Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive136

block review, please

May I request wider review of the admin actions of Blnguyen (talk · contribs) wrt Sanskrit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It is my understanding that the 3RR applies to bona fide content disputes. Is an editor (in this case Crculver (talk · contribs)) reverting several unrelated nonsense (but not necessarily bad faith) additions to an article in violation of 3RR if the sum of his reverts exceeds three, or should each case count as a separate 'content dispute' (if at all)? I am afraid that if we begin applying the 3RR cumulatively in this way, it will become rather difficult to keep articles with a high frequency of poor quality/nonsense additions in decent shape. dab (ᛏ) 07:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, the 3RR means more than 3 reverts to one article in 24 hours. Doesn't mean to one particular version. Unless it's vandalism (and it doesn't appear it is), that user violated the 3RR. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR always needs to be interpreted in the circumstances. The circumstances here were:

1. Two editors reverted each other four times each,
2. All of the changes in question were in substance the same (compare this and this with that and that).

In this case both editors, Crculver (talk · contribs) and Spiritindia (talk · contribs), were blocked for 3RR. In these circumstances I think both blocks were justified, especially considering Spiritindia went on to revert war with another editor (see this and this).

I'm not sure that I agree that more than three reverts to an article necessarily means that the 3RR has been breached. Clearly four of the same revert is a breach. But if a long-time editor of an article reverts four different contributors making four different edits, I wouldn't be so sure. One would need to look closer at the number of reverts, and their attitude, ie. whether they were reverting in good faith or to protect their version of the page. --bainer (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those situations where 3RR is being applied mechanistically. There is no doubt that the text Crculver reverted was POV, redundant with a more encyclopaedic treatment of the same facts higher up, and in somewhat questionable English (this is by now a very mature and well-written article with largely excellent use of English, scholarly in both tone and content); it seems to me that the article is better without that text. Nor was Crculver the only editor reverting it. Spiritindia inserted text and then refused to support its inclusion on Talk, and reinserted it with a variety of patently false assertions such as "no reason given for removal". It's obvious who the source of the problem is, here. If Crculver is repentant and asking to be unblocked I suggest we admonish him and unblock, if Blnguyen agrees. Guy 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Guy makes a good point. Let's consider my favourite article, The KLF. This is a Featured Article which is meticulously referenced but I doubt it's on many watchlists. An FA can be improved, of course, and I have no POV to protect, but what if 4 or 5 anons come along in a day and insert bad English, uncited assertions and general crapness? Am I supposed to say well I've reverted 3 times in a day it'll have to wait? Am I going to be blocked for removing crud 4 times in a day? I sure hope not. Also, I don't think it's fair to apply 3RR against a sole editor who is tackling 4 "opponents", unless those "opponents" collectively get 3RR too. Otherwise, in an edit war a gang of meatpuppets are guaranteed to win. --kingboyk 09:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IN fairness to Blnguyen the two other editors then involved in the war (including Spiritindia) were blocked as well, and we do not endorse reversion as a way of pursuing content disputes. Thus far Crculver seems to have taken it in good part. But this still niggles at my sense of fair play. Guy 10:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

hm, I was referring to the circumstance that Crculver was blocked for 96 hours for 7 reverts, i.e. his 'Spiritindia' reverts were cumulated with other cleanup he had been doing. It may be arguable that Crculver did 4 reverts against Spiritindia, but to penalize him for 7 seems extremely 'mechanistic'. Are we administrators or shell scripts? dab (ᛏ) 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If a person takes 10 edits to do a revert, I count that as one revert. In any case, the 7 came from the bunch against Bharatveer also. It's true that the edits weren't of the best quality but Dbachmann has been using rollback on the Sanskrit page, feels this is perfectly justifiable and has called for the use of {{test}} templates for these edits, and Crculver said "could be fairly considered vandalism", so I'm not sure that his attitude is the best at the moment. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

'Seven reverts? I'd say that justifies up to a week. He really needs to cool down. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Justifies a week? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Any number of reverts justifies precisely the length of block that it takes to get the person to stop reverting - no longer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Normally, GT, I'd agree, but this isn't user:Crculver's first 3RR offence. It's not even his/her first offence on that particular page, even. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Crculver has violated 3RR on the same page before.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an awfully open-and-shut case for a thread of this length. Grandmasterka 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While I am not saying that Crculver did or did not do something wrong, as I would have to check into it further, I am uncomfortable about blocking someone for removing unsourced statements from an article. It is allowed for negative statements on the biographies of living people and I see no reason why it should not be allowed for other articles, whether the statements are negative, positive or neutral. Also, it is very disturbing to think that the three revert policy could be used to keep a clearly false statement in an article. However, there is the troubling problem of people claiming that things are unsourced when they clearly are not or claiming that the source is not reliable, even though it is (although there are plenty of people who use awful sources). -- Kjkolb 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed g2s orphaning {{promophoto}} images en masse

See full thread at User_talk:Crzrussian#Promophoto_massacre.

Ed_g2s orphaned and tagged for {{orfud}} fifteen images of my uploading without leaving a note of any kind. All the images were of U.S. State Attorneys General, each was taken either from the state's website or from the website of the National Association of Attorneys General, http://www.naag.org . All were tagged with {{promophoto}}. Example: Image:AG Danberg.jpg for use in Carl Danberg.

Ed_g2s' edit summary was, (WP:FU "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use") each time. FU is a guideline, and IMO the particular clause he relies on is plain wrong. To make matters worse, it was only added yesterday. Ed_g2s attribute this line directly to Jimbo. I have seen no evidence of that. I haved asked him a couple of times that he revert himself and submit the matter to an IFD discussion to determine whether his chosen interpretation of policy is correct or desirable. He flatly refused to do so, essentially stating in so many words that he knows better, and that "[a]n IFD consensus would not bypass our Fair Use policy", or, in plain English, the community's reading of the Fair Use policy could not trump Ed_g2s' reading of same. This is extraordinary chutzpah.

I have not reverted him (though the temptation was there) and I ask those who are reading this page to intervene in this conflict, to revert Ed's changes (in order to stave off deletion),and to force him to submit to a consensus of his peers.

Our discussion is contained in full on User_talk:Crzrussian#Promophoto_massacre. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good for him. It's about time someone gave WP:FUC #1 some teeth. --Carnildo 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, very curious; is it really correct to apply the "living person" point here? The photo is that of a living person, true; but it is being used to show what a fictional character looks like. Is the intended consequence of this "clarification" that articles on fictional topics be stripped of images? Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest unless the appearance of the fictional character is much different from that of the actor, then a plain picture of the actor would suffice, and as such the same rule would apply (no promo pics). ed g2s • talk 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I thought that fair use criteria were based on the type of text it accompanied. If the article is encyclopedic enough, one or two fair use images are okay (what's the point of an image that doesn't show what they look like). It's when they turn into mere good-looking illustrations that fair use cracks. A single image on a bio article is perfectly acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If an image truly is a promotional photo it's ridiculous to say we can't use it. That's what it's intended for (what does "promotional" mean?! :)). Of course, that's not to say some photos tagged this way aren't really promotional photos. --kingboyk 09:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be ridiculous, but we aren't saying that we legally can't use them, but that we don't want to use them. ed g2s • talk 13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you'll find that the average editor does want to use them. As before, most of us are here to write articles not to crusade for free content by refusing to use fair images in the vain hope that it will force copyright owners to release free versions. (Short answer: in some cases it will, in many cases it won't. We lose.) --kingboyk 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If people really want us to show a picture on their article, they should give us one and release it under a free license. People with promotional photos are certainly able to do so if they want to. Restricting fair use is a way to more free content. Kusma (討論) 09:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine a lot of these people couldn't care less about Wikipedia. Restricting fair use is a way of cutting off our nose to spite our face. I'm interested in seeing the best articles we can make (including well illustrated one) not on a crusade to force the "capitalists" to abandon copyright. --kingboyk 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not trying to force people to abandon copyright - we're are simply and free content project. Providing material free of copyright restrictions is one of our founding principles. If you want to create the best article you can create regardless of copyright issues then you need to find/start a different project. ed g2s • talk 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said forcing people to abandon images which we are perfectly entitled to use and for which there is no free alternative is counterproductive. I provide my time free of charge and licence my work under the GFDL - but if I want to use a image and no free image is available or owned by me why shouldn't I use a fair use image instead?! --kingboyk 13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's our policy to not use Fair Use when we could obtain a free image. It hurts our long-term goal of creating free content. ed g2s • talk 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, if there's a decent free alternative we should always use it. We don't yet have the power to force the issue imho. There is of course a seperate issue, whether or not these pictures have been correctly tagged in the first place. To my mind, a promotional photo is a photo released in a press pack (printed or virtual) for the expressed use of media organisations. An image grabbed off a website and claimed by the uploader to be a promo shot because it comes from the subject's personal website is an entirely different matter. --kingboyk 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well our policy disagrees with you on this one, and so does Jimbo. There's not really much more I can add to that. ed g2s • talk 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but images taken off the state attorneys website are in fact permissable. As for fictional characters if the image is released to the public domain in the form of a press kit then these images are being released to be used by the public for purposes of exposure. Should we use fair use images over free ones, of course not, should we delete all the fair use ones and wait for free ones, of course not. Should we substitute fair use images with free ones that are of far inferior quality, surely not. However a free image should be used when it is of equal or superior quality then the fair use. Dont cut off your nose to spite your face is a perfect saying for this. --User:Zer0faults 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU is not a policy btw. --User:Zer0faults 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC is, and most promophotos fail point #1 of it. --Carnildo 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While this convo is going on, may I remind you that these images will be deleted in seven days if Ed's changes are not reverted? I reiterate my request that one of you reinstate the fifteen images for the time being, in order that a proper IFD consensus may be reached. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a question: What measures are being taken to ensure this is not a meerly destructive campaign? Whilst Ed means well, simply removing all such images en masse will damage many, many articles, and often in cases were the aquisition of such imagery is difficult to impossible. If Ed was publically part of a wikiproject that was actively working for alternatives, contacting people to try and get promophotos under the GDFL, there would be no question about good faith. But it seems there is a nieve assumption being made that GDFL or otherwise free images will always be practically availible, which is certainly not the reality. I strongly advise that Ed stop all such actions and begins to work more productively with the community on this. LinaMishima 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To call this a destructive campagin would be to assume a lot of bad faith. Whether or not I am actively involved in finding replacements is completely irrelevant. I am enforcing the policy and as such encouraging the use of free media. As I stated before if you disagree with the policy you can take it up at WP:FU. ed g2s • talk 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not assuming bad faith, removing informative material from an article reduces it's quality, and to reduce the quality of things en masse is by definition destructive. It appears that whilst you do mean well, you have not thought about the implications of much of what is being done. The discussion at WP:FU appears to suffers from a nieve belief that free images can always be taken, or permission will be granted, whilst in reality this is not a sensible assumption. Whether you are involved in sourcing replacements is an indication of your beliefs and motivations. By removing images but not seeking replacements, it creates a classic example of pure wikilawyering, rather than a strive to actually improve the articles. Whilst unfree images are indeed bad, images add significant content to an article, and most visitors to wikipedia will not understand the concept of GDFL, only that we don't have a pretty image. LinaMishima 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that removing Fair Use images reduces the "quality" of the article. Our policy is based on the philiosophy that articles with avoidable fair use images are of a less quality with respect to creating a free encyclopedia. I believe that removing these images will long-term improve the project as people strive to find free replacements for the spaces. If you think my motives are anything but the best interests of the project then you are mistaken. ed g2s • talk 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I truly do believe that you were acting in good faith and meant the absolute best. Please understand that. What is being taken issue with is the medium-term implications, as it will take quite some time indeed to aquire free images and it is nieve to assume otherwise. May I suggest an alternative change in approach: Do a small numder a week, or even better announce the intention to remove the image link and mark the image for deletion in the following week. By making this a systematic project, people will have adequate warning to work on creating the replacements. Indeed, I would fully back such a measured scheme to remove all such images, it just has to give proper opportunity to work on aquiring replacements. LinaMishima 15:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina's suggestion seems reasonable (I'm still not convinced there is a policy cause to remove these images anyways since they are fair use and we don't have alternatives at the moment (obviously photos that are claimed promo with no good justification should be removed but I dont see that claim being made for these photos in general). Incidentally, please note that Jimbo's opinion isn't binding unless he speaks ex cathedra which I don't see him as having done in this case. Also Wikipedia may be now well known enough such that we could set up or work with some celebrities to release GFDL or similarly marked photos (I'm aware of a few less famous cases (mainly scientists) where this has been done). JoshuaZ 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would put it more starkly: "I'm still not convinced there is [not] a policy cause to remove these images anyways since they are fair use and we don't have alternatives at the moment." - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's on WP:FU in black and white so there's not point denying it. This is policy and the images will be deleted. I don't see how doing 10 in one go was such a "massacre" as someone put it. Furthermore running each of these through IfD is unneccessarily long-winded and not the correct process for dealing with images which fall foul of our Fair Use policy. ed g2s • talk 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Crzrussian. They are not "fair use" because they fail #1 in WP:FUC (which is a policy). There used to be debates on how we should interpret "No free equivalent is available or could be created ..." but since the September 9 clarification on WP:FU (a guideline explaining the policy) there's nothing more to debate in this regard. --Abu Badali 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I expect your focusing on the "could be created" section. They are describing images such as flags and maps here. These are something that an editor may be able to recreate and release for free. Under your definition, no fair use would be acceptable as all images "could be" recreated for free. However, were not talking about people here. We should not have wikipedia paparazzi hunting down celebs to take pics for free release. Fair Use is perfectly acceptable until we can find or someone releases a free image. I completely disagree with their removal.

