Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closing as there is no admin action needing to be done and conversation is trailing off. Listen, you two aren't getting along, correct? Third party intervention has labled it WP:LAME on all accounts. I suggest you two (White cat and Ned Scott) resort to the next level of dispute resolution, or leave each other alone. Ok? — Moe ε 12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Broken redirect fixes getting reverted

User:Ned Scott has been revering my edits of redirect fixes (leading to my own archive pages) on multiple pages just two minutes after my edits, these were the users first edits today as well (Two examples: [1] [2]). I feel this has crossed into the WP:HA ("The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.") area.

In the past, the same user had revert warred over the deletion of the page user:Cool Cat by recreating it multiple times contradicting the deletion of multiple admins. He has later revert wared over the closure of the MfD of the same page again against multiple admins.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned about this so many times, Cat. There's no way to assume good faith at this point, you clearly know that you're not supposed to update talk archives for your minor cosmetic changes. If you choose not to use redirects, and to make it harder for people, that's your own fault, since that was the option given to you. Those first two edits were the highest on my watchlist, and were to pages I already watch and was involved in. Some of your edits just today even changed other people's comments so they didn't call you Cool Cat. Dude, just stop it already. -- Ned Scott 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By this user demonstrates that he fails to even follow WP:AGF. His post here comes just 6 minutes after mine. -- Cat ^chi? 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(emphases mine): "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The fact that this is a repeated matter, that admins have reverted these same changes, tells us you know what you are doing, you know you were told not to do it, and you continue to do so. -- Ned Scott 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Then take the case to WP:DR! How many of the steps have you taken? If you are to the point of "no way to assume good faith", take it to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. I am sure others would agree if I am indeed trying to hurt the project.

I want a logical explanation on how I am hurting wikipedia by making sure links to my archive pages stay intact rather than being redlinks. How is them being redlinks a benefit to the project? Fixing broken links is explicitly allowed and recommended even though Wikipedia:Redirect is a mere guideline.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to make your NOHARM arguments all day long. We gave you the option of making redirects, and you refused it for absurd reasons. You were the one who made those links into redlinks, it's your fault they are redlinks. You do not have a right to delete pages in order to force updates you were told not to do, and that's exactly what you are trying to do. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not take orders from "you" -- Cat ^chi? 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't Cool cat's insistence on modifying talk page archives been on this page – or one like it – once already? Can someone provide the links if that's the case?

To Cool cat: No one here disputes that you mean well in your contributions to Wikipedia. Your knowledge and technical abilities are highly valued. However, you have a long history of not demonstrating the best judgement or skills in handling disputes. Perhaps it would be best for you to stop making these changes until the matter is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; I found the previous mess myself. (I can't guarantee this to be an exhaustive list, either.)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive253#User:Centrx is reverting minor format fixes

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive264#User:Centrx and my sigs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive48#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive49#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

It occurs to me that if your 'fixes' have caused this much drama and inconvenience, you might be best to leave well enough alone. If you want to put the entire Cool cat name behind you and no longer be associated with its poor judgement (which you're in danger of continuing as White cat with these activities) then start over with a new name and a clean slate. This whole thing would be hilarious if it weren't wasting so many people's time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The drama isn't my doing so you should ask that to the people making a drama over trivial edits (such as on here). Please do not blame me for someone elses edits. I particularly do not find any of this entertaining. I want to sort my userspace in peace just like everyone else. I did not change my username to put "Cool Cat name behind". There was no darn cunning intent. I simply wished to change my username. Please do not make up another reason as there is no other. I have made every effort to maintain my ties to my former account. That was the very intention of the entire signature edits. -- Cat ^chi? 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The key question is would you block a user for fixing broken redirects. These are not signature edits. -- Cat ^chi? 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You were not fixing broken redirects, you were using the lack of redirects as a way to edit past discussions for cosmetic reasons. -- Ned Scott 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Red links ARE broken redirects. What do you think a broken redirect is? -- Cat ^chi? 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also you state that my edits were "cosmetic" implying that they weren't disruptive. So why were you reverting them? -- Cat ^chi? 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, White/Cool cat. While you're not solely responsible for the drama, you're certainly a major contributor to it. Given that this issue has spawned at least four previous AN/I threads, it takes very little common sense to realize that continuing the same behaviour would bring you back into conflict with the other editors involved.

If you simply 'wished to change [your] username', your wish has already been granted. There's no need to go modifying hundreds of archives that contain your old username, and the old links are only broken because you insisted on deleting the redirects at your old userpage. What on earth do you seek to accomplish through these changes that's worth all this trouble? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"There is no need" is not an acceptable reason to mass revert anyones edits. This is something explicitly prohibited. Unless there is a very good reason (vandalism, copyvios, addition of unsourced material, trolling, personal attacks, legal threats, and etc), no edit should be ever reverted. Also these kinds of edits are frequently done: [3]. When a discussion is moved, so should links leading to it. I cannot see a single rationale that would contradict this.

You know this series of discussions is a reminiscent of the kinds of remarks I had when I was complaining about the stalking behavior of Davenbelle and later Moby Dick. I also had lots of ANB/I's similar to the ones I am dealing with now. Surprisingly RickK was ALSO mentioned in them.

My ultimate military objective is to clear my former userspace and I think thats in line with wikipedias key policies. I should not need to explain why am I restructuring my userspace as to be blunt it is no ones business but mine. No one should be standing in my way when I make alterations to my userspace (and fixing links leading to them). Such a thing is unheard of. I will not stop editing my userspace.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that you may (within reason) structure your own userspace however you like. But, that doesn't grant you the right to fiddle with hundreds or thousands of other archived discussions. The fact that the links are broken now is entirely your own fault, due to your insistence on not leaving redirects under your old username. You have yet to provide any explanation for why this much-simpler and much-less-disruptive solution is unacceptable to you. Unless and until you provide a convincing explanation for this, you will continue to see objections and resistance to your massive and unnecessary changes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a single person has to explain why they are fixing broken redirects anywhere on wikipedia. This is something actually encouraged. If it isn't disruptive, then it is allowed. So what is being disputed?

The user claims that I am not allowed to {{db-self}} stuff in my userspace (above). I find that to be disturbing for many reasons. I do not believe I am alone with this. Same user also claims that I mean harm to the project with my edits (above). So at least someone is disputing that I "mean well" with my edits.

I have been stalked for a full two years and it had taken me two arbcom cases countless ANB/I posts, RFCs, RFCUs, and ultimately the Sanction Board to resolve that. I consider it very very unfair that people are disputing my ability to handle disputes. I have shown more patience than I should have needed to. I do not want to spend a similar two years with this case. Please do not dismiss my remarks without reviewing them.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you're blatantly lying about things I've said and done. Policy and guidelines said we could take your first userpage deletion to MfD, I never said you were not allowed to delete your pages, only the ones where the community wished to contest the deletion. I have no pity for someone who uses the fact that they were stocked to gain sympathy or the upper hand in unrelated debates. You've even accused admins of stalking you when your sig changes were reverted. I never said you mean to harm the project, only that you have given more than enough reason to not assume good faith over this specific issue. You were told to stop, you didn't stop, that's all there is to it. -- Ned Scott 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines didn't said nor will thay say that the deletion of my userspace requires an MfD. Forcing someones own userpsace to go though MfD-consensused delete then even challenge that via a DRV is as m:dicky as one can get.

You have repetitively recreated User:Cool Cat page (people have been blocked for this behavior) and have also repetitively removed the speedy deletion tag from the same page (admins can check the deletion log). You have revert wared the closure of 4 admins on the MfD (1st revert: 21:30, 28 May 2007, 2nd revert: 17:04, 29 May 2007, 3rd revert: 00:25, 29 May 2007, 4th revert: 00:31, 29 May 2007)(people have been blocked for this, several people lost admin privileges over this). You reverted over 4 times in both cases violating the 3rr rule twice in a row (you should have been blocked for 24+24=48 hours for this). Both 3rr cases were closed by the same admin who also commented on the deletion discussions, whom himself sated a possible COI. You have even added a weird notice (possible WP:POINT block) on the page after the DRV. Which had to be reverted twice since you reinstated it a second time. You later placed it to the talk page which was also reverted.

I have taken steps of WP:DR (ex: 3rd opinion), you have not.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, from WP:USER: ''If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page."

And the only reason I made the MfD and DRV a big deal was to avoid what you are doing now. Had a simple redirect been saved you wouldn't be able to waste our time like this. You are deleting redirects to justify changes that you were told not to do. You are even changing people's comments, not just your own. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its my userpage, dude! Whats your problem? There are nine and a half million other pages you could be working on. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, "others may request undeletion" doesn't mean you get to recreate the page multiple times. -- Cat ^chi? 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool/White Cat managed to drive User:RickK away, and now he's working on doing the same thing with Ned Scott. Corvus cornix 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, everybody is responsible for themselves. I had minimal interaction with that person in question. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

White cat, its entirely ridiculous to attempt to fix all of those links for your signature. "White cat" is already in the history of the articles, not Cool cat, people aren't stupid, we can figure it out. And if you honestly wanted a clean slate and chance to start over, go ahead and do it, fix broken redirects in the article namespace, find something productive to do, and stop worrying about it. — Moe ε 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps get a new name to boot and start with zero edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not want a clean start. I find any suggestion insulting, if people cant assume good faith, thats their problem. I simply want to clear my former userspace. There is nothing ridiculous about it. Fixing broken redirects are edits people do all the time. It is ridiculous that I have to put up with this. I find it shocking that no one is AGAIN commenting at all on Ned Scott's behaviour. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is how you fix a broken redirect. Less work for all involved, less drama on the admin board. >Radiant< 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To avert further drama, I've fixed all relevant redirects I could find in the simplest way: by redirecting the old title to the new title. That is what redirects are for, and that is why editing archive pages is not necessary. HAND. >Radiant< 13:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I deleted two redirects at the user's request that were no longer used: User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/08 and User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/09, the only links there were from my talk page, white cat's talk page, and jlatondre's talk page, all discussing the page itself, not the target of the redirect. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And more drama

[4] Cool Cat has made it clear that he doesn't care that his edits are generating drama, and that he will continue with everything the way he has been doing it unless taken to ArbCom. That reaction is telling. I suggest that by knowingly and willingly generating needless drama, he is being disruptive, and that we simply block him if he persists in his disruption. >Radiant< 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd strongly recommend avoiding ArbCom, at least until something's been proposed on community sanction, but this has been going on too long and there are too many people involved for a simple resolution. If he continues edit-warring over speedy tags, policy supports a block:

There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:

• reverts done by a user within his or her own user space,...

Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.

Further, disruption is certainly clear, the number of topics on this noticeboard alone and the time taken by arguments and by the constant revert warring could be better spent. I wouldn't do it unilaterally, but if White_Cat continues edit warring, even in his own or former userspace, I would support a block. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that users are not entitled to three reverts, and persistent reversion is strongly discouraged. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR CLEARLY does not apply to a users own userspace. It is very m:dicky to harras someone in their own userspace.

I will not continue reverting simply because ST47 KINDLY asked on IRC, not because of policy. I find his remark here to be contradictory in nature with that. If I disrupt my userpsace, that shouldn't be anyones problem but mine.

There is someone (User:Ned Scott) committing the behaviour explained in WP:HA and no one is willing to even discuss it. Why are people so keen on looking the other way of his edits and constantly focus on attacking me, I wonder.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to go to sanction board. Propose that I be prohibited to edit my userspace or fix redirects as people are recommended to. If that nonsense sticks any where there is no reason for me (or anyone) to continue with this project. -- Cat ^chi? 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When will we actually going to think of reviewing Ned Scott's contribution? -- Cat ^chi? 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. I still don't see what exactly about White Cat's editing of his userspace and related other pages is so bad that it has prompted all this drama, revert warring and blocking threats. Could someone present the situation in a nutshell? --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  My primary complaint is that he's editing archives and revert warring over them. There's been constant revert warring, and I feel that it's stemmed from a rather childish dispute - making demands without backing them up any further than 'I'm doing it because I want to'. I was talking to white_cat once and he mentioned that a guideline I was quoting was irrelevant because it wasn't policy, which is plain wrong: we don't write these guidelines because we're bored at work one day, and if you're going to violate them, you'd better have a reason, and all I've heard was completely circular: White_Cat wants to delete his old userpage because he wants to (a redirect), and then he wants to edit all of his past sigs because they link to a page that doesn't exist. Now, I've heard that he wants his entire userspace deleted - including talk pages, which CSD doesn't apply to - with no better reason than that people can't 'troll' him unless he has a userspace. If he wants to disassociate with 'Cool_Cat' completely, then it would have been easier for everyone to just make a new account, but if you're being trolled that badly, then it should have come to this noticeboard beforehand. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is officially pointless

I don't know why White Cat wants to fix all the broken links to Cool Cat when he could make Cool Cat a redirect instead. However, I don't care. Unless someone wants to make it official policy that users who change their name must redirect their own user pages, then there is nothing wrong with White Cat editing archived discussions, as long as he does not make misleading content changes. I see no reason for Ned Scott to object, and indeed have never seen a credible objection by anyone (including admins) to White Cat's edits except, "that's not how we usually do things." Therefore I find White Cat's complaint that Ned Scott is stalking him to be credible, and I will have no problem blocking Ned Scott if this persists. Thatcher131 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: usually, I just lurk around these parts, but I have to say I agree with a lot (maybe not all) of what Thatcher writes above. I've seen this show up multiple times on this board, but I've have not yet grasped what the cat person is doing that is so offensive it has to be reverted. Archives should normally be left alone, but is changing the name (tedious though it may be. . .) making nonsnense of other editor's replies? Or obfuscating discussions? Do people think he's doing more than changing his name? It seems like a waste of time to me, but it's ?cat's time to waste and I still don't understand why other editors waste their time worrying about it. R. Baley 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, once an archive is created, it should remain untouched with the exception of removing libel or other harmful material. One of the problems here is that White Cat never presented a reason for editing all these archives. Changing old signatures doesn't come anywhere near a compelling reason. If White Cat doesn't wish to have a redirect to Cool Cat, that's fine. If no one objects to his signature changes, that's also fine. But continuing to push the issue after it's crystal clear that it's causing drama with many users in many venues is unacceptable. I don't doubt that Ned Scott is contributing to this particular problem, but it seems rather clear that White Cat has brought this stress upon himself. Chaz ^Beckett 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I expect you would be shocked at the number of archives that have been edited, blanked or even deleted to protect the privacy of a certain banned user whose right to vanish is supported by Jimbo. Assuming no one is actively trying to drive White Cat away, I see no reason not to allow him a lesser degree of latitude. Thatcher131 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of such edits, but this isn't a similar situation. White Cat is still editing (his claim to have left notwithstanding) and he had made no mention of vanishing when he began editing archives weeks ago. Chaz ^Beckett 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying one has to leave the project to alter links to his/her/its archive pages? Or alter sigs? Isn't this a punishment of the long term contributors? In addition such edits are frequently done. For example several people alter archive pages linking to archived ANB/I discussions. I find that to be productive. -- Cat ^chi? 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, Cool Cat's edits triggered my watch list, and you say I'm stalking him? The community says, don't make these changes, and these are on community talk pages. It doesn't have to be written in official policy, it just has to be a consensus. If I see him screwing around with archives needlessly, I will revert him. What he is doing is inappropriate, and just because I don't let him have his way because he's throwing a fit does not make me the one in the wrong. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are people (plural) trying to drive White Cat away. They had been successful. -- Cat ^chi? 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to drive you away. This is just another example of Cat throwing a fit to try to get his way over a trivial matter. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No trivial matter involves reverts. -- Cat ^chi? 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username, where it says Be aware: This change will not effect signatures you have already left on talk pages, or other places where you signed your username with ~~~~. Those pages will continue to display your signature (including the link to your old username) unless edited manually. Unless this policy is changed to actively prohibit editing old sigs, then I see no reason to sanction White Cat for doing so. Thatcher131 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the past discussions on this matter. Reason is given, and he needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the past discussions, and the reaction is decidedly mixed, with an awful lot of the opposition coming from just two users. Thatcher131 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like White Cat is prepared to leave Wikipedia over this issue. (See User talk:White Cat and User talk:Tony Sidaway.) White Cat's insistence on changing his signatures in the archives is idiosyncratic at best, but I still think it would have been easy enough to leave him and his changes alone. Newyorkbrad 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In Cat's own words. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Has anyone listed this at WP:LAME yet? It was playing silly buggers with my watchlist a while ago (Star Trek AfDs mostly). Either side here could simply decide that whatever advantage he gains by "winning" is offset multiple times over by the amount of disruption it is causing. So, who's going to show some common sense? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it has. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I still believe Cat is going about this in a very inefficient manner, for the love of all that is Wiki stop reverting him. I have not once on any of these ANI threads seen what I feel is a compelling reason to revert him. He's not just changing his signature, he's effectively usurping all of his old discussion posts, and wants the old username forgotton (the name only, he still leaves a link to his old block log on his userpage). Unusual? Yes. Inefficient? Yes. Are his actions directly harming Wikipedia? No. Just because one or another policy allows you to revert his sig changes, or undelete his userpage, doesn't mean that you should. I think it's time for everyone to step back, breath, and start ignoring the rules. Given links to Cool Cat's block log and contribs on White Cat's userpage, his sig changes aren't inhibiting anyone from finding out who posted them. He has given a reason for doing this, I have yet to see someone give a real reason to revert him, beyond vague "disruption" or causing drama or "he's been told not to." Again, just because you're allowed to revert him, doesn't mean you should. The reverters are as guilty in generating this drama as White Cat himself. Someguy1221 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Someguy1221 and Thatcher131. White Cat was doing something fairly pointless but not harmful and those reverting him, rather than ignoring his harmless edits, aren't helping. There is a little evidence that one of the editors, namely User:Ned Scott, showed an unhealthy interest in him on commons, where White Cat is an administrator.

The status of the case at present is that he has decided to leave Wikipedia, and in accordance with his wishes many of his user pages and talk archives have been deleted. All of the interactions on his user talk page are still present in his talk page history--going back to February, 2005. I hope he will still change his mind. If he does, I would like to see a change of behavior from those who have harassed him to the point of wanting to leave this project. In short, I want them all to leave him alone. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, what? Where have I showed an unhealthy interest in him on Commons? I stated a concern about him becoming an admin a long while back, considering he has failed every single request for adminship in the past with strong opposition. But even with that, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. A total of six edits were spent on the matter for two days. So don't bullshit about stuff like that. Seriously Tony, your judgement lately has been lacking.

No one has harassed Cat in this issue. His bizarre overreaction is his own. And isn't this like the 7th time he's left Wikipedia? One of the times he threw a fit, started vandalizing articles because no one would block him at his request, and he even MfD'ed WP:CIVIL. His reactions are abnormal, and unreasonable, and faulting those related to the reactions is judging them completely unfairly.

Plus, if any of you even think about blocking me for reverting his talk page archive edits, you might want to talk to User:Cyde and User:Centrx, who were and are reverting the same edits. Oh wise and powerful admins of AN/I, way to fucking go for over looking that one, and trying to pin it all on me. This is a minor issue, I've done nothing wrong, and Cat just overreacted, plain and simple. We've seen this happen way to often for you guys to ignore these facts now. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my position. This is not over simple trivial edits but because of the constant harassment I receive from a few users - and the community apathy towards the situation. I dealt with something like this during the entire 2 year User:Davenbelle/User:Moby Dick/User:Diyarbakir dispute. I WILL NOT experience that again, either help me or shoot me. After that was finally over, this started.

For the past 2+ months I have been dealing with nonsense after another for the changes I make within my userspace - something I feel no one sane should have problems with. I have tried multiple attempts to resolve the issue, they were all shot down.

