Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive422

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Spam problem 2 Rosencomet, canvassing and COI 2.1 Arbitrary break after really long posts 2.2 Recommended actions 2.2.1 Support block 2.3 Rosencomet's multiple requests to "document the truth." 2.4 Summation 2.0 2.4.1 Complete lack of evidence 2.5 User:70.243.80.195 is a User:Ekajati sockpuppet 2.6 Question 3 User:Andreasegde 4 User promotes degree mill 5 Threat of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. by Bigwolfx 6 Disruptive editors 7 User:Beamathan 8 201.224.142.1 9 User:Eurovisionman 10 User:LavendarLover 11 WikiStalking and Ender78 (talk · contribs) 12 Shapiros10 - request to unblock 13 User:Lestrade 14 Please delete a revision 15 70.131.137.128 16 SqueakBox removing RfC template 17 Protection 18 Celine Dion 19 Wikipedia hoax in the New York Times 20 Blocked user updating his user pages from IPs 21 STBotI 21.1 Blocked again 21.2 Incorrect deletion tag 21.3 Dejavu 21.4 Civility issue 21.5 Communication 21.6 Reblock the bot 21.7 The real problem - unclear error messages 21.8 Unblocked again 21.9 Too much time addressing the symptoms 21.10 Blocked yet again 22 User:Kooky World Guy 23 User:Rom rulz424 24 User: Yoshi525 25 Wikipage wants to download? 26 How can I contact thru E-Mail 27 User:TeutonicRyte 28 Grawp and Hagger 29 Vladimir Putin, editors Muscovite99 and Kulikovsky 30 User:Borusmat‎ 31 Ma Ying-jeou 32 SB/Incivility

[edit] Spam problem

See the comment I wrote on his userpage. he told me to tell it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gatoclass#Spam_multi-level_pyramid_found.2C_but_need_more_help Sentriclecub (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post the spamming related accounts, diffs, all the domains on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Health_problems --Hu12 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

reposted from archive to bottom of page because still unresolved: Pigman☿ 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Wikipedia editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.[1][2]

Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Wikipedia editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be [*OUTING INFO REMOVED - NO OUTING PLEASE *] (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) [ * OUTING INFO REMOVED *] "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE[3] and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

Please note also that [*OUTING INFO REMOVED *]/Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.[4][5]

AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing [6] to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:

From: Jeff (SURNAME REDACTED) (mailto:REDACTED)

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM

Subject: Wikipedia Cabal Alert

Dear Folks,

You are all people I have approached about helping me preserve the articles on Wikipedia related to individuals and subjects important to our community. If anyone receiving this has not logged in to Wikipedia as an editor, please do so. It's really easy, and you become one right away. But please, use a nickname rather than your own name, like almost everyone else does. Believe me, there are some people who take this stuff way to seriously, and will hassle you about your activities; plus, no one can challenge you on Point of View or Conflict of Interest issues if you remain anonymous.

If you have already become an editor, I urge you to edit...anything! Even correcting typos or grammar here and there will establish you as an editor; if you don't, when you vote on something they'll put a flag next to your name that says "this editor has provided few or no edits besides this issue", which is a way of saying that you're not really an editor, but probably just a sock-puppet (fake additional account) for some editor who wants to pad the votes. We are not doing that; you are real people, not dummy accounts.

There are two articles nominated for deletion that I'd appreciate help on. First, go to their articles, click on the words "this article's entry" in the box at the top explaining that it has been nominated for deletion. That will take you to the deletion nomination page for that article. Please register a vote to keep; to do that, you must hit "edit this page" at the top, then click your cursor right below the last person's entry and add Keep - This subject is notable enough. Keep should have three apostrophes before and after it. You can word the last part any way you want, or expand on it and say why you think so, although someone may argue with your reasoning if you do, and you may not want to keep checking back and responding. After your entry, remember to print four tildas like this (EXAMPLE REDACTED), which will add your Wiki name and entry date to the vote. If you have the time and interest, you can actually try to improve the article with new citations and data, but this stuff happens fast so first register your vote RIGHT AWAY.

The articles nominated for deletion are Dennis Chernin and Nicki Scully. Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions. Also, there are a couple of editors who have a problem with articles either written by me or associated with Starwood, and others who have issues with Pagans, hippies, New Agers, or whatever they perceive these folks to be, and even three people working together is a lot on Wikipedia.

Other articles tagged as having questionable notability include Philip Carr-Gomm, Richard Kaczynski, Skip Ellison, Morwyn, Vivianne Crowley, and Chas S. Clifton. Most were tagged by the same person who nominated the other two. He also tagged Nevill Drury (if you can believe it), but retracted it for now. He succeeded in deleting the articles of Phil Farber (author of Futureritual), Pamela Ball (author of over fifteen books on New Age and magical subjects), and Halley DeVestern (who sang with Big Brother & the Holding Company the year they did Starwood). He and his little group successfully deleted the following as well: WinterStar Symposium, Jeff Rosenbaum, Victoria Ganger, and Taylor Ellwood, and tried unsuccessfully to delete Sally Morningstar and Matthew Abelson. They've also been deleting mentions of Starwood and WinterStar wherever they find them using one excuse or another.

Please feel free to contact me about any of this, either by phone: cell - (REDACTED), off - (REDACTED), or e-mail me either here or at (REDACTED).

Thanks for your interest. I will continue my efforts to keep articles about prominent members of our community present, up-to-date, and free of slander on Wikipedia, and monitor subjects like "witch" and "psychedelic experience" for misrepresentation. Thank you for any help you can give me.

Ad Astra, Jeff

This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Wikipedia, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Wikipedia practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Wikipedia:canvassing. It says: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Wikipedia editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said "Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions." This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Wikipedia, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Wikipedia. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Wikipedia. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the "Ekajati sockdrawer" (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets [7] don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Wikipedia. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [8]

I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it's an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration [9]. I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Wikipedia. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive. -- Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break after really long posts

It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here...oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Wikipedia," or to discuss Wikipedia issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Wikipedia, please see [10]], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. -- Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

* Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep...lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. -- SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no joke. Copyright vests to the authors of the email, which was sent privately to private individuals. The author of the email has noted above that he has not given permission for its reproduction. The fact that another individual violated the copyright and sent the email w/o permission to several mailing lists does not mean that the email can now be freely reproduced w/o permission from its author. I thought Wikipedia admins were much more savvy about copyright than to violate and then joke about it like this. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After viewing the input of editors so far, I feel that enough have expressed their opinions that what I did was a violation of the policies against canvassing. I must apologize for having done so. I can only say that I did not read it that way, and was unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case (though I've got to say that comparing that case to what I did is like comparing a war to an argument). I truly meant to encourage friends of mine that had expressed an interest in my stories about my work in Wikipedia (of which I am proud, despite my stumblings) to get involved and help improve and support articles about people and subjects important to the communities we share. I see that the way I went about it, and particularly my specific mention of articles nominated for deletion that I hoped would be kept (even though I specifically told the folks I contacted to review them and vote according to their own judgement), evidently crossed the line. Both articles have been deleted; ironically, Nicki Scully probably would have survived if not for my blundering.

I am contacting each person I sent my e-mail to and asking them to ignore it, telling them that what I did turned out to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that there is a case against me for having sent it out. I accept that I owe the Wikipedia community an apology, and offer one sincerely. I can only say that I felt that an undue number of articles I had created, mostly NOT related to my personal activities, were being tagged and/or nominated for deletion on notability issues, including several I thought were extremely notable, and I thought this was once again a campaign by an editor with a history of conflict with me to attack articles not because they were actually non-notable, but because I had written them. In the past, I have tried to ask arbitrators for help in such cases, and either gotten no response or, in some cases, been told that my editing was acceptable, but the editor(s) in question simply ignored the arbitrators. When I tried to get help from other editors, I was accused of canvassing. For the sake of fairness to the subjects of the articles, I had hoped that more eyes on the issue would be a help, and I have always wanted more involvement in Wikipedia by people from the communities these subjects are important to, so I thought sending out this e-mail was a good thing all around. However, I accept that my actions were improper, and I can only apologize, retract my e-mail from those I sent it to, and promise never to do it again.

Over the past many months, I have written many articles about individuals who are unrelated to the events I work on. I have created little or no new links to the ACE or Starwood pages, and no external links, though I have vigorously discussed the merits of deletions of existing mentions and wiki links on several talk pages and deletion nomination pages. In a very few cases, like Firesign Theatre, I followed up such a talk-page discussion with a revert of a deletion, but not more than one revert. An examination of my work since the arbitration last year will show that aside from talk pages and deletion pages, the vast majority of my work has been to either add to and improve articles (especially ones tagged or nominated) or to write new ones unconnected with my personal work. I can supply records of this if asked (and given time).

I can only hope that I will be allowed to continue to edit here. I truly believe I have been an asset to Wikipedia in the fields of my interests, and occasionally elsewhere. I have spent hundreds of hours just adding to bibliographies and discographies, finding citations and references, expanding and wikifying text, turning in-text notes and links into proper references, and other just plain work. I have never visited the articles of those I've had conflicts with and tagged them or treated them the way I saw myself treated; and I realize that articles don't belong to anyone, but I'm just saying that when I have had a problem it has been reactive, not proactive. I am not here to cause trouble or vandalize or disrupt, just to write and improve articles. With very few exceptions, I think my editing has improved a great deal over the last year. I sincerely hope I can continue to contribute, and I will seek to get a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits, and I will refrain from ever violating canvassing policies either on or off Wikipedia. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended actions

By my reckoning, no one has defended User:Rosencomet's actions, four editors have clearly recommended a block, one editor has less clearly stated what Rosencomet did was "a textbook example of canvassing" without specifics of action and one edtitor's opinion seems unclear on actions to take. While Rosencomet's apology above is a consideration, I also note that here, Davidkevin says that Rosencomet's letter was posted to 4 Yahoo groups. This genie doesn't go back in the bottle that easily. This is not an isolated event and his actions over the past two years have generated a number of RfCs, mediations and an Arbcom case. My recommendation is a minimum three month block and if I had my druthers it would be for much longer or permanent. -- Pigman☿ 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the arbcom case? -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The evidence page is here. The main page is here. I'll save you the trouble of going through this rather lengthy and convoluted case and say the proposed remedy in relation to Rosencomet was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." -- Pigman☿ 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's probably worth mentioning that I was the one who brought the case to Arbcom in the first place although you can see that many other people participated. Please also make a note of the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati to be clear who was defending Rosencomet's actions in this case. -- Pigman☿ 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I only sent the e-mail to a few friends. Only a half dozen received it, and none have expressed an intention of becoming editors. Unfortunately, one of my friends didn't understand that it was not meant for the general public, and HE forwarded it to the yahoo groups without my consent (and he has apologized), where Davidkevin read it. I have sent an e-mail to the people I originally contacted saying that my e-mail had violated wikipedia canvassing policies, and that I had apologized on wikipedia, and urging them to ignore the first e-mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment having no one to advocate for me, I would repectfully point out that this case involves this e-mail and it's violation of wiki canvassing policies; at least, that's the only current evidence being considered. It has nothing to do with an Arbcom on activities that took place in 2006 during the first 4 months of my editing which doesn't mention canvassing once. Also, I had no knowledge of Ekajati's sockpuppets, nor were they the only editors in support of my position in the Arbcom or the two mediations that preceded it. Within days of my first edit, I found myself to be in the middle of a war between two people using an army of sockpuppets: Ekajati and Mattisse (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. I didn't even know what the word meant. If you read the decisions, you'll see that it also said:

"Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others.[11] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [12] [13] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.

Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

Pigman's right about one thing; it was a convoluted case decided at the end of March 2007 that covered activities starting from August 2006, and I don't think it can or should be re-tried via a snapshot now. I don't think this decision should be about everything I have ever done or been accused of doing since becoming an editor, or whether Ekajati or Mattisse had more sock-puppets, nor should that Arbcom be selectively re-hashed by the one who brought it as part of this case.

I made a serious error in sending this e-mail out. There is no question of that. But unless some objective analysis of my editing since then is conducted, I don't think the Arbcom should be mixed in here. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has always been borderline tendentious and tending to promote your own interests, so that at least has not changed. -- Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I mediated (for a while) the case that wound up at the ArbCom case.

I think a block would be, at this point, needlessly punitive. Pigman is right -- the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Blocking Rosencomet, for any length of time, is not going to undo the damage, both realized and potential, in this incident. But it's also not going to teach Rosencomet anything that he isn't already being told by a flood of editors -- myself included -- in varying degrees of detail and empathy. And since the incident in question is one that is off-wiki in nature, a block inherently cannot be seen as preventative.

An indefblock, as suggested by Pigman above, I think is grossly inappropriate, since Rosencomet does seem to actually want to do better. Does he fall (far) short of the mark at least some of the time? Obviously, as this incident evidences, yes. But his apparent desire to be a positive Wikipedian, no matter how misplaced his efforts, makes an indefblock inappropriate.

That renders any block levied at this point in the process, after the incident is by and large over, purely punitive. And I would like to remind all involved here that we don't do that here and we shouldn't do that here.

Here are my suggested constructive solutions which would both be in keeping with policy and would help Rosencomet grow as an editor:

1. topic ban, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.
2. mandatory mentorship, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.

I suggest specifically that these two be simultaneous.

I, of course, welcome comments on this proposal. -- Revolving Bugbear 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I need to make it clear (and I apologize for not having made it clear already) that I am only a member of two of the four YahooGroups to which the letter was posted, and that in the two in which I saw the letter it was in fact Oberon Zell-Ravenheart who re-posted it, not Rosencomet himself. It very well may be as Rosencomet says, that it was Oberon's idea to do the reposting, not Rosencomet's -- I've known Oberon personally for 36 years and he is both a man of immense good will and also occasionally a man of impulse. I have no doubt that he thought he was doing a good turn.

Even if it was originally addressed to specific individuals and not intended for group publication, however, the letter as it is written, seen out of the context of being part of a chain of correspondence, still thoroughly appears to be an attempt to "ballot-stuff" in an edit dispute, and inappropriate by the rules under which we all are supposed to work as Wiki-editors.

Having occasionally corresponded with him, and seen some of his interactions with other editors, I don't think Rosencomet had evil intent. It appears to have been a "doofus" kind of action, something of which I don't doubt we all have been guilty at one time or another in one context or another -- Goddess knows I certainly have, both here in Wikipedia and in plenty of other places, too.

I agree that banning is merely punative and only grossly instructive at best. I think, with no intention of being patronizing, that mentorship is a much better solution for Rosencomet -- if I had had such, perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I did when I first took up here.

I don't think a topicblock is appropriate as there are subjects about which he is knowledgable, where he can greatly improve articles. Under active mentorship social errors such as this current situation can be avoided, and we all win.

I wish him nothing but well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to dropping to topic ban suggestion if there is agreement that Rosencomet can trim the things that have been getting him in trouble. My suggestion for a topic ban was more out of caution than anything else -- there are some people whose patience is running extremely thin, and it would be disastrous for a boneheaded but well-intentioned move to wrench an otherwise positive mentorship. But like I said, if it's not necessary, that is of course fine. - Revolving Bugbear 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Revolving Bugbear's 21:32, 16 May 2008 post above which I took far too long to write.)

With all due respect, Revolving Bugbear, I think you are wrong. Yes, a punitive block/action is never appropriate. We do not block punitively; blocks are only to protect the project, not to punish. However. I know I also weigh the editor's history (if any and if I can) leading up to any incident. This is not Rosencomet's first incident of canvassing (see [14] from Dec. 2007). I also have concrete evidence that he sent a different email to 30 recipients (in Dec 2007, IIRC), again canvassing off-wiki for support. I can quote from that email if requested to do so but my source has requested confidentiality.

Over the many months of my interactions with Rosencomet, I have consistently provided him with polite help, links to appropriate policies and guidelines, explained situations when he was unclear about WP process or protocols, etc. I briefly explained how to provide a statement in the request for arbitration, an arbitration case I myself brought against his actions, particularly reminding him to keep it under 500 words because I was aware of his tendency to write at length. While certainly not a mentor to him, I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges. While Rosencomet and I have often been in conflict and at odds over these months, I've always hoped he would eventually shed his ownership issues with articles and develop an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS as well as other policies.

Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here. To put it plainly: He doesn't play well with others. That is not a blockable offense. But serial violation of the same policy, particularly when blocked for it the first time, is. Pigman☿ 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pigman, you were not a mentor to him. That's what he needs -- focused, exclusive, intense guidance. With all due respect to you, and without calling your actions into question at all, you can't really expect to be instructive to someone when you are in conflict with them. Rosencomet has expressed to me that he feels that "no one is in his corner". That may be a situation of his own making, but he realizes that he needs to change the way he does things in order to be accepted and productive. That can be shown to him, but not, to take your example, by a party to an ArbCom case essentially filed against him.

What are you trying to accomplish pushing for this block? Whether or not you think he's any good at it, he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand, so this is definitely not an indefblockable offense. So what, exactly, will this block accomplish? There is no instructive or corrective merit to a block here. What good will it do, other than to satisfy a few users who are irritated? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. At best, I've just been courteous and occasionally helpful to Rosencomet; this is not, in any imaginable way, equal to mentorship. I can, however, take issue with "he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand." (my emphasis) I'd say he expresses a desire to improve right here, right now, on ANI, faced with a block. Is this a failure of WP:AGF on my part? Perhaps, but as I said above, I also look at his history and explanations in relation to the canvassing. He was brought up once here at ANI for doing it on-wiki. If that was the extent, I'd be more lenient. We now have two separate instances of canvassing off-wiki that we know of. Above in this thread, he tries to wikilawyer and split hairs about whether he was really canvassing. While the CAMERA incident isn't close in scale to his known canvassing violations, it is related.

As Guy mentioned above, Rosencomet has also been a tendentious editor during his 20+ months on WP. I believe this is related to the tactics he then uses (canvassing, for example.) I agree an indef block is extreme and not appropriate. My suggestion was three months because I see such canvassing as quite antithetical to consensus on WP. His record of policy violations on WP, which includes letting others use his account, has been remarkably consequence-free for him. When caught on one thing, he stops that thing but, lo and behold, he's caught on a different violation a few months later. This is my point: He games the system by playing at being the ignorant victim. What editor of 20 months and fairly extensive WP experience doesn't know such canvassing is a policy violation? After being warned once before, four months earlier? Pigman☿ 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction In December Rosencomet was warned three times about canvassing, and referred to the relevant policies: [15] [16] [17]. He then says "I have looked over the material about canvassing. ... I do not see this as canvassing, and I certainly don't see it as a "blockable offence".[18] Then once again he was reminded that he's been warned, and given the policy: "Wikipedia:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing. The relevant section is this: 'Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary.'"[19] - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment These are all about the same incident. You are making it look like this is a record of three incidents of canvassing, which is not the truth. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Pigman when he says that he has been civil and polite to me. On the contrary, I have felt that he has treated me as if he were a parole agent, constantly watching, watchlisting, and commenting on my every edit. He, Kathryn and Mattisse have gone on two sprees of tagging and deletion nominations in the last few months on articles I've written, once tagging about 35 in the space of a few days. I have NOT engaged in revert wars or contentious editing; in fact, I have reserved myself to the talk pages and deletion nomination pages, and asked for help from arbitrators. Over the past six months I have written almost entirely articles that are NOT related to Starwood or ACE, but because they are mostly associated with Pagan and Magical people and subjects, Pigman has treated my editing as if they WERE Starwood related. I have not inserted new Starwood mentions into articles, and in most cases I haven't even argued, as mentions from before the Arbcom have been stripped from article after article, even though they were IMO appropriate in several cases. I either discussed it on talk pages or provided citations to support their inclusion; and if they were still reverted, I did NOT reinsert them. It seems to me that my editing has approached the norm in wikipedia, except for the constant pressure Pigman, Mattisse and Kathryn insist on exerting.

My editing HAS changed drastically, but these three not only refuse to see any of it, including the dozens of new non-Starwood related articles, but they are trying here to re-try me for activities that have already been settled in the Arbcom that ended in March of 2007. This is like double jepardy; except they are selecting particular one-sided pieces of that case without anything from the other side, and acting like I'm editing the same as I did back then, with no defense for me. And they are ignoring the fact that the results of that Arbcom were that my behavior was at least partly due to the fact that I was plunged into a contentious battle between two multiple sockpuppeteers starting when I had only been editing for a few days, that my editing had improved since then, and that I was free to keep editing as long as I don't do it aggressively; which I have not. My only real conflicts have been with these three editors since then; they refuse to let me be, refuse to recognize any improvement, refuse to stop trying the same Arbcom that they were dissatisfied with the results of, and they are hooking a lot of you in by presenting just parts of their side of that Aerbcom. I would ask you; if it is so clear cut, then why was the decision what it was? Please ask the arbitrators who voted 4 to 0 if this rehashing of that case is fair or balanced.

He and Kathryn have consistently claimed that I should not be allowed to edit any article by a Llewellyn author or anyone ACE's bookstore has ever had a book for sale by, even though an arbitrator, Fred bauder, has explicitly said that this is not true and that I am free to edit any article, even those of associates, as long as the edits themseves are responsible and not original research.

I am placing in Revolving Bugbear's hands an assessment of the editing I have done since the Arbcom. I've given him a sample of every article I've written alphabetically from "A" to "J" (the first ten letters). It includes 37 articles, 4 that have been deleted, 3 within the last couple of weeks. I will supply a similar assessment of ALL my edits if need be. You will see that all the new articles since March 29, 2007 are not Starwood or ACE related, and that I have not inserted any new mentions of the same into any old or new articles in the list, or revert-warred on any of them. You will find vigorous dialogs on talk pages and deletion nomination pages, but that's any editor's right.

I am asking for time to present you all with a better picture of my editing since the Arbcom, to show you that I have improved and want to improve, and that I have at times been provoked into reacting against uncivil behavior done with a polite note and a smile. I mainly want to show you that this should not be a case of evaluating everything I have done since I began editing, but I should be judged as someone who has tried hard to change and has done a lot in that area (don't take my word for it, let me document it for you). But I blundered badly about this canvassing thing; I realize that and I truly apologize, and vow not to repeat it. And I certainly need mentoring in how to react when I perceive myself to be treated unfairly without violating policy. I feel like for the past six months I've been harassed, and I am only told what I should not do or should not have done about it, but never what I CAN or SHOULD do about it. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support block

I have experience of trying to work with Rosencomet. He may mean well, but in practice he wears out any and all opponents by attrition. He wore me out. As long and as copiously as he has edited here, he still seems unaware of, and uninterested in, the practice and culture of the place; the meatpuppet e-mail posted above is a good example of his methods, but far from the only one. I read with interest his post above, which sounds rather like this is the first time anybody's ever tried to explain basic policy to him: I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits. This elicits benevolent assumptions of good faith from many who have posted above. However, my experience of his editing techniques is not "an honest disagreement about good-faith edits," I wish it were. Instead it resembles that of Pigman: I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges... Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here.

I support Pigman's proposal for blocking Rosencomet for at least three months. Revolving Bugbear asks what good a block will do. At a minimum, it will free up the time and energies of good editors, which Rosencomet uses up. These people could and should be writing articles, rather than struggling to contain his tendentious editing. (Please read Pigman's post immediately above carefully.) -- Bishonen | talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that saying he "expresses" a desire to improve is more appropriate, I will concede that point. However, the distress he has expressed to me seems rather genuine, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe he's struggling with some of the policies, maybe he really never got around to reading most of them (you'd be surprised), or maybe he really does think he can weasel his way around them...in any case, I think a focused effort to make him aware and respectful of these things will show improvement. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth a shot. -- Revolving Bugbear 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a block as well--and to my mind, the only course here is indef. In light of the fact that a) he previously was blocked for sharing an account and b) he's been warned before for canvassing, I'm of the mind that it's time to close the door. -- Blueboy96 22:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

--Support Block: Short list of Wikipedia attempts to educate Rosencoment--

Conflicts arose around the large number of articles associated with Rosencoment's Starwood Festival and his apparent control of other Wikipedia articles listed on the Starwood Festival and related pages. At one point, there were over 145 links from Wikipedia articles going to Starwood Festival commerical links selling CDs, tickets etc. Rosencoment and those later found to be socks repeatedly replaced these commercial links when they were removed. There were also other problems such as WP:COI. Regarding attempts to reach an understanding with Rosencoment over policies and guidelines in editing on Wikipedia, please read a sample of energy of editors that has gone into such attempts:

• Starwood Festival Talk Page [20]
• Starwood Mediation 1 [21]
• Starwood Mediation 2 [22]
• Starwood arbitration (December 2006) request[23], Evidence [24], Workshop[25],Proposed decitions[26]

It was during the Arbitration that it was revealed that major supporters of Rosencomet at that time were Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati

If you want to see the scope of the number of articles that Rosencoment and supporting socks were WP:OWN at that time, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse where many (but not all) of the articles covered by Starwood Festival are listed. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was also revealed in the same Arbcom that the problem began when Mattisse, using a host of sockpuppets herselfCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse, tagged almost every article I had written in my first few days of editing with requests for citations. I did not know at the time that links to the Starwood website to support what I had written were not acceptable, and I was being told by Ekajati and Co that they were correct and that Mattisse was the problem. It was easy to believe, especially when it turned out she had written additional dummy articles and attributed them to me on various editor's talk pages! Some still exist today. I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was when this was happening; I thought these were all different editors, and that there was nothing clear at all about what I should or shouldn't be doing, since all these people who had been there before me disagreed with each other about what was a good or acceptable edit, source or citation. And whenever there was a RfC or a nomination for deletion, there was vote-stacking going on from both sides that I had no clue of; it turned out that Mattisse often voted on BOTH sides of the same issue? (I'll be happy to dig up some examples if you like.)

Please don't allow Mattisse to make this case about a re-vote on the Arbcom that involved activities nearly two years old now, especially by only introducing the parts she likes. Either read through the entire two mediations and the Arbcom, or ask the arbitrators to comment on this; ask THEM if there wasn't plenty of blame to go around for that fiasco. And allow me to document how different my editing has been since then, despite the fact that Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse, refuse to see it. And let me demonstrate that I not only want to improve, but that I have been working on it. That's all I ask. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Mattisse's links are quite illuminating, and I well recall my interactions with this editor.... The purpose of the encyclopedia and that of Rosencomet are at odds with each other; Rosencomet views the project as a means to publicise his endeavours without regard to WP standards of impartiality or conflict of interest. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. Rosencomet's actions, and the diffs provided by other editors, speak for themselves. I have also attempted to educate Rosencomet about policy, repeatedly, for almost two years now. I believe he simply does not care about the Wikipedia community, nor the quality of content on Wikipedia, and is only here to promote his own interests. His canvasssing e-mail of December offered suggestions to 30 people of how to game the system and subvert consensus. He was warned three times by two admins, briefly blocked for it by another admin, and now has done it again. What I have seen is that, when caught, he often expresses remorse and promises to change; then when people have moved on to other things and he feels he's not being watched, he returns to violating WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:V and lashing out at those who remind him of WP core policies. I do not believe he will change; I do not believe he wants to change. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both Pigman and Kathryn have alluded to a December e-mail that only they know of from a source they refuse to disclose. I really don't think that's fair, and I think I should be allowed to face my accusers. This sounds like something that may have been trumped up by someone who doesn't like me, perhaps even among the folks I work with. One or two of them have issues with me, and one of them is in complete control of our yahoo groups and outgoing mail; and my only email address is associated with a website he can alter as he wishes. I ask you to discount any discussion of some e-mail they refuse to produce or source, and which may even (through no action of theirs) be bogus. And in point of fact, though I have in my geek-like way bent many an ear about what I've been doing on wikipedia and how much I'd like some help with it, I know of none who has shown an interest in giving up any of their time to work with me. They just don't see what I find so interesting about it, or why I'm willing to take the stress and keep at it. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. The assumption of good faith gradually dwindles over time if the editor concerned keeps up the same behavior. It had seemed to me that he was mellowing out in January, 2008 around the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination), but evidently this did not continue. We have to assume that people *know* when they are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of their business enterprises. Nobody should be surprised when such a thing is pointed out. -- EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate to you that I have not been using wikipedia promotionally. Let me show you all the articles I've written since the Arbcom that have no relation to Starwood or ACE, and the dozens of deletions by Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse of such mentions dating from before the Arbcom closed that I have simply stood and watched, or only commented on from talk pages. Instead of simply accepting their claim that I'm as bad as ever, let me document the truth. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As this all seems to have appeared here quite quickly, let me add my belated opinion. Going strictly on what I see above and with no previous experience, I would be against an indef block, neutral on a reasonably short defined-length block, and for mentoring. While there are some indications that Rosencomet may well be gaming the system, there are also some indications that maybe he really didn't think he was breaking the rules in this canvassing. I believe it is possible to read the policy in such a way that it implies that canvassing is only bad if it occurs on-wiki. I'm not saying that is the intent; clearly it is not; but nonetheless I think it could be read that way. Since I have no previous experience with this editor and not seen claims that he is directly responsible for any horrible offenses, I'm in favor of giving him at least one more chance. (It is not clear to me the mentioned socking is directly his fault; it appears to me to be overly-enthusiastic supporters of his. I may be wrong in that, but so it seems to me at the moment.)

I also want to point out that the letter actually asked people to become worthwhile contributing editors to Wikipedia, and then additionally asked them to stuff some votes. The second part is bad. I don't believe the first part is, and in fact I consider it positive. If the people became editors and failed to vote, they would have been respectable editors and not meat puppets. If they voted as asked, but before voting examined the case and decided they believed they should vote in favor, then I question whether the vote would have been in bad faith, and hence whether they truely would have been a meat puppet. Indeed, they might have decided to vote against, despite having been asked to vote the other way. So even though the request was wrong, in the end it may have been a net positive gain to Wikipedia in the form of a few valuable new editors. -- Loren.wilton (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rosencomet's multiple requests to "document the truth."

"And let me demonstrate...let me document the truth." -- Rosencomet, nobody is stopping you from presenting any evidence you think will support the case you want to make. You want to say something, say it already...but if I may make a friendly suggestion, be as brief as you can. Your tendency to over-write works against you. It's not fair, but it's a fact, so get whatever else you need to say posted in as concise a manner as you're able so that it can be considered and final consensus reached. -- Davidkevin (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if mentioning this will be helpful or not. Rosencomet has recently (21 May 2008) done an analysis of many of his article edits on his talk page here. Although lengthy, I think it is illuminating. I particularly encourage checking the edit histories of the articles against his descriptions as well. Pigman☿ 05:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but I've looked over the list and spot checked the histories and it appears to be accurate. You, Pigman, appear to be attempting to re-try this user for pre-arbitration activity. Could you please document recent (say since the beginning of May) contentious editing??? Specifically, can you show a single edit since the beginning of May in which a Starwood link is added? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of this incident report, which is focused on allegations of canvassing. It is not helpful for anon. IP's to comment on Rosencomet's case. If you want to help him, register an account and become an active part of the community. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summation 2.0

Current opinions are: 9 in favour of some form of block, most seem to favour an indef block. 2 opinions in favour of no block with Rosencomet entering mandatory mentoring. Is this an accurate representation of the opinions? -- Pigman☿ 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if you're including me in that vote or not, but if you're not, I am Against Block, Against TopicBlock, and For Mandatory Mentorship. As the person who first reported this current incident, I never meant that he would or should be blocked or banned -- in fact, I warned him that this might happen and was trying to get him to pull back before it did, never intending for this to snowball the way it has. (Perhaps I was naive.)

I think a block will only increase the feelings of persecution Rosencomet already exhibits. That solves nothing and helps nobody.

