of bias (unfair influence) against anyone. Check the dictionary for the meanings of those three terms, it's called semantics.
Let me point out that I made that claim after an editor suggested the purpose of the edit was to hide information. The discussion was relatively civil until Jayjg (who had never posted here before) jumped straight in with his accusation. Wayne (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you would also consider striking out or modifying "being accused of anti semitism" earlier in this thread? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry NO. It's correct English. From my high school dictionary:"anti-Semitism • noun: hostility to or prejudice against Jews." Prejudice is what he accused me of. Wayne (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a relevant diff in which Jayjg used the word "prejudice", and then replace "anti semitism" with "prejudice" in your comment closer to the beginning of this thread. Until I see such a diff, it's my understanding that Jayjg disputed your claim to have "no personal bias", but that "bias" and "prejudice" are not the same thing. It's important to be very precise with words when discussing these highly inflammatory issues. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out a comment by me about "bias" above, but note that in the comment I struck out, I didn't say that you "accused" anyone of "bias": I used the word "implied". Note that I've nevertheless struck it out. You could similarly strike out your words above where you say something about Jayjg "imply(ing)" anti-Semitism. Since he did not use that word, I think words can be found, not using that particular word, to summarize what he said that would give a more accurate impression.

I'm not defending any attack by Jayjg and I'm not making any judgement in this situation as to whether what Jayjg posted was or was not accurate or was or was not an attack. If you had brought forward an accusation against Jayjg without yourself making an exaggerated and inflammatory claim, I might have followed some other path. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are very intense emotions connected with this topic. It's important to act in such a way as not to engage those emotions in others any more than necessary. If someone accuses you of "prejudice", while it might according to the dictionary be correct to say "anti semitism", it would also be correct to say "prejudice"; and saying "prejudice" would have the advantage of not bringing in a word which also has other definitions, definitions which will tend to pop into peoples' minds at least briefly when they read your comment, inflaming those emotions. In this particular detail, I gently suggest using the least inflammatory wording that correctly conveys the situation. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not an 8 year old kid. I am crediting Jayjg with enough intelligence to know that many if not most editors would assume that is exactly what he meant. That's the way I took it and I doubt many here can claim they would not have at least considered that was what was meant. This is upsetting enough without being condemned for complaining. Leave it for the admins to work out as they have access to more info than either of us and can make up their own minds about what was said and meant. Wayne (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is hardly the first time that User:Jayjg has made accusations of this sort. WP:AGF isn't set in stone (it's a guideline, not a policy), and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend indefensible personal attacks. CJCurrie (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's comment doesn't actually accuse Wayne of anti-Semitism, but it continues the use of subtle and condescending personal attacks that Jayjg uses to attempt to obtain the upper hand in content disputes, in addition to off-wiki canvassing and cabalism ([35]). Since the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" ArbCom decision apparently hasn't stopped this nonsense from Jayjg and his associates, then perhaps it needs to be brought to the ArbCom's attention again. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tying up arbcom with endless disputes doesn't work. I think my solution will work best and produce immediate results: modify the controversial article template, adding new parameters that allow editors to request mediators on the talk page rather than separate mediator subpages. Mediators can watch categories for these changes. Now, for enforcement, add "admin requested" params. that will also populate watched categories. Anyone abusing these requests will be warned and if needed, blocked. This will reduce the load on admin noticeboards by 50 percent, and require active particpation in analyzing and resolving conflicts, rather than passive discussion and arbitrary decisions. Mediators will participate where needed, and neutral admins will step in to enforce. Problem solved, and everyone can get back to writing great articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Turtlescrubber

Turtescrubber is inserting material into an article that is already in the article. I reverted here, and he reverted back. I do not want to get into an edit war, and so the article now contains several paragraphs that are repeated twice. Perhaps an admin could look into it?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, Ferrylodge has been blocked before, several times before, see [36]. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) But not Turtlescrubber, see [

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Turtlescrubber]. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And does that end the discussion, Bearian? ArbCom overturned the ban against me. How is that relevant to the issue I raised above?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is going against an article consensus that left the article locked for weeks. He never really accepted the consensus to keep the section in the article and has a horrible case of wp:own. He has worn all the editors on the page down with his constant bickering. I cant take him anymore. I recently stood up for him when a group of editors wanted him to be banned again, I wish I hadn't. I cannot assume good faith with him anymore. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point. Bearian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearian, no article should contain multiple duplicate paragraphs. This article was previously protected in response to edit-warring by, among others, Turtlescrubber. Now he is edit-warring to repeat material that is already in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am following talk page consensus, something you obviously have a problem with. Why did you get banned in the first place. You were the one who stripped the article in the first place and you are slowly doing the same thing again. You should be ashamed of yourself. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not "stripping" an article to remove duplicate paragraphs. There was no consensus anywhere to have duplicate paragraphs. You have repeatedly inserted duplicate paragraphs today, and that needs to stop.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, its a bad habit you have. You were, in part, responsible for the original protection of the page because you kept stripping the article of any religious content. Now you are slowly doing the same thing, first you remove the CONSENSUS Section on Mitt Romney's religion. When you have the material scattered throughout the page, you are going to slowly delete or "phase out" or the material. I have seen you do it before, there are reams on the talk page about this, you are going completely against consensus, again. The funny thing is that you wrote the damn section to get the page unblocked and as soon as it was unblocked you started whining and trying to dismantle the section and shuffle the information off into the void. You are a Mitt Romney supporter who does not like the fact that him being a mormon is detrimental to his election chances. You have a serious case of CONFLICT of INTEREST and you do not OWN the page, no matter how many edits you make. If anyone wants to see a good example of this users talk page and editing style, look to the fetus article talk page. Ferrylodge is doing the exact same thing there and pissing everybody off. Par for course. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

People can go see for themselves. Every paragraph that Turtlescrubber has jammed into the article today was already in the article. Now each of his preferred paragraphs appear twice in the article. Is this so complicated?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the consensus version. You are the one that went against consensus and scattered information throughout the page. If they appear twice then we should removed the scattered non-consensus material, then everybody is happy. Is that what you want? That would be fine with me. Instead, I think this is your excuse and the only argument you have. I say leave the consensus derived paragraphs in the article, it tooks us weeks to all agree on that section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single one of the consensus-derived sentences remained in this article, before you began edit-warring today to include duplicates of those sentences. The only exception is a sentence about Mrs. Romney's family, which is now located in the separate article about her.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The section and placement of the section was part of the compromise. You know that. You have tried to undue the consensus multiple times. Once again, the fact that all the information is in one place in the article and the placement of that section were both parts of the consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I saw a long time ago, Turtlescrubber edits suggests a very liberal political viewpoint and Ferrylodge a very conservative viewpoint (but not a goose stepping facist or racist). Censensus will be very difficult but can be achieved if BOTH want it. Saying that one was blocked but they were not is NOT the way to begin to achieve consensus.Congolese fufu (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a moderate and I have never run into you before. CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE TALK PAGE, Ferrylodge is violating that consensus. It's in the archive. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seek the middle way between the two extremes. The best compromise I can think of is to merge the two sections together: everybody wins. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What two sections? And are you calling the hard won consensus made by weeks of discussion on the talk page one of the extremes? I don't see how following the consensus of a dozen editors, against one who eventually agreed, is an extreme. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no hard-won consensus to have multiple paragraphs about the subject's Mormonism, and then repeat every last one of those paragraphs twice for added emphasis. As I said in my first comment above, I'm not inclined to edit-war about this; as far as I'm concerned Tutrlescrubber can now go and reinsert the material again, so that it appears in triplicate.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The two sections, "Early life and education" and "Religious background". Talk page discussion by several users here seems to question whether consensus exists, so blaming Ferrylodge doesn't seem right. You also seem to be very angry and upset about this, when what is needed is calm appraisal. —Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to read the entirety of the third archive and part of the fourth to see the consensus and the reaction that other users had when ferrylodge tried to break the consensus. I don't know how to link to specific sections in an archive. Ferrylodge has been trying to break the consensus from literaly day one. He was stopped immediately by the outcry of the many editors who had worked so long to gain the consensus. I have never been as frustrated with any editor that I have been with ferrylodge. Just look at his arguments on this page. They shift everytime he is wrong and he never stops. Its almost psychotic or obsessive compulsive. I understand why he got banned in the past. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My arguments on this page have not "shifted." No Wikipedia article should contain duplicate sentences, much less dozens of them. Inserting duplicate sentences strikes me as vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then lets keep the religious background section and remove the stray sentences. Everybody is happy. Deal? Or are you going to shift your argument again or just ignore this bolded comment? Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello? I think I solved your complaint. Why aren't you responding? Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My response is below, at 04:42, 11 January 2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you changed your line of argumentation and ignored my original statement. You will keep doing that very thing ad infinitum until you exhaust the patience of everyone on this page.Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, this is why we should encourage page moves when archiving talk pages, as the diffs are preserved in each individual archive. If you can't find the links in the specific archive, then they are on the main talk page under the date, which means you have to go hunting. Let me address the problem another way. If you were willing to make a concession but also wanted Ferrylodge to do the same, how would you meet him half way? What part of this argument are you willing to give up, and in the same way, which aspect should Ferrylodge concede? —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do and I do appreciate it. My sticking point is the second section of the article should be the religious background section and most of the religious material should be kept therein. This was part of the consensus and it allows us to see when material is removed. I don't care about content. Good, bad, negative or positive.Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The reason I came here is because duplicative material should not be jammed into an article. All of the other issues are tangential, and should be worked out by consensus at the talk page.

I cannot think of a worse reason to keep a bunch of sentences grouped together than because "it allows us to see when material is removed." If you don't have the time or energy to watch the article or participate in the talk page, that's no reason why everyone else must arrange your favorite parts of the article in a format that will make them easier for you to monitor. And, again, the main point is that it is vandalism to take dozens of sentences in an article, copy them, and then redundantly paste them into the article.

When I invited Turtlescrubber to the talk page today, he declined. Turtlescrubber, if you would undo your duplicative edits, and come to the talk page, you'll see that none of the consensus-sentences about Romney's religion have been removed, except for one sentence about Romney's wife's family (which is now in the article about Romney's wife). The consensus-sentences have been put into several different sections of the article, to which those sentences correspond.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I no longer assume good faith from you ferrylodge. I have talked with you about this very subject dozens of times on the talk page as seen in the archives. We have talked about this over a period of many weeks. We had a consensus. You don't like it and want it changed. You will eventually scatter the material throughout the article and slowly delete it as you have started to do. That is why having it in a section is the only way to keep an eye on it. That is because of you and your obsessive need to "clean" your candidates article. You constantly edit the article and slip in changes when no ones looking. I am a normal persona and cannot keep up with the obsessive amounts of edits you make. Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. If "all other issues are tangential" than this should be a workable solution. What do you say to that solution ferrylodge? Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Turtlescrubber, you can go to the history page of an article, and select any two versions to compare. You don't have to compare consecutive versions.