• I first tried modifying my sigs, a courtesy given to our most notorious vandals (who write vandalism software). I was denied that as Ned Scott, Centrx reverted them. Centrx continued to revert them for months in a slow pace. Some people raised objections that the precondition for such signature alterations was me actually leaving. Even evidence pages of vandals are deleted when they decide to "leave" not by anybody but by Jimbo personally.
• I then gotten my former userpage deleted (not the talk page), Ned Scott repetitively recreated it contradicting multiple admins (check deletion log of User:Cool Cat page). He then forced the issue to an MfD. He has revert wared on the MfD contradicting at least 4 closures by 4 different admins ([5], [6], [7], [8]). He then taken the issue to DRV. He mass msged the DRV to random people, that was one random example I just noticed. And after that he placed that strange message to the MfD reinterpreting the closure of the DRV. He was reverted. Then he reverted and reinstated the weird msg once more. He was re-reverted and he made no further reverts. 5 minutes later he semi apologized [9] [10]. He later placed the same msg to the talk page of the MfD. Which was also reverted.
• After giving things time to cool down I tried getting unused (0-5 links per page max) redirects on my former userspace deleted. I was also denied that basic courtesy as Ned Scott reverted them just two minutes after I made them. It isn't really courtesy, more like edits no one would care about had they not been reverted senselessly. When he was asked why he is doing what he is doing he simply responded by removing the question with the edit summary "so tired of your bullshit, tony"

Off course none of the above can in any way be interpreted as disruption. It is perfectly acceptable and encouraged behaviour.

Whenever I brought up the conduct by Ned Scott or others concerning my trivial edits and their reverts on them, I have been told to "back down" on each of these cases either through public or private channels. Why should anyone need to back down from trivial edits, I wonder... In order to prevent needless discussion I have done so for the most part.

This isn't drama at all - at least thats not my intention. If I am getting mass reverted for making seemingly trivial edits (not just by one special user but by multiple users) and everyone is fine with that, the logical conclusion is that I am a threat to the project... If my value to the project is less than the most notorious vandal, I obviously am unwanted. Am I mistaken? Why do I not deserve the courtesy a notorious vandal receives?

-- Cat ^chi? 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just took the bother of going through the archives of those incidents that I didn't watch as they unravel, and I still haven't found a single good reason to revert White Cat's sig changes. (This is mainly for Ned Scott, who insists that good reasons were given) The reasons I have seen given are that "you can't do that" (says who?) "you're trying to hide your past" (this has been beaten to death, it's not true) "it will be hard for people to find out who originally made that comment" (no, it makes it easier) and "if someone reverts you, you should just leave it be" (the reverter shouldn't hit the undo button in the first place without a good reason). There's also the request to leave archives exactly as they were, but I think that's neither here nor there; sure, he's changing the archive, but he's making it easier for people to locate who made his comments. I am still waiting for someone to provide me an actual good reason to revert him, something better than what I've listed above, and something better than "he's been told not to do it." Someguy1221 01:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, enough of singling me out.

Reverting him is no disruption to the community, only his reaction is. And yeah, we're reverting him because he was told not to do it. If he wants to help people find stuff, then he needs to use redirects. For any other situation no one would care, but we're expected to yield to his demands because he throws a hissy fit. Sorry, no. It sets a bad example for others, and only encourages that behavior out of Cat in the future. Believe it or not, that's not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. On top of that, this isn't even punishment or anything like that, this isn't a slap to his hand. We don't want these changes, and we don't want to encourage this kind of bizarre behavior. If he chooses to flip out over it, it's his fault, and trying to scold others because of his flipping out is laughable. No one is doing this to provoke him, and his accusation as such falls flat on the floor.

If Cat is bothering everyone with all these complaints, being paranoid and spazzing out, deal with him instead of pointing fingers at the users who are doing nothing wrong. It is disturbing to think that someone can drum up support from AN/I by throwing such fits. Face facts guys, this isn't TV, and sometimes both sides are not equally at fault. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If this goes to arbitration I'll feed the lot of you to Bishzilla (talk · contribs). To argue that a user's "flipping out" at being reverted justifies the initial reversion places the cart before the horse. Ned, you say that "he was told not to do it." I see plenty of people here who have no problem with Cat updating his links. You call this a "bad example." Why? Archives get updated all the time. "'We' don't want these changes." Who is this 'we,' and does this viewpoint have consensus? Looking at the discussion above I have grave doubts. "Reverting him is no disruption to the community, only his reaction is." In other words, reverting is only disruptive when somebody actually defends their edit. That constitutes no defense. You're revert-warring, and I'd like to know why. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

White Cat is doing nothing wrong. Just making up policies because something annoys you is wrong. Fred Bauder 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is making up policies, and yeah, what Cat is doing is wrong. The disruption is that he is able to force his way by throwing a fit. Holding the community hostage by bitching about it till we will accept anything to shut him up. Here's some highlights from past discussions:

• If someone believes it was inappropriate to alter your sig on a certain page and reverts the change, it's probably best to leave that one as is. ChazBeckett 12:19, 27 May 2007

• The purpose is to keep the talk page discussions intact. It is no more purposeless than reverting someone who simply deletes a section on the talk page, or who changes their comments on a talk archive. It defeats the purpose of having a talk archive. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The contents of archives ought not be changed. The alteration of archives defeats the purpose of archives; one practical example of problems with signature changes is if someone refers to the user's name in conversation, which then disappears if the username is changed thus altering the meaning of the discussion or rendering it unintelligible. Eliding personal information or potentially libellous statements is an appropriate exception, but making changes for no other reason than "I want to" is not. —Centrx→talk • 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a second, I'm just realizing what's new about this time around. This Cat isn't changing "Cool Cat" sigs... he's changing "White Cat" sigs, which he designed to point to User:White Cat/sig, but has decided to delete that page and then update every page that once linked to it. It was bad enough that this was attempted with the User:Cool Cat sigs, but hey, it was a name change. Why is it happening again? Wasn't your new sig only days old? How many times are you going to change your mind about your sig and go back and update them again and again and again. That's not how sigs are supposed to work. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cool Cat, stop making stupid edits and you won't have to worry about being reverted. You're not supposed to go through and modify all of your old talk page comments. It simply isn't done. They work well enough with the redirects. Your bot to do this was already denied because it's a Wikipedia policy that working redirects shouldn't be bypassed because it uses server resources at no benefit, and now you're still out there doing it anyway on your main account? Stop it and find something better to do. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest you notice the writing on the wall, and catch on that repeatedly changing your sig on every page you've ever posted on is an obnoxious waste of time and resources. --tjstrf talk 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it's been opposed for a variety of reasons by different people. Personally I dislike it because, unless you actually are leaving Wikipedia and vanishing, you don't get to put your previous ID down the memory hole like this. --tjstrf talk 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just redirect all of the pointers to the old names into the new one and stop changing the sigs. This the second time I have seen this issue come up here since your name change and this is frankly getting me pissed off. Why are you making this hard on yourself White Cat; just make things easier so you can go back to editing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your accusations are baseless and unfounded. Reeeeally. Then mind explaining why you haven't done the simplest thing you could do -- why, in fact, you've taken active steps to PREVENT the simplest thing you can do from being done -- namely adding a redirect to User:Cool Cat? Instead, you are doing things in the most difficult way imaginable and bitching about it every step of the way. --Calton | Talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cat doesn't just try to change his sigs, but he even changes other people's comments. He goes and changes other user's talk archives as well, even when they specifically ask him not to.

He doesn't just change things for his Cool Cat -> White Cat move, but was changing things from White Cat to White Cat on talk pages just days after signing, because he had made a minor update to his strange sig system.

And if you want to make statements like "there's no policy that says he can't" then you're just ignoring that there's no policy that says people can't revert him. The changes to archives go largely unnoticed, and the only reason there is any disruption is because he freaks out about it. He has no more right to change pages than anyone else does.

He is intentionally avoiding exceptable methods of preserving these pages (redirects). Several people don't want him making these changes, but only Cool Cat wants to make them this way. Everyone, except Cool Cat, says redirects would solve everybody's problem and be acceptable.

His name being Cool Cat is a part of the talk page archives.

While the change itself isn't a huge deal, the idea that his behavior is acceptable is what's wrong. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountains out of molehills. Really can we send this to WP:LAME yet? This is not even about an article or anything important to the actual encyclopaedia, they are just talk page archives. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Just let it alone - I don't understand basically anything about this whole mess. First, I don't understand why Cool Cat/White Cat doesn't want to use redirects -- apparently, he just doesn't. Secondly, I don't understand why it's of any serious importance to refactor past discussion so that Cool Cat changes to White Cat. However, I equally don't understand why anyone would care that he's making this change. I even more don't understand why anyone would want to revert those changes.

Apparently, Cool Cat/White Cat wants the change "just because" and the people who keep reverting him think that this "just isn't done" and that letting him do it "encourages bad behavior". This is some seriously, seriously childish behavior on the part of everyone involved.

Cool Cat/White Cat, if you want to disassociate yourself from your previous identity, then don't even bother fixing the red-links. Let Cool Cat die. All you're doing is changing the name, and if anyone is "trolling you" because of your name I can assure you that (1) if it was based in your comments, then making them all refer to White Cat will not fix it and (2) if it was because they knew who your were, then this won't do anything.

Ned Scott, et al. why do you even care? So he wants to make this pointless, pointless change. Let him -- it doesn't hurt anything to make the change. No one, at any point has explained why he should not be allowed to. There is no policy relating to this, nor are there any guidelines. It's not typically done, but that's about it -- calling them "stupid edits" is not a reason to revert them. If anything, it's the continual reversion of otherwise harmless edits that's causing the problem here -- it gets Cool Cat/White Cat upset, and then it is claimed that if we let him get his way, then he's "throwing a hissy fit" to "misbehaved" -- which is a massive cart-before-horse argument. So he's being a touch unreasonable? So his edits are pretty pointless?

So what. I would be a very, very happy man if I never saw this silly, silly argument ever again. --Haemo 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat is the one starting these discussions, so forgive me if I defend my own actions, no matter how minor. I understand if you don't care that he's making these changes, but other people do, so please have some respect for that. Again, he's not just changing links, but other people's comments. He's confusing talk pages where people still refer to him by his old name in those discussions. He's editing other people's talk archives when they told him to stop. User talk:Centrx has some more reasons why he's not allowed to make these edits. So don't say that no one has given a reason, because we have. If you think this is silly and pointless (I don't disagree with that) then ignore the thread (that Cat started).

What disturbs me is that because I choose to take the time to explain my actions, even for a trivial matter, people then assume that it's a bigger issue than it is. "ZOMG, why are you explaining yourself! That must mean this is controversial!" Centrx has ignored this whole discussion, something I should have done, because you can see how people will judge you if you give the discussion any mind.

If I see him updating a talk page archive (I do not seek such edits out, and only act when they trigger my watch list), then I simply revert him, as I would do to anyone making such an edit. I do so for the reasons mentioned. That's all. -- Ned Scott 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words WP:REVERT#Do not is meaningless... Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly. -- Cat ^chi? 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:REVERT#Do not does not apply to the situation given the reasons to revert you. It is not without reason, unlike your reverts and sig changes. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How does "WP:REVERT#Do not" not apply? Are you not reverting? -- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

.... You do understand that section is not saying one cannot revert? Not only that, but that whole section is talking about the article namespace, where things should be improved and worked on... -- Ned Scott 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the same logic does not apply to non-article namespace? Should we senselessly revert edits to Template, User, Mediawiki, Category, Project, Help, (and etc) namespaces simply because we find them "stupid"/"unnecessary"? -- Cat ^chi? 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The same logic does not apply to the talk namespace.... And again, valid reasons were given to revert you, while you have no valid reason to make the change or re-revert. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly both of you are disgraceful. White cat, you are just wasting your time fixing your signatures, and your not very discreet about it. If your really trying not to draw attention to yourself, this wouldn't end up in a discussion on AN/I every damn time. Ned Scott, despite it being a total lack of time and effort, its his time to waste upon it. I personally agree with the point that changing them is a waste (And FYI White cat, no it's not a broken redirect), but White cat doesn't need clearance to continue doing this, and I think you show a lot of bad faith Ned for following his edits like you do. Both of you need to find something productive to do, ya know, like work on the encyclopedia? — Moe ε 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply because I choose to comment on the discussion does not make me "disgraceful". I have no problem if he wants to waste his own time, but myself and others do believe that his former ID is apart of the archive just as much as the past discussion is, and that changing it also makes things confusing when people in those discussions refer to him as "Cool Cat". As minor and as stupid as it is, he shouldn't be making the changes, and anyone has a right to revert the changes. When people repeatedly tell him to stop on the same talk archives, he needs to stop. It's not a "right", it's not a privilege, it's just something he needs to stop doing.

How is this any different from an article, where only one user wishes to force a change, but everyone tells him no, and to stop, and has a good reason to not have the change? You have the nerve to say that I have done something wrong here? -- Ned Scott 05:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That neither explains this revert (ID isn't even "changed") nor this one (an ID is not even an issue). -- Cat ^chi? 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. While it's still pointless, I don't have a strong objection to you changing the archive links. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One of that is an example of the reverts you have done recently... If you didn't have had strong objections, why did you revert them...
I wasn't done posting. Majority of the sig reverts I received were made on non-archive pages. Your statement also does not explain this revert (my sig there is "cat out" (not cool cat), and "Cool Cat" isn't mentioned once in the text - nor is it an archive for that matter) or this one (again Cool cat isn't mentioned once and even if the signature were to be changed to "cheese" it wouldn't affect the context - nor is it an archive), this edit (sig from 2005, no one but me posted, it is a vandalism warning - it is not an archive either), User:Cool Cat (repetitive recreations by you).
For the past year, I have not signed as "Cool Cat" but as either "Cat out" or "Cat Chi?". You yourself have referred to me on this thread simply as "cat" most of the time. I am also not required to "spell out" my username in my signature.
-- Cat ^chi? 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harry Potter full-protection

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to be one of the most viewed and edited wikipedia pages within the next 24-48 hours but has been fully-protected by an admin who has as of yet not responded to a request to revert back to semi-protection. I have posted a request on WP:RFP but it has not yet been reviewed, and do to the time sensitive nature of this article, I thought I ought to post it here as well. With the coverage this article will receive, I assumed it should be treated as a Main Page FA, thereby avoiding full protection to the maximum extent. Joshdboz 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being handled on the article talk page, Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, on the user talk page of the protecting admin, User talk:Alkivar, and on Requests for page protection. This is not an incident requiring extraordinary intervention by an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is not being handled on User talk:Alkivar as Alkivar has not made an edit since fully protecting the article, so another admin would be needed to revert back to semi-protection. Joshdboz 12:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this full protection has stood on a page like this for 6 hours because of "spoiler vandalism" without a single other admin from chiming in? Joshdboz 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Should not have been fully protected. Neil ╦ 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it by one second. Literally.-Wafulz 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Joshdboz 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(last) 12:37:58 Wafulz m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": Seems to have been a brief spike. Let's try semi-protection. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

(last) 12:37:57 Neil m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": one second ... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

User:9shaun

User:9shaun has been uploading like crazy, tagging them with {{GFDL-self}} but it is very highly doubtful the s/he created those photos. --Howard the Duck 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All of his uploads are of Philippines related things or people, leaving the possibility he's a professional photographer based there. Although I guess it's also possible he found the website of such a person and copy pasted them onto here. Disappointingly though, his edit history would show he pays no attention to warnings about copyrights, or at least chooses never to respond to them. (just providing a little more information). Someguy1221 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No way. Look at the pictures. Some are cropped others are not. Of the ones that are not cropped, they are different sizes! many have a colour casts on them, but the colour casts are different on different photographs. Most of the photographs do not look professional (one has aa very over exposed sky for instance). He's lying about the GFDL self. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a...um...amateur Filippino photographer ;-) (or stealer thereof) Someguy1221 09:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the solution on this? Anyone? --Howard the Duck 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the first step it to talk to him. I shall try doing that now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What if he doesn't respond in time? --Howard the Duck 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In time for what? Corvus cornix 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like in a few days? S/he doesn't respond. --Howard the Duck 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we do now? I'm appalled the copyright freaks aren't going ga-ga over this. --Howard the Duck 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

9shaun ignored Theresa Knott's message on his/her user page and has uploaded more pics. --Howard the Duck 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given him some advice on his talkpage, because some edits do look to be in good faith. Perhaps, if he is a little on the daft side, all the 'Thanks for uploading...' confused him --Hayden5650 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the record that the pics are pretty but I doubt if it's really free and/or s/he took them by him/herself; that's why I'm quite worried. What actually sent me off was this collage where the rightmost image is a photo of a teen "actress", and no way s/he could've produced that photo. --Howard the Duck 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the guy/girl is also increasing the sizes of his/her pics for 250px or more. --Howard the Duck 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, most of those images probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but he doesn't seem to have had anything higher than a level 1 or 2 warning, assuming good faith, therefore each one has begun with a Thankyou[11] . If he doesn't heed my advice, I or someone else should slap him with a Level 3 and 4 and then an admin can ban him. --Hayden5650 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So what warning should be slapped? Admins can ban him easily, we don't have to go through bureaucracy. --Howard the Duck 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just issued him with a final {{subst:uw-upload4}} warning, he is just showing plain disregard now to any advice or warnings --Hayden5650 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So if he is blocked, can any admin just delete his/her photos? --Howard the Duck 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 personal attack Talk:Factory farming

{{farming}} WAS 4.250

Background:

There is currently an unproductive slow edit war between editors (One of them is an admin, User:SlimVirgin). Numerous attempts at mediation have failed because unwillingness of editors to go into mediation. Frequently the page degenerates into "personal attack/no personal attack please" discourses. In general I have kept away from them, but recently it has reached intolerable levels, at least for me.

The situation at hand:

I removed a {{Disputeabout}} tag (it contained the definitions of terms) from the article[12], and explained the reasons why in the talk page[13] and edit summary: there is no dispute, as it was conclusively proven that the term "factory farming" is the only viable one. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point..

WAS 4.250 reverted my talk page explanation of my edit[14] (but not my article edit) with a comment containing a personal attack: revert trolling. we need help. not gas on the fire. In the process, he also removed other previous contributions (all related to edits) to the talk page, and my placing of a {{Round In Circles}} tag. This is clearly unacceptable behavior.

I reverted the talk page[15] with a comment: Do not remove legitimate post by other contributors, if you do it again I will consider it vandalism. Also WP:NPA I am not a troll, and to suggest this is beyond the pale., and repeatedly asked for an apology [16],[17]. The user has since done many edits between my requests [18], but has not apologized.

Perhaps the user feels that there is nothing to apologize about. However, I disagree.

So I would like a neutral admin to intervene, and ask him to stop personal attacks and apologize.

Or explain to me why I am wrong in asking for an apology and thinking there was a personal attack.

I am not following mediation procedure because mediation has been impossible so far.

Thanks!--Cerejota 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, not a personal attack. Also, where is the link to the "failed" mediation case? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly a personal attack. Cerejota posted on talk in good faith. WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) removed his post with the edit summary "revert trolling." [19] It's one of a large number of personal attacks, sarcasm, and filibustering emanating from WAS 4.250 and NathanLee (talk · contribs) on that talk page, which have caused a number of editors to withdraw almost entirely from the discussion, including myself. Two editors (on different "sides") have filed requests for mediation. Even though nine editors agreed to the mediation, both requests were rejected because WAS 4.250 and NathanLee won't agree, though they're the ones who have caused the bulk of the content dispute and who've been engaging in the attacks. As for links to the RfM, the first one was filed by me and was rejected here. The second one was filed by Jav43 and was rejected by Daniel yesterday, but for some bizarre reason User:John Reaves keeps deleting Daniel's edits without explanation, so I can't link to it. Admins, see the deletion log for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the mediation rejection was just a misunderstanding, and it's now undeleted, so here's the link Nwwaew requested. [20] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your mis-characterization of my behavior is an outrageous unjustified personal attack. Please stop. WAS 4.250 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: You have on this article pushed through massive changes and page merges with no discussion, then revert warred, ignored discussion (repeated attempts by me to get you to engage.. My latest attempt was ignored also. I'd post up links to earlier ones but Crum375 deleted your talk page history[21]), attempted page ownership of factory farming and other pages and attacks on credibility of editors, accusations of impropriety/sockpuppetry and general level of unhelpful or evasive contribution on the discussion page. Now you're continuing your attempts to blame others for your authoritarian and non-consultative editing style.