Rather than continuing to argue, can we agree to a compromise here? Annoyingly it is true that if someone is still alive and not a complete recluse or highly restrictive of photographing them, we should somehow be able to create GDFL or similarly licenced images. And if that is the case, the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria do not apply. However, as a gesture of good faith and in an attempt to minimise the short term damages, image deletions will be carried out with warning and in a series of phases, allowing time for free images to be sourced. The Wikipedia:English promotional images solution, if you will. LinaMishima 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone needs to see something labelled with a "policy" template that supports this, see item number one of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. We, and by we I mean both those people dealing with Wikipedia:Fair use issues and Wikipedians in general, have been encouraged to begin enforcing our fair use guidelines and policy, which we have, to date, been extremely lax about. The best way to support the continued careful and thoughtful use of unfreely licensed content on Wikipedia is to demonstrate that we are not using it to replace the freely licensed content that we're trying to provide here. The "promotional" template is an extreme case; very few of these images can actually be demonstrated to have their copyright owned by the subject or their agents. That means that they fail our basic sourcing requirements as well. The cleanup of that category is going to be a huge job, and I encourage interested editors to pitch in and help. Jkelly 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance.

The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

link See also: [1] [2]

I'm not a fan of this (since I don't agree with the ideological motivations), but if we are really going down this path, can I suggest that we create a distinctive deletion template explaining the situation and a new WikiProject for requesting truly free versions from intellectual property holders. Dragons flight 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your wikiproject suggestion, so it's been added to Wikipedia:English promotional images solution LinaMishima 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, thank you for creating this page. To make it really useful, I would suggest that you mention it on Wikipedia talk:Fair use and possibly upgrade it to a proper wikiproject. olivier 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate then for me to request permission from the National Association of Attorneys General to use these images freely, or do I have to worry about the states retaining copyrights in the images displayed on http://www.naag.org? - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, copyright is almost always retained anyhow (seriously, read the articles on it, it's a confusing mess o.O), what matters is if the NAAG can issue these images under the GDFL or a compatable licence. I'd say give it a try and ask them, and enquire who the correct people to contact would be if they cannot allow this. LinaMishima 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is a mess. Look at Commons:Licensing about it. The images that we have "by permission" are usually also 'non-commercial' which means that any downstream user can't use them, which means that our project fails to be what we want it to be. Ideally we'd replace every publicity and permission image tomorrow, but it isn't going to happen that quick, but it must happen eventually, and the sooner the better imho. My own view is that it would be better to get rid of the flagrant abuses of copyright we have before deleting all the permission and publicity ones, but either way, one day they'll have to be gone. --AlisonW 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding why we are trying to strictly enforce guidelines (not policies) which have nothing to do with actual copyright law, based on pseudo-policy decisions allegedly made on IRC. I think it would be much better if Jimbo simply issued a clear order somewhere stating that this is what he wants, for whatever reason personal reason he wants it; until then, these images should go on IFD like all the others. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you find an image that Ed g2s has orphaned that is irreplacable and has verifiable copyright holder information, please let me know. Jkelly 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, I don't think your response really dealt with the issues I raised. In any event, can you define "irreplacable", and help me understand how it applies here? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that I neglected to mention a few points that may not be obvious if you don't spend several hours a week looking at our fair use images. The overwhelmingly vast majority of them fail Wikipedia:Image use policy or Wikipedia:Fair use criteria; there is a huge gulf between our policy and our practice. It is already policy that if an image can be replaced by a freely licensed alternative, we don't republish an unfree one claiming "fair use". It is already policy that if we cannot verify who the copyright holder is, we don't (re)publish an image. Almost all of the images in the category under discussion fail on one of these two points, which are necessary, but not sufficient, under Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. If there are images that adhere to WP:FUC and Ed g2s (or anybody else) wants to see them deleted, then they need to go to IfD. There's lots of room for discussions about how best to go about unfree image cleanup, and whether it makes sense to focus on categories that User:Jimbo Wales has drawn attention to or not (I suppose), but I suggest that taking the position "We shouldn't be deleting images that are against policy", or "We should rewrite policy so that we can claim 'fair use' on media that we could replace with free content and when we don't know who the author/copyright holder is" is not fruitful. As I said above, I'm happy to volunteer to give a close look to any images that seem to meet policy and are in danger of deletion, as is, I am sure, Ed g2s, and to have as much discussion about this as is needed, but I would really like to encourage people with concerns to think in terms of helping with unfree image cleanup instead of resisting something that is going to have to happen sooner or later. Jkelly 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire mass deletion seems to either center around a form of wikilawyering, or a kind of "end justifies the means" idealogical battle over copyright and fair use. I think it is really stupid that the average person making wikipedia articles and those that read them are the only ones that suffer from this. Obviously this is Jimbo's website which he is kind for letting us use, and he is the final authority on every matter, but it is not our job to follow his every idea unless he tells (or even implies) that we have to. I have great respect (maybe even love ;) ) for him as a person and as an authority, but he is speaking from a macro-political viewpoint in his above statement, not as a writer of encyclopedia articles. Though I will say that in this situation I would rather Jimbo make a definitive decision that I do not agree with, than make no decision at all.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a note about this debacle on Jimbo's talkpage. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It it "Jimbo's website"? What about the people who've donated big bucks to it? The people who've donated thousands of hours editing it? As far as I'm concerned this is a website for the people, in the custody of the Foundation. In my personal opinion it's about time Jimbo realised that, stopped glorying himself in our work, and became a normal admin like the rest of us. (And, imho, he should stand for election to the Foundation like everyone else). --kingboyk 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would remove that quick or someone will jump on you like they did CB. --User:Zer0faults 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hephaestos = Michael = Mike Garcia = Johnny the Vandal = Willy on Wheels?

A few hours ago, 12.171.163.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made several posts titled "The truth about John" [3] [4] [5], apparently claiming that Hephaestos = Michael = Mike Garcia = Johnny the Vandal = Willy on Wheels. Can someone investigate this claim? Scobell302 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? These days anyone who does anything even vaguely related to pagemove vandalism or has a username containing something WoW like is Willy on Wheels. (FWIW the original vandal using that name was UK based, that user is US based). Given that one of those names was well known for harassing the others on the list, then you could take a view of either (a) It is one sad individual who can't get attention for doing constructive things or (b) it is just a furtherance of that harassment. Again who cares though? If someone is involved in vandalism and harassment - WP:RBI. Don't feed the trolls. --pgk 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Bobby Boulder. --Cyde Weys 06:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DENY. JoshuaZ 12:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know any Mike Garcia, Johnny the Vandal, or Willy on Wheels. I know several Michaels, and Hephaestos used to contribute a fair bit, but I have never heard of the three people above. No idea what you're talking about. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael (talk · contribs) was a long-term vandal (see the most entertaining User talk:Michael/ban), who Jimbo attempted to rehabilitate - he made the account Mike Garcia (talk · contribs) for that purpose. Part of the reason was his alleged contrition, and partially because the AOL blocks that were aimed at him frequently hit others, particularly Danny (talk · contribs). If memory serves he finally admitted that while the Garcia account was relatively well behaved he was also running the Jonny the Vandal accounts. He claims to be WoW but there's no reason to believe him, as Pgk notes above. WoW really isn't a single vandal any more - it's essentially a franchised brand that any old idiot picks up. Hephaestos, on the other hand, was a long-term, very productive, highly capable and very well respected contributor and fearless vandal-slayer (back in the days before all these namby pamby vandalfighting tools like bots and autoblockers and even rangeblock). Michael had a particular obsession with Heph, and it looks like (surprise) Jonny the Vandal did too. There's no reason to suppose that Michael will stop any time soon (he's been doing this junk for years). The sooner we permanently block those parts of AOL which can't/won't send end-user IP info the better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The major difference between Wow and Michael was their attitude - Michael was always a foulmouthed, threatening, nasty vandal. The real WoW (back when one could descern him from those who took his name) never was; indeed, he seemed to go out of his way to make himself obvious, and while his vandalism was frequent and sometimes hard to fix, it always seemed to me that (in his own weird litle way) thought he was part of the dev team, helping us with pen testing by doing vandalism we couldn't ignore but which (if some visitor chanced upon it) was both clearly vandalism and yet inoffensive (he could, lets face it, have renamed pages to something far worse than "... on wheels"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Heck, Hephaestos was a vandal-fighter in the days when there was no ArbCom, & IIRC he had about as much clout as a newly-minted Admin today -- if that much (I don't remember if we even had Admins besides Jimbo in those days). BTW, Danny considered Michael one of his success stories, & I don't know if he's been convinced that Michael==Johnny the Vandal. It would be enough to discourage anyone if it is true. -- llywrch 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael is not Hephaestos. Hephaestos left Wikipedia because of Michael. The Johnny the Vandal is Mike Garcia, we know that now. I have yet to see Danny respond to any of this, though. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No one knows who any of these vandals really are. If someone gives you info claming that he/ worked with vandal there is know way of knowing.---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 02:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, still doesn't ring a bell. These people must not be of real consequence if I don't know them. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone that you do not know does not matter. It is not like anything goes on without your notice or went on before you got here, as a self-described part-timer and newcomer, respectively. ;-) -- Kjkolb 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true. As a part-time newbie, I can't be expected to know everyone, but as an all-important janitor, I can state with extreme confidence that anyone I've never heard of doesn't matter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Grapefruit seed extract