Additionally, as you know, you have made a grand total of one talk page comment this year. Here it is. You said, "I restored the full section and will not let your pov and conflict of interest remove all references to religion from Mitt Romneys page." As you must be able to acknowledge, I did not remove a single reference to religion from Mitt Romney's page, except for one sentence about his wife's family, which is now in the seperate article about his wife (although the editors there shortened it because they thought it was a "digression" even in the article about her [37]).

And getting back to the point: please stop duplicating your favorite material in the Mitt Romney article. Just because you want everyone to be aware of his Mormonism does not permit you to repeat dozens of sentences over and over again. That's vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. There would be no duplicate material. If "all other issues are tangential" than this should be a workable solution. What do you say to that solution ferrylodge? Would that solution to the duplicate material work for you? Please answer yes or no and than say why! Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys actually looking for some action from an administrator here, or are you just bringing a content dispute to AN/I? Bringing an argument here probably isn't helping either one of you. There's WP:RFC for that. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Elkman, as I said in my first comment, I would very much appreciate some action from an administrator here. Isn't it vandalism for a user to insert duplicates of dozens of sentences in an article?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't bring this to the page. I just want to return to the consensus version and then I will be happy to leave the page alone. Jesus, do you want to remove the duplicate material. I'll do it. No problem. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I removed the duplicate material as per your concerns. I hope this situation is resolved. I am going to sleep. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The consensus agreement

Hello everyone. I have taken a much-needed break from editing on Mitt Romney but I was right in the midst of the consensus discussions that Turtlescrubber refers to, and I will be glad to report what the consensus was at that time. But I am not willing to hunt down the diffs and I'm doing this from memory because I've already wasted too much of my life arguing with a tendentious editor on this and other matters. I am not going to get embroiled in this here or anywhere else - I don't have the time or the interest to respond to the volumes that I expect will ensue, based on previous experience. So I will report and I will leave and you can decide what to do about it.

Turtlescrubber is completely correct that the agreement that allowed the full protection to finally be lifted was that there would be a section on "Religious Background" as the second section of the article - that is, directly under "Early life and education". This was a consensus agreement, that included editors who had taken different positions initially. It was a compromise based on the Eisenhower model, but it didn't last too long before tinkering with it began. There were requests that the consensus agreement be left alone so that the article could enjoy some stability, but apparently that went out the window. There was certainly no agreement that once the page was unlocked the religion section could be dismantled and distributed throughout the article. There was a proposal to move only the second paragraph (I think it was the 2nd) to the Presidential campaign section, but no agreement that I know of was reached on that - I was one of the editors who said I might be willing to consider that but I never did agree to it. And in any case, part and parcel of my even being willing to consider it was that the Religious background section would remain as the 2nd section of the article, as many of us believe that his religion is one of the first things that people look for discussions of when they come to his article.

For that reason, I would totally oppose the dismantling of the religion section and never would have agreed to it if I were actively editing there now. I believe that breaking up of the religious background section is designed to downplay references to his being a Mormon, for whatever reason, and while I might not think that every biography should have a prominent religion section, I think this one needs to. Further, I think that the way the material has been edited has been in a not particularly neutral way - it seems to be also designed to remove any hint of negativity or critical view - again, you can decide for what reason, as I don't care to speculate right now.

Of course no one thinks that the material should be repeated in the article (other than perhaps an echo in the intro) - Ferrylodge is right about that. I would hope Turtlescrubber really didn't have that in mind as his final edit, and his bolded section above clearly indicates to me that he does not want the material duplicated. I think he was re-instating the section that had been agreed to, and I believe he'd agree to remove the duplication from the other sections if the consensus agreement to retain the separate section is respected.

If a new consensus has been reached, I don't know anything about it, and I acknowledge that consensus can change. But not by strong-arming, one would hope. As I said, I have been on a break from this article, and I may or may not go back to it - I haven't decided. But if this AN/I item is an indication of what's going on there, I'll be less likely to. I would have hoped that Ferrylodge's experience in being banned and having a arbitration lift the ban because of discomfort with the banning process would have shown him a different path, but it sounds like not that much has changed, which is unfortunate. I hope this helps, but I mean it - I really do not want to go another ten rounds with you, Ferrylodge. So try to resist temptation to invoke what you think my politics are and any other tactic, and see if you can respect the consensus that I and Cool Hand Luke and others worked really hard to achieve after a long period of full protection. One other thing: I have had absolutely no contact with Turtlescrubber or anyone else about this - no one asked me to come here and comment, I just saw it on AN/I and decided to try to help out. And I am sincere in that - I am only commenting here in an attempt to help. Tvoz |talk 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[ec] And, it looks like there was an almost simultaneous edit here and that Turtlescrubber removed the duplication - I haven't looked at it - so will the consensus Religious Background section be maintained? That no doubt will determine whether this matter is resolved or not. Tvoz |talk 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the consensus works for me. I asked the guy four times if he wanted me to remove the duplicate material, if you hadn't come along he would have just changed his argument to the next silly thing he thought of. Resolved now. Super, I don't want to go any more rounds with ferrylodge either. I do have a life. ;) Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This matter has now been resolved, because Turtlescrubber has now removed dozens of sentences in the article that were duplicative as a result of his edits a few hours ago. I do not agree with the way he has taken ownership of this article, but at least he has removed the vandalism by not repeating his favorite parts of the article twice. I would also kindly request him to investigate more carefully in the future, before falsely accusing me of removing material from the article, and before edit-warring yet again.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real consensus

I don't believe you have a real consensus. You need to stop fighting. Tvoz and Turtlescrubber are known liberals and Ferrylodge is a known conservative. There is little attempt at consensus from what I can see. Can you please calm it down?

I take the yawn to be a disruptive comment.Congolese fufu (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Now I'm a "known liberal"? Who are you anyway - I've never even seen your name before so how exactly do you know who I am, and why are you denigrating my attempt to help out here? In case you didn't notice, I wasn't fighting, I was trying to help out by providing testimony as to what transpired before, and in case you didn't notice I'm not trying to re-achieve consensus, as I did that already. In fact I agreed with Ferrylodge that the material shouldn't be duplicated, and before I finished posting my comment Turtlescrubber had already removed the duplication. So maybe you should mind your own business and not characterize people's politics when you know nothing about them. Tvoz |talk 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, don't remove other people's comments on AN/I - I reinstated a reply that Turtlescrubber made above that you took out without explanation or authority, as far as I can see. It's not your prerogative to remove what other people say in a forum like this. Tvoz |talk 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your name in the newspaper before I saw it on Wikipedia. If I divulge it, then it would potentially invade your privacy. Your name made national news. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, and you remembered it. I don't think so. Nowhere did it say anything about being a liberal, by the way, so try again. Or, on second thought, maybe don't. I'm done here. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the newspaper with me but another newspaper has a different article online. Just google "Tvoz". To find it higher in the search page, google "Tvoz wikipedia democrat". The article isn't the same but it talks about Wikipedia and Tvoz being a Democrat and Ferrylodge being a Republican. All I see in the above comment is hate. Read my comments and you will find that I have been completely neutral yet all I get are attacks. Congolese fufu (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for you two to go back to your corners and cool off. Congolese fufu, DO NOT remove other editors' comments from AN/I, unless it's blatant vandalism, even then let an admin remove it. Those kinds of tactics are a short path to a block, for sure. Tvoz, comments like "maybe you should mind your own business..." aren't really conducive to the situation either, are they? Someone needs to be the party here to rise above, take a step back, and get perspective. You're BOTH better than this.. Edit Centric (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::::Edit Centric, see your user talk page for explanation of Wikipedia software problem. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough. But I don't appreciate the baiting, and don't think it was deserved. I was trying to help. Cheers. Tvoz |talk 06:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Understood. However, you're both equally ferrying the spat down the Wiki-river, fufu by baiting with the whole "known liberals" thing, and tvoz by taking umbrage (while justified) in such a way as to be bordering on incivility. Tvoz, keep the helpful attitude, no matter what, and you'll be ahead of the game. Congolese fufu, drop the party-line talk, and concentrate on the article. Both of you try to find some middle ground, and work toward the betterment of the article, and the forwarding of knowledge to the end-reader. That's the aim here. Edit Centric (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Equally"? If you say so. Seems to me there's a difference between baiting someone without cause (I have had no dealings with this person, at least not under that username) and calling someone on doing the baiting, even if a bit pointedly - but so be it. And his helpful instructions here and on a couple of talk pages on how to find my name in case anyone missed it were gratuitous and irrelevant, and could be grounds for an AN/I incident report of my own as they would seem to be against policy. (Curious, too, that he claims to have read the newspaper article - there is only one - and remembered my name and my politics, yet the article came out in September before his account was even created.) CF is not an editor on Romney as far as I know, and I've been staying away from it recently, so there's no middle ground to be sought. I was not involved in this current dispute, my aim here was to help get that process back on track, as I know the two editors who were in the dispute and some factual background seemed to me like it might help break their logjam. No good deed goes unpunished, however. After over 9,600 edits you'd think I'd remember that. Cheers, again. Tvoz |talk 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What admins can do if you bring a dispute here

If you want action from an administrator, here are some things an administrator could do:

• Protect the page for a while until the differences are ironed out. Of course, protecting the page at one editor's preferred version would make the other editor unhappy.
• Call one editor's edits "vandalism" and roll back their edits. Wikipedia:Vandalism says that content disputes aren't vandalism, though.
• Block one user from editing, but not the other. This won't fix anything; it'll just anger one of the users and encourage the other one to gloat in victory.
• Block both users. This might quiet things down for a while, but it won't make anyone feel better.
• Delete the article outright. Nope, I'm not doing that.
• Attempt to determine who's right and who's wrong, based on Wikipedia policies. I could spend the next half-hour or so doing that, but that won't help achieve consensus.
• Stop reading AN/I and play Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock for a little while longer. I'm tempted to do that, but it's getting a little late at night.
• Remind the editors involved that there are other options for dispute resolution, such as WP:3O and WP:RFC.
• Encourage the editors involved to actually discuss their differences at the article's talk page, and if they can't get resolution, then invite other editors to provide their opinion. There's a little bit about it at Talk:Mitt Romney, but only from the two users involved. Surely there are other viewpoints.
• Apologize for calling either one of these editors Shirley.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if I can get a five-star review for Miss Murder. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny. I didn't read it at first thinking it was dry policy. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elkman. Surely, inserting dozens of duplicate sentences into an article is vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest, you two. You've presented your evidence, had your bicker, taken up a huge amount of space, and reached a resolution. Time to let it rest. Pairadox (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty good, you should make that into a template for when other users want an admin to "fix" their content dispute. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I love it. —Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But then I'd have to figure out how to make it a template... (hint, hint) Pairadox (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh Rly?