It seems to be a habit that same users tag team reverting and the same abrasive dictatorial editing style (with Localzuk, crum375 on hand when you run out of reverts) happens across many animal related articles with many diverse editors. There's a definite conflict of interest that is blinding you on any issue to do with animals and this (combined with your revert-instead-of-discuss approach) is causing lots of conflict. You withdrew from discussion based on a distortion[22] that you must have known was incorrect (somehow confusing animal welfare with animal liberation despite editing on both). The mediation had failed with or without me (or WAS) and another editor had rejected it: that's hardly down to me as you make out. NathanLee 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a participant in the discussion, nor do I really care to read enough of the discussion to comment on the behavior. It is immediately obvious, however, that factory farming is a POV fork of industrial agriculture. For instance, the same set of hog-raising photos appears in both articles (and in a related one as well). It' hardly surprising that the article is constantly fought over. Mangoe 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Industrial agriculture was forked from factory farming - and all negative information about the practices omitted... And that is why you should do some reading, as this entire subject area is currently under, rather heated, discussion - regarding scope of articles etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, that's precisely what the dispute is about. Localzuk, Crum375, myself, and I believe also Cerejota, would like to see two articles: Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). It's WAS 4.250 who has created the POV forks, supported by NathanLee, claiming that factory farming isn't the same as industrial agriculture, which isn't the same as intensive farming. So far as I know, they want criticism to be largely confined to Factory farming, which they feel is an activist term, and which therefore should contain the activist criticism. Or something like that. To be honest, I find their position confusing and hard to paraphrase. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point the redundancies have been removed (both positives and negatives) in favor of a summary style where the agriculture articles can point to each other. Check them out! WAS 4.250 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make this about content. The article has a talk page for that. This is about a personal attack I repeatedly requested an apology for and was denied one. I clearly documented the diffs. Please refrain from commenting on unrelated issues in this thread. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In a sense the argument is about content. The tag was placed there a couple of weeks ago. About a week ago, I made a fairly major edit to the intro which much to my surprise remained in place until about the last 30 minutes. The last comment I made in the edit notes was that I thought if the changes stayed put the tag should go. Nothing happened to that definition until Cerejota charged in with what I see as a rather inflamatory remark. Unfortunately, one of the characteristics of the incivility is a tendency to quote WikiRules whilst not acting according to them. So in the context of the sequence of edits starting with my last edit 21:26, 13 July 2007 (I'll go with that edit being mildly contentious but it would allow me to remove the disputed definition tag if others are content with the scope of definition) there were no changes to the opening paragraph which maintained that definition, perhaps inferring a consensus or just more enthusiasm for edit warring on the image until Cerejota's comment (there is no dispute, as it was conclusively proven that the term "factory farming" is the only viable one. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point.) Suggesting it was placed to be disruptive is offensive, when there was clear good faith to try and resolve the issue.

As of the last 30 minutes, the tag needs to go back in, and it would not be disruptive, it would represent the fact that there is a significant group of people with well-reasoned arguments as to why the definition is inappropriate.

In the meantime, I am subjected to edit comments such as Ethics - this is poor writing, and very POV; hard to copy edit by an admin who simply reverts which I would find hard to characterise as within policy. Spenny 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of edits SlimVirgin it appears is currently editing furiously after deciding to not participate in any discussion. Some might regard that as being a little presumptuous and in bad faith especially for a disputed article. But sorry, this is about Cerejota and the harsh injustice and mental anguish he/she suffered from WAS's vicious attack.. NathanLee 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spenny: You still do not comment on the personal attack I was subjected to. You are trying to make this about content and not the uncivil behavior of an editor.

For content, we have the talk page of the article.

Deleting other editors correctly stated, civil arguments is the pinnacle of incivility, regardless of whatever content dispute is at hand.--Cerejota 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BMF81 continually inserting joke about anally raping a child on Talk:Laughter

User:BMF81's "joke" here about how he'd laugh if the child in the photo on Laughter is anally raped is a blockable offense, and plain sick. I warned him that such a profane statement is objectionable and blockable here, to which he replied on my page that if I can't take a joke then I shouldn't edit an encyclopedia. Then he reinserted the "joke" about anally raping the child here. This is pretty objectionable, and I think a 24 hour block is more than warranted. --David Shankbone 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours? I would consider a much longer block for that shit. Until(1 == 2) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Objectionable"? That's mighty euphemistic. Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked for 24 hours. I'm wary of blocking established contributors but this pushes it way, way over the line. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block implemented. If anyone wants to extend the block, I have no objection. (I'm not on continually, but I'll attempt to monitor this section drom time to time.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For saying something like that, he should have been indef-blocked. Simple trolling, clearly designed to shock and offend other editors. Walton^One 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour block is realistic for semantic infractions of this sort - it is a truly execrable picture, although his response was perhaps somewhat OTT and even more execrable. However he now seems to be petitioning the support of admins using a sockpuppet, vide my /talk page , in my view a crime of a much darker nature. Sjc 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this edit ? I think 24 hours only was very lenient. Jackaranga 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that edit, right after getting off a block for the same thing, I have indef blocked this user. That is sick shit, and very inappropriate. I don't know if another admin will reduce this block, but I sure will not be. Until(1 == 2) 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block. Blatant trolling. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unit (1 == 2) (apologies if that is wrong!) spells it out that all this editor is giving us is total shit, I would endorse the indefinite block too.... disgusting. — Rlest 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, Unit (1 == 2), good one. It is Until(1 == 2), it is an infinite loop. No offense taken. Until(1 == 2) 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry..... lol. — Rlest 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(P.S I'm not saying hehe about the sick comments made by the user, just the username mixup). — Rlest 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with this editor, but I believe he/she is a long-standing contributor with no prior history of inappropriate behavior. I took a quick glance at this user's contributions, and most of them appear to be pretty innocuous edits to IT-related articles. I beleive admins should consider the possibility that this is a compromised account, where some mischief-maker is performing offensive edits in BMF's name.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This possibility occurred to me as well. Would a checkuser be in order? Although, I suppose it's unnecessary to pursue this unless/until an unblock request making this claim is posted. Newyorkbrad 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The user page is more of the same, though, so it's simply a matter of figuring out if that's new or has been like that for a while. MSJapan 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at the history of the user page will reveal that until very recently it contained nothing wacky or inflammatory.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, innocuous edits such as this and this postdate the now-infamous comment on Talk:Laughter. Granted that's some mighty escalation from [this to this, but still... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying we should at least consider the possibility that two people have been editing under the same account, although I suppose it's just as likely that the previously benign editor went bonkers one day.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's a legitimate concern (compromised account I mean). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the account has been compromised then blocking it is the right thing to do. If the person can demonstrate that it was not them and that they are now back in control, I will be the first to unblock. I agree that we should not assume that this "person" is acting this way, but we do need to treat the "account" as such. Until(1 == 2) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it's way excessive to indefblock a user solely due to a joke, forgetting his valuable contributions on the Wikipedia. After all, we are all here to edit and improve this project, not talking about "anal rapes" on talkpages. I agree it was a desecrable joke, but there's much worse behaviours in the Wikipedia which are not punished with indefblocks. His joke about "anal rape" seems to be quoted from a book by Daniele Luttazzi, an Italian comedian of which he is apparently a fan (have a look at his userpage for more evidence). I would reconsider the block, at your place. --Angelo 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to Wikipedia? Sex and other stuff in articles of Presidential hopefuls?

Rudy Giuliani's article has extensive stuff about his sex life and that he can't get an erection. Other articles, Democrat and Republican, either sound like subtle attack pieces or have positive fluff in them. And a small group of very hostile editors in some of those talk pages.

What we need to do is sit down and redo all the presidential hopeful articles and model them equally. The same order of the sections. Keep the articles like neutral biographies. I don't want to do it because I'm not stupid and don't want to be a lightning rod. JonnyLate 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome and encouraged to remove any negative unsourced information about living people from articles on sight. Until(1 == 2) 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It has a reference (don't know if it's accurate). Look! Italiavivi just attacked me saying I haven't edited enough. He seems to support mention of erections in the article. I don't want to fight with him but it seems like he's a regular editor with lack of objectivity. That's dangerous for wikipedia having that kind of editor. Who in the (expletive) would favor including erectile information in an encyclopiedia?JonnyLate 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this issue really need administrator attention? We're not moderators - this is better dealt with at the relevant article pages. Natalie 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In less than 5 minutes, people there have already attacked me (they favor erection mention, I think). Some administrator needs to post in the article something like "We will now have order." Otherwise, the erection mongers win. Or, you can block those that mention erection. This is far worse than vandal who insert childish stuff. This is either very crafty and well planned vandalism or even campaign tactics. Aren't administrators supposed to fight vandalism? JonnyLate 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is supposed to fight vandalism. Keep the content disputes on the article talk pages, not here; this is for things that require administrator intervention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked into dispute resolution? I just wanted to say that working the phrase "erection mongers" into a sentence is very impressive and funny. Until(1 == 2) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to be the lawyer for the case "Wikipedians against mention of erections versus Wikipedians for erections". So the erection vandals win. I will not waste my time fighting. If nobody cares, fine with me. I just thought a little publically stated interest by an administrator would help fight this form of vandalism. JonnyLate 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is just the thing, content disputes are not vandalism. It is not that we don't care, it is that admins have no special authority in content disputes. Until(1 == 2) 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrators can block people. They do have special authority. Forget it, see how vandals win. I quit. I'm logging off and turning off the computer for today.JonnyLate 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• While this is a content dispute, I think it behooves us all to try to enforce a fair and consistent treatment of material throughout all of the Presidential hopeful articles and their forks. These are going to be very high profile articles in the coming year, and will all be under attack from POV warriors. Wikipedia doesn't need more bad press, or a person in the White House who feels he or she has been maligned on Wikipedia. - Crockspot 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have to agree, this is not a place to play politics, perhaps during election season all bio's should be regulated and made routine, perhaps now on. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is incompatible with everything that Wikipedia stands for. Yes, we should have well-written, NPOV, verifiable articles. But no, we should not enforce this by comittee or attempt whitewashing. If something is relevant and well-sourced according to WP:BLP, it should be in. And I have to say that a sentence like "Wikipedia doesn't need [...] a person in the White House who feels he or she has been maligned on Wikipedia" make my skin cawl and has me ask how far the US has strayed from the Bill of Rights by now. --Stephan Schulz 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Until(1 == 2) 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute, please use dispute resolution. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the passage, in case anyone was wondering what the fuss was about: "In May 2001, in an effort to mitigate the bad publicity from the proceedings, Giuliani's attorney revealed (with the mayor's approval) that Giuliani was impotent due to his prostate cancer treatments and had not had sex with Nathan for the preceding year." If there's a more polite way to deal with a Mayor's announcement of his impotence during a legal battle, I can't think of it. --Haemo 23:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, you forgot to include that this was an episode during Giuliani's divorce from his second wife, Donna Hannover. Either it is included -- which might embarass G. but is considered evidence that he wasn't cheating -- or excluded -- which makes it appear that he was cheating on Hannover. The wonders of the Internet! We all get to play Emily Litella, talking about presidential erections. -- llywrch 00:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of TJ Spyke

Recently, TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked 250 hours for edit warring. After that, there was a discussion on the Community sanction noticeboard about what should be done. During that discussion, a CheckUser showed that Spyke was using a sockpuppet to evade the block. The block was subsequently reset, and discussion at WP:CSN continued. 3 days later, Spyke's block was extended to indefinite by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Many of those taking part in the CSN discussion, myself included, support this, though there are many, possibly more, who believe that this was unfair. Take note of the fact that an indefinite block was not the decision reached at the CSN, though it was generally well received there. Due to the circumstances surrounding the block, I figured that I should post here to see if the block is endorsed. Relevant links are:

• Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:TJ Spyke
• TJ's Block Log
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke
• User talk:TJ Spyke

Cheers, The Hybrid 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly and very regretfully, endorse block. TJ Spike was a very constructive editor, but violating WP:3RR nine times (actually blocked 12 times, but three were probably not legit) and using ban-evading sockpuppets is just asking for it. Put very well by Moe: "No, right now it is indefinite, meaning he's blocked until he's proven that he would be able to edit constructively without sockpuppets, without revert warring and without vandalism like he has done in the past." Sr13 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I, am one who opposes his block. When I first started on WP I didn't know one thing. So I went to TJ Spyke. He helped me, he taught me, and he really showed me the ropes. He was like my mentor. I know that he used Sock Puppets to evade his blocks. Was it wrong? Hell yea it was wrong. Should he have been blocked? Your damn right he should of. Although, he still is a fantastic editor. One of the best in my opinion. I say we should put him on probation. Just unblock him though. I really hate to see him go. -- Kings bibby win 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly he has done too much sneaky and bad behavior to justify an unblock in my view. Numerous socks, edit warring, revert warring and so on. Warning after warning, block after block: he ignored them all, and did what he wanted dispite Wikipedia policies/rules/guidelines. He helped out at times, but that doesn't just wipe his bad behavior out. Probation for him: if a set time is on it, he would probably wait until it's over to act out again. Or use socks again, in the hope he doesn't get caught. RobJ1981 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that. I'm sayin he's never been under heat like this before. Leet's give him "one" more chance to stratin up. If he doesn't, I have no problem with you guys banning TJ Spyke and his IP Address. -- Kings bibby win 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he's run out of chances. He's been blocked and warned enough. After this one more chance, I can imagine someone else saying the same thing "give him one more chance". Frankly, TJ (or anyone else) shouldn't be given an endless amount of warnings and blocks. For all we know, TJ could have a sock on Wikipedia right now that hasn't been caught yet. As stated by the admin's block summary (for the indef block): Willful and repeated violations of WP:3RR, Sockpuppetry, Sockpuppetry to avoid bans, BLP violations more than once... this user does not learn from blocks or "timeouts"). Frankly, TJ saying he will change his ways (which he did on his talk), is just a way for him to get unblocked and continue this behavior. I think we need to move on, and let the block sit. I would also like to point out: many people could be for or against his ban, but it's up to admins to decide this. RobJ1981 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have run into TJ Spyke's fondness for the "revert button" once. The problem is that he has a gross misunderstanding of the "vandalism" exception to the three-revert rule -- the rule indicates that "simple and obvious vandalism" (graffiti or page blanking, as an example) is exempted from the rule. However, TJ Spyke -- at least in the one time I was multiple-reverted by him -- appears to define "simple and obvious vandalism" as "any edit he disagrees with". See his comments on my talk page. While I am not familiar with his history in general, I feel that unless he learns to distinguish between an editing disagreement and vandalism, you'll be having this discussion again and again. -- Robster2001 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Several of the times when TJ claims vandalism: it's him disagreeing with the edits, and it's simply not vandalism. He also throws around the Wrestling project in arguments at times. While the project helps out articles and has some guidelines to follow, the project certainly doesn't control every wrestling article 100 percent. Vandalism and a difference of opinion on editing is 2 different things. RobJ1981 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No he doesn't think their the same. He told me when people were editing the WrestleMania 20 page, that they put in Guerrero and Benoit would die in three years. He also stated it wasn't vandalism since it's relevant, but it doesn't belong in the article. So he does not do that. -- Kings bibby win 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you want, but I've personally seen it. We aren't just lying so your good friend TJ stays blocked, so stop it. TJ did revert vandalism at times, but there was still plenty of times where it was his personal opinion of vandalism. One good example: the taglines for matches. He felt they didn't belong, so he would revert to the version he liked (which didn't have them). No Wrestling Project guideline was in place for the taglines, so that can't be used as an excuse. A difference of opinion isn't vandalism, so reverting the taglines is both bad faith and article controlling in my view. Sometimes the taglines were discussed, but frankly that still didn't stop TJ from reverting the articles anytime he saw match taglines put in. I dont have exact diffs, but I know it was on the Vengeance article (over Night of Champions), Cyber Sunday (over Match of Champions), and a few others. Wake up to what actually went on, instead of just thinking TJ was only wrong a few times. How many pages do we need to show you, before you realize TJ wasn't as perfect as you think? I'm getting a bit annoyed. RobJ1981 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he is perfect. He made the Wii article a featured article. Without him I frankly think at times our PPV's would flood with vandalism. As the alternative options say, put a multi-month block on his account and put him on probation. BTW, I frankly don't care if I'm annoying you, cause I'm going to let my voice heard. -- Kings bibby win 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[Remove trolling by TJ Spyke's attorney ] -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative options?

I've been thinking about this... I still think a multi-month ban could work. He hasn't had a block longer than a week-and-a-half, and it might allow him to come back with a fresh perspective. I realize this will not be popular, given his litany of "second chances" and his use of a sockpuppet.

I was rather impressed with the way he helped elevate Wii to featured article status, and I notice that it seems all the peoples' complains stem from his involvement in wrestling articles. Would a topic ban be possible? Revert parole? Grandmasterka 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea, but he does contribute to wrestling articles as well. -- Kings bibby win 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a change of heart, personally. I would support a ban until December 1, or maybe Valentines Day. When he comes back I would recommend an indefinite revert parole, so he can edit wrestling articles, and revert vandalism, but to revert a second time he would have to ask permission on the talk page. Any infraction, no matter how small, would be the end of his Wikipedia career. I'm not proposing a second chance, lord knows he's had tons of those; I'm proposing one last chance. I've been editing with this guy for a long time, and he is a good editor. He is usually right in disputes. Personally, I think that a few editors have been purposefully provoking him in an attempt to get him blocked. I would really like to see him be given another shot at being a good wikipedian. The Hybrid 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal

TJ and I have been communicating recently and have come to a compromise of sorts. I always believed TJ Spyke has been in good faith trying to help the encyclopedia. I can't really come to any other conclusion about the vandalism from my userpage coming from his location, it's vaguely clear to me what happened. I don't want TJ Spyke to be indefblocked, for the sake of the community not having to deal with him anymore. If he is to be indefblocked, it should be for something he has done, something definite. So after a modest proposal, TJ Spyke has agreed to do the following:

1. To take a month-long block to reflect on what he has done, albeit it still being listed as indef for now.
2. He is to apologize for the excessive revert warring and use of sockpuppets, and must admit to any former or current sockpuppets he has made.
3. He is to stay on one account exclusively.
4. An indefinite revert parole.
5. If he is to break his revert parole or use another sockpuppet again, he can be indefblocked.