I think it's time someone went through the history of grapefruit seed extract and it's talk page and do some sort of rangeblocking from this once static and now dynamic IP editor. Ryūlóng 06:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Their latest vandalism added the comment that they have "Dynamic IP Universal" (a great new-to-them program) on the Talk:Grapefruit page (here's the diff). I tend to agree that something may need to be done in a range sense for a short term or maybe sprotect will suffice. ju66l3r 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

this reposted again. And so again the same drill. The article has been cleaned up, the history can't be removed. -- Drini 19:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well couldn't we just delete the entries from the history in question? (Drini could you do this? I always screw up deletion of specific difs)JoshuaZ 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane Grammar School

Would a couple of kindly admins please put this Article on their watchlists. It has been the subject of much reverting and "debate" amongst interested editors. As someone not involved I will attempt to calm the situation but I am concerned it might quickly go pear-shaped. Someone with a bit more firepower than me watching the situation would be helpful.

--Charlesknight 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I just placed it on my watchlist, and briefly looking at the history, I've seen that at least two administrators have recently edited the article. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since someone else brought this to AN/I, I'll speak up now about my experience with it and the editors who work on it. I was so new that I didn't know what to do and thought that what happened to me was okay, and the way Wikipedia worked.

During my very first week as a registered Wikipedian, I put a 'cite sources' tag on the article page. There was an edit war going on about a sex abuse scandal and how the article should treat that scandal, so I thought I could help by asking them to provide a source for the content in question. I won't rehash the lambasting I got here, but if you're inclined to look in the history of the article's talk page and my talk page in June 2006, it's there.

I couldn't log in to Wikipedia without someone leaving a nasty personal attack on my talk page almost as soon as I logged in. I really was trying to help, but they scared me so much that I almost left Wikipedia for good. I didn't yet know about admins and that they could intervene, or that I could refactor personal attacks out of my own talk page. Obviously, I eventually decided to stay here and I'm glad I did, but it left its scars, which I'll keep to myself. I truly hope they haven't intimidated any others in that fashion. An admin really needs to see what's going on over there, because Wikipedians should not behave like that. Thanks – I really needed to get that off my chest. :-) BaseballBaby 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another User:Pnatt sock

• Aflfinals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can you please block this one as well. It's pretty clear he chooses not to yield on a number of pages, including Cranbourne, Victoria and MySpace. Should I start a new discussion section when each of these new socks shows up or update a single one while it remains on the AN/I front page or some other method of sock removal that I'm unaware of? Thanks. ju66l3r 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We could adopt the path used at Woman, where no changes to the lead image are allowed without first gaining consensus on the talk page. Any changes without consensus may be immediately reverted. If we identify which bits he keeps changing, then we can adopt a similar policy and keep on reverting them, regardless of what account shows up. Pnatt is of a dogged and determined personality, and we need firm measures to keep control. If he were able to work with other editors and accept consensus, then there would be no problem. --Jumbo 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If he were able to work with other editors and accept consensus, he wouldn't be community banned. Sockpuppet blocked. To Ju66, if the socks continue to be as obvious as this then often WP:AIV will block them (as long as you say who it is a sockpuppet of, and summarise the evidence - nothing more detailed than "sockpuppet of User:Pnatt demonstrated by usual edits on MySpace"), and if it gets removed without blocking you can then go here. I wouldn't keep adding to the same section, as people tend to read these boards from the bottom upwards, new posts first. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Samuel. I will try AIV first next time and see how that goes. I appreciate the help. ju66l3r 03:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Move war fallout?

I'm not sure how that happened, but all of a sudden I have a dozen pages like Wikipedia:Snowball fight and Wikipedia:SherlockJones on my watchpage. It seems someone was move-warring over WP:SNOW... but how come none of these pages show up in the move log, in the SNOW history, or have any history or deleted history? Is this some software change of which I'm unaware? >Radiant< 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly caused by moving the article's talk page separately from the article? [6] --pgk 20:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed it too. Sigh. LinaMishima 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There was some page-move vandalism to WP:SNOW the other day by User:SherlockJones, which was the cause for the new pages hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Report

I left a report on WP:PAIN a couple of days ago, viewable here. It does not appear that anyone has reviewed it in that time. Since it seems to have been much longer than the average response time now, I just am posting a request for somebody to take care of that report. Thanks. Markovich292 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, will never take action which favour editors who (in my opinion, tendenciously) repeatedly advance the viewpoint that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not an antisemite. I doubt many other admins would care to, either. That is then why your pleas continue to be ignored. El_C 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly on the talk page there, it is not that people are trying to advance the viewpoint that he is not an anti-Semite. The whole idea is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and his anti-Semitism has not been proven to warrant this being called a fact on this site.

ThuranX is the one who violated policy, so this has nothing to do with showing favoritism. It is unfathomable how administrators can ignore a personal attack just because they share an opinion with the person that committed that attack. Ignoring such an incident is obviously contrary to the moral obligation and duties of an admin, not to mention an invitation for others to break the rules in the future. Markovich292 06:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fathomable, because I am entitled to choose when and where I expend my voluntary efforts in this project. I didn't notice any outright personal attacks, maybe some incivility. In MA's case, I consider Holocaust denial and antisemitism to be interchangable. El_C 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is unfathomable to me is how an administrator, someone that is supposed to be upholding the values of Wikipedia, can ignore such behavior. For the sake of argument, lets just call this behavior incivility. That is still something that admins should deal with. Your "voluntary efforts" apparently include reading incident reports like mine (which you obviously read because you mention incivility) and just ignoring them because they dont jive with your POV. Since when does being an admin entitle you to use your tools selectively based on your POV? Markovich292 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note at ThuranX's talk page about civility issues. Hopefully it was phrased in a way that makes my opinion on the matter clear. (although it shouldn't be that hard if we really tried to get even more sources that called Ahmadinejad an anti-semite) JoshuaZ 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to address this issue, but if this is really incivility and not a personal attack, that is all the more reason that a warning is not sufficient for this situation. ThuranX has two prior incidents with incivility that drew admin response (one of which was actually a full block), and it is my understanding that repeated negative behavior like this is particularily frowned upon. To give another warning after already having been blocked once is just inviting him to do it again and again. Markovich292 21:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:24.62.43.62

He keeps vandalizing Catherine II of Russia

This should be reported to WP:AIV. And please sign your edits. --physicq210 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK sorry I'm kinda new, thanks for your help Swalot 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:3d engineer re-inserting OR in Unreal Engine technology

User:3d engineer used a revert to re-insert OR into Unreal Engine technology [7], even after being warned off by User:Bunchofgrapes on his talk page. [8] Bunchofgrapes can't do a block for this, as an involved party in the content dispute, but this guy needs to learn that No Original Research applies to him too. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur that a clue-stick may be the only choice here. There have been a lot of attempts to talk to 3d engineer (and his suspiciously-equally tightlipped comrade-in-reverts, User:Unico master 15), with very little response at all and no indication that policy is of any interest whatsoever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Add in a Clue-by-Four and some Cluepons and we've got some winners. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism by a wikistalker. Check history. Notify proper channels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit&diff=75819232&oldid=75818488

03:04, 15 September 2006 Ju66l3r (Talk | contribs) The user Ju6613r has vandalized an article.

Check the history for proof that a user is damaging articles on grapefruit and grapefruit seed extract. This administrator shoud be investigated. Thanks.

Now that I have your full attention, please ERASE copyright infringement info in the history pages. Copyright Violations is against wikipedia's rules. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. Now that I have your attention please investigate! Copyright Violations by "Devios" is against the pillar of Wikipedia's Rules! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios is putting and reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims

Thanks in advance for conducting an investigation into this copy right violation.

1. My edit wasn't vandalism.
2. I'm not an administrator.
3. Thanks for helping to point out that we still have a copyright range IP vandalism problem on the grapefruit seed extract history section. ju66l3r 03:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Do NOT change the words or intent that I wrote to satisfy your own purposes. That is insidious and I can not think of a worse violation of Wiki-policy. ju66l3r 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> Help please

Can another admin help me out here? I'm touring during this weekend and I won't be able to continue a long dialogue I've been having with User:Amoona, who is trying very hard to get me to unprotect Patrick Buri so it can be recreated. See the dialogue which begins on the last section of my talk page (he keeps changing the section name) and my responses on his talk page (which he keeps blanking in mid-discussion.) This article in various forms has been deleted six times and is still not sourced, which makes me skeptical of the whole thing (perhaps the editor is the subject?) Then again, maybe he can provide reliable sources and it can be unprotected. In any case, read the discussion, look at the deleted pages and provide a fresh voice. (On a side note, he also vandalized my userpage at the outset of all of this.) Grandmasterka 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Amoona (talk · contribs) and Amoonamoon (talk · contribs) has engaged in trolling, personal attacks, harrassment, legal threats, disruption. One thing this user has not done is edit any subject other than Patrick Buri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have blocked the user to prevent further harrassment and left a note on the Talk page telling them what to do if they want to move forward - with carrying on as before explicitly excluded as an option. Guy 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Buri might also prove...educational. --Calton | Talk 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Smartinfoteck3 (talk · contribs · count)

User:Smartinfoteck3 has been persistently spamming various pages [9]. After his talk page reached the warning level of spam4, he has now begun to use another account SI4 (talk · contribs · count) adding the same links. He is adding them faster than I am able to revert. Could someone block both accounts please -- Lost^(talk) 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another sock SI5 (talk · contribs · count) -- Lost^(talk) 05:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Add to the list of socks

• Smartinfoteck1 (talk · contribs · count)
• Smartinfoteck2 (talk · contribs · count)
• SI4 (talk · contribs · count)

All of these have added spamlinks to http://www.harappa.com . This can be added to the spam blacklist or whatever other mechanisms are present to prevent spam. --Ragib 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some links to Harappa have been added by good-faith editors, including Zakksez (talk · contribs). There are a good number of extant links: [10]. If we need to purge them then we need to purge them, but I just wanted to check as the content looks OK to me. Is the site promoting a POV or something? Guy 09:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No the site is not really promoting POV. Infact there are some very old and possibly valuable photographs from the last century. But thats almost all that there is. First of all, the photos are all probably in the public domain because the site itself claims them to be pre 1947 and most of them are actually from 1800s. Even if they are not in the public domain, the webmaster can simply upload them here under a free license instead of promoting the site. What goes against the site is the persistent nature of the above reported person who kept making socks to promote the site -- Lost^(talk) 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem with trout-slapping spammers, and I'll not intervene against any mass reversion, but it would be good to enlist the webmaster to upload instead (unlikely, though). Guy 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

There has been some concern over the use of Wikipedia at our school. I am an admin here. Please suggest possibilties here or via email/phone. Thanks 209.18.49.14 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you want help with? Can you confirm that you want to try and deal with the mis-use of wikipedia editing that was been causing your IP address to get warnings? LinaMishima 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We kind of need more information... but in general, if your school lets people access Wikipedia from classroom/lab computers, a certain percentage of your students will vandalize articles. We can deal with it, but if it gets too problematic we might have to block your school's ability to edit Wikipedia articles for a few hours. You can discuss specific cases with the admin who issues the block, if need be.