And yet again Ferrylodge is in a contentious dispute in which he misrepresents others, claims consensus, accuses those with whom he disagrees of vandalism, and the reaction of the general populace is to treat this as though it were a one-on-one dispute - I assure, you, it is not. Ferrylodge has a gift for causing this kind of drama, and making it appear that it is a "both parties are guilty" dispute. Yet although FL has accomplished this with Severa to the point that she left the project, Andrew c to the point that he avoided FL, myself to the point that I also have had that interpretation given me - and somewhat rudely, very recently - and Tvoz, and on and on and on - none of these editors have this kind of "dispute" with anyone else. How many times must this happen before people clue to the fact that the common denominator is Ferrylodge? He causes contention, he is the source of the problems. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the probation or mentoring? I thought Ferrylodge was asked to keep away from certain areas, and this[38] suggests he's raising a fuss again. .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

KC, I really would appreciate if you would try to be more understanding of the situation. Do you really think it's fine for an editor to insert dozens of duplicate sentences into an article? The editor in question finally agreed to remove the duplication, and yet you place the blame on me. Why?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I note your edit immediately prior to the one above was to remove another editor asking why you "feel the need to always try to pull up past drama between us (and other users with whom you have butted heads)" from your talk page. Gee, you've removed four instances of different editors asking you to avoid personal attacks and focus on content, and to avoid drama and BLP and POV editing since Dec 28. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Was that what I asked about?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you attempted to drag me into a content dispute in which I am uninvolved. This is nto the venue for that, nor am I interested in playing referee between yourself and other editors on the Mitt Romney article. Admin intervention is not required for the content dispute; that is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You said that I made a false accusation of vandalism. Is it not vandalism to insert dozens of duplicate sentences into an article? Thankfully, the duplicative material has now been removed, so the issue that brought me here to ANI has been resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(after EC, reply to Dave souza):

The ArbCom remedy was "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing" - nothing was said specifically about his NPA violations, incivility, harassment, or his activities on political articles. So although certainly action may be taken by any administrator, they would not be part of ArbCom enforcement unless the remedy applied were banning from the Fetus article, which certainly would calm things there, but not help those on Barak Obama or other political articles. Indeed, although much evidence was provided (including an unaddressed 7RR) about his unacceptable activities on political articles, for reasons beyond my comprehension one of the findings of fact was that "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion ([59], [60]), but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics ([61])." [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge] - apparently his edit warring and POV pushing there was considered "reasonable", or perhaps they didn't see the need to specify political articles as well as pregnancy and abortion articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to me that the discussion here is probably less than productive. A Request for Comment would probably be the best way to go, with notes left on any relevant WikiProject talk pages and elsewhere about the discussion. I do think that this matter is serious enough, and probably visible enough, that it should have an organized discussion regarding the specific merits of each position from as many parties as possible. Would that be agreeable to both sides. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, please clarify. Are you referring to the controversy at the Mitt Romney article that seems to have been resolved because the duplicative sentences have been removed?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The decision to have the religion section may likely have been reached on the basis of an inadequate consensus, if there were not sufficient parties involved. This is an election year, and I personally expect that there will be a lot of similarly contentious arguments in the future regarding this candidate and others. I even proposed earlier a separate politics/culture noticeboard on that basis. In my eyes, the RfC would best discuss (1) how relevant is the matter to the subject, (2) should the related content have a separate section, (3) alternately, might it best be spun off into a separate article, with a summary section in the biography, and (4) where would that section be placed in the article. There might be additional objects of discussion as well. But an RfC would be the best way to handle that, as such discussion should be open to a broader audience than just those who watch the admin noticeboards. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a valid suggestion, but it's not really the issue that brought me here to ANI. The issue thnat brought me here to ANI has now been resolved, because dozens of duplicative sentences have now been removed from the article. As for inclusion of the info in the religion section, the main controversy is not whether that info should be included in the article, but where it should be included.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus on the article talk page and it seems to not favor Ferrylodge. Am I missing something? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I think it would be helpful if you'd clarify. "Consensus" about what? There was no consensus at the article talk page to include dozens of duplicate sentences in the article. That's why I started this section here at ANI.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Again Ferrylodge? You know darn well you are not supposed to get in trouble by being difficult and editing against consensus and engaging in contentitious edits and making insults. I would suggest that we should go to Arbcomm enforcement and expand the terms of the Arbcomm decision. The articles on which he is restricted should include all political articles and their talk pages and all abortion and reproduction articles and their talk pages. If he so much as offers a hint of dispute, block or ban him. That would slow him down a bit.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this matter has been resolved, because the editor I was objecting against (Turtlescribber) has removed dozens of duplicative sentences from an article that he inserted duplicative sentences into.[39] Please don't say that I have edited against consensus, or made contentious edits here. I am not the person who inserted dozens of duplicative sentences into an article. I think if you want to ban me, you ought to show that I have done something wrong, though I admit you may be successful in banning me regardless.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FL, with all due respect, I have seen your RfCs and Arbcomm discussion. All I see is layer upon layer of dishonesty, lies and sleeze. Sleezy lawyer tactics, but the truth is dozens of other editors here on Wikipedia seem to have severe problems with you to the point of leaving Wikipedia altogether because of your bullying and harassment. I just know what I see. I have not researched in detail this recent episode. I just know your track history. And you and I know very well that being involved in articles where you have a long ugly history of problems is a very very very bad idea. So I am afraid I do not find your blandishments and pleading particularly compelling. So you are always right, and the other 50 or 100 or 200 editors who have problems with you always wrong? Seems a bit hard to swallow to me. But you just go right on trying to make that argument and see how it works for you, ok?--Filll (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself, "I have not researched in detail this recent episode." So then why all this fighting here? Dredging up the past serves no purpose. Can we all just move along? Discussion is thataway --> Talk:Mitt Romney. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing the article, as I state above, this is not the proper venue for content disputes. Your direction to an article talk page is missing the issue; Ferrylodge is being disruptive, violating NPA, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if FL is for Obama or not. I do not know the nature of this particular dispute that was about duplication. What I do know is that FL has had a long record, over a year's worth, of personal attacks and being extremely difficult for others to work with. I might agree with him on the actual details he is promoting. I do not agree with his agitation and bad behavior.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it my job to mark this section as "resolved" or is that something that I should leave to an admin? I am satisfied that the concern that brought me to ANI has been resolved. The user who inserted dozens of duplicative sentences into the Mitt Romney article has removed dozens of sentences that were duplicative.[40]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as per [[41]], it is unlikely that there would be any possibility of anyone involved being subject to restriction based on this discussion. If others wished to request the ruling be changed, however, that evidently is an option. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, Thatcher's response was in response to whether Ferrylodge can be prevented from editing politics related articles based on the arbitration committee decision placing him on restriction for abortion and pregnancy related articles. The answer to that is clearly no. However, that does not mean that no one can be placed on restriction as a result of the ongoing discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

True. My statement was based on the fact that there has to date not been particularly clear consensus on this page that sanctions on this instance are likely. However, for the purposes of clarity, it probably would be in everyone's best interests that any further discussion cover only that matter. I am proposing a new RfC on the Romney page itself, and inviting views from as many relevant parties that might be interested as I can. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo Victoria Theatre

Apollo Victoria Theatre, some advice please.

Text from this article was reported as a suspected copyright violation, last night. The article was (correctly) immediately deleted. I looked at the text and compared to the reported website. This was almost word-for-word the History section of the article. I restored the article, removed the offending text, deleted the article and restored the latest version to ensure that the copyviol was not available in the history.

Today, I have had a chance to investigate further and the bulk of the wiki text has been in place since at least 16 Dec 2005, subsequent amendments have been made by multiple editors to create a text which is identical to the current text on these people's website. Applying Occam's razor, it is more likely, the text here was copied from us. The basic question is how to handle this? Reinstate the text I believe to have been copied from us, with its complete edit history, or rewrite the article so, it doesn't infringe the now cr material that I think originated here?

A number of editors have worked hard to improve the London theatre histories and these texts are now appearing in copyright material on the web. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Kbthompson (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say reinstate and note on the external link that the copyright asserted there is actually copyfraud.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'll work out something later tonight. Kbthompson (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 125.26.162.120 (talk · contribs)

I blocked 125.24.* and 125.25.* previously, due to persistent vandalism. Range blocks (1 week) have expired last month, but strange edits to Singapore have occurred again. I am not confident that it is the same guy, but perhaps someone can keep an eye on them. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user:CreationSCS

CreationSCS (talk · contribs) and his suspected sockpuppets (IP edits) has only made vandalizing edits. His greatest gem is change in the words of Ustaša WW II song when he has changed words so that this song on wiki now call for the death of Croatian president Stipe Mesić (and late primeminister Ivica Račan) [42]. His other vandalism has been this [43] . In this article he has deleted statement confirmed by 3 sources (first is on english language) which are speaking about Montenegro constitution. His last vandalism has been in article [44] where he is again deleting statement with sources. I am tired of reverting his calling for president death and other shits so I ask that this user be blocked. One of his suspected sockpupets has been warned by me that he will be blocked if this vandalism do not stop [45]. --Rjecina (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now after my revert is better possible to see this word playing in the song --Rjecina (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have NO "sockpuppets". I am a new user.

Second of all, this Rječina is propagating lies about me not just here, but on vandalism and talk page as well. I AM CORRECTING THE SONG'S WORDS. This song of fascist Croat singer Thompson INDEED DOES call for death of Stjepan Mesic, and asks a dog to !$@% Ivica Racan's mother.

Then this user claims I'm vandalizing the Serbs article, when he makes no sense. He linked to a journalist report and to a pro-Serbian complaining party in Montenegro WITHOUT EVEN READING THE CONSTITUTION. I am tired of this.