He has agreed to start on this proposal by taking the month off from editing here, he is still free to comment on his talk page, of course. After a month, if he is still interested in editing here, then he can commit to this by accepting this proposal on wiki, on his talk page, and I will request his block be taken off of him. So for now he stands and has agreed to his current status. In a month, given the above, the community can reflect on whether or not this block can stand. As of right now, his current status of being blocked isn't hurting anything, and despite whether or not it is permanent, it is justified right now. I urge everyone to be patient, especially Kings bibby win, who has been a bit disruptive over this block. Regards — Moe ε 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I was the editor who reported TJ for his last 3RR violation, and I feel singularly awful. I would agree with that statement. I sure as heck don't want to have to be running off doing checkuser requests to enforce an indef block for a user that, while a pain in the rear end, certainly doesn't rise to the level of most community bans, who are outright disruptive. The Evil Spartan 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with Moe's compromise. Sr13 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me; however, there is an issue that bothers me. One user that has been warring with TJ more often than anyone else recently is User:RobJ1981. I'm not going to ask that anything be done, but I want a promise from RJ that if and when TJ returns he will leave TJ alone. It is blatantly obvious that RJ despises TJ, and I feel that there is a real possibility of RJ trying to make TJ violate his parole when he returns. TJ has agreed to serve his time, and I want him to have every chance of redeeming himself when he returns. I want fairness. Now, RJ and I are friends, and I hope that we still can be after this, but I don't think that it would be right for me to leave this issue unaddressed. I want a promise from RJ that he will leave TJ alone, and if he doesn't I don't want TJ blocked for violating his parole. The Hybrid 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block is warranted, even given his multiple sockpuppets used to push his view. He has contributed a great deal of small yet constructive edits, and it'd be a shame to lose that sustained commitment. I am worried though, that the RFCU suggests that members of the Wrestling Project knew about the sockpuppets yet turned a blind eye. - hahnchen 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Could you expand on WP:PW members turning a blind eye, please? The Hybrid 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Lrrr (Spyke puppet) used MSN Messenger to contact members of PW, do you not think they would have known who he is? Or does he really betray all trust upon him? - hahnchen 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at one of the links [23], and you'll see that User_talk:3bulletproof16#Account_hacked. Showing that this user was in contact with both Spyke's personas on MSN. Unless he's a complete idiot, he must have known that Lrrr was a malicious sockpuppet. - hahnchen 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This person (Bulletproof) has been accused of being a TJ sockpuppet, helped him avoid 3RR by reverting for him, and just been one of his closest wiki-friends all around. Since I know Bulletproof as well, so I'm going to AGF and guess that TJ has more than one messenger account. However, there are very good reasons to question if Bulletproof was fully aware of the situation, and chose to let it slide. However, I'm personally going to assume that he wasn't aware. However, if you would like to pursue this further I would be more than willing to help in any way that I can. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel a need to promise not to "leave" TJ alone. I'm not going to try to get TJ to violate. If I see TJ (add or remove something) I will either revert it with a good reason, or start a talk page discusssion. TJ (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't need to act paranoid, and think I'm trying to get him blocked or banned because of this. TJ loves to put the blame on me as well (bringing up some of my mistakes any chance he can, and so on), so he can't stand me as much as I can't stand him. But frankly, if I see him trying to control articles again, I will report it to admins at anytime I feel needed. I can see TJ trying to change. But frankly he acted in a controlling way to long... that it seems a bit too simple TJ agrees to all this with no problems. I don't see it fit that I don't revert or change any of TJ's edits: as he and I edit many of the same articles. In most cases: I give a good reason why I revert or change things in edit summaries (for all things, not just when it's dealing with TJ Spyke). Making it so I can't do anything involved with TJ, and then saying he wont get blocked is a bit unreasonable. I have to avoid articles I edit, because TJ edits them? That's a bit harsh, as TJ edits just about every main wrestling article. I shouldn't have to stop editing on those (or editing TJ's edits, or reverting them...which is the main case), just because he thinks I'm trying to get him blocked. I think all that made sense, if not..I will change the wording later to make it more clear. RobJ1981 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We know your good-faith Rob, so I find no need to limit you from editing. Your not the one in trouble, thus you don't have the restrictions TJ has. All I would suggest is to tread carefully since you two don't get along well. I know this may be hard to believe, but I actually think TJ Spyke will have learned his lesson if and when he returns. He's now fully aware that the slaps on the wrist are over, and another screw up and he's gone for good. I think TJ Spyke really wants to edit without the revert warring, and show his decent side more often, which he does have. I think once his mandatory break of a month is over, we will either have a reformed TJ Spyke, or a more definite reason for an indefinite block. — Moe ε 21:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

None of what I said has come out of TJ's mouth; if any of it sounds familiar that is strictly coincidental. I'm looking at the history the two of you have. I'm not suggesting that you stop editing the articles that he edits; I'm suggesting that you go to the talk page first, and never the article until you two can agree, or a consensus made up of more users is reached. If you disagree with him you contact him, and after the two of you have reached a compromise, then you edit the article. Changing the article right then isn't important at all. Rob, you are an edit warrior as well. You and TJ both edit in good faith, but you are just as quick to revert as he is when you are in an edit conflict with him. That is why I want a promise. You two argue all the time, and honestly, he's been right in many of your disputes. I don't want his ability to constructively edit articles crippled by your dislike of him and the advantage his parole will give you in conflicts. RJ, we've emailed back and forth. Forgive me if I'm betraying your trust, but we both know that you hate him, and would be glad to see him blocked. I do not like alienating my friends like I am right now, but I want to give TJ a fair shot at redemption, and he can't have that if you keep on him like you do. The Hybrid 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, TJ is too obsessed with things (the match tagline nonsense as one example). The only times those were resolved is when someone came up with a compromise (many times the compromise was going too far, as one little line compared to a few words in another line isn't a big deal, but of course it is to TJ). TJ hates me as well, so don't make it sound like a one-sided thing. TJ brings up many mistakes he "claims" I've done: when in reality most of them are his personal opinion, and not backed up with actual facts. I don't just revert at random, I have good reason. The taglines being a good point here: TJ hates them, so he removes them with no reason. Using the talk page is fine and all, but many times it gets no where with TJ. It gets brought up at the wrestling project talk page: it sometimes get somewhere (if the project is even active at the time). Agreeing with TJ, before editing/changing his edit seems a bit unreasonable at times. He is near impossible to agree with, and I doubt that will change much after his unblock. Restricting what I do, because people claim TJ thinks I'm going to revert to try to get him to blocked again: unrealistic, so whatever. I use the talk page more than enough, I don't need to make special talk page edits just to agree with TJ on articles he edits as well. Many times when TJ hasn't edited: things he has removed, aren't removed again (the match taglines are a good point at this as well). That's a sign that TJ is clearly one of the few against it, but he fails to realize that for whatever reason. But anyway: making me do certain things so TJ agrees to other things isn't very reasonable (and that's what it sounds like to me). TJ should be agreeing to things, with no strings or exceptions attached, in my opinion. RobJ1981 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Continued to avoid an even longer wall of text): I'm not so sure TJ deserves a fair chance at redemption. Many blocks and edit wars and so on: over the course of less than one year, seems a bit too much. But whatever, his fair chance can happen, and we will see what happens. But there is little chance I will agree to back off him. I'm not just going to go to the revert patrole and bug them or whatever. I'm not going to just revert at random and so on (listed above, so I don't need to sound like a broken record a lot). I see no need to change my editing ways, just so TJ supposedly gets a "fair chance". He can get this chance just fine with me being the same. I use talk pages enough times, when it's a major thing. But little things like match taglines: don't need to be determined each and everytime by talk discussions. RobJ1981 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

<---He is, Rob. He is agreeing to everything. All of this is coming from me and me alone. I've been asking you to do things because I want justice, not to appease TJ. TJ has no part in this. Now, I apologize for making this sound one-sided, but in truth his hate further proved my point. You reverting him is just begging him to go over since he hates you, and you are more apt to revert him because you hate him. TJ's hate is the fuel, yours is the oxygen, so one spark and this thing will blow up. I don't want that to happen. As far as him refusing to compromise goes, I know that is a major problem. I give my word that I will do everything I can to bring things to an easy solution. I'll join in the discussions, I'll work to find reasonable compromises, I’ll do everything that I can. I will carry my as much weight as I can to keep this thing from blowing up again. Also, for the record, I think that both of you are being unreasonable with the taglines. One line doesn't matter, so you saying that he refused to compromise is, well, laughable. You both refused to compromise. And no, he cannot have a fair chance if you continue the way you are. You two cannot coexist peacefully. I'm done asking. It is obvious that you don't want to do anything that will make this an easy process. Whether you agree or not I will keep this thing from blowing up, if I have to put my ass on the line to do it. You both act like children when you’re around each other, and I guess I’m the new babysitter. The Hybrid 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bending backwards for him, you or anyone else on this matter. If I see him remove something minor, I will re-add (or revert) it back when I see fit. Minor things don't require talk discussions, and just because TJ is put on a revert patrole: doesn't change the matter. If it's something big: like an article name change, new format for article (or whatever), then I will discuss. That's usually my feelings on using talk: if it's major, discuss... if it's minor, it's not needed to discuss each and everytime. This is very reasonable, even if you or TJ or anyone else doesn't think so. With that, I'm done discussing this. My view on this probably isn't going to change, and it doesn't need to. Call me stubborn or difficult, I don't care. I don't need to change to pacify a few people. RobJ1981 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Grumpyrob

After intervening in a problem on Plastic pressure pipe systems that I saw here on ANI and decided to go and fix, the article sat for a few days until Grumpyrob decided he didn't like what I did to solve the problem, and after accusing me of ownership in this thread, then proceeded to edit in a retaliatory manner by tagging Freemasonry with an advert tag [24] and claim the lead was written like an advert on the talk page. Funnily enough, that was precisely the issue I and others had with seems to be "his" article. That discussion thread I linked has made is plain that material was copied verbatim, and that Grumpyrob wants to use the pipe article as a commercial resource; that's his problem. I'm just not going to stand for childish retaliatory nonsense from him. Could an admin please set him straight on appropriate behavior on WP as well as proper usage of WP? MSJapan 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also turned up on this page to complain about User:Grumpyrob. I initially raised an ANI for Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems. User:Grumpyrob is undermining the sentiments expressed then Aatomic1 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Grumpyrob's first edit implies that he is a sock of some other user, or else how would he know the archive disappeared? MSJapan 01:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Grumpyrob (talk · contribs) for 5 reverts at Plastic pressure pipe systems. If if the introduction of cut and paste copyvios and WP:OWN behavior continues, I will protect the page.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, and right after that block, newly minted Derbyboy (talk · contribs) showed up and made the same edit... Derbyboy has been indef'd as a WP:SOCK and I've protected the article.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Grumpyrob, User:Pipeup, User:Drpipe, and User:Levelmeans are all the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've sock tagged the pages, but the blocks have yet to be implemented. MSJapan 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:24.7.91.244 & User:Bellowed on Talk:Waterboarding

A fully fledged edit war is ongoing between myself-User_talk:24.7.91.244 and User:Bellowed on Talk:Waterboarding which kicked off when Bellowed arrived on the topic when embroiled in a war with User:Eleemosynary. I got sucked in when I along with many others, worked to prevent User:Bellowed's POV pushing and sourcesless edits in an article requesting Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles. There is no reasonable hope right now that we can reconcile, so I propose that Admins issue a one week ban to both of us: for one week from editing on that specific article waterboarding and its associated talk page, plus a ban on each of us communicating and rebutting each other. Hopefully heads will cool by then (mine needs it - so does his), someone else will get interested in editing. We have a RfC out - in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics where I have recently neutralized the statement to Editors disagree strongly on whether waterboarding is torture, and what constitutes a source in this case, we would greatly welcome outside views, and of course contributors.. Then in a week we'll see if we can get going again. There is at least one admin watching - so hopefully heads will cool and we'll get some fresh blood editing (no pun intended). This fight is basically an endless string of rebuttals and both of us wanting the last word, as such it is best dealt with by sending us both out of the issue for now. I have no objection of course, and I doubt he/she will either as it is not good for the article, and a waste of both of our time. Regardless, both of us have made a mockery of 3RR in this dispute so our agreement in not needed. 24.7.91.244 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. Bellowed makes one false claim after another about the Bush administration, Dick Cheney and various conservatives not considering Waterboarding 'torture'. He claims that US waterboarding is not at all like Cambodian waterbaording. The Bush administration has never acknowledged that they have ever used waterboarding. His claims are false. (I think he just makes them up as he writes) The links he posts to various conservatives (like comedian Dennis Miller, who compared GITMO to Las Vegas, and Bellowed wants to use him as a 'source') who he claims said that waterbaording is not torture, say no such thing. After contributing on the 2 waterbaording articles for days, he just claimed that waterboarding was submersing a subjects head under water. Totally wrong. He constantly 'reverts' and 'blanks' and 'wars'. His actions make it impossible to assume any 'good faith' any more. I ask for a team of admininstorial referees (including some non-Americans) to check this article and his actions. I read about the White House and Bush Administration having bloggers and forum posters who post 'disinformation' for them. One article was found to have somone from the Department of Defense 'reverting' it. They found the IP #. I would like Wikipedia to check if Bellowed (and several others) are part of this 'campaign'. I can think of no other likely explanation. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• "WASHINGTON — Every weekday at 8 a.m., right after President Bush meets with senior staff, his communications team huddles in a second floor West Wing office to plan new moves in the information war.Rob Saliterman, the White House director of rapid response, fires salvos throughout the day.His weapons: e-mails. The White House digital war room blasts thousands of electronic messages each day, aimed at more than 2,000 targets. They include journalists, Republican staffers in government, radio talk show hosts, television bookers, Internet bloggers and what White House communications director Kevin Sullivan described as other "interested parties." Link Bmedley Sutler 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You all don't need admins to help you institute a voluntary ban from the talk page, and even if it's not bilateral, it might help to walk away from the dispute for a week. Anyway, this dispute stems from whether the intro should state that waterboarding is torture, as a broad majority of human rights orgs, legal scholars, etc. say, or whether it should state that such orgs consider it that, but lead with the Bush Administration, CIA, and some conservatives' definition that it is an "enhanced interrogation technique". See a comparison. I think the current lead, which states the consensus view, but doesn't state it as unequivocal truth in NPOV's name (waterboarding is torture), is good. It at least has the virtue of having survived edits by more than three people in the last 20 hours.

The way to find out what IP someone is editing from is a checkuser, which is clearly not warranted in this case. Let's try to keep the accusations of government spookery to a minimum (like, a minimum of zero).

As to the nonsense happening on the talk page, I'll go there now to try to throw some water on these flames. There won't be a team of "admininstorial referees"; we don't settle your content disputes for you.--Chaser - T 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed, do you agree to a time out as described? 24.7.91.244 05:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request admin help, Bellowed is continuing his POV pushing despite my sincere efforts towards descalation yesterday. 24.7.91.244 02:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of a third party's comments on my (and others editors') talk pages

User:Jaranda, an admin, had a substantive dispute with User:Soxrock. Soxrock notified me and a limited number of others of the dispute on our talk pages, in a non-disruptive manner. Jaranda then deleted Soxrock's comments with regard to the dispute on my (and other editors') talk pages. Discussion on this issue can be found at [25]. I pointed out to Jaranda, who claimed that this was canvassing and that he had right to delete canvassing comments of others on talk pages, that nothing in WP:CANVAS affords him such a right. And to the contrary, WP:TPG says, quite clearly: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." There is no exception given for canvassing.

Others have made these points as well to him on the above pages, and I have more than once asked him to RV his deletions. He has not agreed to do so, maintaining that he is allowed to delete the putative canvassing.--Epeefleche 06:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When that editor Jaranda deleted the canvassing comments from my talk page, I put them back and advised him I didn't like that. Since then, reading the canvassing article, it looks like his job was to advise the canvasser to do such deletion, not to take it upon himself to do it. Presumably if the original poster refused, then it would be in his realm to do the deleting himself as an administrative action. Someone needs to clarify the rules in this situation, but I think the admin went a little too far in this case. Baseball Bugs 06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your argument is that Soxrock canvassed a bunch of people, and then Jaranda removed them -- and that this violates our talk page guidelines, because that was editing other user's comments. Sorry, but that's a pretty silly argument -- the prohibition against editing other user's comments exists principally for the reason's outlined, that is, to preserve the meaning and context of what someone says; i.e. not to put words into another's mouth. The concept that this should be robotically extended to the removal of someone's cavassing notices is silly, and against the spirit of the guidelines -- WP:CANVASS exists to prevent the distortion of the process that canvassing causes. If someone violates those guidelines, it seems reasonable to me to take reasonable measures to minimize the damage that might so result; I guess the only question which needs to be answered here is if the actions were reasonable in these circumstances, given the history surrounding this topic. --Haemo 06:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing article says the poster should clean it up. Unilaterally deleting stuff from others' talk pages, except by the poster, is not discussed. When I saw he had deleted the comment on my talk page, I was not very happy about that. I'm not a sheep, and I am not easily recruited. The admin should have handled this the right way as described on the canvassing page. His job should be to inform, not to censor. Baseball Bugs 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make, is that canvassing is bad because of the damage it causes to the process. It may, in some circumstances, be appropriate to try and mitigate that damage by removing canvassing notices before they become a problem. The guidelines address what to do if you canvass -- they are what an penitent editor is supposed to do to clean up their mess. It seems, to me at least, that if the canvasser is not going to do it, then it is reasonable for another to do so in certain circumstances. --Haemo 06:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason why he removed the comments Soxrock left other users has nothing to do with canvassing... at least, not directly. I think that Jaranda simply didn't want Soxrock to "recruit" other people who have the same opinion as him because its opposite Jaranda's opinion. Soxrock admitted that he canvased, but also said that he edited his comments to avoid it. In most of the edits that Jaranda reverted ([26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]), in all of these 11, there wasn't any canvassing at all. This is the only edit Soxrock made that had any canvassing that Jaranda reverted. It was the first one that Soxrock had left, and didn't do it any more after that. In this edit, Soxrock assumed that the user would've said yes, but apologized for that in a subsequent edit, saying "Sorry, you just seem like someone who would say yes," and he said that he was making it an alert only. So only one of those edits that Jaranda reverted was actually canvassing. The others, Jaranda had absolutely no business removing. I think that Jaranda was just afraid that others would have the opinion opposite of him and he didn't want anybody else to argue against him. Ksy92003(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with you that there was "no canvassing at all"... even in the redone wording, it's pretty clear what the intent was; to create a numerical superiority of editors that could override the action. It's my belief at least that both Soxrock (talk · contribs) and Jaranda (talk · contribs) were acting in good faith here in so much as I think both feel very strongly about their view of these articles and content. It might be a good time for everyone to step back, take a breath, and discuss this before it escalates somewhere it doesn't need to be. I mean, I see edit warring over addition of "stats" when there are no stats present as well as addition of empty sections with no content or content that don't need to be in the article sans data. Do you guys really want to be fighting over this?--Isotope23 ^talk 15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So? If an article that I worked greatly on is nominated for an AfD, is it canvassing to tell other people who edited that article that it was nominated for an AfD? I don't see how this is any different. Ksy92003(talk) 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends... maybe yes... maybe no. It all depends on what you say and who you are contacting.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Soxrock didn't go about it the right way, but he has told me that Jaranda has placed a large amount of pressure on him. So obviously, when he first made the comments on other user's talk pages, Soxrock may not have said it the way he intended. But Soxrock apologized and fixed his comments. But still, Jaranda had no right to remove those edits. Only if it's vandalism is he permitted to do that, but this wasn't vandalism. I think the reason why Jaranda removed the comments was because he didn't want other people to counter his opinion. "Were Soxrock's comments alright?" is another question. But I don't think Jaranda had any right at all to remove Soxrock's comments. Ksy92003(talk) 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From outside of this whole dispute, it sure looks to me like there is some bad blood here right now. I'm not advocating any sort of administrative action against anyone over this; as I said above, both editors appear to be acting within their interpretation of Wikipedia's best interests. Given this and the related thread below, it's clear that both Jaranda and Soxrock would benefit from a bit of cooldown avoidance of each other for a bit. I reiterate that there is no reason to be edit warring over redirects and empty sections of articles. My suggestion is after taking a breather, a conversation is started over the assertion that the intended content to be added to these articles is a copyright violation. Not to go off on a tangent... but I'd also strongly suggest not creating articles over redirects that are largely just made up of tables with no data. Perhaps a project sandbox should be set up to collectively work on these articles one at a time before moving them (in completed form) to the mainspace.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The conversation is straying from the main point. Whether or not canvassing (a practice that is controversial, but is not per se prohibited, and which has exceptions that this may well fall into) took place (a point that is debatable) is not the focus. Even if canvassing did take place, Jaranda's deletions on my talk page -- and on others' talk pages -- was a violation of Wiki policy. I have asked Jaranda to RV his deletions. He has not. I assumed that Jaranda was acting in good faith when he initially made the deletions, but that has not been supported by his more recent failure to fix his overreaching violation of Wiki policy, by RVing his deletions.--Epeefleche 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't see a good reason to take administrative action here. If you feel his deletion on your page was not warranted, then revert it.... but mostly it is time to drop this as nothing fruitful is coming out of continued discussion here.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Iso, the other day you were a strict constructionist when the subject was strikethroughs. Here, we are speaking of deletes -- and deletes not just on my talk page, but on those of others. Pls point me to a Wiki policy that says that those deletes are appropriate, as I have pointed you to one that says it is not. Or are you saying that I am entitled to RV all of those deletes?--Epeefleche 04:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments from Requests for comment

I notived that user comments that reflect unlatteringly on the editor in question keeps getting removed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann. It has happened serval times[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. // Liftarn 07:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

can someone deal with this kid please? He's been wikistalking me for a few days now (see above). If you can believe it, he has just created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbachmann. dab (𒁳) 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The "sock" is Kuntan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we really need somebody to deal with this problem. I also noticed Dbachmann have removed comments from a talk page[45] in violation of WP:TALK. // Liftarn

Might I suggest WP:DR? I see the first step has been taken care of, but I think admin intervention should be left until all other avenues have been exhausted. Of course, deleting someone else's talk page comments really isn't good form, but, not being an admin, it's not my place to pass judgment. Just offering advice, though. --clpo13_(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

this isn't about a bona fide dispute. It's an issue of user conduct. I don't care too much to figure in bogus sockpuppets reports, and I think I should be protected against such by WP admins. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a content dispute where WP:CONS is ignored, i.e. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a balanced view which everybody can agree upon.". There have been several personal attcks and very little negotiation. // Liftarn

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. This user is deleting comments from his own RFC, adnd we're saying to try dispute resolution? This is not acceptable - however bad the cause of an RFC, one should never delete other people's comments as "trolling". Never. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Iantresman by Tom harrison

History: A week ago, on 16 July, JoshuaZ filed a proposal to ban Iantresman. Five hours later admin Tom harrison blocked Iantresman indefinitely. He did not give his reasons at the time and in fact has not participated in the discussion before or since. On the contrary, he says he does "not plan to spend any more time on it".