If your concern is just about students reading Wikipedia from school, in a nutshell, most of our articles are reliable, but they should never be used as the sole source of information, just as a student's paper that simply rewords the World Book entry probably won't score very well. Many of our articles cite their sources, which should be helpful to students writing a report or doing a project on a given topic. --W.marsh 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated your IP address' talk page with a template, {{SharedIPedu}}, to replace the disclaimer about the fact that the IP is for the Northwestern Lehigh School District. BigNate37_(T) 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw this comment from Uncle Eff (talk · contribs) at User talk:209.18.49.14. RadioKirk (talk · contribs) restored the warnings in this edit and left the edit summary "restoring comments; Uncle Eff, if indeed you are a school admin, please go to my user page and, along the left column, is a link to e-mail". Perhaps that is what this AN/I notice is about. BigNate37_(T) 23:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Lawodis

This user seems to be using wikipedia to document his Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Can an admin review his contribs please? Potentially needs a mass deletion/userfying. exolon 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need an admin to userfy. Have a word with the editor about the verifiability policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whew. Got everything moved, and it's been explained to him. Hopefully, he won't try to continue building it in his namespace now. --InShaneee 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely this sort of stuff fails Not a free web host and WP:USER sounds irrelevant to building an encyclopaedia. --pgk 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've listed them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lawodis/Saquimnidis and have left the User a note. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User Timtrent superimposing Fiddle Faddle

This user is doing it on a basis being obvious: The signature reads Fiddle Faddle, but indeed this user is Timtrent. (User:Timtrent, User:Fiddle Faddle).
I do not loose the idea this user has more identities.
Someone tell him to use a correct signature right now. It is annoying. This report is only about the signature (superimposing another id), and the concern this user might use more masks. I can not say if this user utilizes so-called puppets, but feel it required to express the concern. User:Yy-bo 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

His signature is perfectly fine. There is no requirement that a user's signature must be the same as their user name. Timtrent's signature, Fiddle Faddle, even links to his user page. There is no reason to believe that he is being dishonest, or that he is maliciously operating multiple accounts. FreplySpang 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comedy of errors

I was enjoying not editing Wikipedia, but have been lurking now and then and making a few comments here and there. Today, I noticed, out of the blue, that I had been placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee.[11] Needless to say, it came as quite a surprise. After all, nobody ever told me that the ArbCom was even considering doing as much. I've been involved in ArbCom cases before, but only as a witness. Never as a defendant. I was placed on probation for "tendentious editing," with 5 members voting yes, 1 voting no, and 1 abstaining. The reason? Well, since I've been "banned twice"[12] for 3RR (well, actually only once, since the other two times were later admitted to have been hasty, if not in error), it must follow that I'm a very tendentious editor who needs to be on probation. What is strange, however, is that there was no discussion of this on the case's workshop page. Where did this come from, then? It was placed on the proposed decision page on 28 August 2006, over a month after opening the case (and long after I had paid any attention to it);[13] I received no notification.[14]. Any discussion of the matter is curiously absent from the evidence page[15], and, of course, I had no input in the matter, since I was never told about it.

This only underscores the reasons why I have stopped contributing to Wikipedia. The head does not know what the hands are doing, and the hands don't even know they have fingers. Now I have the distinct pleasure of being placed upon probation without any apparent reason or any apparent warning. I'm extremely disappointed in the administration process, and especially at the ArbCom members who who, it seems, voted yes without adequate consideration of due process. Their only reason for placing me on probation seems to be that it seemed like I had been blocked for 3RR a number of times.

So, now I'm on probation, without evidence, and without ever having been notified that I was even being considered to be put on probation, thereby preventing me from defending myself. Preposterous. --AaronS 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was in plain sight for weeks, having been added in late August by Dmcdevit [16]. If you don't edit in a tendentious fashion, as you claim, then you should have nothing to worry about. You were still editing heavily when the matter was proposed, but to judge from your contributions you were busy elsewhere. You had weeks to defend yourself, but you chose to stomp off in rage instead. Now you come back to find that the wheels do indeed continue to turn in your absence. I'm afraid I can't fathom how it is you've been wronged in this matter. Mackensen (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you really expect me to keep an eye on an ArbCom case that I'm not even involved in? I offered my initial statements as a witness in July, and then let those people who were actually involved sort it out. I had no opportunity to defend myself, because I was completely in the dark. Furthermore, I did not stomp off in a rage at all when I left Wikipedia. I was disappointed, yes, but not angry. Just like now. I also find it disappointing that anybody who is critical of Wikipedia in general gets caricatured as an angry, angsty, whining idiot. I'm just presenting my thoughts, and I would appreciate it if you treated them with the same consideration with which I treat yours. Your hostility seems unwarranted. --AaronS 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just telling you how I see the matter; I see no need for you to bring in all those negative epithets. For my part, I've always kept an eye on Arbitration cases in which I had either given evidence or been named a party. As a frequent editor of a page involved in an arbitration case you were obviously a party to the matter. My characterization of your leaving is based on my reading of your supposedly final post on this noticeboard, after which you promptly disappeared for a length of time. If you've been characterized as an "angry, angsty, whining idiot" it's only by your hand; I've made no such remarks and I see nothing in my rather terse reply above that would suggest such a characterization. You were in the dark by choice. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Forgive me for interpreting your statements as smug and dismissive; clearly I was in error. I was also unaware that people become party to an ArbCom case simply by association. I was never named as a party to the case. I gave evidence, monitored it for a while, and then stopped monitoring it after a few weeks. My final post to this page contained no "rage," just disappointment, as I have already noted. Characertizing someone as "stomping off in a rage" has plenty of negative and condescending connotations. You are correct that there was no need for me to bring them to the forefront; they were already there. --AaronS 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • This same thing happened to me, after over 1 month of my arbcom case having no attention its being proposed I be put on probabtion even though the other people involved, including the accuser do not edit Wikipedia anymore. Luckily someone drew my attention to it since after almost 2 weeks of no admin or arbcom member even noticing it I took it off my watch list. As it stands it would have flown right by me that anyone even proposed anything, actually ti did since they moved on to the enxt stage without even informing me. I guess its just the load of the ammont of work they have, but it seems it prevents people from actually being to defend themselves as at any moment things can spur along rather quickly, meaning proposed items to final items in 3 days after 1 month of no activity. --User:Zer0faults 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
          • The case, which is, oddly enough, named Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults, is about your behavior. We are not expected to inform you when something is proposed in your own case, besides which, it hasn't even been closed yet, and you do already know about it. Dmcdevit·t 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Something obviously has to be done about the situation as I filed an Arbcom against another user and it came back one month after the person quit Wikipedia that they were being given a 24 hour block ... Perhaps Arbcom needs to grow as the wiki grows. --User:Zer0faults 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The probation should stand; however this was an oversight on behalf of the Committee and the Clerks. We should have added AaronS formally as a party to the case and notified him shortly after probation was proposed. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this (where apparently notice was not given to one of the added parties), I would hope that ArbCom would be willing to reopen the relevant portion of the case should AaronS wish to present some evidence in his own defense. Dragons flight 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Dragons flight. olivier 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As do I, but... tisk, tisk, we forgot that arbcom is above us mere mortals, so it doesn't matter worth a damn what we say here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So, thanks for that useful comment. Would you like to take a free kick at someone else, too, or are you finished for the day? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna spit on some homeless orphans, but that might be too magnanimous of me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If the ArbCom admits that it has made a mistake in the application of its procedure, then it is in the interest of its credibility to step back and apply the procedure properly. olivier 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that, as in most cases where probation is imposed, the involved party may make a request to have the probation lifted. In this case, a request of the following form is probably appropriate.

I would like to apply to have my editing probation lifted. I did not know that probation was being considered as a remedy to be applied to me, and was not notified that ArbCom was treating me as an involved party to the case. I believe that probation would not have been applied in my case had I had an opportunity to explain my actions. Specifically, probation is inappropriate in this case because of the following errors of fact or interpretation by the ArbCom: ____, ____, and _____.

Note that if there isn't an error in the ArbCom's findings of fact, or there isn't a good explanation for the behaviour observed, the probation is unlikely to be lifted. (He did receive 3 3RR blocks over a span of six weeks, imposed by three different admins.) This can be handled as a single motion amending the closed case. I also note that probation, in and of itself, doesn't restrict an editor in any way—as long as that editor abides by our policies and employs good editing practices. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a general familiarity with ArbCom procedures but no involvement in this particular case, no acquaintanceship with (?ex-)User:AaronS, and no familiarity with the subject article, Anarchism. It appears to me that AaronS has a legitimate complaint here. According to his user contributions, he posted comments on WP:RfAr at the case acceptance stage, on July 24. The case was then opened on July 26 and ArbClerk Tony Sidaway duly notified him on his talk page that: "An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened. Please add evidence to the evidence page. You may also contribute to the case on the Workshop page." (Italics mine, obviously.) There is no suggestion that the user must submit anything or follow the case for a decision.

The form of this notice was different from the one given to users who were considered parties to the case, for example, User:Intangible. The notice from Tony to those users read, "An arbitration case involving you has been opened...." There was no indication that AaronS was a party to the case or was potentially subject to sanctions.