Regardless of that, if consensus is for a block, at least make it temporary, with the mentorship attached to it upon his return. Very few actions are unforgivable, and this isn't one of those; very few habits are unchangable, and this isn't one of them. Err on the side of mercy, please. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to list User:SheffieldSteel's comment calling Rosencomet's actions "...a textbook example of canvassing." While that isn't explicitly a call for a block, I'd say it falls closer to the "block" end of the spectrum than the "no block" end. -- Pigman☿ 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I've struck through this comment. I specifically said he didn't voice an opinion on blocking but adding my interpretation was uncalled for. His words speak for themselves. I apologize. Pigman☿ 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to putting words into SheffieldSteel's mouth, as it were. If he/she has a vote, let her/him express it rather than anyone make an assumption. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Davidkevin -- I myself agree that it was "a textbook example of canvassing", and I am obviously against the block. Intuiting votes from people who haven't expressed them is not a good idea. - Revolving Bugbear 12:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this phase II of votes for banning? -- Badger Drink (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

* Beaver Drink, if you have a point, please make it. I wrote above that I support Pigman's proposal for "at least a three-month block." That was because it felt strange to explicitly support indefinite blocking when Pigman, who opened the thread, called it too strong a remedy. But I've changed my mind: I, too, support an indefinite block. I don't believe Rosencomet wants to change, either. I believe he's gaming our good faith. -- Bishonen | talk 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

• Has Bishzilla hacked your account again? My point is that this whole thread seems to be dominated by one editor and his dogged pursuit of a certain accomplishment - in this case, getting Rosen banned. It reminds me of the Gordon Watts days of old. I'm not informed enough to make a "vote", but this leaves a slightly odd taste in my mouth. Maybe Pigman should take a break and let other editors catch up on this. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• [Proudly.] Bishzilla admin,[27] wienie 'shonen not admin. Little beaver have point in referring to Zilla? [/me direct educational puff of atomic deathray at little badger. User burst obediently into flames. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Pigman, you are coming off as rather aggressive in this matter. I think it would be good of you to take a step back from leading the charge. This thread does not need to be pushed along by the person who initiated it -- whatever your intentions (and I am willing to extend you a thousand times good faith on this), it gives a very inappropriate appearance. - Revolving Bugbear 12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to rush a decision or stifle discussion. If I seem aggressive, my sincere apologies. I did not think summarizing opinions was a call to end discussion or take action, only a helpful recap of discussion to this point. And, yes, I was including Davidkevin in my summary. I did neglect to note that Davidkevin and Revolving Bugbear both seem to be against a topic ban as well as being for mentoring. Now I'll take Revolving Bugbear's sensible suggestion and step back from this discussion. Pigman☿ 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not against a topic ban -- I think it may be an alternative to a block, but am not committed to the idea. - Revolving Bugbear 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone particularly wants to hear my non-admin opinion on this, but here goes anyway. With Rosencomet's tenure on Wikipedia, many editors would have had time to gain admin or even bureaucrat status, yet this one still doesn't seem to understand that canvassing is bad. My good faith interpretation, after reading the discussion above, is that educating this editor as to how Wikipedia works is taking too long, since it is apparently necessary to run through every rule in the book, explicitly telling them "do not do this", and even then the lesson does not always sink in the first time. Stating my bad faith interpretation at this point would be doubly redundant, since you can guess what it is, and since I believe that the good faith disruption by this editor is causing more trouble than their contributions are worth. Whether that justifies a ban or a block is for the admins to decide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet denies knowing that this is against policy- obviously anyone with common sense might think it is, plus Rosencomet has been here years so can't claim to be ignorant of policy, and has been advised about canvassing before. This is WP:MEAT and he will have heard of meatpuppetry before. I would suggest at least a ban on editing articles about which he has a WP:COI, we will then see if Rosencomet has it in him to be a keen editor on other articles. Or maybe then Rosencomet will suddenly be less interested in wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support immediate ban on editing all articles where Rosencomet has a COI in addition to mandatory mentorship. If the mentor feels Rosencomet should edit talk pages per WP:SCOIC, then this should be allowed but watched carefully. And, if after three months, Rosencomet has shown a significant improvement in his editing and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then he should be allowed to appeal the ban in order to edit articles based on the "non-controversial edits" clause in WP:COI, but only after an editor review subject to discussion by the community. But, if Rosencomet engages in any bad behavior outside of his mentorship, then an indefinite block should be on the table. If Rosencomet cannot agree to these simple, fair, and equitable terms, then I support a three month block. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I think that either a ban or a block is necessary, to prevent further disruption, and it doesn't matter if the user is acting in good faith or not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete lack of evidence

I've reviewed all the recent posts under this thread by Pigman, and I find absolutely no documentation of recent "aggressive editing" by Rosencomet. I find a lot of vague references to activity dating from 2007, but that is almost six months ago. Where is a list of diffs showing "aggressive editing" since, say, the beginning of May? Precisely how many "aggressive edits" have been made recently? We simply don't know, b/c Pigman hasn't provided any documentation.

And if there was an arbitration case with a clearly defined warning against "aggressive editing", why is this issue being brought up here? Why isn't the alleged "aggressive editing" being documented for the arbitrators to review? It seems that the correct venue and process would be to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests to clarify whether Rosencomet's recent editing behaviour crosses the boundary set by the arbitrators, and/or to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement to request enforcement of the prior decision, wouldn't it? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're giving us a red herring. This incident report is concerned with canvassing and COI. Please address those two issues. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken on canvassing. COI was dealt with in arbitration and was not considered to be as serious as Pigman makes out to be. Rosencomet was simply cautioned not to edit aggressively. Speaking of red herrings, if the issue is canvassing, then most of Pigman's posts about past behaviour, etc. are also red herrings. Since blocking is not punitive, and Rosencomet seems simply to have misunderstood, why not simply ask if he will refrain from canvassing in the future? Since that is really the only current issue here? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the arbcom "caution". My understanding is that Rosencomet has been asked several times not to canvass, and the block hinges on this fact, as he continues to do it. Are you implying he has not been warned about canvassing in the past? Kathryn NicDhàna has provided diffs above showing at least three prior warnings. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here is the only decision in the case. With respect to canvassing, I think it is being blown out of proportion due to a third-party forwarding the email to the several lists. A lot of requests for help are made by admins and others through back-channel emails. If he emailed a half-dozen or less people who did not respond, then no disruption was caused by him. All the disruption was from people who received the forwarded email on several mailing list, which cannot be laid at Rosencomet's feet. I don't see why anything more than a "do you understand now and will you refrain" should be required. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the links Kathryn provided to "warnings" are misleading. It was one warning and then the following discussion with respect to a single incident of on-wiki canvassing. WP:CANVASS does say "Wikipedians" which should be changed. Whether Rosencomet is "wikilawyering" or had a misuderstanding is certainly an arguable issue, but I see that no one has bothered to clarify the policy page itself.... 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Fred Bauder clarified the Arbcom decision here, saying to Rosencomet, "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge." 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's a bit disingenuous to delete the evidence of Rosencomet's canvassing from this discussion and continue to comment about it, so I've provided a link to the evidence in the page history here. There is a big difference between requesting help and telling people how to vote and this type of canvassing and vote stacking has not stopped after Rosencomet was given at least three previous warnings. Like I said above, I support a temporary ban on Rosencomet's editing to articles where he has a COI (subject to review after three months of good editing) and mandatory mentorship. Do you think it too much to ask that Rosencomet actually work on Wikipedia articles unrelated to him or his organization for three months? People with a COI shouldn't even be editing these articles in the first place. As the arbcom warning suggests, when problems arise Rosencomet should confine himself to the talk page and refrain from editing articles where he may have a COI; And, we have a problem. Blaming others for this problem isn't helping your case. The best thing Rosencomet can do right now is put a wikibreak template on his user page and voluntarily leave the project for at least a month. The more you keep talking about this, the worse it's going to get. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no conflict involving the editing of articles has arisen. The conflict only involved AfDs. So why should canvassing involving AfDs affect the ability to edit articles which has been repeatedly affirmed as appropriate as long as that editing itself is not aggressive and relies on reliable sources? Has any evidence been presented of recent aggressive editing or addition of unsourced material? And the copyvio should be referred to the oversight committee, not linked to.... You are aiding and abetting a copyright violation which should never have been acceptable. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While e-mail is technically copyright-protected, the claim of copyright violation in this case is a red herring. Copyright law is about protecting the commercial interests of authors, it's not about trying to hide information. Ordinary e-mail has no commercial value, nor is ordinary e-mail a "secret". Thus it can be cited freely, as long as attribution is provided and the work is not claimed to be someone else's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, add me to the list of people who support a three-month block. I've had enough of this. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is against the rules, and if the editor in question has continued to canvas despite repeated warnings against it, then some kind of sanction would seem to be in order. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not saying he shouldn't be blocked. I'm saying it should be referred to the arbitration committee rather than a gangrape by admins some of whom are violating the user's copyright, privacy, and intensionally misrepresenting the facts. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, your argument about copyright violation is bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There has to be commercial value to collect damages, but an author still has complete control over the republication of their work, regardless of its value. I'll take it to the copyright page where perhaps there will be less ignorance of copyright law. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. An ordinary e-mail's contents are fair game as long as they are properly cited. And the vital part of the author's identity was hidden, so his privacy was protected, which is possibly more than he deserves. Canvassing is against the rules. Hiding behind a bogus copyright claim, in order to hide the evidence of rule violations, is a good candidate for Joke of the Day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) Thanks for reverting Please strike out this astonishing statement of bad faith, but even when worded politely your comments are serving only to obfuscate the issues. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.243.80.195 is a User:Ekajati sockpuppet

Checkuser has determined that 70.243.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Pigman☿ 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question now has a 6-month block. The "copyright" discussion could probably be struck as irrelevant, if that's appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The banned User:Ekajati had awarded User:Rosencomet a couple of barnstars for projects they worked on together [28] which could account for the IP address being so defensive or protective of Rosencoment's interests. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally reluctant to strike it because I think, despite the source, the argument isn't entirely specious. I think the argument is very weak though, particularly since the original email was apparently sent to a handful of people, hardly a private communication. I do think it muddies the waters a bit. Pigman☿ 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As loathe as I am to pass up help from any quarter, if this can really be called help, I must state that I have no knowledge of User:70.243.80.195's identity, nor have I ever had any contact with User:Ekajati outside of what can be viewed on Wikipedia. I never "worked on projects together with him" except in the sense that he saw what I was going through with Mattisse's massive tagging when I first started to edit here and both advised me and defended my work, and weighed in on mediations and such. The posts User:70.243.80.195's made on this case were not solicited by me, nor do I have any knowledge of any connection between the two users. Also, I have no real understanding of the Copyvio issue, if there is one, and would not have made such an arguement myself. (However, an email sent directly to a few friends is certainly still a private communication. I never posted it to a Yahoo group or anywhere for public viewing, and it never should have been forwarded to such a group.) The awarding of those particular Barnstars was, anyone can see, ironic more than anything else. (And I didn't bring the Starwood Festival to Wikipedia in the first place. Someone posted it more than a year before my first edit.)Rosencomet (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is Rosencomet three times faster than a regular user? Jtrainor (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: how "fast" is the average user? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke only a Gundam fan would get. Look up Char Aznable. =p Jtrainor (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Andreasegde

This user seems to hold personal grudges. He began attacking me early this month.[29] Told to calm down but continued, calling me a vandal for apparently believing McCartney is dead.[30]

I was new to such a long article and misguided by the size tag seen while editing. He and another user corrected me about this two months back. But now Andre is trying to claim the article as seen in the above diffs. He just abuses though I make lots of useful edits. He later called me very clever, by seeming to be a concerned editor, and does not reply to accusations (not replying in any way at all) but continues to slowly destroy what a lot of people have worked on. It's a clever strategy, albeit very destructive. It's a new form of vandal.[31] I was on vacation when all this happened. User:Betty kerner said that I should be reported here but there are no signs of me trying to damage the article. I was just unaware on how to edit it.

This is not only on the Talk but on Paul McCartney too. This was where I expanded a sec using its main article. It was perfectly neutral writing with proper sources[32] But he summarised the sec by an edit summary that I expand on Paul is dead, so I am a vandal.[33] He's also attacked on my talk as I don't expect a reply from a vandal (who is registered, and gives himself so many awards).[34] He then tried to provoke another user by calling me a self-elected vandal, who likes awards, albeit given to himself. What a high-fallutin' dipstick.[35] (About awards, I have actually received all four and can show the diffs; the badges and ribbons are self-awards.) I am now just too intimidated to contact Andreasegde by sending him warning templates. Ultra! 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Andreasegde (talk · contribs) is a long time contributor to various subjects relating to The Beatles, including the four principle members, their manager, some of the earlier members, and other individuals associated with the band ( see this count. He has amassed over 3,000 edits to Paul McCartney alone) some of which he has got through GA - and truthfully it was largely his efforts in both supplying references and text and cajoling other editors to contribute - who has an intolerant attitude toward "poor" edits. Frankly, if you happen to believe that Macca is dead it was extremely unwise to attempt to insert it into the article, since it is extremely unlikely that the standard of source would be sufficient to satisfy Andreasedge (or indeed any hamster who could read). This editor does not profess to WP:OWN any Beatle related article, but poorly or non sourced content is often swiftly reverted and the contributors held in poor regard - it is unfortunate, but true, that Andreasegde has not the best bedside manner in such discussions. However, Andreasegde is a good contributor. I trust his judgement.

nb. I have let him know of this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The user is a vandal (but only against Paul McCartney). Look at the history pages.--andreasegde (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His judgment in editing may be fine, but leaving comments such as " You know where Mummy's apron strings are when you want to complain, do you not? But you know how to be merciless when editing. Who took the ball away when you were young?" on another editor's talk page, regardless of any provocation, is conduct to warrant a block to prevent more of the same. LHVU, any better ideas how to deal with this? He was prev. blocked 24hrs for this sort of thing in April. 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May I add, I too made some edits to Paul McCartney and got a nasty note from User:Andreasegde. See [36] for details. He acted like a bully on issues of content, whether he was right or wrong. And he was not always right. I don't think that User:Ultraviolet scissor flame actually believes Paul McCartney is dead, and attacks on his/her and my character are not helpful in building consensus and making articles better. maxsch (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By way of rejoinder, I, myself, User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling, has a pending debate with maxsch, since almost daily, all my edits are are edited or reverted by this user. But my own human nature and patience compelled me to observe Wiki rules, and I never attacked, but just ignored this user, by correcting the bad or wrong edits, if any, and asking opinions from other editors. User:Andreasegde had and has great contributions to Wikipedia, and I myself is dwarfed by Andreas' tireless efforts here. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What Maxsch points out is clearly uncivil, breach of WP:AGF and biting newcomers on the article. I guess this is his way of making 3000 edits to McCartney. Ultra! 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[out] I think it is fair to say that without Andreasegde's tireless efforts, a whole host of Beatles-related articles would be paltry shadows of what they are or would simply not exist. That's not ownership - he is generous and welcoming to people new to articles that he works on, if they are constructive and not damaging to the hard work that many people have put in. He has worked long and hard with a group of editors to develop balanced, interesting, comprehensive, well-referenced pieces not only about the four principals, but also about many related people and subjects, making the Beatles portfolio of articles quite thorough and impressive. Along the way there have been countless vandals and tendentious editors who have sometimes made it impossible to continue editing there - I have personally experienced some of this. Yet Andreasegde has always called them out and come back to put more work in, to preserve the integrity of the articles. He does it with his own brand of humor and expression which some may not immediately grasp, but in my experience it is indeed done with humor and while I might agree that occasionally he could be more diplomatic - can we not say that about most of us? - my observation is that he's usually spot on in identifying problematic edits and editors whose contributions harm the project, and has been a force for collaboration and cooperation among editors who work to improve it. I haven't looked into the specific circumstances that led to this AN/I comment yet, but, like Less, I trust Andreasegde's judgment and suggest some lightening up here. Tvoz/talk 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nail/head/hit --Crestville (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who asked Andreasegde to calm down, after he posted this call to WP:ABF [37] (in Andreasegde's favour, he has not followed through on this threat). He does appear to be a good editor, but he doesnt seem to understand the difference between vandalism and a content dispute, or want to follow any dispute resolution process [38], seems to think that the Beatles project owns the McCartney page [39], and continues to write abusive - not humourous - comments [40][41][42][43] and edit summaries [44]. He must realise that this is not helpful?