I wish to point out that Rjecina is well aware of all this and intentionaly wants to block me because of a dispute I have with him on Croatian wikipedia, out his pure furstration. He intentionally says that I "called for death of Croatian president" because he hopes that you would discard me and believe these outragous claims. CreationSCS (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can either one of you cite a reliable source as to the correct lyrics? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have shown 3 examples of his vandalism edits. Because I have not expected that there will be question about lurics I do not have source here (but I will look) but on other side for his 2 others vandalism edits we are having english language sources which user:CreationSCS has deleted from article. In article Political entities inhabited or ruled by Serbs he is deleting [46] statement confirmed by 3 sources that Serbs are minority in Montenegro ( this is english language source ). Similar thing he is doing in article Lewis MacKenzie [47] where he is deleting statement confirmed by english language source that this UN general has recieved money of Serbian lobby. For the end I will only add that article Serbs of Croatia is protected because of his vandal edits (IP address). What is more needed that user be declared vandal and blocked ? --Rjecina (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I now have many interesting data about song. The Centre for peace in Balkan is clearly stating that song is from 1942 (version which has been on wiki on 23 June 2007 [48] . Late primeminister of Croatia Ivica Račan is born in 1945 !!. Version which CreationSCS is writing on wiki is version of Croatian band Thompson of 21 century. This is english language source --Rjecina (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the lyrics are copyrighted and shouldn't be in the article, anyway. Corvus cornix_talk 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. In my thinking article need to be deleted but this will never happen....--Rjecina (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem user Oni Ookami Alfador (talk · contribs)

(1) He's randomly deleting huge chunks of the floppy disk article (even though I objected; I stated at least some of those chunks should be saved, as they are useful). I also requested we get consensus from other editors before deleting one-quarter of the article. He refused.

(2) On the talk page he is using phrases like "for christ's sake" which I find highly, highly offensive. As offensive as if he had used the n-word against me or my family, and I think this user needs some kind of admonishment to tone done (and most importantly cooperate) with other editors. Thank you. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that both of you need to stop edit warring or you will both be blocked for 3RR. You also need to stop calling his good-faith edits vandalism. Nakon 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And both of you have now been blocked for 3RR. Nakon 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are problematic because they introduce original research into the article, not that there is enough of it already. But either way, instead of constantly reverting (which gets you into the WP:3RR) trap, how about taking it to the talk page to discuss the changes? x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright??

If someone is posting copy and paste material from a website and claiming it is verifiable source material, is that vandalims or at least an infraction? If so, does the 3RR rule apply? I've removed the material three times which means I cannot remove it again, but my understanding is it shouldn't be there in the first place. It's on List of Las Vegas episodes IrishLass (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations can be considered vandalism after the poster has been duly warned that posting copyrighted material violates Wikipedia policy (WP:COPYVIO). Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They were warned under an IP and then signed in and used an old account to revert. Can some else just revert so I don't violate 3RR? IrishLass (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, based on your word. Pairadox (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I suggest you go through that page and remove all the redlinks for individual episodes. Pairadox (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I tried once a long time ago but it got reverted. Thanks for the revert. IrishLass (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, removing copyright violations is an exception to 3RR. —Random832 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I can understand her reasoning for not wanting to even go there. Pairadox (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've already removed the info three times, I don't want to push the limits. Thank you for the assistance. I've removed the redlinks. IrishLass (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiefsfan364 account compromised

Account believed compromised, as per contributions and this article's history. Please consider a temporary block until the situation is resolved. haz (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked pending resolution. Nakon 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked reduced to 24h for vandalism. Nakon 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, does anyone else not see User_talk:Chiefsfan364#Hello.3F as an indication of him having control of his account? John Reaves 10:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move vandalism by User:Moose Sheriff

Compromised pages include America, Hartford, Connecticut, Paris, Worcester. See [49]. --Polaron | Talk 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Has already been indefinitely blocked. Kusma (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everything's been cleaned up. WilyD 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Something is still wrong with America and Worcester was a copy and paste move so its history is now missing. --Polaron | Talk 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Worcester is showing a history for me, and what's wrong with America? WilyD 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed America. Somebody had deleted the wrong page. Kusma (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Worcester has been fixed by Slakr so I think that's all of it. --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious debates over Harry Potter (again)

This anonymous user has received a one-week block, but has recommenced an edit war using a different account. Serendi^podous 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to semi-protect? —Random832 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think probably yes. Serendi^podous 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. When we have a troublemaker, we block the user. Leave the article alone. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. For context to those not familiar, the IP editor is adding long amounts of extraneous information about the way the early christians adapted extant holidays and incorporated them into the christian faith, like Yule and Christmas, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder: he's back

Sock-puppet edit warrior SummerThunder (talk · contribs) has returned from what was apparently only a several-month-long vacation with these edits. Please be on the lookout for similar behavior at his other favorite articles, listed in the above-linked dossier. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep watch University of California, Riverside and University of California, Riverside campus ST currently active there. Going offline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerique (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

75.3.224.238 (talk · contribs) now. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate (GROSS!!) picture in Wikipedia archive showing up in Google Earth for London, Ontario

Hi all, Not sure where else to go with this one. You know how Wikipedia articles with coordinate templates show up on Google Earth? Well, while using GE to take a look at London, Ontario, I noticed, in addition to the article on the city, another article that came up as this WP help desk archive. The popup window in GE showing this article also shows a photo of a penis with a couple of big gross chancres. Yikes! The archive contains a discussion of how to find coordinates in GE and add them to articles using templates, but the example code was nowikiied. I also didnt' see the photo on the actual archive page, so don't know why it's showing up in GE. Anybody help with this? Thanks, Doonhamer (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The help desk archive you're talking about had an attempt to link to the image, but the editor didn't specify a colon before the image name. When viewing the help desk archive, the MediaWiki software doesn't display the image inline because it's on the image blacklist and could be used for vandalism. However, as far as I can tell, Google Earth uses its own rendering engine for Wikipedia content. (Or does it? I'm not 100% sure.) Apparently, that rendering engine is more than happy to render otherwise-blacklisted images inline. I edited the archive so it contains links to the image rather than an attempt to actually put the image inline. As far as erasing that image from your mind goes, though, I think you're on your own. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I can't imagine that that archive page should be showing up at all on Google Earth though. If GE does have its own rendering engine, would it also ignore our nowiki tags around the coord templates, and pull in the archive page? I thought about removing the coord templates from the archive, but I didn't want to possibly go against policy (editing an archive seems to be an action at cross purposes to itself). Is that an option? At any rate, I cleaned out the memory and disk cache in my Google Earth app, restarted the app, and navigated back to London, ON. The image is still visible. Ugh. I do remember reading at GE that the Wikipedia articles are only updated periodically, not continually (that's why new articles with coords can take a while (weeks) to show up). Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about how either WP or GE works to resolve this quickly. Doonhamer (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the archive page, replacing the braces around the coordinate templates for London ON with parentheses. That should stop GE from rendering the the archive page at its next update (if that is indeed what was causing it). Even if it is, it's likely the changes in GE won't appear until the next time GE updates its WP coordinate database. If an administrator knows a better/quicker way to resolve this, or a better forum than this noticeboard for this issue, please advise. Doonhamer (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if Google Earth has got rid of the link. There are five articles associated in that area on Google Earth and currently none have offensive images. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What a relief. I restarted GE, cleaned out the cache again, but was still seeing the image, but after restarting my computer, I'm also not seeing the drawn-in archive page and its stomach-churning photo. If no one else is seeing it, I suppose this particular issue is closed, but it makes me wonder whether there are other internal Wikipedia pages with coordinate templates in them that are being rendered in Google Earth? Doonhamer (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated edit problems from moving IP

Hi - I have come across a problem and not sure of the best way to address it. There is a section of information in the article The Rain Tapes, called "Distribution of Material" (its at the bottom). Over the past month, there has been a user who repeatedly deletes this section (see history). It is not a registered user, but it seems that the IP address used by this person changes each time they edit (perhaps using internet cafes??). This has led to a problem in sorting out the situation. I and others have left messages on earlier talk pages, but then different IP addresses are used in subsequent edits. I have invited the person to explain or discuss the deletion in the 'edit summary' box when reverting, but this has never occurred. This is getting rather tiresome for me and a number of other users constantly reverting this deleting. Is there any action that can be taken?? I was thinking perhaps asking for semi-protection to at elast encourage the person to register and then engage in discussion on their talk page?? Any advice?

Some previous warnings at various Ip addressed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.203.120.228 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.188.169.180 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.202.91.35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.200.159.132 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.141.93.62

Thanks JKW111 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest requesting "semi-protection" at WP:RFPP. I put in a request here. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection has been granted for 1 month. If this becomes a problem again, request another. Be sure to mention previous protection, and that the anon editor has been issued multiple warnings (diffs help). / edg ☺ ☭ 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, all these IP addresses seem to be via America Online. This implies a home user with a non-static IP address, which is common with home DSL (and almost always the case with dialup). I doubt much effort is being made to change IP addresses; the user may be unaware of their address changing. (Someone else probably knows much more about how AOL grants IP addresses than I do.) / edg ☺ ☭ 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Utcursch

User:Utcursch is abusing authority and showing discrimination towards Hindus. User:Utcursch is a Sikh Extremist who is influencing hate between Hindu and other religon communities.

due to 1984 terrorism in India. you can see page Bhindranwale who was a famous Rebel Saint who kills hindus, doesnt need to be locked and has been locked for a really long time. User:Utcursch has shown discrimination to me as well and has caused tensions between religons.User:99.237.253.131

... HalfShadow (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• This item was originally posted at the top of this page, and I have taken the liberty of moving it to its proper chronological location; and I have checked- it did look like this originally. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date warrior/ honorific deleter/ possible sockpuppet

I am concerned about the conduct of a new autoconfirmed user, Simplonicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Although he represents himself as a new account as of 12-24-07, he has focused exclusively on making edits in an area of long-term controversy. This began with removal of honorifics [50] [51] [52] and proceeded swiftly to date-warring, first by creating a new template Template:History of the Chinese, created solely to replace Template:History of China with a BC/AD version of the same template, and putting it into articles against consensus and without discussion. This should be compared to the actions of Foula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who left the project not long before Simplonicity arrived. During the last 24 hours Simplonicity has date-warred numerous articles frequently leaving the misleading edit summary "datings conventions were mixed, consolidated on one". His consolidations always consist of changing BCE/CE to BC/AD, never the other way round, frequently in articles where BCE/CE is far more numerous. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] (There are more removals of honorifics and era style changes that occurred while I was in the process of filing this ANI.)

Simplonicity has also altered two important templates, Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia and Template:South Asian history without the slightest discussion or any semblance of an attempt at consensus in such a way as to facilitate his date warring. On at least one article, Middle kingdoms of India, he began by changing the article, which overwhelmingly favored BCE/CE, to BC/AD,[58] then used this change as an excuse to change to his preferred version of the template.[59] Simplonicity has done all this in spite of being specifically familiarized with Wikipedia's policies on date warring on his talk page.

I also ask that this pattern of abuse be compared with the following blocked or disappeared users.

• Carnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Chooserr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Compower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jpetersen46321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Nownownow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: In at least one instance Simplonicity changed CE in the title of a book to AD.[60] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socks4life

This user added themselves to Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jlomcc ([61]). Bizarre, to say the least. Any admin want to handle this? shoy 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, they quite literally asked for it. Mr.Z-man 06:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TNTPRO

Every edit this user has made has been blatant vandalism Special:Contributions/TNTPRO. They've been reverted, but I suggest a block, pending the outcome of whatever the sockpuppet case is. MBisanz ^talk 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinately as a vandalism only account. In the future, use WP:AIV for clear vandalism like this. He was adequately warned, and continued. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Philippe

Philippe (talk · contribs) is removing listings from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention because the editors haven't edited yet. Are we really requiring that inappropriate user names be allowed to edit before they get blocked? Corvus cornix_talk 07:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There was some fairly in depth discussion about this in the last couple of months - I'll try to find some diffs - but my recollection is that we were requiring contribs of some type to avoid folks who were just creating names to see them listed there. If I'm in error, I'm happy to stop - but if a name is created, with no contributions, and it's not incredibly inappropriate, what's the harm? - Philippe | Talk 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The harm is that by blocking before they start editing, we preempt the inappropriate user from starting to edit and getting their inappropriate username in edit histories. Plus, 1-you're frustrating a good faith listing by an editor who found the user name offensive, and 2-you're requiring people to wait with bated typing fingers to keep checking to see if the user with the inappropriate name starts editing before you can list them for an inappropriate name. Corvus cornix_talk 07:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If the name is blatantly inappropriate, I totally agree. If so, I block on sight. However, if it is marginally inappropriate, and there are no contributions, I'm inclined to wait for them to edit before blocking, creating a talk page for them to issue a block notice, etc. I'm happy to change my actions if I'm out of calibration, but I seem to recall some pretty aggressive discussion about this. - Philippe | Talk 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. So, if I come across an inappropriate username, I can't list it until they've edited, so I have to squirrel the name away somewhere in my User space or in my memory so that I can check for their edits in the future. Corvus cornix_talk 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the type of username. If it's something obviously foul, no reason to wait for edits. In the case of "promotional" usernames, such as the ones Philippe removed, they are often borderline enough to justify waiting for edits, to see if the account is indeed being used for promotion. There's also something about WP:AGF and WP:BITE in there somewhere. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For diff purposes, the discussion is question is here [62] at the section called "No-edit reports". It was hotly disputed, so perhaps it's time for wider input from the community. I certainly understand your feelings. I tend to be of the idea that we shouldn't create talk pages (and perpetual histories) for accounts that never edit. - Philippe | Talk 08:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a question of how blatantly bad the usernames are; I notice my threshold seems to be higher than some others, recently. In any questionable cases, we can always watch a potentially suspicious user for behavior that will make their good or bad faith more clear. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Williams (politician)

There appears to be persistant vandalism with this article. Please do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just2day (talk • contribs) 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The article you mentioned is in red link. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please identify the edits which are vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment Notice

Yes, I am currently being harassed by the admin known as Jeske. He has recently threatened me for no reason on my talk page and merely provided a very vague reason why. Someone apparently vandalized my talk page, yet he chose to accuse me of it days after he gave his threat. Now, he has been trying to bait me on and on into arguments with him, and I have my best to avoid him. Yet, he is always around no matter where I go.V-Dash (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jéské Couriano has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why not forget about this dispute and go edit some articles? What you're doing here certainly does not look like you're trying to avoid him. Friday (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 :( It's no use Friday... Wherever I go, he's there right behind me...V-Dash (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For background see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/V-Dash. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my eyes just sort of glaze over when I read "admin harassment" and it isn't followed by diffs showing the accused administrator's actions. Can you provide said diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although not an administrator, I would like to note that, having witnessed these clashes from the very beginning, I do not believe Jéské to have done anything wrong. V-Dash has claimed above that Jéské "threatened" him for a vandal's comment, yet this diff and the several subsequent edits show differently. Jéské merely warned him against making further personal attacks after it came to his notice when another user, User talk:Orange Boomerang removed that comment over a month later (for the record, after Orange Boomerang removed that comment, V-Dash posted on their talk page stating "stay off my talk page." V-Dash's conduct towards other editors has been poor at best, and I do not think it is surprising that conflict has arison. V-Dash has previously accused Jéské of Wikistalking, created at least one sockpuppet in an effort to have Jéské banned, has created several other sockpuppets used for other purposes, and has dared Jéské to ban him at several points in time; something that Jéské has refused to do because he is a part of the conflict.

Having observed this conflict from the moment that it started to the present moment, and V-Dash's conduct to other editors prior to his clashes with Jéské, I do not believe that Jéské has harassed V-Dash at all. I am under the impression that Jéské has dealt with the situation admirably considering all that has occurred, at one point even offering to protect V-Dash's userpage from the heavy amounts of vandalism that were occurring from anonymous IPs; an offer that V-Dash was quick to accept. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I think is telling of V-Dash's attitude is his userpage; in it he states that "[He] is always right." Further, other users have come in - I believe them to be GFAQs members - and have stated (with accuracy, as I have noticed) that V-Dash has selective vision and flat-out disregards anything that does not fit with his view or involving his behavior (as can be seen on my TP). Also, as his RfC (and the evidence on it) points out, the assumption of good faith between V-Dash and I was never reciprocal: V-Dash always jumped to conclusions and accused me of sockpuppetry, WikiStalking, and trying to get him banned (while the latter has merit, I only asked for bans because it was, and still is, becoming increasingly apparent that V-Dash is merely being disruptive now).

While I have blocked V-Dash in the past twice - once before the conflict (a 3RR block on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl) and once even more recently (a mistaken block I later rescinded after checkuser confirmed he was not SPD V (talk · contribs) - initially "Inconclusive"), each time I made a mistaken block I rescinded it. Part of this problem is GFAQs user PolluxFrost (Dash Jr (talk · contribs) here), whom seems to know how V-Dash acts and uses this information to successfully impersonate him via sockpuppetry. Not helping the matter is the fact that V-Dash feeds them by cursing them out on his user talk page and their own TPs.

In closing, I have little doubt that this AN/I thread is an attempt to get me sanctioned because I have told him - in no uncertain terms - that he will end up blocked and/or banned if he continues on the way he is now, and he decided to ignore that warning. What little good faith I had in him has vanished, and I thus made the RfC to bring this to wider attention. Any more discussion from me on this matter will take place there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

True, while I have being a bit harsh to this Pollux and Dash_Jr characters, Jeske's behavior is still a bit questionable as an admin. He's constantly tried to bait me into arguments with him. He even argued me down for weeks about me calling DnD a board game. Now I did NOT even touch the article on DnD, yet he has constantly harassed me about it asking me for these websites and such. He's even cussed at me on his talk page. He's supposed to be an admin, yet he's one of the main ones who tends to incite arguments rather than try to calm them down as other admins like Friday has done. See how he blamed me for being SPD despite me being sick the day those edits happened?V-Dash (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That debate about Dungeons and Dragons happened because of your query on the Dungeons and Dragons talk page, IIRC, which was then continued on the user talk page. Asking for sources to back up a statement =/= harassment. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Melicans, I challenged him on it on Talk:Diamond and Pearl to begin with. However, I still requested proof of his accusations (i.e. "D&D is a Board Game") and all he came up with was a picture of a minis campaign in progress and a board-game website that also sold D&D materials (and a wealth of miniature wargaming materiel); not definitive proof. I have since dropped the argument - V Dash has stated that he hated the game, and I realized then that debating him on it is like debating Jimmy Hoffa on not vanishing into thin air. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He admitted it see... I told you Jeske esculated that argument on the DnD Board. It actually started on the Pokemon D/P Board before he incited a debate to occur on the DnD. Afterwards, he's been harassing me since about my statement on DnD.. How can an admin try to calm things down when he's the one who starts them?V-Dash (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

v-dash RAISES a good point. perhaps it woudl bet better if someone else form the editors or another admin come in to mediate this bedispute. i am not assuming bad faith on th epart of Jeske but it owuld be more fair if someone neutral and uninvolvedin the dispute were to enter into this debate. Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I opened the request for comment above. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, you know you were wrong just as much as you accuse me. Remember, you have esculated several of those arguments. I mean, this all stemmed from the DnD incident you went overboard about.V-Dash (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped that argument long ago and have no ill will over it, V-Dash. You, however, seem to think I'm my own cabal (I don't even have the secret password yet!) -Jéské ^{(Blah v—_^v)} 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An argument is still an argument regardless how old it is Jeske. Or did you forget about the very vague warning you put on my talk page? Sorry, but rules can't apply to one party and not apply to the other.V-Dash (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here can see I apologized for it. The only reason you can't is because you tuned out the warning that went with it and thus the whole paragraph. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske Jeske, let's not even forget about the part where you cussed me just because I questioned your vague warning. See, this could've been avoided had you not came onto my talk page and tried to incite me into an argument with you. Quite frankly, I'm very suspicious of your behavior as an admin. I mean, how can you uphold things when you're the one who causes them? Yes, I am accusing you of something. Remember the DnD arguments? Yes, YOU told ME to go to the discussion page and call it a board game. Then you berated for weeks just because I refused to see it your way.V-Dash (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen, V-Dash. After you call "Admin Abuse" or "Harassment", you need to provide proof. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof? What the fudge did you think I was talking about earlier Jeske? Remember the vague warning? The constant banter at me for calling DnD a Board game?V-Dash (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Jack Sparrow>But where have the diffs gone?</Jack Sparrow> -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're referring to movies now Jeske..V-Dash (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Yahtzee>Also, you have one second to name any administrator's noticeboard where coming without evidence is a good idea. Time's up. That's what I thought.</Yahtzee> -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See? He's doing it again...V-Dash (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<George Carlin> You show me a guy who's sitting there giving evidence to back up his accusations and I'll show you a guy who's not causing any fucking trouble.</Carlin> I am also going to note that this is the third thread V-Dash has started against me, and, like the last two, he has provided no proof and simply made accusations sans evidence. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys take this somewhere else? There's no plausible case being made that administrator action is needed here. Friday (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You see Friday? We're back at circle one. See, all Jeske had to do was kindly explain his vague warning on my talke page when I asked, and this argument and report wouldn't have been started. I believe he did that warning on post so he can hopefully get me into an argument in order to make it like I'm doing something wrong.V-Dash (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To all those reading this topic, read this diff. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No excuse Jeske. Btw, you said something different than you did here. You said you saw the post and just decided to give me a warning regardless. But it took you like two days to finally answer why I got the warning AFTER someone warned you about it.V-Dash (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns regarding Melanie McGuire article