Once the ArbCom accepted the case, an ArbClerk sets up the case with its Case, Evidence, Workshop, and Proposed Decision pages. At the top of the Case page, the template reads, "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a party in this request." However, the Case page was opened on July 26, and AaronS last commented on July 24, on the main RfAr page, which does not have such a notation and frequently incorporates comments from "uninvolved users" (I myself have commented there on occasion, and do not consider that doing so made me a party to the case I commented on, although I did follow the cases thereafter). The Case page lists the involved parties as Cberlet and Intangible; there is no mention of AaronS as a party and, although it might have made good sense for him to be following the case, he was under no notice that he had to do so and it appears that his surprise at having been notified, more than two months later, that he had been placed on Probation, is genuine and understandable.

As Tony Sidaway indicates, what occurred here is an inadvertent error on the part of busy ArbCom members and ArbClerks in not notifying AaronS when an arbitrator decided sua sponte to propose a remedy against him. No aspersions of any kind should be cast and good faith on the part of the Arbs and ArbClerk is not only assumed, but it is clear that the fullest good faith was actually present throughout.

However, given the error that took place, the appropriate procedure is for an interested party to make a request on WP:RfAr that this case be reopened to give AaronS an opportunity to present evidence if he wishes to do so. In the first instance, an Arbitrator can present such a request, or Aaron can do so himself (it goes under Requests rather than Motions if a non-Arb does it). If AaronS wants, I will place the motion on the page for him, although I am not expressing any opinion on whether he ultimately should be on probation or not (nor do I know if he cares given that he says he's on quasi-perma-Wiki-break anyhow).

Looking forward, I suggest that it become a practice that if a user is named on Workshop or Proposed Decision as being subject to a remedy, he or she be notified on talk. It sounds from what Tony has written above that this is what is intended anyway.

This sincerely is not aimed as a criticism of the Arbitrators or the ArbClerk for an inadvertent mistake. (I think ArbCom does a good job; if I were to criticize them at all, it would be for the undue delays that permeate some of the proceedings; understandable to be sure, as we are all busy people here and the Arbs more than most, but ... well, that is a conversation for another time.) Nor is it meant as Wikilawyering; ArbCom is not litigation, and picky procedural points should often be disregarded; and in any event, if I ever have to Wikilawyer, it won't be for someone I never heard of before :) . But this situation goes to the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and I think it is in the interest of ArbCom as well as the affected user to acknowledge that, an inadvertent mistake having been made, it should be corrected. AaronS may wind up back on Probation anyway, but he's entitled to have his say if he chooses. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your comments. I appreciate the efforts of people to take a closer look at this matter and to try to examine it as objectively as possible. To be honest, if the case were to be reopened or reevaluated, I'm not sure how I would respond, because no evidence was presented to which I could respond. My involvement was apparently not discussed on any of the pages. In fact, the only discussion concerning me that I can find is on the discussion page of the main case page. Lingeron, sock puppet of indefinitely banned user Thewolfstar, posted a long diatribe against me, it seems. I wasn't even aware of it, or, if I was, I don't remember it now. Thus far, the argument seems to have been that, since I have a block log with some 3RR violations, I must have deserved it. Such an argument, of course, is highly fallacious and unfair.

I only care about this ArbCom decision because it is a slap in the face. I don't think that it received the attention that it deserved, and feel that it was marred by procedural missteps. As I said in the beginning, if it were to be reexamined, I'm not sure what I would say. The most surprising thing is that, as of yet, no evidence has been presented against me. Again, thanks to everybody for your input. --AaronS 20:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Weren't there eleven active members for this decision? The committee page version on 26 July [17] lists fourteen total and eleven active, and the proposed decision page states only three were inactive. The arbitration closed with five support votes and one abstention. Wasn't this remedy lacking a vote for majority support?EricR 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that. Good point. --AaronS 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A user facing AC sanctions must be informed that they are party to an RfAr, so that they would be allowed the opportunity to respond. El_C 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point as to whether 5-1-1 is a majority here, but I've probably been overly analytic today on multiple threads so I'll let that one go. The substantive question is whether the user had a fair opportunity to be heard before he was found to have edit-warred and a sanction was imposed. Granting that there may be little value to reopening a case if the result is predetermined, the sub-question is whether there's any reasonable possibility that the result might have been different if the user had been asked to submit his evidence. Given that one arbitrator (Fred Bauder) voted against the finding because he found insufficient evidence against AaronS, and another arbitrator abstained because he did not think this user's conduct was serious enough to warrant probation, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that a full opportunity for AaronS to be heard could have changed the result. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As a regular editor on the anarchism page, I can say that there is a good chance the probation would not have gone through had aaron (and others such as myself) been able to comment on the matter. As Aaron says, one of his blocks was overturned after he explained the situation. The blocking admin in the second case apologized and said they wouldn't have blocked had they had more information, but the block had already expired by that time, so he was never unblocked. So basically, he has one block, and considering the crap that goes on at the anarchism articles, and how long he's been editing, that's pretty impressive. Most of the edit warring that happens there is due to users who are now indefinitely blocked, or sockpuppets of those users before they are blocked themselves for being socks. A lot of outsiders don't realize this, so users like Aaron will occassionally be blocked. It's understandable, and it usually gets resolved without a problem. I personally think probation is a bit harsh in his case. Especially considering he was never even notified. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is clear. I was the one that personally added the proposal, and, since AaronS was involved, having offered evidence and had evidence offered against him, it didn't even occur to me that he would be unaware of the proposal. I just learned that he was, and that is unfortunate. As Dragons flight suggests, if he has a defense he would have liked to put forth, I, as with the rest of ArbCom, am ready, willing, and eager to hear it. Place it in the WP:RFAr#Requests_for_clarification section where we regularly hear appeals. TenOfAllTrades' advice on the appeal is sound. Also: it's a wiki, everything is reversible, I am very human (believe me, being an arbitrator has made me more aware of that fact, not less), and I'm still trying to figure out quite why the tone here is so accusatory only a matter of hours after this issue was raised. Dmcdevit·t 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your open-mindedness, Dmcdevit. I appreciate your taking the time to reconsider this. It is also encouraging that you are more than happy to embrace your human limitations, which is always a healthy and commendable acknowledgement. As I have indicated a number of times throughout this discussion, however, I am confused as to what accusations of wrongdoing I should defend myself against. So far, no evidence has been provided. The only thing I can find in that case pertaining to me, before you added anything regarding me, is a post by banned user Lingeron, which was replied to rather eloquently by WGee on the main discussion page. You noted that I had been blocked a few times as a result of WP:3RR violations, but much discussion has already been had with regard to those blocks, and their gravity is less than certain. Since nobody seems to have presented any evidence against me, and since you were the person who made me a party to the case, perhaps you have evidence that you would like to present. In that case, I encourage you to do so, so that I, along with a few other editors, I am sure, could respond to it.

There is also the issue of an apparent lack of a majority. If the required majority was 6, and there were only 5 yes votes, then this might be a non-issue. Thanks again, --AaronS 01:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

AaronS, you should make these points on the requests for arbitration page. The other arbitrators may not see them here. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --AaronS 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If the other arbitrators join in the fair and sensible approach of Dmcdevit, it looks like the problem is solved. Speaking for myself, at least, no accusatory tone whatsoever was intended; I stated several times that what happened was clearly an inadvertent oversight, and was concerned only because there were suggestions (not by arbitrators, and some since withdrawn) that perhaps it shouldn't be fixed. ArbCom is busy, and Dmcdevit is one of the two most active arbitrators (being one of the two arbs who actually write the decisions), and the community (well, the small subset of the community that follows ArbCom matters) understands and appreciates that. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed completely; I would like to take this opportunity to praise Newyorkbrad's advice here. There's not much more I have to say in extension of Dom's comment, however. :-)

James F. (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I complained about the lack of natural justice in my case, when the very same arbitrator responsible for this débacle thought it perfectly reasonable to go about making findings concerning my actions which had not been brought in evidence and which were irrelevant to the case actually before the ArbCom. This separate case is, to coin a phrase, "particularly egregious". David | Talk 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

request for block of User:LordByronKing

LordByronKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing in a suspicious manner, disrupting the editing process by making one change - saving - then making another, and has failed to respond to comments posted on his talk page, even though he remains extrememly active on Wikipedia. He has been adding books to lists, deeming them as "notable", without any reason for their notability - and they all tend to be by the same author, Steeves Volmar. He has also been making controversial changes to pornography actors - changing the stated sexuality to the whichever he thinks it "really" is. Viewing his contributions you can see that he edits repetitively, sometime for periods lasting five hours (these edits tend to be no more than 1-2 min apart). I have listed him at Wikiquette where an objecive third person has confirmed this suspicious activity. His edits are SO numerous that it becomes very difficult chasing after him trying to revert everything he's done. The wikiquette page and his talk page go into more detail. -Zappernapper 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a last warning on his Talk page. Note that an apparent sock puppet, User:Onedayoneday, has been blocked for making threats against another User. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now blocked him for re-inserting himself into articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zoe -Zappernapper 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:BADMINton

Can someone review his behaviour please? He has been giving people vandalism tags in content disputes, and when I asked him about this, he became rather hostile User_talk:Blnguyen#Personal_attacks.3F, so I would like someone else to have a look in case that I am too involved to act impartially, or at least give the impression of partiality. His posts since then leave me wondering about whether he is serious about editing here. In one edit summary he refers to User:Hornplease as "Horny", for instance. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Samir issued a final warning. Guy 09:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite explaining WP:3RR and WP:BLP to him, he continuosly broke 3RR by adding unreferenced and potentially libelous commentry. I've reported him to WP:AN/3RR. --Ragib 09:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The ban is unjustified and User:Ragib should peruse the policy (written in English) once again. Which text was "unreferenced"? Good Bloke 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser shows that this new user is BADMINton using a sockpuppet to evade his block. Dmcdevit·t 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Though the jibes at Hornplease were quite unwarranted, the trouble with User:Ikonoblast (formerly User:Holywarrior are not unique to Badminton. At least 6 users have been insulted, cheated, and affected negatively by Ikonoklast's actions. Soft discipline should be given to Badminton.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is what this user has been doing, since emerging from his block:

• Opened a sockpuppet account Good Bloke (talk · contribs) to evade the block.

No comments on such a statement. Does this call for a ban? ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nazi user box, claims in his user box page to be a Nazi, with a swastika image

The Swastika is sacred. The Nazis lost the war and Germans still love them. Plus, it's MY sandbox.♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, in the same page, claims to be a Wikipedia lawyer in an userbox.

Hilarious! I can try anything in my sandbox. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Added fake gfdl-self tags to an image taken from a website, and upon being notified of the copyvio, retorted that he is the original source though (even the low res image's pixel sizes match exactly).
• Copypasted huge amounts of text from a website, reverted the copyvio reversion, (claiming he material is NOT copyrighted. It appeared in the Pioneer and it is freely distributed. Several websites are using it."),
• For reverting these copyvios, attacked me in my talk page, saying "Please do not dissuade other users if you yourself cannot contribute a word to this encyclopedia. ", and even worse, accused me of "racism".