My complaint: As expressed in my first and later contributions to the discussion, I consider the blocking of Iantresman after just five hours to be unnecessarily prompt, unfair to him, and detrimental to a reasoned discussion, but my primary complaint is Tom harrison's refusal to explain and justify his action. If he has spent the requisite diligence to ban a user, then he owes it to that user and the community to explain his reasoning. Anything else smacks of abuse of administrative privileges.

Requested action: I would like an admin to (1) unblock Iantresman until such time that cogent arguments for the necessity of a ban are put forward, and (2) take a wooden ruler and rap Tom harrison firmly on the knuckles.

--Art Carlson 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the arguments there in support of blocking Iantresman were accurate and Tom Harrison did the block and had community support for doing so.--MONGO 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Art. Iantresman wore out the community's patience. Shell ^babelfish 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If Iantresman wants to appeal his block on the grounds of wrongful or overprompt action then he should use the facility in the block notice. There is no need for third party intervention. Perhaps Tom Harrison was not acting in strictest accordance with WP:CIVIL, but that is no reason to overturn the block in question. Please can we end this here, now? LessHeard vanU 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

indeed: WP:CS was created so that such discussions are conducted there, not here. What is the point if we're still duplicating them on AN/I? dab (𒁳) 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite bans may be appealed to the arbitration committee by emailing one or more members using Wikipedia's email this user function or at the email addresses shown at WP:AC. Thatcher131 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the admins do not hold themselves to higher standards of transparency (not to mention courtesy). I guess I'll get over it. --Art Carlson 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rape victims

A determined editor who does not like the category about a moth ago de populated the entire category but was reverted by admin User:Pascal.Tesson and warned to take it to XFD, if he disliked the category. He has done it agin and this time after depoplating it has gotten it speedily removed without and XFD. I have recreated the category with the edit summary saying that it was deleted without an XFD. I have informed the admin who speedily deleted it that it should be put up for XFD insted. I am more than willing to go by true consensus not by personal dislikes and likes of a subject matter. I have reverted many edits of the above mention user User:SqueakBox. I think I dont want to do more as it may violate WP:Stalk. I want quick admin action over it as he has shown that he will revert his way to his desired outcome. Thanks Taprobanus 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The best course of action would be to take it to Deletion review. Simply recreating it something usually results in delete/undelete wars, which is defenitely not desireable. --Edokter (Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up on WP:CFD instead; I doubt this will end up in a wheel war. As far as I know, Zscout370 is a perfectly reasonable person :-) ugen64 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything... :) --Edokter (Talk) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks lioke trolling to me, DRV yes this is almost wheeklwarring and I would have thought a short block on Taprobanus (talk · contribs) would be entirely appro[priate. After all the cat is used in many u8nosurced articles and outs living rape victims. Is this what we want, the encyclopedia that trolls innocent people? SqueakBox 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So that I cannot make my arguments in the CFD. Pretty smart move. Thanks Taprobanus 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I said a short block, that wouldnt prevent such a thing. Well done for making it clear that living people should not be in the cat and hope you well help me police it over the coming years (assuming the deletion fails), SqueakBox 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes ofcourse, will you then change your vote ? thanks Taprobanus 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm really disappointed in SqueakBox's attitude here. A month ago, I asked him nicely to stop depopulating the cat and submit the whole thing to CfD. No answer. Then after laying low for a while he goes at it again hoping no one notices. This is not the wiki way. Pascal.Tesson 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

initial cap for honorificabilitudinitatibus and a casteist troll

A user is constantly reverting some highly pov, ORish, and socially exclusive articles like Unnithan, Valiathan, Malayala Kshatriyas etc. in order to remove tags and reinsert stupid caps for what he calls proper names. Some of the articles are merely family history (eg. Kiriyathil Nair The user is an SPA here merely to push his narrow minded pov related to his caste. When unreferenced template is added he gives false reference like some random "State Manual" etc. which actually is no Reliable Source and which in all probability doesn't refer to the subject. His shying away from quoting relevant parts is suspicious. The fact that he is not able to cite a single RS or web resource for these fringe things speaks enough for him. 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He is refering to me above..Well he states that there is no web source for my Manuals...for one, they were published in 1906 and 1940 respectively and there is no real web source for these old books. have a google search for "Travancore State Manual" and you will find plenty of references...besides if ur still doubtful u may check out www.keralahistory.ac.in and its publication page for the books. I ordered my copies from that very source. Also it is said that the Kiriyathil Nair article is family history. I oppose this contention because while the Eleven original families belonging to that caste are indeed mentioned, today there are thousands of families under that class. Those are the original families mentioned in a collection of legends known as "Keralolpathi"...the article also clearly mentions that it is based on legends. The fact that such a group or caste exists also needs to be taken into consideration. He also says that Malayala Kshatriyas is OR...kindly check out the page number references given at the bottom of the article which will prove they come from a book. You also say that Unnithan, Valiathan etc dont need to be in capitals. Well they are titles of nobility and need to be in capitals. you also keep changing the title of Maharajah to maharajah etc. These are wrong. You state the Manuals to be an unreliable source. They are certainly far more reliable that your contentions because the first was authored by the Deputy Prime Minister of Travancore state and i would say he, being in his position, was certainly more qualified and in position to verify facts than you. It appears you havent heard of these books but search and you will find them. So what i want to say is that just because u dont find the references good enough, it doesnt mean they arent suitable references. Manu

you have been dealing with the banned User:Kuntan. you can ignore him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blnguyen, Why don't you revert the banned user's edits? Check dysentery for example. You need to oblige him on that count, my boy.16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

O! ok thanks for letting me know...Manu

User:Stevewk, sockpuppetry, and edit warring

Unfortunately I kind of came in in the middle of this problem user's disruption so my picture of it is not entirely complete. From what I can gather, some user added a template to the pages Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon, Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. User:Stevewk didn't like this, and instead of engaging in useful discussion on talkpages, decided to revert the changes, and was subsequently blocked for it. While he was blocked, he used numerous IP addresses and a sockpuppet account (some of which I've listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stevewk) to continue edit warring, vandalising user pages, and making uncalled-for personal attacks, nearly all of which were blocked, and User:Gwilmont (the account he registered) blocked indefinitely. Now that Stevewk's original block has expired, he has continued to revert the book templating on the pages in question. I was not sure of exactly who to tell, but it was suggested that I address it here and that someone might be able to advise me on the issue. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page asking him to discuss and use the article talk pages instead of continuing his edit war over these formatting issues. He's been blocked for 3RR, and again for using sockpuppets to continue this edit war (some of which were quite nasty). He hasn't edited in a few days, so let's see how he responds to that. If he's determined to keep edit-warring, then let me know. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV forking issue

After multiple deletions of sourced origin of the song from Bulgaria, User:Amacos has branched off Slušam kaj šumat šumite (Macedonian language transliteration) from the song When the Woods Rustle, thus creating a Wikipedia:Content forking. In Slušam kaj šumat šumite he claims the song is "Macedonian", while in When the Woods Rustle he left the song as Bulgarian. Note also he left the Macedonian language interwiki link in the first article. The song however, in both articles is the same one, it has identical English transliteration and the same notes are being played, just sung in two different languages, namely Bulgarian and Macedonian. For now I have created links between the two articles until this issue is resolved. Can someone please look into this because it is a serious breach of the content forking policy in my opinion. Not to speak the contribution history of one of the articles is now lost because of copy/paste moves by Amacos. The original history of the article remains here [46] Mr. Neutron 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. The English translation should be different and not same for both songs whose Music is really almost same but their lyrics are not same, just similar and you cannot use same English translation for both songs. Also the songs' tittles are not same and have different translations in English. Regards, --Amacos 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the lyrics are different because they are sung in different languages. The English translation is the same. Mr. Neutron 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the English translation and the translation of their tittles in English. THEY ARE NOT SAME. You cannot teach me about my mother tongue - the Macedonian language. I know it very well and also I know the English. In the Macedonian song they sing about "Friends, my faithful Macedonian friends" (Другари верни другари Македонци) and in the English translation there is this line. From the other side, in the Bulgarian song they don't sing about "Friends, my faithful Macedonian friends". How can you use the same translation if the lyrics are different in the Macedonian song and the Bulgarian song. Yes, the lyrics are similar but still different. --Amacos 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The different languages necessitate small changes, however, the theme, object and music of the song is the same. Mr. Neutron 18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked you do you understand Macedonian and Bulgarian languages and you didn't answer me. If you don't understand them how can you say that something is "same" or not? You wanna say that you know Macedonian better than me?! I'll repeat again:

• the theme is same;
• the music is almost same;
• the text of the lyrics and their meanings are not same, just similar;
• their tittles are not same and have similar but not same translations in English
• you cannot use same translation in English for both songs and you cannot use same tittles too - you can use it only if you spread propaganda like most of the Bulgarian users do.

If you use one article for both songs you have to:

• use different translations in English for each song's tittle;
• use different translations in English for each song's lyrics.

The best solution is to use two separate articles for each song and there won't be problems neither propaganda. I don't care about the Bulgarian song article. I just don't like someone to vandalize the article about the Macedonian song Slušam kaj šumat šumite --Amacos 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, in reality, neither article belongs here. We're not a song lyric repository; nothing in either article indicates why the song has any special notability whatsoever. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment about the Bulgarian song. As for the article about the Macedonian song Slušam kaj šumat šumite, there exist this article only because this song is an example for the Ethnic Macedonian music same as Kaleš bre Angjo. Regards, --Amacos 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy mass edits by User:Koavf

Koavf (talk · contribs) was blocked for a long time over his edit-warring on Western-Sahara-related articles. However, he has another behavior pattern which is significantly more disruptive to the project, one which he's picked right back up since his unblocking in June. Koavf uses AWB (or a similar tool) to make mass quantities of style changes, often including page moves, to conform to his particular views on proper style. He's usually quite sloppy about them - for instance, changing all mentions of "China" to "People's Republic of China" [47] without checking the appropriateness of the changes. Many of his changes are actually good ideas, but his execution is sloppy, and the volume makes his sloppiness disruptive.

His most recent fiasco led to a one-week block, later reduced by the blocking admin who may not have been aware of Koavf's history.

I haven't seen much evidence of similar behavior since his last block, though he's been edit-warring on Western Sahara again. As a precautionary measure, especially if he's banned from Western Sahara-related articles, I think he should be banned from using bots or rapid editing tools like AWB, to prevent further disruption. At this time, I think he's as capable of making reasonable edits manually as any other WP editor, but he does not exercise the care required to be a constructive user when using AWB. Argyriou (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already sat through his thousands of page moves and reverted them all, this was 1 and half weeks ago. Not much of anything has been posted on his talk page in regards to recent activity being disruptive. If he hasn't resorted to mass-page moving again then he hasn't done anything wrong to warrent a ban on a useful tool. The thing on the Western-Sahara looks like a content dispute to me, I would talk it out that with him, rather than beat a dead horse about the page moves. — Moe ε 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mildly disruptive editor User:Omulazimoglu on Tobacco smoking

Very slow and tedious edit war going on in which, every day or so, User:Omulazimoglu adds unsourced original research to Tobacco smoking#Islam without comment or explanation, and I revert it. This has happened several times (at least four, I think), but not often enough to trigger a 3RR violation.

I have left a warning on the editor's talk page explaining why I keep reverting him. The editor's only responses were to re-add the unsourced material back to the article without comment, and to leave a snarky comment on my talk page.

This editor seems to be a good-faith contributor to other articles (with minor exceptions) so I am hesitant to leave a level-4 "final warning" on this editor's talk page. He doesn't seem inclined to explain his edits, however, so the third opinion way of resolving disputes won't work. And he edits Wikipedia infrequently, so a short-term block will likely go unnoticed. -Amatulic 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he did it again, re-added his unsourced original research about Islam to tobacco smoking. without explaining why. I have left him a final warning. -Amatulic 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

204.210.186.227 used soley for spamming

[48] all edits from this IP sofar have been spam. Perhaps anonymous editing block to that IP would be in order?--Alexia Death 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say wait and see if your warning works first...--Isotope23 ^talk 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:George Elokobi

 Done
Could somebody please indef. block George Elokobi (talk · contribs)? Their first edit was to vandalize the George Elokobi article with a big BLP violation, all of their edits have been vandalism, they tried to report the person who was warning them about vandalism to WP:AIV, and they keep removing themself from the WP:AIV page. Since they know WP:AIV, it's clear they're not a newbie, and their use of the name of a real person would get them blocked anyway, regardless of the vandalism. Corvus cornix 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Philippe | Talk 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Genarlow Wilson

User:Barry Boster persists in creating the page Genarlow Wilson with unsourced, POV statements. This case is already discussed in Wilson v. State of Georgia. The page has been redirected to the case: [49] and Boster has reversed this redirection and has been reverted by different editors: [50], [51], [52], [53].

I warned him about this on July 2, [54] and second warning today [55]. He has deleted these warnings from his talk page saying in the edit summary, "rv troll".[56] He then posted a "final warning" on my talk page: [57].

Barry Boster is an editor with edits only mostly to the Genearlow Wilson pages. For example, from the Wilson v. State of Georgia talk page:

The perverse acts of this convicted sex offender clearly merits his conviction. Else, he hadn't been convicted by the American legal system.

I would appreciate an admins a) Redirect the Genarlow Wilson page again by reverting Boster's last revert, b) Deleting the "final warning" from my page, c) reverting the deletions from his talk page and d) discussing this matter with Boster or taking whatever action you feel is appropriate. Thanks. Therefore 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm redirecting the article and protecting it, this is a clear violation of some facet BLP, mainly the "don't be evil" one. --Golbez 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Losing my religion

User:TipPt is an editor who has strong opinions about the topic of circumcision, and sometimes finds himself disagreeing with other editors about what text should be in the article. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with having strong opinions or disagreeing with others.

However, in the course of such disagreements, he has been constantly and incorrigibly rude to his fellow editors, dating back to his first months at Wikipedia (my "favorite," I think, would be this edit, where he tells another editor "You might fear hell.") My last personal straw came in July when he began, in what I consider to be acting with purely antisemitic intent, referring to other editors as part of a "religious cabal" (See [58], [59], [60], [61]). This bothers me for a few reasons, not the least of which being that I, personally, don't discuss my own religious beliefs — or lack thereof — on Wikipedia, and neither do a number of another of the editors whom he characterizes this way. And even if those editors did discuss their religion, turning discussion on talk pages into ad hominem screeds is improper.

I left a message on his talk page demanding an apology, to which is reply was, in summary, that he didn't mean to offend me, but anyway the Cabal are really bad people, and I have made edits that helped them, so it's OK if he is uncivil or rude towards his fellow editors. After another interchange, he "honestly apologized," at which point I let the matter drop. More fool me.

A week later, I see that he's still going around commenting on the religious beliefs of his fellow editors.

Let me not put too fine a point on this: I really don't care what his position on circumcision is. I don't care what he thinks about global warming, the tax code, or his own personal spirituality. What I care about is that he has consistently, for more than a year, after being asked to stop, denigrated, insulted, and been unspeakably incivil to his fellow editors. And I am, at this point, furious and completely torqued off about it. His behavior is completely unacceptable, and I want it to stop. Nandesuka 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The mediation case he filed was the last straw. Blocked for a week. Review welcome. Grandmasterka 22:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Grandmaster's block. Disparaging editors, grouping them into religious groups/cabals, goes completely against WP:FAITH and is unacceptable. — Moe ε 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, check out his contributions; virtually all his contributions have been to Circumcision or Talk:Circumcision. Such an incredible obsession with one topic (one article!) tends to make editors think the world is out to get them, and never ends up well. Grandmasterka 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite as bad as it looks. The editor has a ridiculous problem with the preview button apparently. The Evil Spartan 23:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord, despite his lack of preview, this editor needs a broader editing scope than circumcision articles. A request on his talk page to try and edit other things should probably be made before this editor gets burned out and gets paranoid of the editors there. — Moe ε 23:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppet swore and acted uncivil to me

The user in question is User talk:Melodic Horror.

Here is the first incident.[62]

As a was writing this I found he wasn't done demeaning me.[63]

This guy is a sock puppet of User:AFI-PUNK, who has made over 15 sock accounts to evade his original block.[64] Hope something is done about this. 68.114.92.198 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK raised to 'teach me a lesson'

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I'm User:Sprigot and a WP:SOCK has been raised against User:TharkunColl, and I've been nominated as his Sock.

Obviously I'm refruting the claim - which you can read here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TharkunColl

The claim has been raised by User:Giggy on behalf of his 'adoptee' User:XAndreWx.

Giggy has just said (on the above suspect sock puppet page) that he raised the WP:SOCK against TharkunColl and I so that (in his words) we would "leave him alone" (meaning his adoptee, XAndreWx).

My only 'crime' against XAndreWx was to report him for WP:3RR - which was proven and he was blocked (not hard as he had been blocked once before, been unblocked and went on to be blocked again just two days later) - and to report him for being a suspected sock puppeteer - related to the consistant 3RR behaviour.

The relevant quote by Giggy (right at the end of this page) is:

"the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop. Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone"

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I presume that waste of admin time by raising false WP:SOCK accusations is at least one of the issues - as is the libellous nature of the false WP:SOCK itself.

Otherwise admin intervention in this case would be very welcome. Sprigot 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While not commenting on the dispute itself, I think what you're talking about is WP:POINT. Confusing Manifestation 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'm here because I agree with User:Sprigot. That's right, it is WP:POINT it's also an extreme case of WP:BITE too, as Sprigot had only done a few edits before a formal accusation of being a sock puppet was aimed at him. To reiterate, this is how User:Giggy described his motivation for filing a sockpuppet accusation, complete with his own use of bold type:-

"Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone! "

The bold caps seemed somewhat threatening. All this, even entry of a sockpuppet page, was directed against a newcomer too. I feel some sort of admin action upon User:Giggy is in order.Merkinsmum 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Giggy has withdrawn his checkuser request and dropped the matter. It would be helpful if you were to do the same rather than seek punishment (which admins do not do). Neil ╦ 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neil I don't want to seek punishment - but I do want to be vindicated (as not being a sock) - saying 'assmume' innocence is a bit much - isn't it supposed to be disproved ? I don't want the allegation of being a sock hanging over my head - perhaps if an admin could rule that I wasn't a sock it would bring some 'closure' to the matter. Sprigot 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this send out the message to Giggy (and others) that it's OK to accuse people of Sock Puppeteering, via a formal route, because nothing happens if they do ? No warning of Disruptive (WP:POINT and WP:BITE) behaviour, no clam down don't be silly - no 'anything' ? Sprigot 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not allowed to be used to clear someone - this would be a violation of privacy. It is only used to confirm sockpuppet abuse when clear evidence of such exists. As such evidence does not exist in this instance, we assume you are not a sockpuppet. I am sure that if Giggy persists in making unfounded accusations he will be asked to stop. I would imagine he will read this, and will realise he shouldn't make accusations of sockery without compelling evidence in the future. Nothing is going to happen unless he carries on - admins are not the Punishment Committee. Neil ╦ 15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Neil - I feel better now that you have put this into context for me - I appriciate the time you've taken to help here. Sprigot 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens rename Al-Aqsa Intifada without consensus.

Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see the page histories here and here. Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens have repeatedly renamed the page today without consensus.

An earlier admin closed the requested move of Al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada at Wikipedia:Requested moves with the edit summary "removing closed discussion". See this diff. The same admin then archived that discussion. See this diff. The admin's edit summary was "closing requested move--no consensus to move"

Then there was a mediation attempt at

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20 Al-Aqsa Intifada

There was no consensus to rename the page. There has never been a consensus to move the page. --Timeshifter 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This may be a great case of WP:IAR. He's said it very well, the " mediation was a farce, with entrenched partisans simply insisting on their own POV" . I rarely support an admin who does something out of process, but this time he's correct; we need not abide by the results of a mediation if it ignores key policies. The Evil Spartan 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I followed your advice, and the advice of WP:IAR. Please see:

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My edit summary: "Per today's WP:ANI discussion, please see WP:IAR. This common sense compromise, discussed previously, improves and maintains content, and is clear." --Timeshifter 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. While I appreciate your boldness, I really do think this is the appropriate name. It may be commonly known as that in the Islamic world, but it's a bit more common to use second intifada here. It's also more POV. Though internet sources are using multiple sources, such notable sources as Al-jazeera are calling it the intifada. I'm posting this comment on the talk page as well. The Evil Spartan 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"it's a bit more common to use second intifada here." You are incorrect. See the previous discussions and mediation that I linked to. What do you have against "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada"? And I don't believe you are an admin, so what gives you any more authority than me or anybody else on this issue? And even admins have to try to follow the rules. WP:IAR is a last resort. Which I used with probably more justification than anyone else, since I have participated in the previous discussions. --Timeshifter 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any more right of authority than you have. At this point, I'm not sure it's WP:IAR at all - there is no consensus. Anyway, I find those compromise titles to be awful and unencyclopedic: it makes it sound like there's more than one second intifada, and we need to distinguish this one with by saying it's the Al-Aqsa intifada. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There ARE more intifadas than the Palestinian ones. --Timeshifter 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. WP:IAR doesn't mean that you get to do whatever the hell you want and revert regardless. IAR is supposed to be used whenever the encyclopedia is not benefiting from a policy or guideline. This doesn't apply, either way. If two respected users, Jayjg and Humus see that the page should be located where it is, then maybe you should ask them why rather than ignoring them. Go discuss it with them and see why they moved it. — Moe ε 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you yelling at them? I did not change the name completely without consensus. I tried to use a compromise name only AFTER these 2 admins changed the name. The intransigence of these 2 particular admins is well known at WP:ANI. I have discussed the naming with them both many times. As have many others. And the word 'intifada' itself is not easy to translate. My compromise name is much more clear. See:

http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/intifada.html

"In fact, even the correct translation of the Arabic word 'intifada' seems to be contentious, with Oxbridge's 'uprising' set against Collins' 'resurgence', 'throwing off' and Encarta's 'shaking off'. An educated Arab has described it to me as 'a difficult word' whose modern Palestinian coinage is new and whose predecessor in classical Arabic meant something more like 'awakening', as if from a bad dream." --Timeshifter 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not yelling at them because An/I isn't a complaints department. I would suggest going to Jayjg and Humus' talk pages and requesting they clarify the exact reason for moving the pages, if you have not already done so. These users are admins for a reason, because they gained the communities trust, and performing a page move over them would be frowned upon, to say the least. I have no opinion on which revision is correct or not, but maybe if you explained these things to the admins who confirmed its location, maybe they can expain their reason in full. Regards, — Moe ε 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

From looking at your user page I do not believe that you are an admin. So maybe you are not familiar with WP:ANI. And maybe you are the one that needs to ask them. I have already discussed this with them many times. --Timeshifter 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kid, regardless of whether or not I'm an admin makes no difference, and yes I'm familiar with WP:AN/I considering I've been on Wikipedia for two years.. — Moe ε 03:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please apologize for the personal attack. See WP:NPA. --Timeshifter 04:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. — Moe ε 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Please see this NPR page:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4510714

"al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade":

"Al Aqsa Brigade - Also known as the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, it is a secret armed group which sprang from within Fatah, the leading Palestinian political movement. Formed after the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 and named for the famed mosque in the center of old Jerusalem where the intifada began, it has claimed responsibility for many bombings and armed attacks on Israeli settlers and soldiers. Its exact leadership and relation to Fatah remains unclear."

We frequently hear of this Palestinian group in the Western media. The name "al Aqsa" is common now in English, and it is necessary in the name of this page if people are to understand the conflict, and the roots of names like "al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade".--Timeshifter 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One problem with that is, if I read the article correctly, the name "al Aqsa intifada" does not come from the name of the group, but directly from the name of the mosque (after which the group is also named.) Further, the reason for the name "al Aqsa intifida" seems to be the claim of Palestinians that this wave of terrorism was a reaction to the visit of Ariel Sharon to the vicinity of the mosque, which makes it a POV title because many others believe that the terrorism was a planned thing and that the Sharon visit was just a pretext. So "Second Intifida" is the NPOV title. 6SJ7 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NPR describes it as the "second intifada" in your excerpt and adopting their usage seems reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very bad business. Jayjg and Humus are strongly partisan editors; Jay has already been reprimanded at least twice by the Arbitration Committee and (as Fred Bauder has put it) he has "a long history of partisan activism" concerning Israel-related articles. It's absolutely inappropriate for two entrenched partisans to impose their own viewpoints in this way. They have no chance of being seen as neutral parties in this debate and it's very disappointing that they have - not for the first time - ignored WP:CONSENSUS. One would think that Jay, as a former arbitrator, would at least respect our basic community principles. Sadly it appears that partisanship is overriding principle. -- ChrisO 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A personal grudge from a hardly neutral colleague. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter's arguments failed at the talk page and at the mediation. After many weeks if not months of discussion, there is not hope for consensus. The article was under POV title way, way too long, and the move to an undisputably NPOV title Second Intifada is long overdue. Regarding the NPR link: 1) NPR is not a strictly scholarly source, but I guess it may qualify as RS. 2) Timeshifter's quote above is from "Al Aqsa Brigade" entry. 3) Here's what more relevant "Intifada" entry says: "The second intifada began in late September 2000, after comprehensive peace talks at Camp David failed the previous summer. The second intifada has grown into Israel's longest war." The highlight's mine. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it is clearly not appropriate for someone as identified with one side of the debate as yourself or Jayjg to take unilateral action. It'll be seen - is already being seen - as an effort to impose a partisan solution against consensus (and you can hardly argue, given the requested moves summary quoted by Timeshifter, that you had consensus). You should undertake dispute resolution rather than attempting to impose a solution. -- ChrisO 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What side do you identify me with, ChrisO? This is not a game of tag, and not a battleground, even though many editors work hard to make it so. This is an encyclopedia and I am fully responsible for my actions and words. I reject your self-appointed supervision. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your rejection of dispute resolution and consensus-building is noted, and I'm sure it will be noted by everyone else as well. -- ChrisO 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, this has been discussed and debated since March! There have been straw polls, there's been move requests, there's been mediation -at some point, we have to finally say enough! At no point in the whole debate did anyone advance an argument or provide evidence that "Second Intifada" is a POV title -mainly because it would have been impossible. There is also no way around the fact that other encyclopædias, like Britannica title it "Second" [65]. Irrespective of how it might look to you, there hasn't been a "partisan solution" imposed, period. Intransigence by some editors in the face of the overwhelming evidence against their position has to, at some point, be regarded for what it is, a form of gaming the system. This seems to me to be a perfect situation where WP:IAR is needed. <<-armon->> 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Humus wrote: "Timeshifter's arguments failed at the talk page and at the mediation." Armon wrote: "there hasn't been a 'partisan solution' imposed,..." Both are laughable statements. The Humus arguments have almost always failed. Just go to the pages that I linked. Neither of these 2 hardly ever compromise. --Timeshifter 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and support the above comments by Humus and Armon. Let's stop with the filibustering, people. If Second Intifida is objectionable, let's call it second Palestinean Uprising, or some descriptive phrase that no one likes. Really.--Epeefleche 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way we're supposed to operate - Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution set out what's supposed to happen. I'm not making any judgments as to which name is preferable, but a coup de main by one side in a dispute is the worst possible way to try to resolve the question. -- ChrisO 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: There is currently a proposal on Talk:Second Intifada to retitle the article as Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). This (entirely sensible) suggestion has been rejected outright by at least one highly partisan editor, and it stands to reason that this editor's allies will oppose any resolution which includes "Al Aqsa Intifada" in the article title. CJCurrie 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, but rather another attempt to push the same POV. We've been through this. Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". And per WP:TITLE#Use English words: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." Of course this is a wrong place or this discussion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

Can I suggest that we've thoroughly established that there are good reasons (even if you disagree with them) for all sides of this dispute and discussion of it does not therefore belong on this board. Please take this to Talk:Second Intifada, the original article talk page or another more appropriate forum. --Dweller 09:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct - Talk:Second Intifada from here on, please, content disuputes are not an issue requiring administrative attention. Neil ╦ 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring at Wikipedia:lead section

There is currently edit warring over whether citations in the lead should be:

• a) mentioned with both interpretation given
• b) decouraged for stuff given in the article
• c) encouraged at all cost
• d) mentioned at all

I'm all in favor of it being covered (and I have reverted the removal of the section twice), but User:SlimVirgin and Jayjg are steadfastly removing the section. How the mention of the "summary" interpretation "encourages policy violation", I fail to see, but in any case, more people need to step in and watch the page if this is ever to solve. Circeus 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been going on for a year. Other editors have given up, left the project, and stopped editing policy pages altogether. Same story, different article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny how admins who really should know better - on both sides - each manage exactly 3 reverts before an ally steps in and takes up the revert button. This is known as "gaming" 3RR. Neil ╦ 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that article is a poster child for the Dmcdevit solution (1RR) once it's unprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On Site with Thomas Vandalism...

There's a case of block evasion using multiple IP addresses with a vandal on the page On Site with Thomas. It's been going on for about one month now where the vandal is adding false episodes (such as an episode 14 and 15). Most of them seemingly link to a common ISP, and many times these IP addresses are very similar, including (though not limited to) 86.151.49.215, 86.149.38.19, 86.129.35.165, 86.151.51.188, and 86.151.50.181. Just wondering what the administrators' thoughts would be on this...C. Foultz 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but why haven't you just gotten it semi-protected? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this is still block evasion and I wanted to notify administrators of it. C. Foultz 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected by another admin. As for the block evasion... ugen64 03:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gerry_Lynch Unfairly blocked as a sockpuppet

I am User:Gerry_Lynch and I've been a wikipedia editor for about three years with barely even an editwar to my name, but on trying to edit some Turkish election related articles today, I found myself blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn by User:Dmcdevit. Not only am I a real person - a quick Google search should confirm that I am the real world Gerry Lynch - but I don't even know who User:Runcorn is, although I'd hazard a guess that he works in the same place I do. Can I please have my account back? I'd also wonder whether or not any of the alleged sock puppets in this case are really anything other than bona fide editors. This sort of lynch law does no-one any good. 91.125.114.14 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've tried placing {{unblock}} on your talk page yet. I'll leave a message with Dmc, but it looks like he's not very active right now. I'm also at a loss, looking for the relevant checkuser case. Someguy1221 01:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Someguy, I didn't know how to do the unblock thing, am not very good on metawiki things, have now done so and will see what happens. Thanks for your help. 91.125.114.14 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) = User:Gerry Lynch

Sorry, but I just blocked this IP for self-confessed block evasion. I'll go to Gerry's talk page and ensure he's okay on using the {{unblock}} template - Alison ☺ 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the unblock procedure using one's own talk page either. I don't see why it would be block evasion to attempt to find out WHY a block was placed. Block evasion would be to make edits even though the person was blocked. Here, this person is not trying to edit any articles, just raise the question of the IP block.

Someguy, there's this Signpost article, but I'm still looking for a RfCU.   j    talk   08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, Gerry Lynch is very much a real person and thoroughly knowledgeable in the field of psephology. No idea who or what "Runcorn" is other than a town in Cheshire, but it sure as hell ain't him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.163.220 (talk • contribs)

Why on earth does it matter if Gerry Lynch is his real name or not, does having ones real name prevent him from creating sock puppets, or from someone creating a sock with their real name as their user? I think not. Whether or not his name is really Gerry Lynch is immaterial. --Hayden5650 10:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case where is the relevant checkuser? People set up sockpuppets for very specific reasons - in this case I can't see any motivation at all (or proof.) It's pretty clear from looking here at his most common mainspace edits [66] and here at his most recent edits [67] that Gerry Lynch's main contributions are to Northern Irish politics and amateur radio with minors in Turkey and Anglicanism. A look at the similar pages for Runcorn shows that he mainly contributes to pages about prominent Jews [68] with a minor in football. [69] In fact looking at the suspected sockpuppets for Runcorn page, only two of them on a cursory glance seem to be him/her. Banning longstanding users without apparently giving them or others a chance to comment on the basis of trial by I.P. is the most worrying aspect of all this. Valenciano 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The block itself, done without ptoper investigation of the user suspected of being a sockpuppet, steers dangerously close to abuse in my opinion. The block should be stopped asap.--Martin Wisse 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All of User:Runcorn's other alleged sockpuppets have made edits on things like 'list of jewish athletes'; User:Gerry Lynch has not. The evidence for Runcorn's sockpuppetry does not name Gerry Lynch, and Gerry Lynch's page doesn't contain a link to that evidence as the other sockpuppets' pages do. I strongly support rescinding the ban.

I additionally, and separately, support rescinding the ban on the IP above for 'self-confessed block evasion': it would make sense if he were using that IP to make edits to other parts of Wikipedia, but makes no sense, and smacks of censorship, to ban someone for block evasion when the only thing they're doing by "evading" the block is to speak up in their own defense. --Zeborah 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zeborah on both points, there has been an obvious error made here. I am concerned that it looks from his editing history as though User:Dmcdevit hasn't been online in the four days since the block was imposed, and may not have seen the dissenting opinions on the block. I will leave a message on his talk page, and if the block's still in place in 24 hours I'll remove it myself unless he convinces me of the correctness of his view. -- Arwel (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the original unblock reviewing admin (silly me. You should see my inbox), I've looked over everything here, including emails I've received from some folks, as well as noting the fact that the blocking admin appears to be away. Given the evidence at this point, I'm WP:AGF assuming a certain good faith here and unblocking Gerry. I'll followup with the blocking admin when he gets back on here - Alison ☺ 21:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now been unblocked. Thanks to all who supported and to User:Alison for her final WP:AGF. While it's clear that User:Alison seems to have nothing other than follow consensus procedure, that consensus procedure stinks.

Blocking an IP for block evasion for nothing other than protesting their innocence should not happen . Ever. Blocking an established user for sharing an IP address with a troublesome user without supporting evidence should not happen. Ever. Blocking IP addresses that support a potentially maligned user, as happened to the user at 77... above, should not happen. Ever. I don't know how to go about creating a new policy here, but I'll gladly put the work in if a more experienced Wikipedian on meta issues, not things I've dipped my toe into before, can show me how.

By the way, Alison said that checkuser had been run on me and that was her initial reason for supporting my block. There is no evidence of that block being run on RfUC. With an admin out of touch and no evidence of their Usercheck, I should have been unblocked straight away. That is another thing that should not happen. Ever.

Most people, especially newbies, would have walked away from Wikipedia long before being vindicated. That is not a good thing. Lessons should be learned from this. People are so pissed off at the trolls and socks that they are forgetting to assume good faith. Gerry Lynch 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison. Can someone clarify the situation with the user at 77.... above? No talk page exists for them which is where I'd expect to see a ban noted, but I'm not familiar with ban procedures so perhaps it's somewhere else. This is another ban that I'd support rescinding, as per Gerry (and the fact that the IP's previous edits look kosher), so I'd like to know where to find more information about the ban and where to discuss the issue. --Zeborah 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

77 user above has also now been unblocked - Alison ☺ 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the 77 user a couple of hours ago, didn't see a need to document that other than in an email to Gerry so he could let the person concerned know, sorry. -- Arwel (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

USer 156.34.142.110 inserting factually inaccurate POV into article on St. Anger

Hello. The above user keeps insisting that the online encyclopedia Encyclopaedia Mettalum is a fanzine when it is quite obviously not. I edited the article to better reflect the facts, and then he responded[70] with a blatant example of someone inserting their pwn POV into an article rather than dealing with facts. When I reverted the vandalism back again, he accused all of the MEtal Archives' fans and users of being retarded teenagers ([71]). I warned him on his userpage (now archived), then changed it back again with an additional warning in the edit summary. Apparently I'm not the only one who has a problem with the user in question (some other anonymous user). Anyway, I warned him twice and he kept it up, so I didn't know what else to do except report it here. Thanks in advance for taking time to read this. Ours18 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin Alkivar misused "restore" tool

The image Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg, uploaded by admin Alkivar, was deleted by Admin Howcheng after the this ifd discussion. Alkivar have been properly warned about the discussion at the time of the nomination, but preferred not to comment.

After the deletion, Alkivar used the "restore" admin tool to restore the image, removed the ifd tag and readded the image to the article, when the proper way to disagree with a Xfd decision is to start a deletion review. (not to mention that admins should never use admin tools in discussions he/she's involved with.