To justify his behaviour, he mentions some history to this dispute: apparently User:Vera, Chuck & Dave left the Beatles project because of Ultra's "vandalism". I looked into this a bit, the final straw seems to be this: [45], (Vera's last McCartney edit) and I can't see the vandalism being reverted there at all - it's just a content dispute.

Ultra, for his part, has been uncommunicative throughout (going back to the dispute with Vera). He claims above to have been on holiday, but kept editing for a day after I asked him to try to defuse this situation by explaining his edits [46]. If he'd just discuss his changes on Talk:Paul McCartney, this wouldn't have gone so far. I left the dispute alone after my first couple of comments in the hope that, since McCartney is peripheral to Ultra's interests, the editors would spend some time apart anyway.

To sum up: a content dispute has become drama because two otherwise-productive editors won't talk about the article instead of about each other. I don't think blocks are warranted, yet, but a WP:TROUT might be in order. Bazzargh (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose I'm allowed to throw my hat in the ring, so I will.

• User Ultra! has changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Paaerduag to Ultraviolet scissor flame, and has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker. See the Paul McCartney talk page for more. The evidence seems to suggest that this user has multiple accounts.
• Ultraviolet scissor flame (same user) cut the McCartney article down when it had been laid out to concentrate on various aspects of McCartney's life. Not once did he leave a note on the talk page detailing what or why he had done something. That is not working collectively, it is downright rude and arrogant.
• He put a photo of a McCartney impersonator in the "Business" section, and when I deleted it, he reverted it. This is a new kind of positive vandalism, IMO. (User Tvoz later reverted this, thankfully.)
• He moved whole sections to Paul McCartney (solo) but left it in a mess, with repeated sentences (a cut and paste job) did not put one category on it, and didn't even bother to put The Beatles' template on the talk page. A lot that is now on the solo page is still on the main McCartney page. This act was sloppy and reckless.
• He stated that the McCartney article was too long, but put a lot more into the "Paul is Dead" section. This led me to think that this user was up to no good.
• The user only works on McCartney's article and no other Beatle-related articles, which makes me think he is singling McCartney out for special attention.
• When asked for clarification, the user left no reply on any page, (not even his own).
• The user claimed to be on holiday, but an editor above saw that was untrue. This should be taken into account.
• A recent edit shows this: ref name="MPL"/> it reunited McCartney with George Martin, who both produced the song and arranged the orchestral break. before their second 1973 album [47] shows that the editor does not know the first thing about editing, or did it deliberately.

It is true that I have worked a lot on Beatles' articles, and I consider myself to be friendly and helpful. I have been blocked once in the past for complaining that an editor was a sock puppet, and was not in the least interested (in his own words, no less) in taking the Brian Epstein article to GA, but actively tried to confuse the issue. I have been here long enough to know when someone is not doing their best, and when that person starts to alter a page with no thought for the reactions of others, then my hackles will be raised.

By starting this discussion, Ultraviolet scissor flame has taken the lead, and of course it seems to be on myself to disprove the hinted allegation that I am a wife-beater. :)) I will let my work here speak for itself, but I can say that Ultraviolet scissor flame also has allegations to answer. If the user would stop messing about with McCartney's page as if it were a sandpit, then I would have absolutely no problem with that.

P.S. User maxsch had a bee in his bonnet about one sentence mentioning football in the McCartney article, so his opinion is biased here. For all his complaints, McCartney's page now has a whole section with 10 references about football. I wish you all the best. --andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to those editors concerned who know I mean them no offence, I find this debate somewhat tiresome as Ultra is a sock-puppeteer (such wonderful jargon) in connection with Paderugg ([48]). His nomination of such a fine and respected user is purely an attempt to disturb and annoy us and should be disregarded. He has clearly disrupted (at best) the McCartney page and my own previous dealings with this user have shown him to be disruptive, awkward, argumentative, and - even with good faith assumed - prone to vandalism. Consequently I feel this "incident" should be utterly disregarded and any further such reports not entertained. While Andreasegde may not have the greatest "bedside manner", many of the slights on his character here appear to be born solely out of sour grapes. He consistently and conscientiously does the right thing and this, not bullying, nit picking, or domineering, are the cause of his massive, pulsating edit count for the McCartney article, and the reason the Beatles wikiproject remains in such joyfully rude health. This is, to my eyes, an open and shut case. I love you, let's be friends. --Crestville (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with "LessHeard vanU" & "Tvoz" word for word. Andreasegde is highly regarded, he has a sense of humour that people are too quick to jump on as incivility. Infact i can say that from personal experinence with Andreasedge, he means no harm and disruptive editers are too quick jumping on the incivility bandwagon. Can we have good faith and move on please. If Infra is indeed also Paeerduag i think that might speak for itself. Paeerduag is well known as a pov pusher, incivil, disruptive editer. Blocked multiple times, maybe even more than me lol. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats 3 claims in a row that Paaerduag is a sockpuppet, but that's been seen AN/I before and the evidence didn't stand up: [49] [50]. I think thats worth clearing up since Paaerduag's involvement in all this seems completely involuntary. BTW, Realist2, this thread will expire of its own accord in 24h if left alone. Bazzargh (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting: "this thread will expire of its own accord in 24h if left alone.--andreasegde (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Theres nothing interesting about it (or this thread). Realist2 asks if we can move on, the best way to do that is just to move on. Threads here that don't pick up admin interest are archived after 24 hours, posting messages asking for the thread to end actually keep it active. As I said in my first post here, I don't think admin action is necessary. Bazzargh (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How can one "move on" when one has been accused? This is a stain on my character, while Ultra! (or whatever his user name is) can quote this page as some kind of proof that I behaved badly. This debate should have a conclusion/postscript. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug is well known to the Wikipedia Admins who patrol these pages. He has a habit of running to WP:ANI every time. Just a few weeks ago, he picked on me and dragged me here, his "case" was dismissed [51] Not only that, he perfidiously contacts Admins to try and influence them [52]. I believe he has done it this time as well in his "case" against Andreaedge. It should be dismissed straightaway and instead Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug should be investigated. Wikipedia blocked him twice for being a page blanking vandal. In fact, this brings up a weakness in Wikipedia software because by changing his name, he has been able to "lose" the block logs so any unsuspecting Wikipedia editor would not know that he has been blocked twice. This needs to be remedied. As for Andreasedge, he deserves the praise of every honest Wikipedian. He is passionate about Paul McCartney and when you see the damage that Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug has caused to Paul McCartney you have to side with him. Vonita (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User promotes degree mill

I just came across the edits of Theecoguy (talk · contribs). All edits of this user revolve around promoting Anaheim University. See for instance this pre-cleanup version of the article Anaheim University. The article is stuffed with puffwords like pioneering, acclaimed, renowned, esteemed, leading, unique, innovative, highest quality, dedicated. The same goes for Anaheim University Graduate School of Education, Anaheim University Akio Morita School of Business and David Nunan. Theecoguy also claims that Anaheim University is state-approved, although it has been included in the lists of unaccredited degree suppliers in the states of Oregon and Michigan. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably nominate it as an article for deletion (AFD) and let that process work. Do it quickly, though, lest it get promoted to Featured Article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

at AfD, we usually keep articles about significant diploma mills, if that's what it is. I note there do see to be two actually notable people (in a positive sense) associated with the institution so I would be very careful about sourcing and NPOV. So for the main article, just keep editing for neutral presentation. Including the information that it is unaccredited is appropriate content, if you include the source. The solution to the others probably is redirects to the main article. No admin action seems to be needed yet. DGG (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threat of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. by Bigwolfx

["How I'm a supposed to source the change Rebel, to Freedom fighter ?? you make no sense I will change it again and again and if you delete me I'll make a new profile and if i have to I'll make 94,000,000 profiles because I will not stand for your Biased, Racist, xenophobic and rabid Anti Albanianism. I further have at least 20 other friends who will join me in deleting Biased and racist anti-Albanianism"] --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editors

[edit] User:Beamathan

Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Dear community, I am here to ask for a review of a topic ban which was implemented within the rules laid about in the Macedonian (Balkan) Arbitration case on Beamathan (talk · contribs). I initially topic banned Beamathan from all Kosovo related articles (in particular, Talk:Kosovo) on May 5th, as part of a uninvolved administrator review which was a case brought to my attention, by Husond (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). I lifted that formal sanction on May 10th and proposed for it to end on the 12th May, where I explained: the importance of being a member of the community and the functions and role which accompany that, the current situation on Balkan articles, and commented on the fact that there had been some evidence that Beamathan worked particularly well before, with both the assistance of two other editors (Dbachmann and BalkanFever) who both reassured me that Beamathan was working with the policies set and worked well within that frame. Husond respected my decision and commented that after a informal restriction I placed on Husond's talk page that all Beamathan contributions there were to be productive/civil, he would be okay with reporting any further incidents of name calling etc. I don't believe this particular restriction was ever violated, yet a 48-hour block was implemented in response to this. I feel this block was necessary, but the duration may have been slightly off-put. Husond and Beamathan have shared differing, and more often than not, opposite views of article inclusion etc. and this has led to increasingly strenuous relations between the two, perhaps a factor to consider in the culmination to recent edits. I do strongly believe that Husond should have discussed this matter with me, or at least asked here at ANI for another uninvolved administrator to evaluate the situation and produce and effective, or at least in part, solution. I do understand that Beamathan has now been placed on "a topic ban from all Kosovo-related articles for 15 days, and placed on indefinite civility supervision". And, although this sanction may be sufficient or justifiable enough, I believe strongly that this more recent implementation of a topic ban should have been initiated by another admin, possibly me, considering my experience in this particular situation. With both Beamathan askin for a review of his case, and Husond wanting honest feedback, I bring forward this thread as information in the hope of further progress in this particular case. Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a rather bad move to me. I haven't been following the more recent context too closely, but last time I looked, Husond was himself heavily involved in the Kosovo article debates and as such certainly not an "uninvolved admin" to make ARBMAC sanctions, for actions directly related to that article and for alleged incivility against himself. Moreover, the second of the two diffs given in justification of the ban ([59]), directed against Husond himself, was not in the slightest bit objectionable. Annoyed, yes, angry, yes, but certainly not a personal attack. The first, against User:Mike Babic, telling him to "stay away", is certainly unfriendly, but I wouldn't call it an actionable personal attack either. If I am convinced another editor has been engaging in persistent disruptive editing against consensus – and that seems to be Beam's case against Mike – then expressing my conviction that it would be better if he just stayed away from the article falls under "calling a spade a spade", in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's my feedback on this situation. Rudget is right that I vowed to report further uncivil behavior from Beamathan. However, Rudget was on a wikibreak when I noticed that Beamathan was being aggressive towards another user in edit summaries at Kosovo [60]. So I just advised Beamathan that such behavior was the kind that would bring back his topic ban [61]. Instead of acknowledging the angry way he addressed another user and vow to calm down, Beamathan understood my notice as a hateful threat and launched a series of uncivil attacks and threats against me both at his talk page and mine, also demanding a surreal apology for the advice I had left on his talk page [62] [63]. For his clear inability to understand WP:CIVIL, I restored his temporary topic ban and put him on permanent civility supervision. And following his response [64], I blocked him for continued incivility. I should note that this is not the first time I've blocked Beamathan for the same reason. I think that my interaction with him started with that other block and since then Beamathan claims that I hate him and have a personal bias against him. I don't think that an admin should be branded as biased against a user simply because that admin has a history of having performed sanctions against him. If the sanctions were justified, then Beamathan has no grounds for accusing anyone. For me, Beamathan is just a user who cannot comprehend WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would've acted no differently with any other user behaving the same way. I should also note, from Future Perfect's comment, that virtually all of my involvement with the Kosovo article has been admin monitoring, not editing the article itself. I have provided some feedback in a few discussions occurring there, but most of my work is to ensure that users at the talk page communicate with each other civilly and constructively at a time when a lot of anger is bursting there because of the declaration of independence. Any other admin can try doing the job, if that would be enough to prove that soon that admin who's just supervising will be considered biased against users, simply for ensuring the strict implementation of Wikipedia's policies of user conduct. Happened to me, and I would gladly be replaced by someone else in that task to put up with Beamathan and other admin bashers. Húsönd 02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the difficulties sometimes involved in balancing one's content involvement and one's admin actions in borderline cases of "involvedness", but still, my recollection is you were far too heavily involved in content disputes with Beam on this very article for me to feel comfortable with you doing blocks in this matter. Second, your summary of events seems misleading. After your first warning, Beam did in fact react positively, as he rightly argues on his talkpage; he posted a polite and reasonable explanation and an apology on Mike's talk [65]. That leaves the aggressive response to you as your only complaint. Now, apart from the fact that an admin should be particularly careful about blocking in cases of offenses against themselves – sorry for being blunt, but if you feel this is evidence that Beamathan, "cannot comprehend WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA", then the person who doesn't comprehend WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You may say that I have much less leniency towards incivility than you, but for me that diff was clearly uncivil. If you would take it with a smile should that comment been addressed to you, then I guess you're impervious to the tone users address you with, which is certainly a good quality of yours but it doesn't mean that my incivility claim is far-fetched. Especially if you compare Beamathan's response with my first notice on his talk page. Húsönd 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Users have the right to express anger. And users have the right to be angry when faced with admin actions they consider unjust. They may of course be wrong in considering them unjust, but even then, anger is natural and should not be held against them as yet another offense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But there's many ways to express anger without mixing it with incivility. In my view, by replying this aggressively to a simple notice about previous incivility (a notice I believe you consider adequate), demonstrates that this user cannot comprehend civility. Recurringly. Húsönd 14:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: this is not incivil. If you think it is, you are wrong. If you think it's a personal attack, you are even more wrong. And if you think "incivility" or "personal attacks" are both equally grounds for blocking, you are also wrong about policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I view it as uncivil. But certainly not a personal attack, that came later. Húsönd 16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves us with the issue that mere instances of minor incivility are not grounds for blocking, according to our blocking policy. Especially not when the incivility is (at best) borderline, the admin makes that judgment about an alleged act of incivility against themselves, and the admin is also involved in a related content dispute. I strongly recommend lifting the sanctions and apologising for the unjust block; they were most certainly inappropriate and contrary to the rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm perplexed. First, instances of incivility (minor or major) can always constitute grounds for blocking, especially when recurrent (and "recurrent" in this particular case is an understatement). Secondly, I'm not involved in any content dispute with Beamathan. And thirdly, I thank but recuse your recommendations. I neither find my block unjust, nor against any rules. And I will definitely not apologize to an uncivil user who merited a block for incivility. I am disturbed by your level of leniency towards incivility and your surreal request for an apology. It's as if I strongly recommended that you apologize to me now for having a different opinion on the issue. Very uncharacteristic and disturbing indeed. Húsönd 16:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there may be a difference in opinion here on what constitutes as a merited block on Beamathan or not. I do not think that a block should have been implemented in this most recent case in question, but past skirmishes with admins before (characterised by his block log, I might add) does show that Beamathan is not entirely innocent in this situation, whilst not completely blameful either. Rudget (Help?) 17:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That I can easily accept. But when this happened, a block seemed like the best message to send Beamathan. And, since the block has expired he seems calmer, so it probably worked. Húsönd 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait for his opinion (I should think it will be predictable), but nevertheless, having a second side to the story never hurts. Rudget (Help?) 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Predictable it is. But sure, second sides are always welcome. Húsönd 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have worked in co-operation with Husond before, in which could be called a 'successful' observation of who is disrupting pages like this, and who isn't. I feel that this incident was more likely than not, a step too far, but only because of circumstances which I believe Husond is involved in otherwise. I trust a block on Beamathan from Husond is out of the question for now. I respect his judgement, and I would like to express my thanks at his work there, but believe before making any formal sanctions such as blocks, that the idea should be at least discussed with another admin beforehand, but seeing as I was on a Wikibreak, I do see where he was coming from. Hopefully, both users will now "leave it at that" so to speak, so there can be some time to reflect and repent on what has happened. Rudget (Help?) 10:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond, can you explain to me how the following is not you being involved in content disputes with Beamathan?