Who accused you of racism? ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Engaged in incivility towards other users.

How can I comment on a baseless comment? Back your claims. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that, this user has been redirected to the appropriate policies countless times, so lack of knowledge of policies does not seem to be an issue here.

An RFCU has been filed, but regardless of the result of that, I think some other admin should take a look into the above behavior, and act accordingly. Thanks. --Ragib 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If I block this account for the copyright infringement until they commit to not doing any more of it, is someone going to object? Jkelly 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is something which should be done immediately. Even after a lengthy discussion and advice thread on his talk page, he just uploaded the same image under a different spelling. See this. Even worse, the user continues to claim this to be "gfdl-self" while the image is clearly taken from a website (low res, exact pixel/file sizes). --Ragib 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked, noting that the user can be unblocked when they commit to not engaging in further plagiarism or copyright infringement. Jkelly 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They've commited to this, so I've unblocked. Any other problems should be handled through normal dispute resolution. Jkelly 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is worth note that User:Ragib pays more attention to what I am doing than contributing anything to the Wikipedia. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ragib has done a lot of work on wiki though I dont support the treatment meted out to you.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've certainly had enough of this trolling. He created a user box stating he was a Nazi [18], trolled merrily on his talk page and those of others: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], on WP:RCU [36], on this page (see "The Swastika is sacred. The Nazis lost the war and Germans still love them" above), ignored warnings by Blnguyen, Srikeit, Ragib and myself, and uploads obvious copyright infringements with spurious reasons as to why they are not copyright infringements. He's edited tendentiously on many pages [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], been blocked for 3RR and even opened a sockpuppet: Good Bloke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to back his position. RCU indicates that he may be related to the Rajput vandal, BADMINton admits to opening other accounts [44] and given the similarity of edits between User:BADMINton and the various incarnations of the vandal, I think it's a given that he is one and the same. I've blocked indefinitely and have moved the thread to the bottom here for review -- Samir धर्म 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only glanced at the above, but looks like a good (& obvious) call. El_C 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I too completely endorse the block. The user has been blatantly trolling and edits like [45] and [46] clearly show that. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why have I been banned? Just because I came to defend my case with another ID (Good Bloke)? Did you ever care to see that User:Good Bloke has only one contrib and that too on this page? Is it outlawed?

• Learning to make userboxes in one's sandbox is an act that calls for a ban? What if I have created a Nazi userbox in my sandbox? I think we are free to make userboxes that does not offend people. Is the Swastika a taboo, Srikeit? Ragib is not a Hindu but you sure are. Do you not know its importance?

• What exactly do you mean by "tendentious" edits? People may differ in their views and the Wikipedia should not punish anyone for differing in views with Srikeit.

• My previous username is not DPSingh or any of those you suspect but is User:Hardinge. And do you not think that calling a user "a rajput vandal" is the grossest of incivilities?

• Why my contributions to the Wikipedia are not being counted? I have started many important articles. All in vain?

• Which of my acts were uncivilised? Did any user complain to you or anyone for my being uncivil?

• Unblock me soon (am I again violating any rule by editing here?). Thanks Defending Myself 10:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (User:BADMINton)
• While Srikeit Bhai has shown many references about my edits like [47] , none of them invite for a ban. Most of them were on my own talk page. I did not abuse anyone. I did not vandalise any page. I contributed a lot of useful of information. Then WHY am I being banned? Defending Myself 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• When so many people have gathered to get me banned, it is unlikely that I would be acquitted but I would like to know that under which clause of the WP:BP would the ban be justified. Defending Myself 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's defended himself, I guess. I took the liberty of indefinitely blocking User:Defending Myself as well -- Samir धर्म 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While he does seem to be aggressive, I think that many of his edits are OK and indefbanning him is a bit too harsh.Could there be an agenda at work here? In my opinion he should be warned sternly to avoid aggressively confronting users. I will be happy to discuss his actions with him.Hkelkar 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is decidedly NOT OK to (1) create a userbox purporting to be a Nazi, (2) to repeatedly re-enter copyright information into articles and ignore warnings, (3) to insert improperly verified text into articles despite warnings, (4) to have admittedly made at least 2 sockpuppets used for the purpose of posting here to defend his actions and (5) to have ignored warnings of FOUR administrators regarding the above. I question your agenda in supporting him -- Samir धर्म 03:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Badminton was corect about User:Ikonoblast formerly User:Holywarriors actions. At least the witch-hunt should not be one-sided.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Bigjake

User:Bigjake continues to remove the comments of others that he disagrees with from his talk page. There has been some discussion about this practice at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, but no instructions on what to do when this occurs. Please comment. Thanks, Cacophony 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Cacophony posted a note telling him he doesn't own an article to which he responded: "Thanks for the Note. But just know, I still don't care about what you said... get off the soap box, k? Have a nice day:) Bigjake". If this user persistently ignores policy, I'd block him for that instead of the talk page blanking. Blanking in itself is not a bad thing (althought very inconvenient for others who wish to look up discussions with that user), but doing so to hide critical comments might mean this user doesn't respond well to criticism which is not very helpful in a shared project. I'd recommend one final warning, before taking it further. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was in response to his edit summary on The Playhouse (radio show) that said: "if you're going to change my page, at least do it right, douche". On his most recent blanking of criticism on his talk page, he called User:MacGyverMagic a "fool". I will provide a final warning on his page before requesting a block for personal attacks. Cacophony 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whle he shouldnt remove the comments, why do you keep putting them back and giving him warnings, why not just leave them off and let him cool down instead of antagonizing him with more comments that you know he will remove, just so you can give more warning that you know he will remove. --User:Zer0faults 18:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not added any comments or warnings since the 3rd revert. He has now removed criticism on 7 different occasions. So just because he is persistent I should forget about it? That same line of reasoning dictates that because the George Bush article is likely to be vandalized, we should just let the vandals go at it. I don't care if I have to revert it 100,000 times, my comments will remain on that user page. Cacophony 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, is it such a huge deal? Really, you're only pressing the issue because you don't want to be 'silenced' as you so put it, Cacophony. I honestly don't care about my talk page, whatsoever, but what gets me is your following me around and checking my edits of other pages, as if I'm going around vandalizing things. If you'd leave me alone, then everything would be fine. I do NOT vandalize other pages, especially legit pages. If anything, I add, correct, and clean them as per the Wikipedia rules. The one thing I do NOT enjoy is your moving of my comments on your personal talk page (for example) back to my talk page. Is that not also talk page vandalization? I admit, I probably shouldn't have called you a 'douche,' but you took a page I worked on for a decent amount of time and completely rehashed it. That's not the issue, the issue was that you spelled things wrong, left large blanks, and overall just made it look like crap. I simply wanted to imply, if you're going to change it, at least make it look presentable. Since my 'douche' comment, you've been after me, being the 'wikipolice,' and I see that I've not been the only person that has had to deal with you in this manner. Your own talk page speaks volumes. Now, if you just leave me be, I'll leave the legit stuff on my talk page, you can go on doing your business, and this whole mess will be settled. Is that acceptable to you? Bigjake 18:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alm93 adding ethnic categories to many (200 odd) bio articles.

This user is adding categories like Category:Hungarian-New Zealanders and Category:Irish Canadians and populating them based on solely the person's name and no other information. I have left a note on their talk page but I note they are listed as a possible sockpuppet of User:70.81.117.175. None of the edits have comments or supporting references. - SimonLyall 13:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to do a mass revert on this. Any objections? --Pjacobi 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Without verification, it's all OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done about 250 reverts. But there are about 1000 more to do. Seems to need help by bot. He've done the categorizations faster than 1/min often. This must have been bot/JavaScript assisted. And of course its OR and sometimes total nonsense.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Dieter&diff=75606647&oldid=63893716

Or we put the categories on TfD and let a bot do the cleanup. But: do have the categories some legitimate content?

Pjacobi 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just knocked out the balance (502 exactly). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit by this user to Human height, FWIW the edit may be valid, I probably would not have reverted had I not seen this thread here recently... but... Pete.Hurd 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that he wasn't asked to stop. I've just reverted several more and deleted several of the categories that he created. And told him to quit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

IrishGuy revisions

User IrishGuy is repeatedly revising a page to remove material based on a personal grudge with the user that is posting it. The article in quesiton is Joppa, in which I am trying to add a small bullet--no links--concerning the name Joppa. This is not spam, as he keeps insisting. He is also taking this out on the Songs To Wear Pants To article. This article refers to a songwriter. One of his songs is entitled "What is Joppa Anyway?" and it was included in his list of songs on the article. Again, IrishGuy is continuing to remove only this song due to a personal grudge. I will admit that, in the past, I have taken a rather "annoyed" backlash against this user, but knowing the policies better now, I am simply trying to prevent him from "personal grudge" vandalism of pages concerning my edits--which are all legal. Please help. Drdunbar 18:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above user is spamming Wikipedia with advertising for his site and harassing me personally. This is the fourth time he has requested an admin to come after me for reverting his spamming. His website had an article that was deleted in an AfD. During that time, he sent people from his site to sway the AfD [48], after that AfD the article has been recreated and speedied again twice. This user has repeatedly spammed links to his website in various articles (specifically, articles I created) under his IP address, (examples: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] etc.) and has continued to attack me an try to send others here from his forum [54]. Unable to spam Wikipedia without it being reverted, he has now taken to doing this. I am being harassed, pure and simple and it is really beginning to annoy me. IrishGuy ^talk 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I had already mentioned that my above conduct was due to an outlash against IrishGuy's attack on an article due to personal issues, and not wiki guidelines. I have since refrained from my actions, knowing the policies of this site more clearly. This CURRENT issue has nothing to do with my past behavior. I am simply trying to keep up a couple pages, and he continues to delete anything I put up due to PAST GRUDGES. Nothing I am posting contains any "spam links" or personal promotion by any means. They are legitimate additions to legitimate articles. He continues to accuse me in the eyes of administration of reposting a deleted article, which I have NOT done. You can check the background on that. I didn't even publish the article that was deleted, I was simply there to defend it. He obviously has an issue with me personally, and is using that to remove my posts. I have nowhere else to turn. I really enjoy this site, and IrishGuy is giving it a bad name. I am sorry for that, as well as my past transgressions. Drdunbar 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, Drdunbar, you claim that you're making legitimate edits and not spamming, but your most recent edits do not fit that description [55], [56]. It's just all stuff about and/or links to this Joppa website. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia does not owe random websites free publicity and webhosting. I've looked through the basics of this situation and it seems IrishGuy is in the right. Drdunbar, we'd welcome any positive contributions but doing nothing but promoting your website is not really going to win you friends. --W.marsh 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see what my revisions have anything to do with promotion. There are no "links" at all to my website. I am simply putting up a song title that belongs in the list. If you also look at the history of that page, I did not put it up there to begin with. Another contributor to that page did, and IrishGuy deleted it out of spite. I have been simply trying to revert back from his vandalism. STWPT produced a song for the webiste. I have simply stated that on the article, without links of any means. That is not self-promotion. If you would feel better about another user adding, that's fine. But, I wasn't the original poster to begin with. Drdunbar 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are spam, no matter what you call them, and IrishGuy's edits are perfectly reasonable. I suggest you find a PR firm that you can hire to do your advertising for you. Wikipedia is not the place. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very interesting that these users keep popping up from nowhere all of a sudden, IrishGuy? Hmmm. Not making any accusations here, but they all share a very familiar form of argument--baseless and attacking. TRUST me, Zoe, or whoever you are, I don't need wikipedia to promote anything for Joppa, I've got enough of that all over the web. There's no links or WEBSITES included on my posts. STWPT produced a song for us, along with the OTHER songs on that article. Our song has legitimate cause to be there. End of story. You either delete them all, or leave them all. Sorry, guys, you can throw "spam" at me all you want, but any "real" person that takes a look at it will see otherwise. Drdunbar 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Side note I noticed that since these "other users" came out of the wookwork, I've seen a sudden break in IrishGuy's activity on Wikipedia. Again, no accusations here. Just pointing something out. Drdunbar 18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're trying to imply that I'm a sockpuppet of IrishGuy. You'll have to try harder. Let me just warn you that what I am, is an admin, and if you continue to spam, you will be blocked. Let's leave it at that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone, especially an admin, can be me a definition of "spamming" that encompasses what I'm doing, I will be glad to stop. Drdunbar 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. JoshuaZ 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Those guidelines would be very helpful if I a) had external links in my post, or b) was promoting a website. I'm doing neither. Please read the post in question before responding here. I'll keep those rules in mind for the future. Drdunbar 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Willy on Wheels hasn't posted since you started this AN/I report, anyone notice that? No accusation, just pointing something out. Perfectly logical, right? :/ Danny Lilithborne 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Drdunbar 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Drdunbar for 24 hours for violating 3RR after having been warned. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let that be a warning: never call Zoe a sock puppet, even in jest. ;) -- llywrch 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason for the block. He was blocked for violating 3RR after having been warned. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he knows that, he was just joking around.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Length of block of IP 12.151.120.81