I've left a message to Alkivar, but I am unable to delete the image (I've tagged it as g4, but I don't know if images restored against the policy are considered "reupload of deleted material"). --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, but I have to agree that this undelete is improper. At first, I thought maybe Alkivar thought the image was deleted prematurely as the IfD was never marked as closed. However, Alkivar's comment when the image was restored ("debate at IFD did not have a consensus to delete") indicates that Alkivar simply disagreed with the closing admin's determination. This is clearly inappropriate, especially since Alkivar uploaded the image. Deletion review was and is the proper channel. I have deleted the image as a repost. -- But|seriously|folks  04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think deletion review would have been a more appropriate way to challenge another admins interpretation of consensus, or even discussion. Though I find it hard to understand how that IfD can be seen as a delete. Until(1 == 2) 04:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a judgment call by Howcheng. Disagreement is not the end of the world and there is no larger gray area in Wikipedia policy than image use. Not to mention that the copyright status of mugshots is not so clear cut. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

vandal/profanity

User:Jpgordon added info about Oprah Winfrey performing fellatio on a donkey, etc. [72]

Rillio 03:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He didn't add them; he reverted your removal of other people's comments. Arguably some may be tasteless, but tampering or removing other people's comments is of utmost rudeness (unless they consist of blatant vandalism). —Kurykh 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i removed racist attacks on oprah, jpgordon added these back in. this is inexcusable. can someone in charge of this place do something? Rillio 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What racist comments? —Kurykh 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And in case you didn't know, the person was saying that the comment about Oprah doing whatever with the donkey should be removed from the article. So I don't know what you're getting at. —Kurykh 04:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

that person was being sarcastic, obviously. swap "oprah" for "your mom" and i think you'll see that it is an attack on oprah Rillio 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quit your bellyaching. Jpgordan didn't do anything wrong, move along. — Moe ε 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

)(ec) Actually, the comment was placed by an anonymous IP and was unsigned. At that time (July 14, 2007), the Oprah Winfrey page contained vandalism, which the anon obviously did not know how to fix. The vandalism was reverted about an hour after the above comment was left. I have added a header to the Oprah Winfrey talk page and context for the above note.[73] Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

so its ok for jpgordon to insert "oprah is a lesbian and a whore and sucks donkey dick"? i think this is really rude to oprah. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rillio (talk • contribs) 05:05, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

No one said that, so stop misinterpreting the comment. No one called Oprah that, let along Jpgordon. Let me modify the comment to make it clear:

Who ever wrote that "Oprah was a lesbian and a whore that could suck a donkeys dick" should change that, Oprah is a beautiful woman that helps all the neddy children. [Italics and quotes are mine]

I didn't have to do this, but it seems like I have to in order to stop this farcical complaint. —Kurykh 05:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rillio seems to have some misconceptions about what is and what isn't appropriate here, and what may be done about it. Vide his edits to User talk:Deeceevoice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Torture is Wrong sock needing a block

Resolved

WingnutsBegone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) (an indef blocked user who likes to comment at WP:RFCN) based on the user's contribution and info from User:Jpgordon. Could someone please block? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure. Until(1 == 2) 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Velocicaptor

Resolved

Someone may want to take a look at this gem. I removed the fair use images, but someone may want to deal with the ridiculous soapboxing in that edit. I'm not feeling particularly forgiving right now, so I'd appreciate someone else having a look.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's just classic trolling. --Haemo 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• While I think he should be able to say what he likes, and it certainly isn't offensive, just a little incorrect. By the time WW2 rolled around we hadn't been allowed to own Negroes in 74 years. So it was hardly a case of maintaining the right to negro slaves. History is always bent though to support an opinion --Hayden5650 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• • You would say that Jews would be workers, not talk-show hosts like Jerry Springer is today, raking in big money for doing nothing but cracking jokes. isn't offensive? IrishGuy ^talk 10:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not offensive? Please... That post was offensive on so many levels and I'm not even part of the ethnic groups he was disparaging. He's lucky I've the sense to post a notice here rather than just carry through with my first inclination.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Irishguy and I have removed that post. BLP can be violated outside article namespaces and should be treated seriously, and that comment about Springer, was BLP, liable and any other thing we could toss at it Regardless, it wasn't for the benefit of this encyclopedia, and comments like that need to stay in the peanut gallery. — Moe ε 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War in the article on Pro-pedophile activism

Resolved

Admin intervention is requested in regards to the edit war currently in progress in the editing of the Pro-pedophile activism article. Three editors have repeatedly deleted almost the entire article without providing any legitimate reason for such a drastic action on the appropriate Talk Page. All attempts to encourage meaningful discussion have failed. The only reasons provided for the deletion of so much material were that the topic is not liked by these editors and that they think the entire article should be deleted. Since WP:IDONTLIKEIT clearly explains that personal opinions on a subject should carry no weight in the discussion of the topic's place in Wikipedia, and without legitimate justification of why an article should be deleted a deletion cannot go through, the repeated deletion of the majority of the text of this article is definitely unjustified. I would like to also point out that one of the editors engaged in this behavior has previously nominated this article for deletion. The resulting vote was "no consensus," with 18 votes for Keep (or 19 if counting one that read "Neutral, leaning keep") and 5 votes for Delete. Seeing as these editors have yet to provide sufficient basis for the drastic edit they would like to see occur to this article, and continue to engage in an edit war with editors who wish to discuss the proposed change on the Talk Page, admin intervention seems necessary. Could an admin please take a look into this issue and do something about this edit war? Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Standard remedy: full protection on the Wrong Version^TM. Hash it out at the relevant talk page at your (plural case intended) leisure. —Kurykh 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look closely enough to see which side they're on, but it quite appears that Sdhrfr (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, since they're spontaneously registering and leaping into the middle of a heated dispute right as people are hitting 3RR. Watch for autoblocks, or if anybody feels this was a bad move, feel free to discuss. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 from my encounter at Lolicon, but SqueakBox has a history of engaging in POV edit waring. His particular statement that "NPOV condemns child pornography"[74] is particularly worrisome and makes me wonder if he can edit any related article in a neutral manner. --Farix (Talk) 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

There are currently 8 outstanding 3rr reports on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. It would be great if someone could respond to these, thanks! Perspicacite 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vision (Marvel Comics)

There's a low level revert war going on here, and the page has already been subject to protection in the recent past. Now I've already blocked one of the participants, Asgardian (talk · contribs), a couple of times for what I perceive as disruption, so I don't want to step into this dispute in case my judgement is clouded. I'd appreciate a more neutral admin than I may be to have a look and take what they feel is the appropriate action. Cheers, Steve block Talk 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll sort it out. Neil ╦ 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked for making legal threats and being disruptive is back

Please forgive me, I posted this first on another admin. board before realizing my mistake!

A sockpuppet of User:Mayor Quimby, one User:207.6.12.137, is back. This user's activities clearly indicate that the user is antithetical to the ideals of Wikipedia and its editors. The user's anon. IP sockpuppets were blocked for making legal threats, vandalism and being very disruptive. All editors are cautioned that this user is full of beans and is looking for confrontation, and so please be careful not to poke.

Here's the info on 207.6.12.137:

207.6.12.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I would ask for one of two things:

• 1) Please block the IP 207.6.12.137.
• 2) and/or protect the following pages that the sockpuppets regularly target so that anon IPs cannot edit:

• Regina neighbourhoods
• Regina, Saskatchewan
• Pat Fiacco

It would be better to block the IP again, I think, because this user is bound and determined to use our encyclopædia project alternatively as a personal soapbox and vandalism playground. I also append a record of this user's history: [[75]] Thank you.Mumun 無文 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked again, this time for two weeks. CitiCat ^♫ 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, CitiCat ^♫!! ^^ Mumun 無文 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:White Hispanic

This talk page is getting worrisome. Several IPs are making edits to the talk page that have little to do with the article itself but are ramblings and rants. This has persisted for some time and I think requires the attention of an admin. Examples

• diff 68.110.8.21
• diff 68.110.8.21
• [76] 71.235.81.32
• same rant User:76.28.91.54
• rant User:196.38.218.24
• rant User:71.235.88.168

These are just a few examples, overall the talk page is looking more like a forum or a blog. There is a similar pattern by some of the same editors on the Talk:White Latin American page.Muntuwandi 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're free to remove any posts that are not in compliance with WP:TALK's general ideals about what is to be discussed there. You can remove these without admin assistance, correct? — Moe ε 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution: I've moved all talk page discussions to Talk:White Hispanic/Archive 1 and semi-protected the talkarchive. If you encounter anymore off-topic ranting, move it there. This will provide a disincentive for others to use the talk page as a forum and, hopefully, by the time semi-protection elapses, such antics will cease. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll continue to observe the situation. Muntuwandi 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deciiva

Could you please deal with this user? I'm sick and tired of these personal attacks and continuous reverts ([77], [78], [79], [80], [81]). I made him note Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written like sports magazines' reports, with interviews, quotes, redundant statements and lots of external links. But all his answers are things like these. All I realize about the guy is that he is not interested at all to collaborate in the Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 14:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning. If he makes more personal attacks then report it here and someone will deal with it. ugen64 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Somali people vandalism

In the Somali people article, 86.149.253.205 (talk · contribs) was repeatedly removing the "Prophet" honorific from Muhammad's name and changing "Somali diaspora" to "Somali infection" ([82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]). The former is actually a legitimate edit as per WP:MOSISLAM. The latter edit is vandalism and the IP (based in the UK) has since been blocked for 24 hours. Subsequently, 140.112.29.207 (talk · contribs) (based in Taiwan) made the same edit with a vengefully-worded edit summary ([88]). I blocked the new IP address, but I am planning on protecting the article if this continues. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. One admin suspects this anon. editor is banned user DavidYork71. -- Gyrofrog (talk)

Based in Taiwan? Hardly. I'm taking it to WP:OP. In any case, can I ask why you have brought this here? I don't see much to comment on. The Evil Spartan 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant the IP address is based in Taiwan. I'd already changed the block to indefinite based on Wikipedia:Open proxy detection. This was more of an alert than a request, I apologize if it is misplaced. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fallujah vandalism

• 124.99.205.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeated editing of Fallujah with unsourced, personal commentary, not keeping with NPOV regarding "white phosphorous, nerve gas, mustard gas". Similar changes were already reverted at a previous time and there removal was agreed by consensus on Talk:Fallujah. User was warned repeatedly and is active and continues to edit after fifth and last warning given. heresthecasey | talk 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that this is vandalism. While the user might be having trouble with the syntax, he or she is citing references. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see it either. Just taking a quick glance, I don't see unsourced personal commentary. I see statements which have moved from borderline pov in the earlier edits to fairly neutral in the last edits which were backed by a BBC article and an Independent.co.uk article. Is there more discussion in one of the archives? I don't see where any strong consensus was formed on the talk page that the information couldn't be added if there was a reliable source with it. I only see where people were saying that it didn't belong because earlier mentions were based on "eyewitness accounts". Either way, I'd say this is more of a content dispute than a case of vandalism. --OnoremDil 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have declined to issue a block on the same report at AIV. I see it as a good faith entry (and thus not vandalism) of a well sourced comment. I don't see personal commentary in the most recent version. - Philippe | Talk 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked editor Saintrotter (talk · contribs) is editing under an IP sock

82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs) is a static IP address that has only been used by Saintrotter (talk · contribs) aka Rastishka (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely for persistent POV pushing, trolling and soapboxing on his userpage. Beginning this month, the static IP (which was not blocked along with the two usernames) has resumed editing and based on edit history is pretty clearly the same editor. IP makes tendentious edits centered around race [89], and is even signing his IP edits using his old BANNED username [90], [91], [92]. The IP has been blocked twice in the past. I think it's time for a permablock for this IP, as it is a static IP assigned only to this particular indefblocked user and leaving it open can result in nothing but more block avoidance. The Parsnip! 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a Checkuser case. [93]. The Parsnip! 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimfbleak does not understand blocking policy

Hello,

I don't think Jimfbleak understands the community policy for blocking. Although he only blocks vandals, he blocks, sometimes indefinitely for only one or two page edits, sometimes without any warning messages left on the users page, or even notifying them of the block. I mentioned this to him and he's responsive to change, but it would be helpful if an admin could talk to him...

Thanks, Isaac 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Blocks like here, here, here, here and especially here where the person blanked the page and didn't even get a warning or notice on their talk page. My comments were more directed towards IP blocking rather than username stuff, which seems fine. What about here. An ip address is obviously not a sockpuppet, perhaps doesn't deserve a one week ban for one vandalism edit. Isaac 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not that uncommon of a practice if an account exibits what is considered VOA or "Vandal Only Account" Activity. These are most often bad faith accounts which directly target articles with multiple edits of extremee bad faith vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are only needed when it is not clear that the person knows what they are doing is wrong. No need to tell someone that replacing a page with "<insert name here> smells funny" is against the rules. Until(1 == 2) 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An example or two of blocks you think were inappropriate may help, but it is worth noting that there are several cases in which blocking right away is decidedly better than giving the full warning catalogue. — Scientizzle 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been discussing Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with him. If this is the situation you are concerned about, I'm not sure that I think an editor who's first 4 edits are quite so blatant needs to have anyone crusade on his behalf because he wasn't warned...

I do agree that notification of the block is always nice, but I don't necessarily think it is always needed. --OnoremDil 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that this should make any difference to the matter at hand, but User:Qweasd1234 recently joined, and vandalized Jimf's user page here: [94]. I reverted, at which point, Qweasd1234 commented this [95] on my talk page. I suggested he go to ANI, here, and immediately after that, Isaac added this "thread," right here. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it is a bit coincidental, don't you think? Gscshoyru 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've notified Jim of this thread. Looking at his admin block log, I don't see anything out of the ordinary. He hasn't blocked more than a couple of dozen in the last few weeks. Additionally, his user page has been hit with a couple of VOAs in the last few days. I would be inclined to indef Qweasd1234 (talk · contribs)...and I don't understand why Jim's explanation on Isaac's talk page (User_talk:Isaac#Blocking) wasn't sufficient. — Scientizzle 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also remember that blocks are preventive... using the example of Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) where all edits were pure vandalism, a block stops that editor from continuing to create content that has to be cleaned up. I've done the same thing in the past to stop a vandal from continuing unabated. Generally I find it helpful to post a message to them as to why they were blocked and letting them know if they are willing to edit without vandalism I will unblock them. Anecdotally though, I note that in nearly every case I've done this the editor has ended up indef'd by someone else for further vandalism, so I can't say my method is a resounding success...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Scien for letting me know this discussion was taking place. I accept that sometimes I've imposed a short block when a warning might have been more in accordance with policy. I have no second thoughts about blocking Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this is someone who knows the ropes (appeal before advised of procedure) who would run to another username if warned. Jimfbleak 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Having seen Jimfbleak block someone who he happened to see had made personal attacks on my user page, after I reverted his vandalism, I can say Jimfbleak seems very reasonable, and was ready to listen when the user apologised, and subsequently unblocked him. This user has not vandalised since has far as I can see, so it seems it was the right decision. It's not because some are over lenient with their blocks that all have to be the same. When someone is deliberately trolling or vandalising (etc.), it should be no surprise for them if they are ejected from the project. As far as I can see, he is not particularly harsh on users who just did not know a specific rule though.

Just a funny aside: when I first saw Jimfbleak I was editing an article about a bird, and I had always thought of him as "Jimleafbeak", also he has blocked himself on several occasions by accident lol, but seems helpful, polite and ready to listen, rather than just hitting his head against a brick wall until one breaks, like some users on wikipedia.Jackaranga 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you don't have to be a rocket scientist, or a policy expert to understand that this edit is not going to be welcome. Jackaranga 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not posting this about Triplek4, I think that action was fine, and jimf even asked me about it. He's a very reasonable guy, but I still think that his anon bans are farther reaching then policy. Take a look at the clarification at the top of the section. Isaac 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

Hello and apologies in advance for the long followup. More than anything I'm seeking advice on how to best deal with problems involving mainly SqueakBox (talk · contribs).

As many of you know, SqueakBox is a longtime contributor of Wikipedia who unfortunately also has a difficult time handling conflict properly. About a month ago I noticed that he had nominated the category Category:Rape victims for speedy deletion and proceeded to massively depopulate it with the edit summary "silly cat" [96]. I did leave a note inviting him to submit the category to CfD rather than unilaterally destroying it but got no answer (see [97]). Just a few days ago, SqueakBox started depopulating the cat of living members citing WP:BLP and sometimes with the edit summary "update" [98] or "rm trolling" [99] [100] [101] even though the additions of the category were likely made in good faith and the articles clearly support the fact that the subjects are rape victims. SqueakBox got into edit wars over the whole thing with Fighting for Justice (talk · contribs) (see 3RR notice) and proceeded to bite his head off, with a mixture of BLP citing, trolling accusations, "I've got more experience on Wikipedia than thou" and Daniel Brandt gospel [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]. There is no excuse for such an experienced editor to use that sort of bullying, especially given that SqueakBox was previously blocked on a number of occasions for personal attacks.

In the same spirit, SqueakBox has also proceeded to rename a number of biographies of crime victims. For a sample, see his move log. For one thing, this is beyond silly as it certainly does not change the substance of the article and leads to unnecessary redirects and odd categorizations. In fact, it was in many cases a great excuse for SqueakBox to remove the categories altogether! In similar fashion, he also made very questionable redirections such as [108] [109].

I also find it very very problematic that this whole business seems to be the result of a thread on Wikipedia Review cited here by SqueakBox [110] about so-called "victim-stalking" or whatever SqueakBox calls it. I think it should be made entirely clear to administrators Zscout370 (talk · contribs) (and to a lesser extent Ryulong (talk · contribs) [111]) that "BLP nightmare" is not a criterion for speedy deletion and that debates on such issues are a vital part of what makes Wikipedia function properly. Even more crucial is to restate that a debate taking place on Wikipedia Review does not carry any sort of weight here.

In any case, I'm bringing this here because I intend to undo SqueakBox's systematic campaign until the issues underlying it can be fully addressed in a proper on-wiki forum. I'd also appreciate other's input on where and how this discussion should take place (and by that I mean a discussion on how and when to use categories such as the various subcats of Category:Crime victims and on the ensuing ethical questions). I fear that without it we'll be stuck with perpetual edit wars, DRVs and whatnot. Pascal.Tesson 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What happens on WR has no place here. The real question is whty the cat:rape victims isnt up for DRV which it should be instead of having been recreated after a speedy which speedied it as a blp nightmare. All I have done is to try to protect the project so the subjects of articles do not feel outed or harrassed by unsourced or even sourced claims that they were the victims of rape. Do we support the outing of rape victims now or what? Unfortunately some editors here, mostly new and invariably SPA's (ie interested only in crime) appear to want to do so and are more interested in giving me a hard time than in ensuring that wikipedia is not stalking living people with rape victim claims so when I remove unsourced rape clainms on living people I have been reverted. What is that? The cat is a blp nightm,are and shouldnt be here. I stand by my claim that claiming living people have been rape victims when they havent made that okay is victim stalking and shopuldnt be happeniong and those who are doing that should be blocked for BLP vios (as Fighting for Justice already was one time). His undoing of my alleged campaign essentially means restoring unsourced content for living people that they have been rape victims and that is not acceptable. It is User:Pascal.Tesson whose behaviour appears to need investigating here not jkine for trying to remove a cat that stalks certain people though at least he recognises there are ethical concerns and hope we vcan indeed discuss this isssue without stalking the subject of even one of our articles. Finally the claim that blp nightmare is not a speedy criterion is simply not so and shows the lack of experience of this user re wikipedia. Finally io wopuld say this shoul;d strictly go to the blp noticeboard as that is at the heart of this dispute, SqueakBox 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As benevolent as you think you are being it is having the opposite effect. All you've accomplished is a bunch of arguments. You have no proof anyone is stalking anyone. That's all your deluded opinion, not factual. Furthermore, the category should be applied to deceased raped victims, not living unless they're a public figure and are unafraid of speaking about their incident. You're the last person in the world who should be bringing up other people's blocks. I have only had two, one was for edit warring. You have been blocked numerous times, and I do not go around nominating or deleting(without authority) article's/categories I dislike. And believe me there are many wikipedia article's/categories I dislike. So grow up and accept the fact that wikpedia is going to have stuff you dislike. Fighting for Justice 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing you enforcing this policy in the coming years. I dont dislike the cat I think it violates our policy and seriously damages the project. I also always find it amusing when some kid tells me to grow up, such is the modern internet world eh, lol, SqueakBox 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But when I see edit summaries like this I find it hard to assume good faith with FfJ, SqueakBox 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be more then happy to enforce it; not for you, but for the community of course. Yes you do dislike the category, because in many of your edits you are not altering the contents of the rest of the article. You're focus is primarily on the category. You don't seem to be even familiar with the subjects your editing. For example, in the Dru Sjodin article you removed the cat saying her rape is unsourced speculation. Anybody familiar with her name knows she was raped. They know her killer was convicted last year. Yet you had the audacity to dub her rape as unsourced speculation. If handled properly the cat will not violate BLP. In in the case of Sjodin and others like her they are not living anymore. You have a personal crusade on censorship. Not that my age is any of your business but I am no where near being a kid. And you assuming that I am one simply reflects what a misguided person you really are. Fighting for Justice 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What admin action is required here? If this is just an editorial dispute why not try dispute resolution. Until(1 == 2) 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Squeekbox wants to identify anyone outing rape victims on Wikipedia, I'll be happy to apply a banhammer. And articles where unsourced rape allegations are being made can be dealt withh (locks and blocks) if identified. Otherwise, I believe the cat is already at DRV, and nothing else really needs to be done. WilyD 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

After checking, it's actually at CfD - I'm not sure this makes much difference. WilyD 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not looking to see anyopne blocked right now though I will recheck the cat in a couple of days and make sure we are sticking to policy, SqueakBox 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was told to recreate it and put it up for CFD, but by the time I got the message, it was done. Regardless, that got attention to the category that it needs to be fixed and enforced properly. My job is done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as Squeak said, whatever happens at Wikipedia Review stays there and has no bearing on what we do here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. As the comments he makes there are then extended to his conduct on wikipedia. So in my opinion it is very valid. He definitely reveals his true colors there. Fighting for Justice 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean my true colours.? I have a long record of service to this project and it strikes me that you are trying to own the rape victims articles. You dont like someone coming in responsibly to impose vitally needed BLP. And I will continue to enforce BLP, that is my true colours, you knew about BLP FfJ and didnt enforce it, quite the opposite, any hint of its enforcement meets your stiff oposition And Zscout is right, its none of your or wikipedia's business what I do off wikipedia. If you want to respond to me at WR I suggest you join up, SqueakBox 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who gave me the link to WR. An enforcement cop you are not. Such a person would have to be objective to start with. You hold a lot of bias, and you don't seem to care about the contents of the article's of the very people you say you're trying to protect. Fighting for Justice 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered problems with SqueakBox in the past, as well; he can be an absolutely dreadful user to deal with when he disagrees with you about something. I've also observed that he has a history of coming in and making substantial, controversial edits without any kind of discussion beforehand. Mike D78 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

reply to Mike D78 - I'm sorry that you had to endure so much insults from this person. I'm also shocked no administrator has given SqueakBox a permanent vacation from editing wikipedia. He certainly deserves one. Fighting for Justice 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And whose sockpuppet are you, Mr Pro-pedophile activist supporter Mike D78 who started here 5 days after {{user|Voice of Britain]]'s latest sock was banned (ie June 25) and only concern yourself with defending the pro-pedophile activism article from any atytempts to make it NPOV. Again the same, you dont like me coming in and destroying your litle game of making pro pediophile activism into something acceptable and actively promoted on this wikipedia site. If people who want to own article series and then dont follow policy get peeved at me, well it probably means I am doing my job, SqueakBox 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with this guy: he decides that he disagrees with you, then acts like he has some mandate to make things hard for you. Everything is a battle with this guy; every move gets you accused of being a sockpuppet or a troll or a "pro-pediophile activist." He decides that his view of what is right and "NPOV" is the only one that matters and then accuses you of being disruptive when you question his reckless edits. Very annoying. Mike D78 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain what benefit the rape victims category brings to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to know the answer to this question as well, which I have asked elsewhere (in a particular article that was categorised thus), SqueakBox 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Should a person want to look up notable cases of people murdered and raped they will have a list of them in a category. Fighting for Justice 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What I question is why we allow an openly partisan editor, Fighting for Justice, who's user page states: "Always on the side of the crime victim and their loved ones." (openly and blatantly non NPOV), and in violation of WP:UN (# Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to:), why we allow that editor to remain on wikipedia, and push his point of view upon other editors, to the point of promoting a category called "rape victims"???? Have we gone mad? This editor should be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism from multiple socks

Several newly created, and seemingly single purpose accounts are active in the article History of India.