• Talk:Kosovo/Archive_19#POV shift (2 - 3 April)
• Talk:Kosovo/Archive_19#Republic of Kosovo redirect (23 - 24 April)
• Talk:Kosovo/Archive_19#Template of how over 150 countries see Kosovo (27 - 28 April)

You blocked Beamathan first on 7 April, directly during both his and your most heavy involvement in the Kosovo article. You gave a negative administrative opinion on Beamathan's topic ban on 9 May, just ten days after your last content clash (here. Then you blocked him again on 19 May; by that time, as Rudget notes, the relation between you and him was heavily burdened by his sense of being persecuted by you.

This is bad, very bad. I'm seriously thinking I'll have to escalate this. The guy is still under a topic ban, imposed by you, from exactly the article you kept clashing over. For an act of "incivility" that wasn't one in the first place. This is completely unacceptable.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to escalate. Húsönd 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will now formally lift the topic ban against Beamathan. I feel that I have fulfilled the conditions for admins to "familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard". Given that Rudget has expressed serious doubts about the appropriateness of the sanctions, I can safely say there is no consensus for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have fulfilled anything, but I will not oppose lifting the sanctions. I believe their purpose was met. Húsönd 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

General advice: Husond, it's not easy to both enforce ARBMAC and be heavily involved in Balkanic content disputes. Best to find someone else to double-check your calls for you. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. I used to forward complaints to Rudget, but he was on a wikibreak when this happened. And even Rudget has said that he's getting tired of this theme only after a few reports. Not easy indeed, this topic is a massive headache and needs more admins to supervise, and more admins willing to review supervising admins' reports. Húsönd 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 201.224.142.1

201.224.142.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has a habit of removing problem tags or fair use tags from images, fraudulently replacing them with arbitrary authorship information and free licensing tags, and then tagging them to be moved to Commons, among other copyright fraud activities. I've blocked the address for a year at Commons and repeatedly warned them here to no avail. The editing patterns suggest a single person using the address, so there should be little or no collateral damage from a long, healthy block. Diffs: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]... I'm sure there's more. Please look through deleted contributions and let me know if you spot things that we should delete from Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked for a year per the above - and request review from fellow admins - but have no knowledge of image related matters, so leave that up to someone else to tackle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to help out here as much limited time and privileges allow. I'm happy to assist with knowledge or with admin actions needed on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eurovisionman

As you understand, verifiability is important. As such, the media response to the manipulation if Youtube and wiki was sourced to a Polish magazine published by edipress.com. As a respected magazine with a large circulation in Poland this is considered to be a reliable source). The statements in question were proven in the article and cannot be considered to be rumours. The comments sourced as per reliable source by BBC host who is well respected as a commentator of eurovision who has been written up in UK newspapers over the past few days were written in a non-POV manner and provide more sources for her performance which came last. As Eurovision is a contest that Isis Gee tried to win her results ( place and critic of performance ) are not given undue weight. The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. This was not completed as User:PrinceGlora and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish nationality of Isis User:PrinceGlora and yourslef reverted versions that included a unsourced material and false statements about her position in the contest which violated WP:BLP.

I ask Ricky81682 to add to the WP:3O initiated by User:Kevin Murray and stop wasting admin time with entries such as this. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again?

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eurovisionman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user has recently been blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing and breaching 3RR concerning the sole two articles his edits concentrate on since registering - Isis Gee and For Life (Isis Gee song). His block has just expired and he simply started doing that again. Please see his user and talk page, as well as associated pages, their talks and histories. I would appreciate immediate action as it seems he does not quite respond to milder means of communication. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. User also makes unfounded allegiations against others (incl. myself) of e.g. using sockpuppets, which I find quite uncivil.

Blocked for 55 hours and requested to use the talkpage to air concerns, not the article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now editing as anon URL: 62.200.52.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) PrinceGloria (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the central page (Isis Gee) for 2 weeks given the high level of IP socking and vandalism. Do other pages need semiprotection? MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LavendarLover

Not sure this is vandalism, COI or both. All edits have been about a minor actress in a TV series. The article is a copyvio, but trying to post a G12 notice resulted in a blacklist notice. I'm assuming this person has posted before and the subject has been deleted before. Lots of SHOUTING in the edit summaries. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• User is now claiming to be this person's publicist. Given his/her spelling, syntax and grammar on the article talk page in comparison to the copyvio, I'm inclined to doubt it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

With that claim I would be inclined to think this account is for advertisements only. Making it a Single Purpose Account. Rgoodermote  18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also add vandal. Rgoodermote  18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me. Off to the AIV board to report it. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The note should say continued addition of Non-notable actress and recreation of a blacklisted page. Also incivility and advertisements. Rgoodermote  18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

post "resolved" comment - it got no traction at AIV since the account did not edit the mentioned articles post final warning. It seems that there is discussion - of a sort - ongoing on the account talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiStalking and Ender78 (talk · contribs)

I had a content dispute with this editor earlier today atTalk:C. Everett Koop and have since resumed editing in other areas since the dispute was resolved. However, it seems now the user has taken on the initiative to begin stalking me on another user's talk page [92]. I disengaged him there and told him to bring his comments here[93]. He even opened up a disruptive RfC against me based on the simple content issue from earlier[94] that was oddly confirmed by another user who rarely ever edits and in very different articles [95] yet somehow found his/her way into the content dispute - I suspect a sockpuppet. Anyway, please suggest a way to get this guy to back off. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: I've been editing here for three years now under this username, and longer without an account. If an admin wants to contact me personally, I've got contacts out the yinyang, all across the industry. I have no need or use for sockpuppets; this is just one more attempt by Ave Caesar to WikiLawyer and WikiTroll.

User Ave Caesar today engaged me in a very frivolous edit war, on a specious reason, and with the demanded citation already referenced elsewhere in the C. Everett Koop article. User Sbierwagen reverted the article for the same reasons I did, and was again overruled by Ave Caesar. (WP:3RR)

Later, in the Valparaiso High School article, which came to my attention via Ave Caesar's talk being in my watchlist, Ave Caesar again made a frivolous blanket revert, all to eliminate one paragraph of copyright violation, when he could've been bold and eliminated the copyvio without reverting actual content. My "stalking" was not overt in intent, but rather the result of curiosity as to exactly how often worthwhile edits had been subverted, reverted, or obstructed by this user whose wikilawyering skills are beyond reproach, but who should spend more time actually creating and editing content. (WP:BITE, WP:WELCOME, etc, ad nauseum)

My RfC was made on recommendation of other wikipedians I'd asked in IRC to review the C. Everett Koop article as a means of putting Ave Caesar on notice in regards to violating the spirit of Wikipedia policy while upholding its letter. I also posted a Third Opinion notice, which I deleted myself once it became clear that the reference to the C. Everett Koop article that Ave was demanding was already in that article.

And now this. Frivolous abuse of WP:Policy. Somebody needs to spank him. Ender78 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that an offer? ;) Further, the VHS article was a clear copyvio which I reverted as proper and then proceeded to assist the user in how to make proper edits. Had Endy not brought his trolling behavior to the IP's talk page, the IP would have likely fixed the problems with the text since he seems thoroughly willing to do what it took to bring it out of copyvio status. However, it seems as if he was scared away. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I scared him away?? Hahahaha. Good one. In fact, he was trying to figure out why you'd reverted his entire revision rather than simply editing the content to comply with policy, and you engaged him in a debate on WP policies he was clearly ignorant of, causing the whole episode to pop up in my watchlist, hence how I wound up looking at it to begin with. He edited, you blanket-reverted, citing specious applications of policy given the nature of the copyvio, rather than simply editing the policy violation out and leaving a polite notice on the talk, and now he's not editing any further. You're the one that posted the IP-Block template to his talk, not I. So if anyone scared him away, it is you. But seriously, thanks for escalating this further, making your own abuse of policy ever-clearer, and raising your own profile with the admins in the process. Ender78 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there are so many inaccuracies in that statement. First, that was not an IP block template, it was a shared IP address notification template. The only reason anything popped up on your watchlist was because you had my talk page in it - That still does not excuse you for the harassing comments you made when you followed the path rather than doing anything constructive. Rather than tediously pick out every small bit of the text that wasn't a copyvio, I reverted the entire thing and informed the editor that paraphrasing was the best way to go. I was taking the time to explain to the editor - trolling me on the IP's talk page isn't going to entice new editors to join the project. GFDL licensing isn't to be toyed with. Anyway, I'm disengaging with this until admins comment. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bull. You've tried to whitewash the talk history there, just as you did with the Koop article, but the diffs clearly show an arcane discussion of policy that got deleted several times, and when the user tried to discuss things on your talk with you, you redirected it to that talk instead, thus further confusing a newbie just getting his bearings here.

"Tediously picking out every small bit" of the editor's revision was actually quite easy: there were specific, discrete paragraphs that were there to be eliminated. By contrast, restoring the worthy parts of the editor's edits will be painstaking, hence why the editor simply gave up. What makes you think YOUR time is better than that editor's, and why should HE have to expend twice the effort to comply with rules he didn't know about, for the satisfaction of an editor that's power-tripping on acronyms and could've made the article policy-compliant in seconds? And then, once you've been firmly called out on your abuses of policy, you try to redirect the conversation and make it appear that you were really in the editor's corner all along. All you're doing here is adding to the paper trail.

I'd address your wounded protestations of trolling and stalking, but my RfC on you already clearly shows that you initiated that behavior, and are now once more hiding behind policy. Ender78 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shapiros10 - request to unblock

User Shapiros10 was blocked for sockpuppetry:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Shapiros10.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_sockpuppetry

He admitted his wrongdoing, apologized and tried to request unblocking on unblock-l. Though i have a reason to believe that he is sincere and that there's a good chance that his further contributions will be positive, the request was denied. Sarah suggested trying to bring it up here.

Blocking is supposed to protect, not punish. The trolling of Shapiros10 was obviously wrong, but i am sure that he learned his lesson and that an infinite block is too harsh of a punishment. If he gets back to troublemaking, he can be blocked for good and i shall stand corrected.

Please consider this with good faith. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for User:MBisanz, who placed the most recent block. This editor can also use {{unblock|reason}} on his Talk page, and explain why he wants to be unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I declined the block, and ignored the subsequent personal emails based on the positive CU. I have no objection to an unblock (since I'm ok with any admin overturning any of my actions), but I'd recommend someone ping Dmcdevit as the reporting CU. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose an unblock of his account if the underlying IP remains anon blocked with account creation disabled, which I believe is the case until October, and if he agrees to resume mentorship with Amire. Sarah 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Shapiros has agreed on his talk page to resume mentorship if unblocked, so if there aren't any further concerns it would probably be fair to give him a second chance. Sarah 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to mentor. Full reply at User talk:Shapiros10. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and tentatively unblocked Shapiros since he has agreed to be mentored by Amir and Matt as blocking admin doesn't seem to have any concerns or objections. I've told Shapiros that this is his last chance so no stuffing about and any futher socking will result in me immediately reblocking him and coming back here to request a community ban so I think he understands that this is his last chance and he has only got it because of the efforts of Amir so hopefully he'll do the right thing by himself, Amir and the community and show us all that he can become a respected editor. Additional comments and feedback are most welcome but he is tentatively unblocked at this time. Cheers, Sarah 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lestrade

Is this kind of stuffconsidered problematic? Eusebeus (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, historic revisionism don't ya just love it. If Proust was gay then where is the evidence? RMHED (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just historical revsionism. Seethe subsequent edits on the Lewis Carroll talk page. DGG (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Too true, to label Carroll a "kiddie fiddler" or not to label him so. Gimme the sources, gimme the undisputed facts, but do not gimme your point of view. I guess once you're dead you're fair game for the revisionists. RMHED (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete a revision

Hi there, I was wondering if someone could oversight this revision of Blueberry that was recently posted/reverted. I don't think young people's contact details belong even in an article's history. Thanks! —Ashanda (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please follow the instructions at WP:RFO so as not to spread the details any more than required. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that about a minute after I made my post here, unfortunately. Perhaps a link should be added to the navbar at the top of this page? I did look there first... Sorry for the trouble in any case. —Ashanda (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is at the top here, it's WP:RFO for future reference. --Rodhullandemu 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 70.131.137.128

this user has made 4 edits and all of them are vandalism. he should be blocked. Wikipedia Rules 23:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This sort of thing is better at WP:AIV. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SqueakBox removing RfC template

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has thrice removed an RfC template from Talk:Pedophilia for reasons that are not comprehensible to me.[96] [97] [98] When I reverted him, he justified himself as such: "that is not an rfc its a trollfest and the bots dont like trollfests, who invited you anyway." His third reversion accuses me of trolling] and demands I "go away iof all you can do is troll , other suers but you are equally responsdibnl;e wityh lambton fort his 100th case of troolling." O-kay... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed a personal,attack, I suggest you and your buddy refactor the Rfc instead of abusing it to make personal attacks against me or any user. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to a personal attack with a personal attack is never a good idea. Regardless of the merit/wording to the RFC statement labelling another editor a troll in an edit summary isn't going to help. Exxolon (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I accept that. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem--obviously--is that it's not a simple rfc request, it's an attack on Squeakbox. The cited text Jovin Lambton refers to is not "Squeakbox's version" (in fact, it was written entirely by me, and has consensus support). I believe what Squeakbox is hoping to avert is Jovin's grossly inappropriate personalizing of a content dispute which is not personal. No one hapless enough to respond to such a request for comment should be mislead by Jovin's personal attacks on Squeakbox (in fact, no one is likely to offer useful outside input at all the way Jovin is framing it). -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the real problem is the legal threat made by Lambton yesterday. I do not like legal trheats, thery amke me feel insecure (as I have a lot to lose). This is just poisoning the atmosphere for all of us who work at the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how an RfC summary of "I am adamant that SqueakBox's version misrepresents sources and fails to attribute them. He is adamant that my version is biased" can be seen as anything but antagonistic. It should be reworded to focus on the dispute and not the disputers. Tarc (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. An article RFC should be about the article and not about editors of the article. If Lambton has an issue with SqueakBox personally he should pursue dispute resolution and/or open a user conduct RFC instead. Exxolon (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, except any user conduct RFC is likely to be on Jovin--he is continually incivil, as seen here, where he tell us to "smell the biomass": [99]

He also edit wars in tandem with Tor node sockpuppets: [100]. Yesterday he was antagonizing User:Googie man, trying to intimidate him away from editing with a bogus borderline legal threat. There's an endless supply of diffs. User conduct RfCs are so toothless that I think we've all been hoping he will be indeffed any minute now to save us the pointless hassle. There's also a sockpuppet question that should probably be publicly checkusered; maybe that could take care of it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not consider "I am adamant that SqueakBox's version misrepresents sources and fails to attribute them. He is adamant that my version is biased" to be an abusive edit summary-- if anything it seems a fair statment of the differences at issue, and does focus on the issue rather than the personalities. DGG (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. On the face of it, at least, it looks like a very fair statement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is completely inappropriate. Are you really satying that it is fine to abuse Rfc in order to attacj other editors. I had agreed to an rfc request but Lambton, who has got us all freaked out with his legal threats from the day before yesterday anyway, decided to follow one of the earlier banned socks in this abusive misuse of Rfc. You, DGG, should know better than to support this kind of uncivil behaviour in SPAs. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was designed to upset someone, rather than to improve an article/sincerely request outside input. In that sense, Squeak is not wrong that it was probably trolling; that's what trolling is "exploiting weakness in an online community." Note also that Jovin split as soon as he succeeded in upsetting Squeak, and has not rephrased his "rfc" request. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, this is about AnotherSolipsist, correct? Just to clarify the above statement by PetraSchelm. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the statement is about Jovin Lambton. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be one of the fancy-pants official mentors for child sex articles, so I guess it's best I at least try and earn my keep. Squeak, please stop removing the RFC notice... there was a brokered agreement to have an RFC on another of the PPA articles (can't remember which right now), so I really don't see the problem in doing the same here and bringing outside views... AS, please try and depersonalize the dispute; this is about content, not what Squeak may or may not have written... Petra, Jovin's behavior is a topic for another day. Not here, please. east.718 at 11:21, May 24, 2008