I was checking Category:Wikipedians looking for help and noticed this. I believe there are several privacy concerns that should be addressed as well as possibly protecting the page. I would appreciate more eyes on this. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The user that wrote the comments seems to have some legitimate complaints. This looks like a clear WP:BLP violation. The article in question was deleted as a BLP violation it looks like. What more is to be done? Do we need to redact the users comments as themselves revealing private info? It seems a sad story, but what further action should we as admins need to take? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the article appears to resolve most of the situation. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to have been settled on the user's talk page so this thread can probably be marked resolved. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Return of User:Mmbabies

68.92.33.104 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LTA/MMB for the litany of IP addresses he has used since he was last reported to WP:ABUSE. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Now issuing death threats - [63]. Corvus cornix_talk 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And another death threat - [64]. Someone needs to contact the Houston police? Corvus cornix_talk 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

you cant be seriosu they're is no need to coontact the Michigan police it sis obviously just an emotinally-unstable user who has taken some of the discusions a bit too muchto heart. it owuld be more effieincet and more effective to deal with im here on wikipedia rather rthan gettinga SWAT team deployed to hsi house, which just might pis him off enough so that he'll come over to your house and tryto harm you and your family. if the threats ezcalated, then i would recomend police internveiton but right now he should be warned and if that faisl he should be blocked. Smith Jones (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? You also need to read the history of Mmbabies before you comment. Corvus cornix_talk 04:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i think you are overactingi have no t read the history but i have recieved death threats on the internet before and there are really not that scary. Smith Jones (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

if you look at his "threats" you wil not ice that they are generic threats made by millions of trols and vandals on tiwkipedia every single fricking day, he deifnitely deserves to be IP-blocked permanent-lieka but caling the police would jus t be a waste of time sincetheyd have a hard time tracking him down and there i s very little that ecan do to stophim from hurting or killing other peopl basde on a few weird coments on anencyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have great difficulty understanding you when you write like that. Can you use Firefox or something with a built-in spell-checker? As far as Mmbabies goes, this user has made many, many death threats on Wikipedia. It already has escalated, as the report shows. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He has done this for a year, Smith Jones. I think it's pretty well justified for a police report. We've taken every action we can possibly take on this user, including range blocks for AT&T's Houston node, meaning for many users in the nation's fourth largest city, signing up for a username is compulsory for them to edit, and abuse reports to that provider that have gone unanswered. He has attacked my talkpage too and frankly we're all pretty sick of it, especially on WP:TVS and those dealing with Christian television (his favorite targets). Trust me, if this was just 'some kid', he would've been bored by now and gone away, but this user has left personal information, addresses and telephone numbers all over his sock edits. That's not 'generic' as you say, but dangerous. Nate · (chatter) 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Will be sending an abuse report to their ISP in a moment. May not accomplish anything, but does get the problem on record. Will leave other responses to other people. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article abuse of Stan Polley

Since last November, the following IP addresses have inserted the line "soulless bastard" at the end of the biography of Stan Polley. Although the person is quoting a line from a suicide note that had referred to Polley, the insertion by the following IPs attaches this as a personal opinion in agreement with the note. It is a persistent issue with the article and it needs administration attention. Thank you.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• 163.231.6.85
• 163.231.6.88
• 163.231.6.86
• 163.231.6.66
• 163.231.6.67
• 163.231.6.68
• 163.231.6.65

The abuse is continuing and I had to make another revert today.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another revert again today.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self-made toy pictures

Some of the articles on old toys/cartoon/comic book characters lacked pictures, and I had a big collection old toys and TV shows, so I had started to take pictures and post them under their respective articles. I used screen captures, box art and the like. At first I had trouble using proper tags, but eventually that was sorted out. There was a complaint that these images were non-free, and it was suggested to me that pictures I took myself of the toys of characters were a free alternative. I started to take pictures of the toys for the characters and post them as GDFL-self. I recently recieved another notice that the pictures of the toys themselves are not GFDL-self as the toy is considered a work of art, and owned by the creator. There are still articles out there with no or few pictures. If the picture of the toys are also non-free (and no free alternative does exist!) then should I just go back to screen captures and comic art and such, IF I work out a proper non-free image fair use rational? There seems to be no free alternative for some of these articles, and surely at least one non-free image per character IS allowed if you have the proper rational attached to it. I know I can't flood an article with non-free pictures, but some articles lack pictures all together, is that an acceptable reason to add a properly tagged non-free image?

Also, what about characters who changed siginifantly? Would I be allowed to post a picture of each of theirt changes over the years? Thanks for letting me know. Mathewignash (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If an alternative does not exist and these are needed to retain the quality of the article, you can still use them under our fair use rules. Jtrainor (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For instance there is an article on three different fictional characters who share a name - Dirge (Transformers). Can I safely add a non-free picture of each of the three characters (who look vastly different) to the article if I use a proper fair use rational? Mathewignash (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be more useful to photograph all three at the same time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The way the article is set up each character has his own section. I could merge pictures of their two modes into one picture, since they are Transformers they all have 2 modes. Like robot and jet. I could make those one picture. Mathewignash (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Though one needs to be aware that while no one (currently) is adding up non-free use on a page, a single shot of 3 separate toys would be considered as 3 uses of non-free fair use (as the photo is a derivative work). But the advice you have currently is otherwise correct, you can probably get more info at WP:NFC and WP:ICHD. --MASEM 13:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since a toy is a three-dimensional work of art, wouldn't User:Mathewignash be free to release these two-dimensional photographs of these three-dimensional works into the public domain, under GFDL, and/or CC? Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ states, "For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken." Jecowa (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. See the discussion and linked discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Any trademark experts?. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the first discussion you mentioned concerning Image:TARDIS-trans.png, User:WjBscribe said that commons is concerned with copyright, not trademarks. The photograph of a toy from that discussion is now hosted on commons. Jecowa (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read through the discussion there, it specifically applies to the TARDIS (aka an old British policy box) because they cannot "copyright" that look - that look was in the public domain before the BBC created Doctor Who. It is a highly unique case. --MASEM 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems crazy to me. I know copyright law is byzantine at times all the time, but what if a picture were made, such that a toy were incidental in the shot taken. And then that photo (the one with the incidental toy in it) were released under a CC or GFDL. And then somebody else were to crop the freely licensed picture down the line (to include just the toy). . .does that mean that the cropped, derivative pic would violate copyright, but the original wouldn't? Or can one never release a photo if it contains discernible 3D --> 2D pixels in it somewhere? R. Baley (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do I just added one non-free box art image to the Dirge (Transformers) page. Is there ANY problem with the way I did it? Please let me know. I want to try to get a general nod that I added a proper picture the right way to an article before doing another. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a picture to the Bonecrusher article (which covers 7 different characters named Bonecrusher). Since the 6th had no picture, I used one sent out by Hasbto to promote it's sale. Is this okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonecrusher_%28Transformers%29#Transformers:_Universe_.28Deluxe.29 I think i tagged everything properly.Mathewignash (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They all look like they're done correctly to me, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. Jecowa (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing personal attacks from User:MichaelQSchmidt

I suspect this is a sock puppet account of User:L.L.King and he -like L.L.King and all the socks before him- has gone on page long tirades against me and my assault on the integrity of Wikipedia. He left a wall of text over at User talk:Alison about my abuse of protocols and followed that up at User talk:BQZip01 with a tear calling me a liar and a fool. He's left lengthy essays on both WP:IFD and his talk page (since deleted) again calling me abusive and downright evil. I don't think Alison has checked her talk page (she was the blocking admin for L.L.King), so I thought I would bring this request here. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only just getting started here for the day. Initial glance shows that it's a bit more complex than simple sock vandalism, and that there may be BLP issues involved, too. Feel free to weigh in on my talk page, anyone ... - Alison ^❤ 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:HPJoker

I noticed that he was given rollback, but just a few months ago I found thisWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/HPJoker, which tells me he doesn't deserve the tool. Also all his rollbacks so far is reverting new users edits in the Wikipedia:Sandbox of all pages. Taking here for consensus. Secret ^account 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse the removal of his rollback tools.--Phoenix-wiki 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? If he abuses it, remove it. No need for drama.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he is only reverting new users on the sandbox on a costant basis, which is WP:BITE Secret ^account 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why rollback sucks, here we are wasting time - go tell him not to do that. Ask him nicely, don't bring this useless drama here.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had already asked the user to stop doing that and he replied "I know. I'm just bored.", but obviously chose to keep doing it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If he's continued to abuse the tool, then simply remove it. No fuss no paperwork.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:BernardL

Clear violations of WP:NPA here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#Monthly_Review and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#The_Atlantic_Monthly

Jtrainor (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks. They're not even close to them. He's stating policy. You also have not sought to bring up the issue with the user in question, which you should do before bringing something to the noticeboard (although that's something of a moot point here, since nothing occurred). Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that BernardL has modified his remarks substantially (diff) presumably between the time that Jtrainor posted this report and when Tijuana Brass read the comments. Comments like "...your half-baked pseudo-legal finaggling", "Why do you bother us with these obvious irrelevancies?", and "Can your imbecility go much deeper than it already is?" were made after Jtrainor posted a reminder link ([65]) to WP:NPA on the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's give BernardL the benefit of the doubt and guess that he made those changes after realizing that he made a mistake. If it happens again, take it up with him first, then escalate it to the etiquette noticeboard if it continues. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I kinda know Bernard from some interactions on the article in question (where I generally agree with him in terms of the debates there) and think the "your imbecility" comment in particular is highly, highly unacceptable. It's good that the comment was apparently refactored by Bernard (I did not check the history but assume this was the case), however a stern admin warning seems warranted. Having said that, the article in question is (and has been for a long time) a heated one in terms of talk page interactions so the comments are not at all beyond the pale in terms of the tone over there (unfortunately). Bernard's comments at the article, as far as I've seen and remember, have generally been well thought out and civil so I would view the "imbecility" comment as cause for a strong slap on the wrist and little more at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration evidence tampering

86.20.179.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has altered my evidence statement at an arbitration case with a misleading edit summary. The IP changed my words to make it appear that I was accusing Odd nature of being a sockpuppet of FeloniousMonk, yet called the edit a grammar fix.[66] I reverted immediately and consider that an especially pernicious attack. Please block, and if a checkuser is available that would be good too. Maybe FeloniousMonk would have some ideas about who did this. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just gave the IP a warning.[67] TableManners^U·T·C 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The only edits by this ip were those as notified above. I suggest if this, or another in the same range, return and make similar amendments then we can consider a block. Again, only if these incidents of vandalism are repeated should checkuser be requested. Further, wouldn't checkuser need to have a name for a suspected account - and valid reasons for believing they are socking - to be accepted? You may wish to weigh the consequences of making such a request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TableManners, your "warning," " Please stop introducing jokes into articles" is way off the mark; the person impersonated a trusted member of the community on an arbcom evidence page to attack another, not "introducing jokes into articles." That in itself is a blockable offense. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message at FeloniousMonk's user talk. The odds of this being a new user are really low. I just don't know who the sockmaster would be, but I think we should have a very low tolerance for this particular kind of dirty trick. Suppose someone else had edited that page before I checked my watchlist? This is arbitration evidence; I think a short leash should apply. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova: have you notified the arb clerk on that case? I'd suggest posting this also on the case page it occurred on. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked for one month. "First offense" etc clearly does not apply to an editor impersonating one editor in order to attack, harass, or accuse another on an ArbCom evidence page. Anyone who knows enough to do that knows precisely what they are doing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tqbf (talk · contribs)

User:tqbf is Wikistalking and harassing me.