• Truthfulnesswins (talk · contribs)
• Truthalwaysprevails (talk · contribs)
• Doergood (talk · contribs)

--Ragib 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated blanking, stalking and trolling by users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) and snowolfd4 (talk · contribs)

Please help with this problem, users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) and snowolfd4 (talk · contribs) are have been repeatedly blanking my well intentioned comments on Wikipedia:Peer review on this page [112]. They have been constantly blanking my comments in tandem [[113]. They have also called me edits vandalism and trolling. The contents they had removed on this page LTTE had valid citations from reliable sources. Also I have added the totaly disputed tag, which they keep removing claiming its trolling and vandalism. I have provided ample reasoning for addition of the tags. Both users are unwilling to discuss or come with reason for their actions, apart unilateraly imposing it on everybody. Please help Sinhala freedom 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Said users have also been accused of violating WP:STALK. Snowulf4d has also removed warning from his talk page. Watchdogb 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues

Having a problem with a sockpuppet on a AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pitcavage. The sock nominated the article for deletion while bouncing between two IP's, one that traces back to Shaw, the other with no RDNS. They admitted both IP's were theirs, however claimed they were due to having a dynamic IP, which is false since Shaw's IP's would always resolve to Shaw.[114]

• 139.48.81.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.146.179.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The puppet then attempted to insinuate after much arguing that he was the person in question Mark Pitcavage.[115] I think its pretty clear from the fact that Pitcavage is an adult, would have plenty of information on himself, and has not posted as himself so their would be no COI issue, that this is in fact not Pitcavage. Can these IP's be blocked for menacing and possibly close the AfD since it was nominated by a sock, if that is policy. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TrevASLer is the IP user; clearly a username just created to file the AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And all of them are socks of a long-established user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is known for a fact, then perhaps a block is in order. I would just like the AfD to no longer be the victim of the sock puppets attacks and now, impersonations, which is probably the item that bothers me most. Luckily it was far from a convincing impersonation. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was User:Michael Dorosh, whose last edit to his userpage is "I find it much more satisfying to make anonymous edits these days." I don't think creating a new user to nominate articles for deletion is an acceptable use of alternate accounts, nor is editing things as both that user and the IP (in addition to using his former username up until about a month ago). The attempt to pretend that he was Mark Pitcavage is also not really all that cool. I have blocked the sock. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AN/I on Jayjg and Humus sapiens closed too soon?

I see that the AN/I concerning the administrative actions of User:Jayjg and User:Humus sapiens on Second Intifada has already been closed ([116]). I'm not entirely certain as to why. As I understand it, the AN/I was raised to address a possible misuse of admin powers, not to explore a content dispute. CJCurrie 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Inapropriate user page

Resolved

He seems to have removed it for now. Not much else to be done. ♠PMC♠ 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The userpage of Strich3d contains the passage Articles I started:(but were vandalised by bulgarian and greek nationalists), which is in violation if Wikipedia:User page. It contains an attack against Bulgarian and Greek users and it clearly not facilitating to collaboration. The user has been notified about this but continues to revert back to the version in question. I request administrator assistance. Mr. Neutron 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note it was not Strich3d, but a third party. Mr. Neutron 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG and Violetriga blocked

JzG (talk · contribs) and Violetriga (talk · contribs) have been blocked for wheel warring over AJ. I have informed them and recommended mediation. MessedRocker (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While wheel warring by anyone is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion JzG was in the right here to remove this information. Violetriga was previously admonished in the Badlydrawnjeff RfARB for undeleting potential BLP content without careful discussion first. Krimpet 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the blocks. Wheel warring is totally unacceptable. In Violetriga's case in particular she seems to have learned nothing from the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. In light of the criticism of her conduct from ArbCom and the "do no harm" principle, wheel warring over a page deleted for BLP reasons was utterly outrageous. We have all sorts of lovely processes for deleting and undeleting pages - there is absolutely no need to wheel war if we disagree with another admin's decision. We should always seek input from the wider community rather than reverting them. WjBscribe 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The case also suggested that if there was any further undeletions by Violetriga she would be immediately desysopped, now, we need to come to a conclusion as to whether or not this was a BLP violation that Violetriga undeleted. In my opinion, if she was not happy with it, the best venue would have been DRV, not wheel warring over it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since JzG stopped about 22 hours before he was blocked, and Violetriga stopped about 13 hours before she was blocked, I don't see that the blocks serve any purpose other than to punish two administrators by humiliating them. The wheelwarring seems more serious in the case of Violetriga, and should be reported to the ArbCom (if it hasn't already been), but blocks should really be kept for situations where they are necessary to put a stop to something that is continuing. I would endorse unblocking both. ElinorD (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse an unblock, provided there is a strong warning that any further wheel warring will result in another block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan that an unblock is probably warranted here, but it should be up to ArbCom, not us, whether Violetriga's actions are sufficient to trigger the consequences set forth in that arbitration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an admin for attempting to uphold BLP isn't acceptable imho, nor is blocking an established user 22 hours after their last "troublesome" edit. I support unblocking JzG. I don't wish to comment on violetriga's case as that would appear to be a matter that's heading for ArmCom. --kingboyk 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the redirect qualifies for BLP deletion is under dispute, apparently. Lots of people were involved in deleting/restoring. MessedRocker (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the blocks are necessary, the wheel warring was spread over more than 24 hours - given neither showed any sign of backing down I think Messedrocker was right to assume they would be likely to continue wheel warring when next online. If anything the block period may have been too short, but hopefully the fact of the blocks will be enough to bring them to their senses. WjBscribe 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also support unblocking, especially of JzG who seems to have felt that he was upholding WP:BLP. Still, they'll be back in a few hours anyway, whatever we do! Physchim62 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block JzG has been acting very weird lately, removing posts from his talk page as trolling and crap, even though most of the posts were from admins asking for both of them to stop. That tells me alot. Endorse Violetriga block as well for BLP wheel-warning Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the latest comment on the matter from Violetriga: "Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided" [117] I oppose any unblock. To have an admin so openly prepared to wheel war is totally unacceptable. I must say I am appalled her ongoing defense of her wheel warring. WjBscribe 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With that comment in mind, I agree that she should remain blocked until Arbcom determines the outcome. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Me to, maybe indef until arb-com decides her fate, she admit she won't stop. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid blocks, valid unblocks I just read Violetriga's comment, that is an unacceptable attitude, OFFICE can deal with things that need that level of unilateral decision. It should not be decided with one admin warring against another. A lapse in judgment is one thing, but this looks like a decision to wheel war. Until(1 == 2) 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Jaranda, I disagree with the notion JzG should be blocked for acting oddly. I blocked him for wheel warring and nothing more. His block might be able to go before 24 hours is up if the conclusion arises that BLP-authorized deletion is right (it's very confusing because it's just a redirect to a name that was already published on the article, but BLP most likely applies). Also, even though Violetriga committed political suicide with that endorsement of wheel warring, I think indefinitely blocking her is a bit much. Let her be blocked for the day, and then we can tell the ArbCom about it. MessedRocker (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said that though, but still edits like this [118] is clearly unacceptable Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see them unblocked. These are two respected, long-term users who got annoyed in the heat of the moment. I feel we should cut them some slack. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, here, SqueakBox 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin -- I am as long-standing as the people I blocked. I don't subscribe to that "they're long-term" nonsense; if they're long-term and respected, how come they can't handle a disagreement without wheel warring when they should know very well that it should not happen and measures should be taken to stop it, even if it means blocking? Being able to cope with stress without reacting immaturely (wheel warring is incredibly immature) is part of life. MessedRocker (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocking is no way to respond to wheel warring, if anything a punishment should reflect one's admin status(and only if really really necessary), not their ability to edit. No sense in throwing out a good editor over a bad admin decision. Until(1 == 2) 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They were only blocked for 24 hours. --OnoremDil 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG in one of our very best, and should be unblocked immediately.Proabivouac 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG is going off the rails as some of his recent actions (before and after the break he is supposed to be on) show. The diff from Jaranda is just one example. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked both. No need for any comments on my part. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Blnguyen.Proabivouac 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for comments on your part. MessedRocker (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong violates blocking policy

Ryulong has indefinitely blocked the whole /20 class -- i.e. 4096 IP addressess without proof or evidence that open-proxy operates on each of this address. I think this is blatant violation of blocking policy. He also abusively reverts others' comments here and on Talk:Mozilla Firefox (check histories). 62.75.248.183 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, I've been removing this thread for the past hour or so because the IP above is a TOR proxy, as have been all other IPs that posted this message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ryulong's range block looks sound for now; an ARIN lookup confirms that the entire range is in fact allocated to a hosting company, indicating that few to no legitimate users will be editing from there, while proxies will likely be scattered throughout. Should any legitmate users encounter a problem, the block can certainly be revisited. Krimpet 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are the four other TOR nodes that had posted this message:

• 88.84.149.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.72.117.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.92.74.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.221.247.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fine, but why start by reverting the edits (denying other users a chance to judge for themselves), instead of just responding to them in the way that you have in the first place? Gerry Lynch 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's someone very likely banned and using TOR proxies to edit (editting from open proxies is forbidden)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The intended target of a block is not the editor, but rather the proxy itself. Absent editing patterns, admissions, abuse itself, and etc that can confirm that the editor editing from the proxy is a banned user, then we can not reasonably assume that an editor using a proxy is a bad editor, for they are permitted to freely use the proxy until it is blocked. Navou ^banter 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New user plagiarising Encyclopedia Britannica

The user Whenclaim made the following edits, in which s/he created introduction content that was copied and pasted directly from Encyclopedia Britannica:

• Scilla→Diff→Squill @ Encyclopedia Britannica
• Dextromethorphan→Diff→Dextromethorphan @ Britannica
• Neural tube defects→Diff→Neural tube defect @ Britannica

And these are just the contributions I took the time to check. I'm sure there's more. Also, for a new user, this person has been extremely active, like s/he is trying to make as many contributions as possible to gain a reputation, and seems very knowledgeable in using Wikipedia. I've seen behavior like this before in sock puppets, which is what I suspect here.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there some other way I should be reporting plagiarism? Should I not be reporting it at all?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found the wp:plagiarism page. Sorry, I'll list there.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User Jewbagkd's racist vandalism

User Jewbagkd made this edit: [119], in which he blanked the entire talk page for Adolf Hitler and replaced it with racist statements. I think he should be blocked, perhaps indefinitely, but I'll leave the specific punishment up to the admins.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deskana beat me to it. Natalie 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean he was blocked? Sorry I didn't quite get what you meant Natalie.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's blocked. You can check his block log yourself.--Atlan (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I should've known that, but I'm new to the whole blocking thing.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Early DRV closure

Someone want to swing by Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_23#Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Dramatica and close it--a sock of the blocked nominator now wants it closed and there's rather overwhelming support for the endorsed closure. It's peppered by ED trolls and sock play. — Scientizzle 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, ED is Good (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and closed it...that'll work, I guess. — Scientizzle 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...closure has been reverted... — Scientizzle 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for five days won't kill... —Kurykh 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting twist on image vandalism

File:Bolivar vandalism diff.jpg

The difference between the two images

Yesterday Ecuadorian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploaded an altered version of Image:Simón Bolívar.jpg, adding graffiti in very subtle translucent letters (in this case the word "JEW", vertically - compare this rev and this rev). Looking at his edits he's a reincarnation of Guatemalan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - both accounts have had images deleted as attack images. What's weird is Imnuh33r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to undo some of the former two's vandalism. My head hurts. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A diff of the two images is shown to the right. Hmm, I wonder if this would be a popular feature for new-pages patrollers? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any interesting meta data? Dan Beale 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, nothing further. Until(1 == 2) 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Looking through the image history I can see the edits, but they're clearly at the top of the image, spelled horizontally - not vertically as in the "diff" to the right (furthermore I don't see any difference between the two revs you linked to, only in other revs - like this one: [120]). The "J" and the "W" are at the sides of the person's head, and the "E" is directly over the head. Why does the diff look completely different then?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look through all the revisions he made - on that one you cite, the letters are indeed horizontal, with the E on the forehead. In this version they're vertical, as in the diff image, with the letters in the red tunic below the collarstud and between the two columns of gold flowery things. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the difference, its very slight. He wrote jew vertically. There's a darker red. I've never seen this kind of vandalism before. Thankfully its practically invisible unless we know whats going on. Definitely deserves an indef block/ban. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page saga

Users CyberAnth (talk · contribs), Linkboyz (talk · contribs) and C.m.jones (talk · contribs) are teaming up to post and repost incivil, irrelevant and unfounded messages and warnings on my talk page. Despite a) the dispute they got so worked up about being resolved in their favour several days ago, b) the intervention of Daniel and NewYorkBrad to revert their edits and tell them why and c) my right to remove such irrelevance from my own talk page, I'm still dealing with this. C.m.jones and CyberAnth have both had conduct problems and blocks in the past and recent contribs show some pretty outspoken edit summaries from Mr. Jones in particular, while the sole focus of CyberAnth's edits over the past 4 days has been on my talk page. I'd appreciate a neutral admin taking a look at this, thanks. Deiz talk 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. It looks like Newyorkbrad already spoke to Linkboyz and he understands. I've left notes for C.m.jones and CyberAnth on their talk pages asking them to cease. This sort of thing verges on harassment. If the behavior continues, then a block might be in order, but let's give them a chance to disengage. MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have no idea who CyberAnth or C.m.jones are. I am not teaming up with them. I am generally concerned about the issue of bullying on WP, and I posted one supportive message on one of their talk pages, which they keep on reposting. If someone has concerns about my conduct, he should raise them with me directly first, rather than going to the Admin noticeboard. I have not posted anything incivil, irrelevant, or unfounded. I'm disappointed that it has been suggested otherwise. It's ironic that I should be unfairly accused of anything incivil, irrelevant, or unfounded, when my aim is just the opposite, to reduce bullying on WP. As Shakespeare wrote, methinks the lady doth protest too much. Have a great day!!!! Linkboyz 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd look at the contribs closer...the issue seems to be relate to edits made July 7. On July 24, Linkboyz reverts deleted content on Deiz's talkpage as "out of process", then 12 minutes later removes material from his talkpage as "any user has the right to remove content from their talkpage." I don't know who is really at fault here, but when somebody is going to start lopsidedly applying "policy" to pages only when it suits them (and a few weeks after the fact), there's a certain degree of baiting that should be seen to be taking place. I'd also note that Linkboyz has less than 50 edits, and his first three were following Deiz to different articles claiming his deletions were "wrong". I know I say this a lot with regards to incidents, but something's going on here, and it probably deserves a closer look. MSJapan 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sivasubramaniam Raveendranath

This biography is a coat rack at the center of a (as far as I can tell) politically sensitive PoV war. I honestly can't make heads or tails of it and protected until they can do something more constructive than argue in edit summaries. Circeus 01:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Clive Anderson page needing watching

The page on Clive Anderson was mentioned on the program The Wikipedia Story this might cause an influx of newbie editors. Could a few people please add this page to their watchlists for a while? Thanks. Tim Vickers 03:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot generating hundreds of new articles which show up as recent changes

Polbot (talk · contribs), which is supposedly an approved 'bot, is generating hundreds, perhaps thousands if it runs long enough, of bird-related articles by mechanically reformatting the ICUN Red List of Threatened Species into Wikipedia articles. This may or may not be a good idea. The source site has a copyright notice, [121], and the recent changes log is choked with these articles, obscuring human-driven recent change activity. There's some discussion of this at User talk:Quadell, but more from the viewpoint of the bird community. The 'bot's author says that "I'm actually importing all species -- plants, birds, amphibians, mammals". Is this bulk article generation OK with everyone? --John Nagle 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has happened recently either. A couple days ago, a bot, perhaps even Polbot, flooded the new pages log with similar articles. Makes it harder to spot the nonsense in the new pages log. Resolute 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is approved for this task: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 6, have you tried using the "Hide bot edits" button on the RC? As for the articles, they seem to have useful information that is reflected by a reliable source, good articles. Until(1 == 2) 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a flagged bot's edits still show up in special:newpages? ~ Wikihermit 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The bot flag is not suppressing the logs in the newpages, sounds like a problem with the mediawiki software, not the bot. Until(1 == 2) 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I thought it might not actually have a 'bot flag. But it's the interpretation of the 'bot flag that's the problem. As long as the bird community, which is quite active, is satisfied with this, it's not a big issue. --John Nagle 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not new, although the issue with Polbot is. bugzilla:1401 Bugzilla 1401 was raised in 2005 for showing and hiding bot edits, among others from Special:Newpages, and is still listed as open. Confusing Manifestation 05:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation: OK, Copyright: ?. The copyright problem still seems quite valid to me, and deleting all this won't be fun. So any thoughts on that? Prodego ^talk 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is gathering information and putting it into its own words, it is not copying text directly. Words are copyright, information is not. But then again, I am not an expert. Until(1 == 2) 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I, and I agree with your conclusion. However the notice says "Use and reproduction of data and figures". It seems like a valid complaint, and merits at least some discussion. Perhaps some of our more legally inclined people could comment? Prodego ^talk 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is gathering the data about whether or not a species is on the list and its conservation status from the list, so maybe a lawyer ought to be asked this, the bot paused in the meanwhile. KP Botany 05:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As noone seems to know wether this is quite legal or not I have temporaily blocked the bot. Any admin may feel free to unblock it should they be convinced that the bot is not infringing copyright. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the bot is running twice as fast as it should be, according to the task description on it's user page. Viridae^Talk 05:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the site owner of the site you are grabbing the data from? If its under copyright we need to be careful with the idea of just grabbing content and mechanically reformatting it. Remember our site is under the GDFL. It would be better if someone would take the time to write this data in real prose rather then just taking in their data. At the very least please ask the site owner and get OTRS to sign off on it that its ok. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)