Err, when will that be. if you are going to comment please do so in a useful fashion. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing but respect for East, who has been the most dedicated of the topic mentors. But I second Squeak's question--"when will that be?." -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment came out wrong, a probable consequence of me being throwed as a frisbee at seven in the morning. :) "...a topic for another place" - such as WP:RFC/U - would be better; but as usual I've been overtaken by events with several other forest fires starting. east.718 at 03:43, May 25, 2008

[edit] Protection

Other opinions on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Continue discussion? It seems civil enough, and there appears the possibility that you two can work it out between the two of you. Other opinions should only be needed if the discussion stalls (or you both make a howler of a decision between you - which doesn't seem likely...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate other input on whether the edits that have been protected against warrant protection. In my opinion they clearly don't. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celine Dion

Another Admin is needed to protect the Celine Dion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article. An editor and I may have already been guilty of 3RR, and the dispute has not subsided. Since I'm involved I can't protect it myself, or block anyone, so any help is appreciated. Orane (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave you three days to work things out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully, this meaningless dispute can be cleared up quickly. Orane (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia hoax in the New York Times

According to the New York Times (link) Alexander Stanhope St. George, one of the early inventors of the Telectroscope, is a hoax article. It's now up for deletion. I bring this here to discuss if Telectroscope should be protected, if Alexander Stanhope St. George should be salted, and what should be done with the article's creator, A Likopoulos (talk · contribs).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• One clear-up: The Times article, on May 21, was reffering to an article that has already been speedied as a hoax. This is a re-creation of the previously deleted article (I'm assuming, I have no access to the deleted article). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time. The decision to delete or salt the article is made at AfD (where I am voting "keep", by the way). I don't think we block or ban users for creating bad articles, even COI ones, but if the creator is a sockpuppet or a troll that is a different matter. Wikidemo (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Creating hoax articles is the highest form of vandalism. If inserting nonsensical "penis" into articles can get a user banned/blocked, a fortiori someone who attacks the very integrity of Wikipedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be in bad taste to suggest that someone in London and New York should hang sign that says ^{[citation needed]} on their little interactive art exhibit? Heck, it would only increase their publicity anyways... —Ashanda (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• This huffing and puffing is ridiculous. I visited this piece of installation art yesterday, for which there was a long queue. It has instantly become a major tourist attraction and so certainly merits good coverage here. The rest is just a matter of content editing. Officious obstruction of this would just make the project look bad. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the Colonel; it isn't a hoax - see The Telectroscope, London's window on New York, which includes photographs. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just to clarify: the article on Alexander Stanhope St. George (the putative 'inventor' and fanciful 'ancestor' of the installation artist, Paul St. George, is a hoax. The art installation is not and it's very notable. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user updating his user pages from IPs

This account 78.149.51.23 (talk · contribs) is updating the user pages of checkuser confirmed sockpuppet ShakespearesZombie (talk · contribs) by removing the sock notices and restoring the cookies and barnstarts that he got after being blocked. I already labelled him as a sock. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion and some petty vandalism = just asking for a block. Next admin passing should deal with it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this? It seems a bit suspicious to me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STBotI

I've blocked this bot because it was tagging images for deletion for not having fair-use rationales when in fact they did have rationales.

I brought this to the bot owner's attention and his response was to call me stupid [101]. Is it my imagination or are bot owners more surley than average ;) After finding some more examples [102], the general reply from the bot owner was that the rationales were not sufficient.

People may judge the value of a fair use rationale, bots may not. This bot simply missed the fair-use rationales and the bot owner refused to admit it, wandering off on a tangent and criticizing the quality of the rationales instead.

So we have two problems. 1) The bot is broken; it tags images for deletion for not having a rationale, when in fact they do have a rationale. 2) The bot owner is broken; when there is a problem with his bot he spits venom at the messenger instead of acknowledging the problem and fixing it.

Actually there is a third problem; another admin came by, unblocked the bot and demonstrated on my talk page that he didn't bother to read about and understand the problem [103]. This is wheel waring on his part, under the banner of ignorance.

People may find a fair-use rationale insufficient and tag an image for deletion, I have no problem with that, but a bot is not able to make this judgment. I will continue to block this bot whenever it misses fair use rationales. --Duk 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting on my one-member-of-the-BAG hat, and considering the errors raised and the nonresponsive attitude of ST47, I endorse this block. No comment on the unblock other than what's been said by Duk...in short, Hersfold, don't do that again please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the "problematic taggings" you've identified, and the only one with a fair-use rationale that is even remotely close to adequate is [104]. If you want to block the bot for malfunctioning, make sure it's really malfunctioning first. --Carnildo (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked the bot because it is working just fine. If it isn't able to find what it recognizes as a rationale, it tags it. Bots aren't perfect - even the anti-vandalism bots get false positives occasionally. ClueBot adds a link to a page to report such mistakes in its edit summaries. Bottom line is, bots aren't, and for a very long time won't be, perfect, and will make mistakes regardless of how well they are written. For someone to demand "Revert the edit and fix your bot." and then proceed to block the bot when the operator explains there is nothing to fix is firstly, rude, and secondly an abuse of power. To continue to make a scene by accusing others of abuse and ignorance is making the situation worse. You are perfectly capable of clicking the edit button and expanding your rationale. If you really don't like the bot notices, we have {{bots}} and {{nobots}} for you to place on your talk page. I'm willing to concede the point that ST47's response may not have been the most diplomatic, but considering your initial "complaint" you have no room to talk. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It tagged an image I uploaded which I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with, too. Since this appears to be the level of debate of the creator with anyone raising any issues, I haven't even bothered complaining. — iridescent 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only part of the fair-use criteria your rationale covered at the time of tagging was the name of the article. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Invalid block images in question were not in compliance with our non-free policy β^{_{command 2}} 00:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh look; another member of the 'My bot works fine, you're just an idiot' party. HalfShadow 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent, at the time your image was tagged, your "rationale" simply explained why you thought it was under a CC license - it did not explain why WP could use it under fair use in the event it was copyrighted, which you weren't certain about. There was nothing meeting any of the non-free criteria. I notice also that Betacommand's bot marked it several months previously for the same reason. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've marked it again, as it still doesn't meet policy. The fact that users who don't even understand the policy are attempting to police those who do is quite horrifying. The fact is that the majority of the images duk mentioned in his block notice are in fact valid taggings, and his failure to understand my explanations and the policy and then his blocking of the bot in a case where he had a clear conflict of interest and where he wasn't even remotely correct about most of his facts is an indication of a blatant abuse of the tools. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it had the explanation that I believe but can't confirm that it's free use and hence wasn't moving it to Commons, and a fair use rationale, complete with the article in which it's used, in case it turned out not to be free use. (There is nothing in NFCC 10 to say that "images must include a link to the article".) I note that ST47 has now manually re-tagged it despite this. I am perfectly willing to concede that bots are sometimes wrong and hence don't shout and scream at the creators (you'll note, I hope, that when I removed the tag last time, even Betacommand - the scourge of unfree images - accepted it). — iridescent 00:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's NO RATIONALE. Review WP:NFURG. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NFURG is a guideline. It says at the top of the page that you should treat it with common sense, something that bots can't do. The main issue here is that in cases where there is a rationale, bots such as STBotI are not doing a good job of determining whether the rationale is sufficient. Instead, they are determining whether the rationale contains a link to the article, something which is of course helpful but isn't required by our EDP, and is clearly far from obvious to most Wikipedia users. If you equate "contains a link to the article" with "contains a sufficient rationale", then you can define all the bot's edits to be correct, but that equation doesn't make sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The bot tagged my image yesterday Image:Guns of the Timberlands.jpg and for the life of me I couldn't see why, can anyone else? RMHED (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That tagging was completely incorrect and you were right to revert it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the templated rationale you used. It's not easy to write a bot that understands templates. --Carnildo (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld's template is widely used, does that mean all those images are in danger of bot tagging? RMHED (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the bot. Back when I had ImageTaggingBot do lack-of-rationale tagging, the first time it encountered a templated rationale, it would mark the image as "no rationale", and I would have to add the template to the list of known templates. --Carnildo (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent - regardless of whether the bot is working correctly or not, calling other editors "stupid" and "small minded fool" when they question your bot is unacceptable. If you can't respond civily to complaints about your bot ST47 then you shouldn't be running it. Exxolon (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block - the operator was in violation of the bot policy's requirement that operators respond to inquiries cordially. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Gee, it would be nice if the anti-fairuse crowd would stop moving the goalposts... Well, if they want an edit war on that policy, they only need to keep up the incivility. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really about "anti-fairuse" versus "pro-fairuse", and characterizing it like that won't resolve anything. There is so much more to fair use than criterion 10c, and there is so much more to 10c than the "link to the article" test.

There are NFCC criteria which everyone agrees can't be checked by bots. We could arrive at a much more civil situation if we considered 10c to be one of those. Does that mean we can't enforce 10c? Of course not. A bot could use the same rule that STBotI uses and BetacommandBot used to flag potentially problematic cases. Then a person, with common sense, can figure out if there's actually a problem. This doesn't even increase the amount of work greatly, as there's always supposed to be a common sense check before an admin deletes the image anyway (I fear this doesn't always happen, though). The only problem is the assumption that the image bots are always right when it's clearly not the case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: according to guideline, "Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than United States fair use law, in terms of what is and is not allowed"; thus, an image may actually be fair use but still violate Wikipedia's fair use policy. The other thing is that Wikipedia policy is more cut-and-dry than the law, which involves a 4-part balancing test that admits of shades of grey. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again

I've blocked this bot again. Its accuracy is horrible. It tagged the following images for deletion for not having a fair use rationale, when in fact they did have a rationale [105] [106] [107]. The final link could be tagged orphaned fair use however. --Duk

I would say the bot was correct on a technicality. The actual article the fair use is being claimed for is not mentioned anywhere in the description, though the description does state what song it is for, and the musician separately. Combined they make up the article title. I would say the bot did exactly what it was supposed to there, and tagged appropriately. Though one would hope that a deleting admin would read into it enough to adjust the summary rather than unilaterally deleting. Resolute 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying "a fair use rationale for the article about song X by Y" as opposed to Wikipedia's name used for technical and style reasons "X (Y song)". The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure proper fair use of non-free images — not to make contributors jump through an endless series of semantic and technical hurdles subject to being rewritten at any point. When the guidelines and policy say "should include the article name" and "the rationale should be written in plain English" a user can be forgiven for thinking that writing the article name in plain English is acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why I said the bot was technically correct. A bot can only search the description for the article title. Unless it is matched precisely or very near, I doubt it will be capable discerning that the FUR is valid. This is not a fault in the bot writer, but a limitation in bots as a whole. This is, of course, why deleting admins should be checking images before deleting.

Perhaps we need to look at a way of flagging images that have been checked by a human/admin to be immune to future bot tagging, such that regular editors do not have to jump through these hoops if their FUR's don't have the precise article title? Resolute 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: when I first approached ST47 it became apparent that STBotI was looking for a particular template(Template:Non-free use rationale)[108] , and ST47 eventually muttered something about foundation level policy requires that the non-free state of images be 'machine-readable as justification for this. The initial image I complained about was in fact machine readable because of its copyright tag.

What ST47 refused to state clearly, because he knew that it was wrong but he wanted anyway, was for fair use images to use this particular template. As our conversation continued it became clear that this particular template is not a requirement for fair use, but that ST47 is just too lazy to fix his bot. So then he moved on to criticize everything else he could think of, except his own laziness. --Duk 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out why it's absolutely necessary for bots to do the actual tagging. Couldn't someone just make a list of specific problems (i.e. a basic "missing a link to the article it is used in") like I had done here and then have the fairuse "crazies" go through (hell, use AWB or something else) but manually review it)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I would like to be the case. Manual review, assisted by a bot, is a sensible way to approach 10c. It's crazy to think that a bot can do it on its own without loads of false positives. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, you (Duk) shouldn't be characterizing ST47 as "lazy". That kind of attack won't help this discussion proceed; it just invites equally nasty responses. And really, if you look at all he does with bots, you'll find it's far from true. The discussion should be about a flaw in ST47's bot, not a flaw in his character. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've written tools like this myself, from scratch. I know what it takes. --Duk 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note 2: The bot Request for Approval specifies WP:NFCC#10c enforcement on new images. Besides the horrible accuracy, this bot appears to be going after images uploaded long ago [109]. Also, if this bot is tagging image pages just for 10c violations, then the edit summary should state that, not This image has no valid rationale, which is just causing confusion. --Duk 05:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBotI 3 appears to expand this bots tagging to non-new images. This retro-active rules enforcing coupled with misleading edit summaries and misleading notes on user pages is unacceptable. If an image page is merely lacking a link to the specific article which the specific rationale pertains to, then don't plaster edit summaries that state This image has no valid rationale, please. --Duk 06:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

For images that have a fair use rationale this bot should not:

1. mark for automatic deletion if the rationale varies from bot owners preferred format.
2. make the misleading edit summary This image has no valid rationale.
3. leave a misleading note on the uploader's page that states You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria.
4. have an owner who's first response to someone with a complaint is to call them 'stupid'[110].

There has to be a separate fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in. If the image is used in only one article, then stop tagging it for deletion when the rationale doesn't contain a link to the article, since it's self evident.

--Duk 07:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tires of Duk's blatant abuse in these matters. Once again, all three of those images, [111], [112], and [113] have poor rationales which do not include a link. The rationale would be improved if a link was added, therefore the users should be asked to add a link. Note that the procedure for getting a bot changed is NOT making unilateral blocks against it, it is bringing a REAL problem to the attention of the operator. If you had done so prior to abusing your tools and acting like a fool, then you'd probably have found me more receptive to your concerns. At this point, I've grown tired of hearing from you. Lacking further comments from you that are completely wrong and necessitate correction, I won't be replying to you anymore. If you can reasonably explain your concerns to someone else, who can make a well-reasoned and non-abusive argument, then I'll consider making a modification to the bot. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

" The rationale would be improved if a link was added, therefore the users should be asked to add a link." I agree. So do most people, I imagine. Is it possible to have the bot tag differently in cases where there is the article title but no link? Or, better yet, just add it to a link and have humans (you can, I can, we all can!) go through the list and add links themselves? I imagine this would be all that's required in quite a few cases. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The tag is inappropriate for the situation. It is not appropriate to add this tag simply becuase you feel the rationale could be "improved." The bot, I think, should remain blocked until the problem is corrected. If you feel requests to fix the bot are abusive you are not required to address them, of course. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the bot looking for an actual Wikilink and rejecting use rationales that contain the exact text of the article title if they are not inside the double brackets? If so we've been through this before with Betacommand's bot. The issue was discussed at WP:NFCC and the link requirement was rejected. If that's what the bot is doing it is enforcing something that is not policy, and that was rejected as policy. Bots are supposed to enforce policy, not make it by fiat of the bot owner. It would also be easy to fix - just look anywhere on the image page for the text of the articles the image is linked to. In any event ST47's attitude is unacceptable, obviously. Wikidemo (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that blocking a bot you have concerns about is never abuse of one's tools. They should be blocked first and then discussed, if there is any reasonable reason to believe it is malfunctioning, because of the enormous harm they can do. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Anyone who gets upset over their bot being blocked at the first sign of trouble is not fit to run a bot. Friday (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect deletion tag