I filed a 3RR [68]

Contacted 3RR admn. [69]

I warned user about harassment.[70]

My talk page[71]

My talk page2[72]

My talk page3[73]

My talk page 4[74]

We are constantly bumping heads on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 talk page. I try to keep to the issues and not address him but I just want to be left alone. Especially on my talk page.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say about this, other than that:

• I stand by this edit, and
• I'm really sorry you guys have to take your time with this.

I'm over 3RR on the relevant page, and trust that other editors will revert inappropriate changes until Monday. --- tqbf 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed User:Duchamps comb's 3RR report and found it deficient. I tried to explain to him how to do it properly, but he was not able to. The user then asked me if I felt that this was trolling by others. I told him that I didn't think so, and that his own edit here is uncivil. I tried my best to explain to him that reverting and forcing his views on others is counterproductive, and that he would get much better results from finding good sources and collaborating. He simply removed my message from his talk page. Crum375 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Duchamps_comb, most of the relevant details have been provided above. My edit that Crum375 provides above makes my perspective clear (I acknowledge that this complaint would have been more effective on WP:WQA or an administrative board, but I wasn't sure whether my exasperation at attempting to edit this page was shared by others--and my exasperation was great at that particular instant). Often we have clashed because Duchamps_comb writes in a very idiosyncratic English and is resistant to attempts to remove text that (in my opinion and often others') is unsalvageable because of the construction or the sources or the use of quotes. The real problem, however: Duchamps_comb makes plenty of edits and reversions but does not/cannot engage in the necessary backstage talk in an appropriate manner. Even now on Talk:Ron Paul he is currently misrepresenting the views of editors on whether to keep a particular section in the article; whether intentionally or otherwise, I do not know. I don't really have much else to add other than to say that no other editor working on the article, whether pro-Paul or not, behaves in this way. I've never really gotten involved in this part of Wikipedia before, so perhaps this isn't how things work, but it would be nice if an admin without any investment in this debate took an interest in DC and perhaps made an attempt to mentor him. (For instance, if he heard that canvassing is inappropriate from someone other than tqbf or HelloAnnyong, he might be more inclined to listen.)--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect war at Gustav Horn, Count of Pori

User:Jonathan and User:213.67.64.22 are editing the pages Gustav Horn af Björneborg and Gustav Horn, Count of Pori, reverting each other, anon doing cut-and-paste move, and sometimes ending up with the two pages just redirecting to each other. There may (or may not) be consensus on the talk page to change the name from Gustav Horn, Count of Pori which I believe it was up until today, to Gustav Horn af Björneborg, but they're not doing it properly and perhaps Jonathan opposes the rename. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind -- please ignore this report. Sorry. I think I misconstrued Jonathan's role in this. Apparently User:213.67.64.22 wants to rename the page and has consensus on talk, and User:Jonathan may have been just trying to fix things, as I was also doing. I'll try to get clarification from Jonathan as to his position about the move, and if he agrees then I'll put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to fix the cut-and-paste move. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blocking IP?

I noticed that almost all the edits made from the ip 64.24.88.6 are vandalizations, and in some cases also racist comments. check the history of the IP to see. most of these edits were reverted, but still, I think something should be done. thanks Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Two edits in the last month - not nearly enough for a block. That IP is registered to PaeTec Communications Inc. so I think it's shared, so a block could cause collateral damage. Hut 8.5 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BigHaz

He violated the blocking policy (he blocked an IP address indefinitely, and the blocking policy clearly states that you cannot do that). He keeps telling a user that they do not understand the policies, but I think he is the one not understanding. Indefinite IP blocks are not allowed. Could you please check this out. 124.180.63.58 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC) BigHaz notified. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinate IP blocks are discouraged, but not expressly prevented. There can be cases where such moves are justified. COuld you provide us with the specific IP address so that we all can judge for ourselves the specifics of this situation? Without any evidence to go on, we cannot decide if BigHaz did anything wrong... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

121.219.34.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Note also the comment by BigHaz in the block log. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the block to 1 year. The IP had less than 50 edits, not enough justification in my mind for a "forever" block, but in deference to BigHaz, and he seems to know more about this case than I, he is probably justified in a long-term block. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I should probably explain what's going on here. The user complaining about me has - under a series of different usernames and IP addresses (yes, I can provide all or most of these if anyone wants) - spent most of the past year wilfully misunderstanding policies and generally proving a disruptive influence. He initially contacted me asking if I could lift a block on a school-based IP which had been done for vandalism. I told him that I wouldn't (I didn't enact the ban and the vandalism was pretty blatant) and, for several months, he argued with me and claimed that I was unreasonable, despite the fact that he was perfectly capable of creating an account and using it.
• During our long interaction, I noticed that he was vandalising a number of articles and at least one AfD. I began by reverting this vandalism and warning him about it, which did not seem to result in a change in his behaviour. Rather, he created accounts specifically to vandalise and move pages, for which I eventually blocked him for a short time. On his return, he began the same behaviours once again, including creating accounts designed to insult me. I was prepared to block him for a longer time than before (I think I gave him a 6-month or 12-month ban, can't remember), but another admin in fact extended that to an indefinite one, something I don't dispute at all.
• The user has, since that time, continued to create accounts and use his (apparently dynamic) IP addresses either to harrass me, vandalise various places (most recently threatening to kill people at a DRV discussion) or both. The reference to my repeatedly telling him that he doesn't understand the policies is because he has shown that he does not believe that the indefinite block applies to him personally, but seems to think that if he creates an account every couple of weeks - and tells me about it, which is baffling - people will eventually give up. Again, all the relevant diffs and so forth can be provided here if need be, but I'm heading off shortly so I can't do it right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the IP address is dynamic, then there is a decent chance that sometime in the future, another person may attempt to use it to edit. Forever is a long time... If this same IP starts the same behavior in 1 year, then it will be a quick block. Indeed, playing whack-a-mole may be pointless. It sucks, it really does, but maybe a rangeblock may be better than the whack-a-mole method. If the user is editing from a truly random set of IPs, then I am not sure that ANY blocks will end up solving this problem at all... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with that as a solution, as I said on my Talk page earlier today (my time). My theory was that blocking the existing IP until collateral damage came to pass was an equally valid solution, since it still sends the same unequivocal message to the long-term vandal, but a long enough finite block makes just as much sense to me. Bags I not waiting by the rabbit hole in a year if at all possible, though, since I'm sick to death of having to explain to this kid that the rules continue to apply to him and that vandalism is still vandalism, even when separated by a month or so of inactivity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Co-operation and communication on Wikipedia

See also: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Viewing and editing Wikipedia while running scripts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle#Viewing and editing Wikipedia while running scripts, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Viewing and editing Wikipedia while running scripts

Posting down here in the hope that someone will notice it. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Update, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Communication breakdown?. I've made one final effort to get in touch with Maxim. See here. The work I've been doing this weekend and this evening can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and my image namespace contributions. From the 2400 images left in that category at the beginning of Sunday (there were originally 11,000 when the category was populated), I scanned through them visually (where possible during the ongoing deletions - at one stage the script-assisted backlog clearers overtook me in the middle of a category) and I came up with that list of about 257 images. Some of those are clearcut cases for fixing (some are even public domain pictures that had been wrongly labelled), though some are only used in articles that should probably go to WP:AfD. Maxim has been churning through the category clearing the backlog (which is a valuable role, and while watching all this, I've noticed lots of helpful improvements he and others have made to the process), and I'm happy now to work on those images for the next few days (undeleting where necessary), but I'm still unhappy with how things developed here. My questions are:

• (1) What is the right thing to do when you are having difficulty communicating with someone who is editing but not responding to talk page messages? Is it possible that he can't see talk page messages while the script is running?
• (2) What can people at ANI do about it? Is there anywhere to go to address this sort of behaviour? I'd much prefer it if Maxim joined the discussion, and something got sorted out, but failing that, what can I do?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest these users stop deleting images at ridiculously high speeds, and do something more productive. There'll always be something to delete, and I'm concerned at the obsession with the delete delete delete attitude. Something I read once: those who can, write. Those who can't, delete. Majorly (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it fair to characterize those handling this backlog as not writing. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Maxim does a lot of excellent work, both in writing and admin work. He says he checks the images before setting the script running, and I believe him. It is his lack of response that concerns me here, plus the still unexplained early start on image deletion backlog clearing after an agreed upon time and date. I will be the first to admit that there are (and will be, over the next few months) very large image deletion backlogs to clear. All I'm asking for is that those doing the clearing communicate a bit more (well, a lot more, really). User:East718 (who also does this type of backlog clearing) found the time to communicate in the earlier threads. This is in stark contrast to Maxim's absence except for a brief edit to the category instructions. I'm still hoping that Maxim will be able to explain his lack of response, but each time he fails to respond, my hopes dwindle. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A basic requirement of any editor, especially an admin, is the ability to communicate effectively. If this is not done, all sort of problems occur, as we see here. Majorly (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In his defense he has not edited sense this thread was started, give him some time to respond. Tiptoety ^talk 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor any of the other threads Carcharoth started? Majorly (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Point well made. Tiptoety ^talk 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And another point is that the timing of the contributions log don't tell the full story. You need to look at the timing of his logs as well (in this case the deletion log). Those logs show activity even when his contributions log stops. I'm hoping that he isn't running unsupervised scripts. It is important that editors and admins can see and respond to talk page messages even while they are running scripts. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh.....dear........yea.......someone might want to send him an email. Tiptoety ^talk 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaw, I hate to see this in a productive editor whom I respect, but the circumstances don't look great. I hope he answers some queries soon... - Philippe | Talk 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Email sent, lets hope we hear a response. Tiptoety ^talk 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to put in my two cents. First off i agree with marjorly in the fact that as a administrator it is very important to maintain strong communication with all editors on the project, vandals or not especially if they are at a conflict with another user standing in good faith. I also think it is overall frowned upon to say you are going to do one thing, and do the other, such as stating that you will allow a user to scan through image deletion candidates and not delete them, and turn around and delete them. But I know that Maxim is meaning to do no harm, and i think we should all assume good faith and allow him adequate time to form a rebuttle for his questionable actions, we all make mistakes and must be held accountable for them, but we must also treat them as a learning experience and move on. If Maxim continues to not respond, then we have a much larger problem. Tiptoety ^talk 04:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't mind waiting. I'll carry on fixing images in the meantime. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An update. A complaint landed on Maxim's talk page. I think I've dealt with it. It happened to be about one of the images I had on my cleanup list, so I undeleted. The unfortunate thing is that the image had already been fixed, but it seems that Maxim's script failed to detect this (the image rationale was added after the script started running at 00:20, and before the script finished at 02:24). But luckily no harm done in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If deletions resume and there's still no attention paid to talk page messages or email asking the deleter to throttle it down or stop, a judiciously short block (say, 10 minutes) may be necessary - this doesnt just apply to this case, but in general. Presuming the user isn't using an unauthorised deletion bot, that would make them stop and take notice, at least. This assumes admins cannot delete content whilst blocked - or can they? Neıl ☎ 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They can't. One would hope that if a deletion bot were being used, it would grind to a halt if blocked, rather than picking up again with no further human intervention after the block expires. —Random832 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be what Maxim calls a "very high-speed script". See here. To reiterate myself, I have no problem with that per se, as long as Maxim can respond while it is running. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely deletions will resume until the 15 January backlog needs clearing. It is possible people will try and clear (ie. delete) that backlog on the day they think they can (which is 7 days later - after 22 January - ie. 23:59 tomorrow), but hopefully people will notice the big notice placed on the page asking people to hold off until 3rd February. The periodic upsurge in backlogs due to Betacommandbot tagging can be seen at this tracker. The backlog for 15 January has changed from 1838 when it was initially populated, and is now at 1561. It is unclear whether the decrease is due to image deletions or image fixings (ie. adding and fixing of rationales) - probably the latter. The next big backlog after that is the 21 January category, which currently stands at 4109 images, though judging by the current activity at Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot, that figure will be larger by the end of the day. Note that I'm not worried about the mass tagging - that was expected and has been planned for some time. It is the sporadic communication, or lack of communication, between those doing the tagging, those doing the fixing and those doing the clearing of the image deletion backlogs. This needs to be addressed now, before the next deadline rolls around. I've unilaterally put a 3rd February deadline on the 15 January backlog of 1561 pictures. I think that is a reasonable extension of the normal 7-day deadline, and I would hope anyone objecting to that would actually come here and discuss that. I was considering putting a similar notice on the 21 January backlog, but don't want to do that until some of the people that take on the task of clearing those backlogs show up here. The trouble is that if you talk with one, sometimes another editor starts clearing the backlog, or even (as yesterday) an IP tries to disrupt things. I think a reasonable date for clearing a particular backlog is seven days after the next batch of Betacommandbot tagging. Betacommand seems to be (so far) doing runs about a week apart, of a few thousand. This should work out OK, as long as those clearing and fixing the backlogs agree to well-advertised extended deadlines and stick to them, with the proviso that undeletion of individual images after deletion is always possible if requested. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention. I don't think any blocks will be needed. Just more communication. Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - the short block should only be considered if there was no response whatsoever and deletions weren't stopping. Neıl ☎ 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, TWINKLE now has a "delete pages found in this category" function so he may be clicking that and walking away. That would be fast but not a deletion bot. I left another message on his Talk page for whatever it's worth. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does TWINKLE grab a list and then start deleting, or does it run in real-time? One of the cases here involved a page being removed from the category during the run, but still being deleted. Which is not surprising when the run takes just over two hours. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question, don't know the answer. I am afraid of that button. But from what you've said, I'm betting the script parses the list of images and then starts deleting them at a controlled rate. So if you removed the image from the category while it was running, it would still delete the image. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Maxim has not replied to my email. Tiptoety ^talk 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently he can't view wikipedia or edit when running the script.--Phoenix-wiki 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then he needs to not be running the script. I think a block sounds like a good idea. Tiptoety ^talk 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I brought this issue up, and I don't think a block is needed (prevention, remember, and nothing to prevent here). Maxim has finished using the script for the deletions relating to the last backlog. He doesn't appear to be running any script or editing at the moment, so no action is needed at the moment. I'm not sure where Phoenix-wiki's information is coming from - what is needed is a response from Maxim. If it is true that he can't view Wikipedia or edit while running the script, then he needs to find a way to get around that before he runs the script again. He could set up an alternate account to run the script under. Since the script requires admin tools (deletion) that could be tricky. Alternatively, he could put a notice on his user page telling people to leave messages on another account, or to e-mail him. Ultimately, though, if he can't get round this, then he would need to stop, which I don't actually want to see happen - I want to work with Maxim, East718, Betacommand and all the rest to help clear the backlog and save some images where possible. A wider question though is whether this inability to view or edit Wikipedia while running scripts (if such an inability exists) is widespread, and if so, whether it is a problem with the computer set-up or the script or something else (I think some other admins use deletion scripts - such as Misza13 and east718). I will ask at the Village Pump (technical section) and at TWINKLE and BAG. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Script-blindness", as you call it, doesn't happen to me. However, Maxim's expressed to me before that he uses a very old computer so it's always a possibility that TW might eat up all of its resources, especially if he has the "orphan instances" option enabled. Misza13 shouldn't really be included here as all he uses is a deletion bot that runs every six hours. east.718 at 22:42, January 21, 2008

Well, Maxim has returned my email. Because it is private i will not disclose the contents of of it, but he is aware of this thread, which means he is able to view wikipedia. It just looks like he is un-willing to discuss this issue. If Carcharoth would like the email i am willing to send it to him. Tiptoety ^talk 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

After further conversation i do not see a need for a block. Tiptoety ^talk 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be happier if Maxim did say something here, however brief, but if he doesn't want to that is his choice. He is welcome to e-mail me as well, if there is a need to clear the air, so to speak. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, east718. If Maxim can confirm that this is why he didn't see (or missed) my messages, then we may be done here as far as I'm concerned. I know a combination of a slowly-running computer, difficult connections (I was having problems connecting to Wikipedia at some points in that day) and several messages after mine (haven't looked and can't be bothered now) can all make it easy to miss messages, though I did leave several that day and others have since. Maxim did seem to be aware of the category changes that took place at some point that day (he edited the category page), but that may be unrelated. I'll try and remember to use e-mail next time (I've never used IRC - though I suppose I could ask someone else to go on IRC if Maxim uses that). I'll leave it up to others to sort out how to address these concerns for next time Maxim uses the script. The wider communication issues should still be addressed as well, and I'd really appreciate it if Maxim could drop me a note on his talk page or mine, as I'd like to move on from this as much as he probably does. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, next time try email, as it worked this time around. Maxim has stated that he is leaving you [Carcharoth] an email, and will be leaving a explanation here shortly. Tiptoety ^talk 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with Maxim below) Well, I just checked my e-mail, and there is something there from 22:29 that is unsigned and is from the generic wiki(AT)wikimedia.org e-mail address (is that normal?), and seems to be referring to this thread. What should I do with that? Maxim has e-mailed me in the past, so I'll wait to hear from him. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Users wished for me to post here, I might as well do so. I had thought the fact that I respected consensus on this matter would be sufficiently shown through my actions, obviously it hasn't. Unlike some users who edit from anywhere, including work, I don't, and I have other business to attend to during the day. So I return home, and I see this nice lynching party gathered. So, here's the explanation you've been looking for.

Me and Carcharoth had apparently made an agreement on the issue of deleting images. We misunderstood the time, and I deleted about 1,000 images too early. I consider this a very unfortunate incident. I had considered that my actions would have spoken from themselves, so I didn't comment at this forum.

Last night comes along, and I was ready to delete per the new agreement. I cleared up the images that should have been kept, and I started my script. This script limits heavily my browser's ability to connect to Wikipedia, yet other crappy browsers still work, yet crash constantly. Since I can't do anything basically, which includes viewing my talkpage, I go do something else. That's why I didn't get the messages. And when I saw them, it was much too late to respond to them, and even if I had attempted, I did not feel I could respond to this well.

Since I do something other than this site, I first logged in and I see this nice party. Users making absolutely ridiculous remarks; it should be noted I actually write quite a bit of content, which balances in with my deletions. Also, what good will blocking me do, 9 hours after my script's stopped. In fact, I was sleeping at that time, and there would be no purpose to that block expect to cause more of that reviled drama. Also, about the fixed image... Twinkle read the category, then started to delete everything that was at that moment in the category. So it has no way of telling whether a concern has been fixed. This is the first time something like this happened, and it's quite unfortunate.

I feel that this is a big fuss over a little miscommunication. If users wish to ask me other questions, requests clarfication, etc., I'm quite open to that; above are simply my initial replies and thoughts on this matter.

Maxim_(talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, I'm happy to move on from this, but I'd like to point out that I have actually supported your work and defended you in these threads (including pointing out your writing contributions - as anyone can see from your user page, and immediately opposing Tiptoety's mention of a block). I've also answered some queries people had left at your talk page. I don't appreciate comparisons to a lynching party. If you could make clear that some of your comments above are directed at other people, and not me, that would be appreciated. And please, since communication has been a big issue here, don't send me e-mails from "wiki(AT)wikimedia.org" and (the first one) with no signature. I have no way of knowing who has sent those e-mails. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not directly accusing you of this, I feel that some other user's behaviour here has been less than appropriate in relation to such a simple matter of miscommunication. Maxim_(talk) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, actually. I was a bit surprised when some people seemed to misunderstand what I was saying (I thought I had explained things clearly). I tried to correct some of the misunderstandings (eg. the focus on speed of deletions), but I will try and think twice before going to ANI over something like this. Hopefully when the next backlog deadline comes round, we can all communicate a bit better. As I've said on my talk page, I'm happy to help you clear out the last few remnants of that category if you like. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not referring to me, and if you are that was not my intention and i apologize. Tiptoety ^talk 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The first respondant, actually, who almost turned this into a rant about deletionists, but let's not get into that here. Striking out the e-mail bits above, as that was an (embarassing) misundertanding on my part, which Tiptoety has kindly explained to me. Will close the me-Maxim bits of this thread, now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Partly resolved (do we have a template for this?) - the issues between me and Maxim are sorted now (and I'd like to apologise to him for what must have been an unpleasant surprise when he saw this thread). I'm asking for this to be left open for now, though, as I directed some questions this way, and there are wider issues that may need discussing. Please don't discuss here though, unless it is directly relevant to ANI, and keep things general - no need to discuss specific editors any more. I'll try and link out to and start those general discussions elsewhere, but for now the village pump (technical) and BAG and TWINKLE are best. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - see links at top for the general discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)