I've just blocked the IP 12.151.120.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for a spree of vandalism. Because the IP was caught relatively early, because I couldn't establish a definitive link between this round of vandalism and earlier sprees (although a link with yesterday is very likely), and because it might be a shared IP, I decided to block the IP for only 24 hours. Jaysweet (talk · contribs) has come up to me, saying that this IP will immediately resort to vandalism when the block has expired. I'm inclined to believe him, but I don't wanna take any action on this without consulting my fellow admins and friends first. Does this IP block need to be extended? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, and if the vandal returns promptly after the block expires, block for 2 days, 4, etc. Essentially you're probing to see how long the ISP in question leases that IP to the specific person. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say extend to a month at least, anon-only and account creation disabled, as the IP came back after a 2 week block. There are clear patterns in the contributions, for example from Martin Luther King, Jr. in August to Jay-Z a few days ago and Ice cube yesterday (on the object, but referring to the rapper) and today. Regardless, there are no particularly positive edits that I can see, and if someone else does try to use the IP the instructions given in Mediawiki:Blockedtext are comprehensive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the fact that the user has vandalised one article over a month apart (Ian Williams) indicates that the user isn't switching IPs. The only question that remains is whether others are using the IP, and it doesn't look like it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Finlay -- the escalation has already occured, peeking with a two week block (which happened exactly two weeks ago, by the way ;p ). One thing I mentioned to Aecis that I find particularly of concern is that this isn't light-hearted Colbert-esque vandalism, these are nasty racist attacks. It's harder to laugh it off. Anyway, thanks to all the admins here for looking at this issue. I appreciate it! --Jaysweet 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The IP belongs to the Metropolitan Museum of Art; I don't see much risk of collateral damage and endorse a longer block. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for three months. The chances that I've denied us a featured article or two by my block are sufficiently close to minus zero. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs)

This user has been involved in a POV edit war on Sweetest Day (see this entry in the archive). Today he created on Commons an page identical to his userfied version (User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax) - at Commons:The Sweetest Day Hoax. This was soon deleted off Commons as inappropriate. This was mistakenly copied back to en at The Sweetest Day Hoax, and was deleted again off Wikipedia when the mistake was realised. The user has since recreated it again on Commons, this time at Commons:User:Miracleimpulse. Considering the fact he has been blocked on Wikipedia for disruption related to this article, it seems appropriate to bring it up here.--Commons:User:Nilfanion/Nilfanion (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm... *waves* You can blame me. I made the suggestion that, if they met Commons policies, the images he keeps trying to add to the Sweetest Day article might be better in Commons; apparently he took this as an invitation to move the entire thing to Commons, which wasn't my intention at all. I've been trying to find a diplomatic way of handling this user, who appears to have an unhealthy obsession with Sweetest Day - he has outright accused myself and others of being shills for the industry, and suggested that Sweetest Day causes terrorism, which doesn't break any policies but is a sign of this editor's preoccupation with a Hallmark Holiday. All of his contributions have been either to the Sweetest Day page, user talk pages, or inserting information about Sweetest Day into other articles. He's even made a YouTube video about the matter, linked at Commons- oh, and now that I've checked, apparently linked from the Sweetest Day page here on EN, along with the user's homepage. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that some of this may be due to an honest misunderstanding, possibly enhanced by an unhealthy obsession with the topic. Captainktainer * Talk 11:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Arthur Ellis

Arthur Ellis has recently been removing large portions of Rachel Marsden, as he does from time to time. Yesterday, after Ellis had reverted for the second time, a new user Craigleithian appeared, performing much the same edits as Ellis -- namely, removing sections that contained sourced and verifiable information that did not reflect well on the article's subject. 3 of Craigleithian's 4 edits are wholesale removal of material from the Marden article. Suspect that this may be a sock to circumvent 3RR.

Craiglethian's edits: [57] [58] [59] [60] Ellis's edits in that time frame: [61] [62] [63] [64]

An admin may wish to check this out. Ianking 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty obvious to me, but a checkuser request has been filed just in case. Thatcher131 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, quite. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser case showed positive. He has now been blocked per the report on WP:AN/3RR. User:Arthur Ellis for 1 week for his 4th violation of 3RR and sockpuppet abuse. And the sockpuppet account has made no other contributions so has been blocked indefinitely.--Konstable

User:Randazzo56 Vandalizing Henry Ford and Talk:Henry Ford

USer Randazzo56 has been vandalizing both the Henry Ford and the Talk:Henry Ford articles with nasty vulgarisms and Holocaust denial. Rjensen 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think Rjensen's descripion of this editor's activities is understated. User:Randazzo56's vandalism of Henry Ford and the talk page has been blatant. [65] [66] [67]. He then inserted anti-Semitic remarks into Rjensen's comments on the talk page. [68] and made obscene remarks.

This editor has been previously blocked for one month for vandalism. I think an indefinite block is warranted. --Mantanmoreland 15:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit banned from Alberto Fujimori

Under the terms of his probation in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit, I have banned Messhermit from editing Alberto Fujimori, which he has disrupted by edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hornplease's declaration that he will violate wikipedia rules

Regarding this user, he has been edit-warring on 2006 Malegaon blasts. The content dispute is not the issue I'm complaining against here, of course. It is the fact that he has declared two things. 1. That he will continue edit-warring, not violating the letter of WP:3RR but the spirit of it, and that he will stop assuming good faith, a declaration of violating WP:AGF. The talk page diff is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2006_Malegaon_blasts&diff=75792345&oldid=75749909 Hkelkar 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh. It looks like you missed this update:

Eh? I have not declared that I will violate the rules! I am trying hard not to. I gave you an opportunity to make your case, while leaving it in your preferred version! How is that a violation? Instead of putting an NPOV tag on it, try and work it out here. [69] --Calton | Talk 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hornplease also has vandalized many talk pages citing BLP even when comments were not aimed at the BLP, but their work (which usually has a criticism section)[70] [71]. Also, has a very obvious problem with Hindu related articles, as seen with this deletionist harrassment on this AfD [72].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any intention to violate wikipedia rules here. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. He expressly stated that he will 1.Cease AGF and 2.Continue edit-warring. That's 2 declarations of policy violation.I have seen users who have been indefbanned for less.Hkelkar 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See section below, a somewhat misguided contributor is the victim of a witch-hunt.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that blocking someone appropriately per WP:BP was called a "witch-hunt" now -- Samir धर्म 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess asking for fairness didnt work. I'm perturbed by double standards, and merely was asking for fairness.Bakaman _Bakatalk

Then please say what you mean to say. Calling an administrative action against a user who is trolling a "witch-hunt" is not appropriate -- Samir धर्म 11:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed that what I thought was a invitation for an editor with a questionable history regarding POV to lay out the reasons for his attempts at ownership of a high-profile article was misunderstood by the editor in question. I think my actions speak for themselves at this point, though I am available for any clarification if necessary. I admit that henceforth I will look with a somewhat more jaundiced eye at the contributions of the editor who - in the kindest of interpretations - misunderstood my comments enough to report them here, but as far as I know that's not a violation of policy. Also, I am not sure that making the point repeatedly on an AfD that the Gujarat Administrative Servxs is not the same as the IAS is a symptom of an 'obvious problem with Hindu related articles". Hornplease 13:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Xizer

Xizer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been attacking other users through edit summaries as seen on Straight Outta Lynwood and Lazytown. He has been warned on his talk page multiple times but continues the offending behavior. -- Michael Greiner 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're going to report someone, you should at least get their name right. And you don't warn someone and then go report them for that same incident saying they're continuing to use the behavior you warned them about. Perhaps you could show me where I attacked other users after you edited my talk page? I'm not seeing it. "Continuing" my ass. And two doesn't really qualify as "multiple times." Well, I guess it does, but once could also qualify considering the fact that 1 is also a multiple. Xizer 03:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tone it down a little please, Xizer. -- Samir धर्म 04:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason this user has not been banned? He's clearly not interested in contributing productively.--SB | T 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for now, we'll have to wait and see if he can hopefully cool down. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 05:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody checked Xizer's block log? He has been involved in blatant racist vandalism in the past, and has been blocked repeatedly, only to keep claiming to reform. I propose an indefinite block. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Block review

Culverin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a mere 24 hours for his hideous use of sockpuppets to make edits like this personal attack using an offensive username,this personal attack with impersonation using my signature, and this impersonation on one of my friends' user talk pages, intending to cause harm to Dfrg.msc by saying that "I" don't care about improving an article we're currently collaborating on at present. These users were proven to be Culverin's sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Culverin, and were all blocked indefinately.