The tag used on these pages (e.g. here[114]) puts the article in a category for speedy deletion, even though in some cases it should not be speedy deleted at all acoording to the text of the tag. If a fair use image is used in different articles but the fair use rationale is only provided for some but not all of these, the image will ge tagged with this NFCC#10C tag. But such an image should never be speedy deleted, only removed from the pages where it is used without a fair use tag. Image without any fair use rationale may be speedy deleted, but when they have a fair use rationale for even one article it is used in, they may no longer be speedy deleted (at least not for this reason). Fram (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the tag says "deleted or removed from some uses" (emphasis added) so it's technically correct. One hopes that people patrolling image speedies get the difference and have agreed to take on the particular task of removing images from articles with all appropriate notices and edit summaries (and more importantly, fixing the obvious cases). However, the tag is a little misleading and no doubt it bites, or at least confuses, the newbies. How hard can it be to program this one to leave a deletion tag where there is no match between rationales and articles, and a different tag where the problem is that not all image uses have rationales? Wikidemo (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing with you when I say that being "technically correct" isn't enough. Bots cannot risk biting newbies, nor do I much like the idea of giving mis-leading tags to images and risking operator error on the part of those patrolling image speedies. This needs to be fixed before the bot is unblocked. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dejavu

• I hope ST47 realises his error when he passed off all objections at this bot's approval as me having something personal against beta, and speedy approved it as there being no issue with the bot. I didn't have an issue with beta in the case of NFCC tagging (although it was convenient for him and others to claim it so they could ignore my highlighting of all the issues re-occuring above). As I always stated, I have issues with the way this bot operates (i.e. coded - no coincidence this is the copy of betas code), and the way any NFCC bot operator incivilly treats people who encounter it due to its complex nature (you could swap beta's name for ST47 in all those diffs and you wouldn't notice any difference). Well here it is, a complete case of de ja vu for the community, just with ST47 not Beta. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility issue

In their (obviously important) technical and policy-based discussions about the work of the bot and its relation to the NFCC, people seem to have overlooked the instance(s) of incivility that occurred here. I feel that bot-owners having issues pointed out with their bots should remain polite even if they consider the question beneath contempt; by definition, they are more familiar with their bots' operation(s) and thus may omit to provide satisfactory explanations for others. I suggest that ST47 is censured for his rudeness. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censured. :-) But seriously, calling someone stupid is not a good sign. and neither is your sig... goodness, it's taking up about 5 lines of coding here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Great pun - and my sig has been looked at by numerous admins and pronounced clean ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some protective shield that is inherited by anyone who takes on beta's code. Comments by ^demon et al certainly seem to support this. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

hes not using my code. β^{_{command 2}} 15:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How come? That was the situation as far as I knew it at the last BRFA. What changed? MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't "censure" anyone, of course. But if someone is to operate a bot, they must be expected to interact civilly with those with concerns about the bot; the incivility of the response adds weight to the argument for keeping the bot blocked for the time being. Imprecision in a bot of this sort leads to confrontation, and incivility makes such confrontation worse, so we need either more precision from the bot or more civility from the operator—or, ideally, both. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

how about civility from those who dont know policy and are incivil to the operator? β^{_{command 2}} 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• We need civility from everyone; incivility does not justify incivility in response. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• How about 'this isn't a play ground' and 'two wrongs don't make a right'? How about higher standards from those members of the communtiy that supposedly do know what they are talking about? How about you stop rolling out this excuse as, well, some kind of excuse? MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, even if one is the most correct person in the room, acting uncivil will blow any credibility one has. _{1 != 2} 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've lost ST47 for a bit, and we shouldn't expect him to respond to this discussion. From User:ST47: "There are obviously quite a few problems with this project, first and foremost that people who are idiots can gain access to admin tools..." Not exactly the most classy exit. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

Lack of communication makes things blow up sometimes. ST47 should not call people 'stupid' in his first breath, it doesn't help. Edit summaries should be accurate, they shouldn't say This image has no valid rationale when it's not the case. Someone with a bot that runs the breadth and width of the projects' images should be able to communicate effectively when there are problems.

I made some very clear and straight forward suggestions above - ST47 still hasn't replied to those suggestions. I'm waiting. --Duk 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several people who agree with you above, Duk, including me. If I may make a suggestion, it might diffuse the situation somewhat if you don't treat this like a personal campaign, and leave this issue alone for a bit. I will make it a personal campaign instead, at least in the sense that I have no intention of letting the bot's block be removed until there is consensus here that it isn't problematic. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. --Duk 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reblock the bot

Per [115] - "My participation in this project is suspended for the time being..... If you require assistance with Wikipedia matters, I really don't give a damn, so don't contact me". If he's gone now, whether for a day or a month, clearly he needs to apply for an unblock if/when he returns. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot had been reblocked prior to that message. --Onorem♠Dil 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The real problem - unclear error messages

A big problem with the fair-use image tagging 'bots has been poor error messages combined with threats of deletion and too-short deadlines. This induces user panic and anger. The error message should contain sufficient information to clearly explain to a user what's wrong and what they should do to fix the problem.

All these 'bots are looking for is merely a link back to the article that used the image. But the error message doesn't clearly say that. It says "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed." Even the Internal Revenue Service has better error messages than that. Something like "You need to add a {{Non-free use rationale }} template to the image page, with the blanks filled in and a link back to the article using the image" would be a big help. This is what drives non-expert users nuts. A good rewrite of the error message text would probably bring the acrimony down to an acceptable level. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a large part of why my bots use custom messages and templates: I looked at the standard messages, decided they were not fit for human consumption, and wrote my own. I'm surprised more bot operators haven't done this. --Carnildo (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that ST47 in particular had such a problem with this. He was the impetus behind de-approving BetacommandBot for image tagging because its messages were unfit for human consumption. I agree that better messages are part of the solution. With a combination of better messages and not tagging for deletion without human review of things that need to be human-reviewed (like 10c), we could take most of the anger and drama out of image tagging. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it. The Wikipedia mechanism for proper image fair use is painful to use, with those finicky templates to fill in, and we shouldn't blame the users for having trouble with it. This process should be done with forms, not templates. Bot reports need a "click here to fix the problem" link, which takes the user to a form pre-filled with as much information as the 'bot can supply. We have something like that for image upload now, but don't have it for image use. --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked again

By User:MZMcBride. I for one endorse the unblock. If Duk has a problem with the bots operations, he needs to speak to the bots owner or take the issue up elsewhere. The bot wasn't 'malfunctioning', and this block was inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Falsely identifying rationales as invalid is a specific and correctible malfuction. I don't much care if it is blocked or not, but if it continues to make the same errors it will need to be blocked again. I'm disappointed to see MZMcBride wheel warring on this issue, especially given that he apparently either didn't look deeply enough into this discussion to notice this thread, or decided that it wasnt worth commenting here. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a malfunction. If the images were properly tagged with rationales, as policy mandates, the bot wouldn't have tagged the image. Ultimately, the tagging isn't the issue. It would be up to an administrator to delete the image or not. And if the bot is inappropriately blocked again by Duk (or anybody), it will simply be unblocked again. "Wheel warring" is a two-way street buddy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, we are talking about images with rationales that did exactly what the policy mandates. The policy makes clear that links are recommended, not mandated. The tagging is an issue because the tag being added makes a false statement and ST47 knows it to be false, and this behavior needs to stop. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Duk has spoken to the bot's owner. Unfortunately, the bot's owner, like some others in this discussion, doesn't believe there's a problem. There is no "policy mandate" to leave unhelpful messages and tag images for deletion when they don't follow your preferred format on the description page.

I would be willing to reblock the bot if it keeps making inaccurate edits, because bots are not there to "mandate policy"; they are there to automate repetitive and uncontroversial tasks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, that's not exactly right. Bots are to automate repetitive tasks, which includes enforcing policy. Maxim_(talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a problem with enforcing policy. Enforcing policy is certainly not a bad thing. The problem is using bots to define a de-facto policy that people wouldn't support if you wrote it down (which is what STBotI has been doing). And establishing immutable de-facto policies is something that bots are unfortunately prone to doing, especially because it's self-evidently futile to revert a bot or to tell it to be more careful. Because bots are so inflexible and have so much power, it's important to block them when they make large numbers of undesirable, unhelpful edits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone give me a reality check, we have unblocked a bot run by a user that has left wikipedia with the parting shot described above (still present). Seriously, what is the point? This is a joke. ST47 is clearly well outside the wiki ethos right now, so please explain why this bot is unblocked? MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just objected to the unblocking of the bot in the strongest terms on the unblocker's talk page. His failure to comment here is especially odd; perhaps the explanation is that he simply wasn't aware of this discussion. I will be watching the bot's edits carefully, and investigating what avenues there might be to request it to be de-authorized given that its operator is unavailable; if there are additional problems, I am certainly willing to re-block it. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too much time addressing the symptoms

Here's a way to reduce image bot work. Perhaps we should get a widely publicized (The Signpost, VP, etc.) community poll on what people think about the current state of fair use. And by poll, yes in this case a simple !vote is good. Questions should be raised, such as: have the massive deletions been helpful or harmful? If the latter, should the policy be revised to be more lenient? Should bots even be deleting images or should a human take responsibility for each tagging? Should a tagger be made responsible for making a reasonable effort to fix whatever policy problem the image is in violation of, if possible? The resentment, I argue, stems from the fact that they feel these bot operators do nothing but cause widespread disruption and mounds of busywork. They show little, if no respect, for the efforts of the contributor and often can't be bothered to fix even minor issues in the images. These deadlines are arbitrary and capricious. That these problems keep occurring seems to point to a growing consensus that the overly-restrictive rules in our fair use policy are at odds with what the community wants. I can probably best sum up what I have seen written by numerous editors: "Of course free images are wanted and a reasonable amount of effort will be spent to locate or produce one. However, if there are none available, then use a fair use one until such time as one can be obtained." I think most reject the idea that just because an image could be free means that no fair use should be used. That we should have to jump through hoops to find free pictures of famous people is mind-boggling. On top of that, we manage to community block the closest thing Wikipedia has to a member of the paparazzi. Anyway, like the common axiom says: "A picture is worth a thousand words." Let us not forget that. I do not think that the majority of the community at all subscribes to the copyright paranoia present on the NFCC policy pages. What we need is common sense. Most people feel that we are plenty free, even with numerous fair use images in individual articles or in sandboxes. Common sense would tell you that the project is seen as corpus to any legal authority and not as particular namespaces, thus the notion that you can't transclude images into non-mainspace is patent absurdity. Fianlly, to the uncivil comments by some bot operators. While you may feel that some administrators are complying with the wrong version of fair use policy, all I've seen is nothing but brilliant common sense on their part. Indeed, it is the fringe "freedom" activists who seem to be the ones without a clue. Come live in the real world and leave the copyright concerns to the EFF and the lawyers. You'll be much happier when you do. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the top right corner of your screen. That says Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Free, as in libre open source software, freedom to modify content, freedom to reuse content. That's been the purpose of Wikipedia since the beginning: to create an encyclopedia people can actually use. I've always been of the opinion that if you need to break that for the purposes of an article, it's fine as long as we have some standards, but for whatever reason people are now ignoring that and acting as though they can take copyrighted material for granted without understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to be free. Other projects can get on fine without abusing fair use, why can't we? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing our dual purpose here as an encyclopedia and a source of free content, as far as I can tell, or that bots do a lot of good to make people comply with the image data requirements and detect those images that do not. The specific concern is that the the bot has the added requirement of a back-link. If so, that is not policy - in fact, it has been discussed a number of times and did not get adopted, so a bot enforcing that rule is not aligned with policy. Another complaint is confusing, possibly misleading, and unduly alarming image tags, or at least something wrong with the messages. And a third issue about communication and civility. These three should all be easy to address. Wikidemo (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change our policy on non-free content, you should start at the source. Elections for the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees are coming up; you should campaign for candidates who are willing to repeal the Foundation's commitment to free content. --Carnildo (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's completely the wrong approach on many levels, Dragon695. The non-free content criteria are there for a reason. The issue at hand is whether it's appropriate to enforce them with inaccurate rules on bots, or whether human input is necessary. When you piggyback on this discussion to protest against the criteria themselves, you're turning the issue into a distorted caricature of what it really is. Also: polls don't create consensus, they destroy it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

that's more radical than necessary. the foundation has left a considerable room for each project to do its own interpretations of the details of what is locally permissible. Some have chose not to allow any nonfree content at all, we have within very narrow limits, and the question of whether we should broaden them slightly is up to us. so is the question of how narrowly and rapidly and impersonally we should enforce them, especially against newcomers. We could, for example,delete only when a goodfaith personal effort at getting a proper tag has failed, instead of relying on bots and templates. DGG (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Was that a response to me or Dragon? Because I basically agree with you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think DGG and rspeer have made some good points, some of which I agree with. What I am saying is that peoples' hostility towards the bots, and the siege mentality that is caused in the group of bot owners is a direct result of this discussion not happening on a broader basis. Why are people afraid to find out what the community's answers to those questions are? Also, I continue to ask what is it about fair use that makes the encyclopedia not free? The board has left it up to us to determine what we want to do in this respect, so this has absolutely nothing to do with board elections. I argue that much of the bitterness and bad feelings could be resolved if a highly-publicized discussion was had. Lastly, it is a matter of respect for other editors' time. Are we going to continue to treat it like rubbish, or will we make every reasonable effort to bring editors' contributions in line with policy? Since there is no such thing as true artificial intelligence, no program can be expected to replace the complex decision processes of the human mind. The problem is that CSD backlogs are usually dealt with by just running through and deleting without much care or attention. So it is critical that tags be done accurately and only if it is truly an image which cannot be used. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well since your opening post advacates a position that isn't even legal under US law ("because I want to" isn't a valid fair use defence we checked) it propbably isn't going to go down too well with those who know their stuff. Which is why there is little interest in a "community debate" problem is such a thing is imposible. You either get lot of pointless shouting or voteing by those who don't really understand the issues involved. And copyright is an area where unfortunely you have to understand the issues and doing so is time consumeing. Take your argument for non free images outside the article namespace. This presents a number of problems. First there is the statute law issue Fair use is only allowed "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". Experence tells us that once you move outside the article namespace these requirements tend not to be fufilled. Secondly there is the issue of keeping non free content under control. Since "fair use" is not some magic wand that takes you to the land of do as you please it is useful to have some level of control over it's use. And that means keeping it's use to a minium. We don't need fair use images outside the article space thus it is simplist all round not to have them. But the thing is you should know all this before you start trying to change policy. This issue has been gone over again and again. It's all in the archives.Geni 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked yet again

While reviewing the edits of the bot, I discovered it had made a new error: here it leaves an inaccurate edit summary. The image did, in fact, have licensing information (although I am not so sure it's correct, but that's something other humans can judge better than me or a bot). Since the operator expressed an unwillingness to make changes and has now apparently taken a wiki-break, I do not think it is reasonable to leave it running. Accordingly, per the block policy, I have re-blocked it as malfunctioning. I urge everyone to seek consensus on this page before unblocking again. Many users above have expressed serious concerns about the edit summaries and messages of those bots. I think it's better to err on the side of caution, and stop the bot from making further mistakes while we discuss this issue. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong there. It would have been better for the bot to use {{untagged}}, but "no license" is a pretty good approximation of the state of the image description page. --Carnildo (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The page contained {{Non-free use rationale}} already, and the user made an attempt to fill it out. If it's wrong, the bot should have said that; but saying there's "no license" is simply not correct. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess it's technically correct, but sometimes fair use is appropriate without there being a license, which is why we have {{Non-free use rationale}} in the first place. The bot needs to explain what it is doing, not give true but insufficient facts. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Off topic comment Oh that is just freaky, I was just about to look some stuff up about USBcell when I got side tracked reading this discussion. Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled program... -- Ned Scott 08:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Where I work, if a job is running questionably, it is stopped until all issues are resolved. Of course, that's in a professional environment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To Carnildo. Wikipedia:Bot Policy places a very high emphasis on communication, accuracy of edit summaries and accuracy of templates. The edit summary was inaccurate on the example SCZenz gave. This is a very easy and simple thing to fix or improve, and yet the bot owner is unapproachable. (quoting from WP:B)

"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users."

and

"Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general."

So the edit summary is trivial to fix, as are some of the other problems I've mentioned, but they are definitely a violation. The real problem, however, is the bot owner. He doesn't come close to satisfying the requirements of WP:Bot Policy in terms of; "communication", "a high standard of cordiality and information", "prompt and civil help", and the "ability to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately". He should have is bot flag removed.

In fact, at this very moment he's stating on his user page that the biggest problem with wikipedia is that it gives admin tool to idiots like me. Yes, he means me specifically.

Carnildo, can you honestly say that either the bot or its owner is living up to the requirements of WP:B? Is this the type of person we want running a project-wide bot operating on the contentious subject of fair use images? Should the community really have to endure another Betacommandbot, or perhaps a more virulent strain, all over again?

SCZenz asked me if I had any ideas on how to proceed with this problem. First off, I think the bot community should be expected to enforce some standards of behavior among their own. That doesn't seem to be happening here. Carnildo, if you and your bot crowd refuse to recognize any problem here, then I think an RFC is merited, most likely in preparation for an arbitration case. --Duk 14:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to have quieted down. My major concern was the fact that legitimate concerns had been expressed on WP:AN/I, and that some people were willing to unblock the bot rather than discuss or address those concerns. However, that trouble seems to have abated. Perhaps after ST47 has taken some time to away, he will return and be willing to work on making the error messages more helpful and accurate, and this issue will be completely resolved. Until then, I continue to beseech everyone to participate in further discussion; it is my strong opinion that the bot is malfunctioning with its present code and should remain blocked until fixed. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the block should stay for now. I've seen four articles tagged which had perfectly OK fair use statements but just didn't use the particular template ST prefers. Is there a list anywhere of the articles it tagged? I don't have all the Australian politics ones watchlisted and I'd assume there'd be more. Orderinchaos 04:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from this, there's no indication that ST47 has fixed the problems which led to the initial blocks - mistagging articles as lacking valid rationales when they did have valid rationales. Until that error is fixed, the bot shouldn't be operating. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kooky World Guy

Kooky World Guy (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of MascotGuy, and has been creating several new accounts (6 today, but a total of 17 and the user has only been registered for two weeks). The user has also added a "blocked sockpuppet" tag to who Cool vs. Wild‎ (talk · contribs), an account which is not blocked. It looks like the user is moving from one account to the next, and tagging old accounts as blocked or adding them to a list (is there a reason for keeping that list, or would it be better to delete it and deny recognition?). Some of the older account shave been blocked, I don't know if this user's accounts are still being blocked, as the recent ones have not been, but the user has quite a few unblocked accounts. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 10:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote block 'em all, especially since one of the accounts calls itself 'MascotGuy2009'. Who's with me? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them? I see that User:Ohnoitsjamie, a respected editor, seems familiar with them, so you may wish to pursue that avenue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it here as it suggests on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy that they should be blocked, but I am not sure if that is still the case as several are already listed as "unblocked" instead of being blocked (does the "instructions" part of the infobox on that page need to be updated?). I don't know much about the user; I mentioned it here as other users may be more familiar with them. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's really MascotGuy, trying to talk to them does no good, because he never edits Talk pages. Corvus cornix_talk 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy is always a "block now before he does any damage" situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And besides, this edit is too typical for MascotGuy. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They've all been blocked now anyway. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rom rulz424

Rom rulz424 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) has been editing a number of articles including Highways in New South Wales where they bold the highway list. After the 2nd revert by myself (has been removed in the past by another user) [116] I thought that best thing to do is use the MOS template (since I can't find a policy which rules against this) but then I get this message [117]. I'm trying to do what I can to improve Wikipedia and other users but when receive a message like that it puts me off Wiki. Admin MBisanz (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) has also commented [118] and as has Longhair (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email). Bidgee (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't done anything wrong at all. Rom rulz424 may just have lost his head (which, sadly, is all too easy on Wikipedia) but he probably just needs a talking to on what is exactly the correct way forward on the matter. You are both experienced editors & I'm sure this can be resolved just by some civilised interaction. Don't be put off editing Wikipedia just over things like this; we all go through it, and I know it's unpleasant, but as long as you do what you know is right, then you are still a respected member of this community. Lradrama 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It's not the first time Rom rulz424 has lost his cool. Last time it was over the list in List of highways in Northern Territory ( User talk:Bidgee/Archive (May 2008 - July 2008)#Roads and User talk:Lakeyboy#List of highways in Northern Territory - Which do you prefer?). Bidgee (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: Yoshi525

I have a source which tells me this user will soon unleash another wave of socks. So far, I feel that it would be best to clear up the relationship between this user and User: Zippycup, and demonstrate this on one of their pages - at present, I feel this information is quite misleading. 86.141.15.129 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post evidence to WP:RFCU or in the event the evidence is confidential, arbcom-en-l@wikimedia.org Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipage wants to download?

Is anyone else having a problem reaching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎ (WT:WPSPAM? For me, that talk page acts as if it wants to download something when I try going to that page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it works correctly for me again now ... that was strange ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How can I contact thru E-Mail

Can someone help me, how can I contact other users by e-mail?Check My Simple English (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Each User page like this one User:NonvocalScream and the user talk page User talk:NonvocalScream has an "Email this user" link on the left side. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is great.Check My Simple English (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TeutonicRyte

Vandalising user and user talk pages: [119] [120] and reverted my revert [121] (not sure about this, it was his usertalk page after all [122]) and finally nazi-calling [123]. no good is going to come out of him. ninety:one 16:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Rudget (Help?) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

thank you :) ninety:one 16:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite not being involved and out at the time I have seen one of his attacks on my Talk Page, so I thank everyone involved in the blocking of this horrible user. Who uses the word "Nazi" as if its a common word you use over the table if you like. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawp and Hagger

• At 21:59 on 23 May 2008 page Anglo-Saxons was subjected to Grawp / Hagger-type move vandalism, by a named user (not an IPA). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Misza13 for great justice and epic lulz. Oh, and for page-move vandalism. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:32, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we get a bit of vandal reverting out of the Grawps now. henrik•talk 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They had to make 10 edits before they could move an article, so they did ten useful edits first. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we might actually reach a situation where Grawp becomes a net contributor to the 'pedia? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

He's got a long way to catch up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the proposals to extend the autoconfirm further eventually pass, then who knows? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Putin, editors Muscovite99 and Kulikovsky

These two users have been warring at each other for a few weeks correction: six months now, and preventing any worthwhile re-structuring of the Putin article from taking place.

Recommend an admin simply talk to them; it seems like they're both acting in good faith, in their own way, but the intro to that article keeps getting shortened by other well-intentioned editors with an eye towards taking "controversial" items out of the intro and keeping it Pure-NPOV, whereas each of them *seem* to have an ideological bent on keeping the intro lengthy and contentious, for differing reasons. Ender78 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On further examination, I see that Muscovite99 has been blocked for a week. However, I don't think this will quite end up having the desired effect. Both users need to be advised that having an encyclopedia before the ToC does not a good article make. I left comments in both talk pages reflecting this. Ender78 (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ender78, firstly, let me thank you for assuming good faith on part of other editors. That being said, I think you misunderstood some of my intentions. I also think you might have confused edits of User:Cfeet77 with mine. Not long time ago someone proposed to add to the intro, which was single paragraph at the time. I did not propose it, and I do not think Muscovite99 did. Somebody made the lead longer. I remember a proposal on talk page, that came some time later, to shorten the intro to the minimum, but I do not remember that proposal having enough support. I believe your analysis is well intentioned, but I am afraid it is not enough complete. And just to prove my point I would like to say that

1. Muscovite99 was blocked for removal of a [bigger] half a paragraph.
2. I was, and still am, along with some other editors for removal of some other content from the intro, and in fact did it as per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but that met fierce resistance of Muscovite99, as well as some of User:Biophys.
3. Since the beginning of the year and until April, inclusively, I made exactly 3 changes to the article. That is 4 months period.
4. The article seemingly was pretty stable in March and April, I do not care to check its history further, so I am genuinely amused what was "worthwhile re-structuring of the Putin article" other editors could not have done back then and what prevented them doing that? A lot of activity in the article in May should not surprise, since in May Putin presidential term ended and he became PM, so, naturally, quite a bit of updates were needed. That is not to deny that some conflicts over content did happen in May too. I have no problem believing that there are some good ideas how to improve the article. In the same time, those ideas were not present on talk page, for instance, and I did not see those changes happening before May. Maybe I missed something. A complete protection you seem to be toying with will not help those changes happen too. Would you agree?

To conclude, the analysis, while well intended, was oversimplified and, at least partially, inaccurate.

There clearly was no consensus over what should and should not be in the intro. To clarify, I am talking about some parts of it, as the rest was stable. In this situation, while I can understand the motivation, requesting an administrator to ask to advise two specific editors to refrain from adding content to the intro sounds like an odd idea. Since there was no consensus. We are not the only two editors added content to the intro. There were at least 3 more. I think bringing this idea to administrators is at least premature, if not odd, while no doubt well intended. Did I say the analysis of the situation was partially incorrect? Kulikovsky (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested opening a RfC to both Kulikovsky and Ender78. Muscovite99 may wish to participate once the block expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the RfC would be problematic at this time, but is certainly a concept to be explored later. (Particularly if M99 renews the edit war.) For now, I think folks are on the same page, and I feel this incident can be removed from the noticeboard. Ender78 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Borusmat‎

Please could an Admin review the actions of Borusmat. This editor has been warned for disruptive editing on several occasions over the past week. Having created a page called Mateusz Boruszka‎ on 17 May this was given a speedy deletion tag almost immediately they have now a redirect set up from their User Page to this 'article'. NB. given the tagged page will no doubt disappear shortly it may be seen as as a preemptive form of Seppuku so best to just let matters take their own course.Tmol42 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not really seeing it. Is this a case of newbie mistakes, cause I'm not seeing intentional disruption. Has anyone offered to assist the editor? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor did I see anything. However, I did leave User:Borusmat‎ a note about not marking all edits as minor. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ma Ying-jeou

Ma Ying-jeou was inaugurated President of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on May 20. Since then there had been frequent vandalism by IPs. I had requested protection in the Talk page but it didn't seem to catch any administrator's attention. Can someone put a protection up? HkCaGu (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week by Gwen Gale (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). In the future you can request protection at WP:RFPP. Tiptoety ^talk 19:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SB/Incivility

Moved from AN. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am getting fed up of this user (including his false characterisations of other editors - including pedophilia and pro-pedophilia accusations towards editors who have been forced into veiling their language with unnecessary anti-molester rhetoric). He has driven too many good editors off the project, incited the blocking of too many good editors, and now resorts to characterising my friendly reply as "trolling", removing it from the talk page of someone from who he has no permission to behave in such a way - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Googie_man&diff=prev&oldid=214654729.

If any administrator really doesn't know what he has been up to, and is willing to actually do something about it, I will be more than welcome to flood this page with diffs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An example from only a while ago - of how this editor is forcing very strongly held POV on the encyclopedia, and characterising the editors who he is supposed to be working with as pedophilia advocates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=214652507 (and the following diffs). J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

E.g. "and/or reform of child pornography legislation, the latter in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life (for instance child porn on the internet compounding an original abuse many millions of times)" J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

following comments moved from WP:AN
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Is a simple content dispute, not something for admin intervention, and NPOV allows for all non-fringe views on a subject. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC) I would comment that User:Googie man had asked you not to post on his talkpage, so Squeakbox was simply enacting the absent editors request. Regarding the rhetoric, I shall ask Squeakbox to tone it down and to provide evidence/sources for their assetions - but I would further comment that contentious issues do tend to result in passionately voiced opinion and this should be taken into account when choosing to edit or comment upon such subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC) I am also reminded that disputes/discussion relating to paedophilia or any editors contributing to the article should be forwarded by email to the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been almost everywhere so far, and I may be wrong, but the article in question is currently under mentorship and any problems should first be referred to the mentors at Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship. --Rodhullandemu 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The reports there have been without consequence (see Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#Seriously). SqueakBox's behavior on these articles, including unpunished sockpuppet abuse, is completely unacceptable and needs to be given administrative attention. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the WP:RFCUpage for SqueakBox, and none of the allegations seem to have been accepted. So it seems unhelpful in that light to raise the issue. However, I can see that there are problems with this article but I'm not so familiar with the issues to get involved. --Rodhullandemu 20:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to AS: Nice try at diversion, but the problem editor is Jovin: [124],[125]. And part of the problem is, as Rodhullandemu points out, that these complaints are supposed to go to mentorship, not AN/I (unless we agree that it's not working, and to delete that page), and you and Jovin are being disruptive by bringing (baseless) complaints here, there, and everywhere in a forest fire designed to deflect scrutiny from Jovin. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's baseless. The fact that you are wrongly accusing others of nonexistant harassment and making legal threats is most certainly not. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

His recent accusation that I was having fantasies about children being easy to abuse abroad, combined with the peripheral nonsense accusing me of advertising for pedophiles, etc was particularly disgraceful -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=205455669 J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent? It's from April 14, and it looks like sarcasm to me. But here's something recent--five minutes ago when you admitted to abusive sockpupptery: [126]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. Again. (I don't know exactly what your agenda for misrepresenting me is) J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Since she commented, Petra has overblown this small issue into an attempt to smear me as a sock puppeteer, despite the fact that I deliberately covered my ISP address with my account user name, before her suspicions were raised. This should be taken as further evidence of this user's disruptive behaviour. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a small issue at all--you engaged in abusive sockpupptery. (On top of constant incivility, harassing Googie man, edit warring in tandem with Tor socks...the list goes on). -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And if all that weren't enough, here's his second lame attempt at a legal threat in two days -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• For which he was blocked for a whole nine minutes, then redacted. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All I see from Jovin Lambton is yet another person who himself has a more than dim likelihood of sockpuppetry, himself accusing SB of sockpuppetry. It would really help if you didn't try to post the same damn thing in 800 places; it only pisses of the admins. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In fairness, Petra is just as much, if not more, of a drama queen. My advice is to just archive this thread, as it is just more nonsensical whining from both sides. To J*Lambton, you'll never get any sanctions on SB, he's protected by JzG. SB has, in the past, even gone as far as making personal attacks and legal threats against administrators who stand in the way of his crusade, but as I'm sure SWATJester can attest, JzG will swoop in after any block saying, well Squeak's a good chap, magically making everything better. Just let it go, is my advice. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• First, keep your cheap personal attacks to yourself, thanks. Second, I didn't accuse Jovin of anything so flimsy as being a "drama queen," I pointed out that he is grossly incivil, engages in abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars in tandem with Tor socks, and makes legal threats (for which he was blocked yesterday). As soon as he was accused of the sockpuppetry (of which he is guilty, and to which he admitted) he began making wild accusations against Squeakbox in a noisy, disruptive forum shopping spree in multiple locations, to deflect scrutiny from himself. He should be indef blocked. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your self righteous tone is why I say drama queen. You make it sound like those are the most important articles in all of Wikipedia. Got news for you, they aren't. If it was George Bush or Barak Obama I think people might take it more seriously. I've seen at least three, if not four threads started by you on AN/I this week, so you are hardly in the position to be calling someone on forum spamming. You seem to think AN/I is the right place to report everything and ignore the dedicated sub pages listed at the top. In fairness, I find his cross posting to multiple forums also highly irritating. As to Tor edits, well I don't blame anyone who did use an anon proxy. Do you think any reasonable editor wants to have his good username associate with garbage articles like that, especially ones that induce mass hysteria and moral panic? They might be accused of being kiddie fiddlers if they didn't edit they way certain owners of said articles want them to. Once again, I refer you back to an incident where SWATJester fell victim to such an incident. It could be socks, but then again, it just could be others who don't share your POV. Do be mindful that wiki-sleuthing is not a good idea unless you have concrete evidence, not speculation. I just wish all three of you would quit complaining about crap that doesn't matter in the grander scheme of things. So Child pornography is on the The Wrong Version? Yawn. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Wrong--I only started one thread, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with this--all the threads were started by JL and AS. And as I pointed out to you already today, your longstanding ill will toward Squeakbox [127] and your disgustingly phrased opinion that "Arbcom has a stick shoved up their ass" about the PPA articles :[128] has nothing whatsover to do with this either--you're just looking for a place to venomously blather about your stale irrelevant grudges. The issue here is Jovin Lambton. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)