I feel that 24 hours is not long enough a block for this violations of WP:NPA, WP:VAND as well as impersonating another user with intent to cause harm. He obviously knew it was wrong, or he would have made these vandalistic edits on his main account. I really think an extension of the block be imposed, because this behaviour was very serious, and worthy of a more harsher block.

If this is not warranted, at least the abusive sockpuppet confirmed tag should be added to his userpage for an extended period (1 month or so), as he took it down the moment he was unblocked, meaning it only lasted just over 24 hours. I was willing to forget and forgive, but actions like these show his lack of remorse, where he failed to apologise and move on, but instead just remove the post without even responding to it. All this from an "established editor on Wikipedia", who knew the rules, and thoughthe could get around them. Daniel.Bryant 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On a quick check of the links provided by the {{vandal|username}} template at the start of this message, I see that Glen has dealt with it. Thanks! Daniel.Bryant 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Culverin#You_have_been_blocked and his block log - should be fairly self-explanatory - Glen 10:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:TareTone

This user was originally the banned user Tonetare who was banned for leaving abusive messages on my page and a number of others (I'm not quite sure why he's allowed to edit now but that's an admin thing). That was the past and it's fine someone get's a second chance. However his pattern of behaviour seems to have carried over into his new username. we have him striving for me to leave wikipedia. Then we have a situation where he tells another editor that it's sweet that he got him to quit editing an article and so on.

I would have never realised that he had actually rejoined Wikipedia except one of his first moves was to turn up on my page and berate me for removing german commerical linkspam from the english golfpage (a page he's never edited but one he seems to have picked out of thin air as an example of my "rude" editing). His MO seems to be abuse and then if he drops in the odd "gee sorry" and then carries on as before, then everything is fine. I'm getting a little tired of it. I'm also more concerned about the low-quality like this. I could explain to him as before why that sort of edit does not below in an encylopdia, but if he could never grasp why "smack-talking bitches" does not belong in an encylopedia, why is he going to get this? --Charlesknight 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Some also needs to explain WP:Own with him, as per this edit and this one

--Charlesknight 12:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 13:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I imposed a 24-hour block in light of the user's threatening response on my talk page. ^[73] El_C 20:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This user and me are good friends and he was User:Tonetare and was blocked by Tryenius only because he was going to use a different IP in the future as seen in the block log. Tryenius had no reason to block him at all unless he was doing something else. He came back as Taretone, and promised only to talk to me, and otherwise wasn't going to be here. That's a brief little thing about his first block etc. Sugarpine^t 20:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please urge the user to adhere to policy. I was unaware of there being a first block. El_C 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just asked him not to make any more NPA. However, Tryenius had NO right to block him because he said he was going to use another IP in the future. I am getting a little annoyed with Tryenius also. I am asking him to adhere to policy though. Sugarpine^t 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of disputes between Tryenius, Tonetare, and Charlesknight and I want it over NOW. I think the best way to handle this is mediation or arbitration. Any comments? Sugarpine^t 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tonetare was blocked for a week for personal abuse, extended to 2 weeks for continuing extreme abusive behaviour, which is on the talk page under his former name as User:TareTone. He sometimes edits as User:65.31.100.170. He has only just returned from the block and unfortunately has continued to show frequent aggressive behaviour. Tyrenius 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's of course why you unblocked him to extend the block to indef. Sugarpine^t 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to neither - the facts speak for themselves, unless you think my conduct or edits or edit history is in some way related to, are similar to behaviour such as:

1,2, 3,4,5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10

Those are just the first ten that spring to mind - do I really need to provide any more?

Remind me - what is it that I am suppose to answer for? Not allowing abusive editors to run me off articles that need improving? Not allowing abusive editors to introduce low-quality edits such as Smack talking bitches ? If that's what I'm suppose to answer for - guilty on all charges M'lud. I stay on my edits and my conduct, I have always acted in the best interest of the community and the encyclopedia.

--Charlesknight 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do. We need to get this over with now, and Taretone has a new IP and will be using his new IP, so he is using sockpuppets. We need an admin, not involbed in this, to finish this for us. Sugarpine^t 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - we need to mediate because he's going to evade his block by using sockpuppets? --Charlesknight 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to reach and agreement. So, Tonetare doesn't bother you or Tryenius. We don't have another fight, with Taretone under another account. That's what were doing this for. Sugarpine^t 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So if you know his new IP, you will of course be reporting it to admin as a sockpuppet, right? --Charlesknight 21:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else can talk to Taretone, we need to request arbitration. Unless, he starts with you or Tryenius again I will not report him to an admin as a sock. Sugarpine^t 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

TareTone has had the chance to come back and interact with others in a CIVIL fashion, but he seems incapable of doing this. Tyrenius 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sugarpine - If you wish to go to Arbitration that is your concern, there is no "we" in this matter. I have nothing further to say at this point unless someone requests further information. --Charlesknight 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've extended the block to a month in light of the abusive history (which I failed to notice). After that, it will be indefinite, for any account. El_C 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Afrika paprika

I require a mediator between me and this user. If one can observe his contributions and his talk page, he/she may notice several things: He has been blocked for violating a 3RR revert on the Nikola Tesla article, despite being familiar with the 3RR rule. He has been deleting references that are connected to anything Serbian in any way on Dado Pršo and his edits on Predrag Stojaković also deserve a note. He has then been blocked twice for edit-warring and the 3RR on Dado Prso. After User:PANONIAN warned him (among other users) for his nationalistic edits, he told him "..kiss me in my but" and called him Greater Serbian here. And here he repeated the but-kissing request and said that his underwhear shakes (in fear) ironicly.

After I showed him three wikipedia rules at User_talk:Afrika_paprika#Pagania; and he said that I was banned (when I wasn't, totally misunderstanding the issue), he resorted to a personal attack calling me totally derranged. After an administrator, User:DragonflySixtyseven, confirmed my theses that his actions are that of an internet troll and told him that he needs to at least modify his behaveour, he soundly refused. To the bottom, I repeated the Wikipedia policies (WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V), but he again appearently missed them, classifying my edits as vandalism - when in truth his were - not noticing that my edits are only a part of a content dispute. Even though User:Asterion noted and confirmed that he should refer to rules, he ignored him as well and again repeated how I was blocked. Here, at the noticeboard, he also repeated that I was blocked when I reported under "Pagania", despite me explaining the detailed situation to him every single time. What's more, he further continues an edit war on Duklja, Pagania, Zahumlje and Travunia; and openly refuses to discuss anything whatsoever(after being kindly invited on every single talk page of the the corresponding articles, including his talk page. It is hereby that I ask someone to interviene between us and check if my judgements aren't correct (I could be wrong). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally off-topic here, but I'm suspicious of how HRE has suddenly failed to spell properly again. – Chacor 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW [74] I believe it is him. — Moe Epsilon 16:25 September 16 '06

Its me alright - but why's it off-topic - this article was pointed when I asked where to file a record of the incident(s). --HolyRomanEmperor 16:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Musikfabrik

I have indefinitely blocked User:Musikfabrik for being a shared account as admitted here. The policy against such accounts may be found at Wikipedia:Blocking#"Public" accounts. I welcome a review of this block. Mak (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for bending the policy to accommodate obvious cases (anyone remember User:Hydnjo, who did his blind wife's typing?) -- but this is a clear case of one account being used by a company (Musik Fabrik = classicalmusicnow.com, publishers, promoters, etc.). As far as I understand it, we don't allow role accounts because of their potential abuse by these kinds of entities. The block looks ok to me. Antandrus (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though I'm not an admin, I thoroughly endorse the block - a PR account is bad enough, but a shared PR account is even worse. However, isn't that template ("This user has been blocked indefinitely blah blah blah") supposed to go on the User page and not the User Talk page? Captainktainer * Talk 19:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it make a difference? --pgk 19:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a tremendous amount... though I'd like to know for my own edification, even so. Captainktainer * Talk 20:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The original user has now created another account, purportedly under their own name (diff) User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau. This account has not been blocked as of this writing. Mak (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Extremly rude user.

Can someone please ban User:Askolnick? He has critisized me for every little thing I do. I asked him to assume good faith, and all I got was more of his argumentitive and overly-critical additude. What am I supposed to do if he won't listen to any of my justifications? He told me not to use Wikipedia policies to be incivil (according to him, if I say I was offended by a remark, it's incivil). I tried to cite sources as he asked, and he asked me if I have *actually* read the guideline. When I mentioned I read the back of a psysic's book he told me that there was no sourced and demanded me to retract my satment. I refuse to accept this. -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• This should go to WP:PAIN. Danny Lilithborne 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Read what the person wrote above. Maybe it shouldn't go to WP:PAIN. Sure seems like run of the mill bogosity to me. "I read it on the back of a psychic's book" in fact isn't a sourced reference, and "assume good faith" is a hollow phrase batted about by those who generally demonstrate bad practice. I'd be wary of seeming to endorse the complaint here. Geogre 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Skolnick is a good chap. Doesn't suffer fools gladly, though. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Block review

Xosa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was blocked by SlimVirgin as a sock of Zephram Stark. One comment here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive57#Sockpuppet block of User:Xosa.3F, but it seems to need further investigation since the user pleads innocence and has taken the discusison elsewhere as well. The major problem is that SV was in a content dispute with Xosa at the time. If this is a verifiable sock of ZS that should not matter, ZS being banned and all, but I'd appreciate more eyes. Guy 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not in a content dispute with Xosa. He posted some insults of another editor on the talk page of an article I was editing, but that had nothing to do with the sockpuppet diagnosis. I'd already spotted the pattern before he did that.

I asked Fred Bauder to review the block at the time, and he saw no reason to lift it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I see you are right. I was going by the statements of the Wikia user who posted on my Talk. Guy 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly who was that "Wikia user" anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I invited Xosa to e-mail me to discuss the block, but he still hasn't done so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't ZS always plead innocence? --pgk 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, convincingly and elaborately. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake block template posted by user 66.246.72.108

It seems that user 66.246.72.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) placed a bogus block message on Ryodox talk page: [75]

This user may also be a sock-puppet (of 69.167.100.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and/or DocFisherKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?), as his posting behaviour looks very suspicious: a bunch of edits every 6 months or so, but then those are very significant ones, such as the one on David Duke --Frescard 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the article be fully protected. There's an involved dispute going on over there, and it's all quite silly really (see my last message on it's talk page). I for one am not getting any more involved than that one message of mine. --Crimsone 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

They're both anons, one is from Parsippany NJ, the other from Redondo Beach CA; if he's an anon posting while visiting family, should we treat it as puppetry? Septentrionalis 00:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of -Inanna-...can someone help?

Please see KanuniSS (talk · contribs) and KreshnikD (talk · contribs). What gives Kanuni away is this edit, in addition to the fact that they talk almost the exact same way. Inanna recently even sent me an email full of weird threats, which is why I know she's active on Wikipedia right now. Kreshnik is obvious as well because she admitted that 85.107.214.53 was her former IP. Kachik has been blocked already. —Khoikhoi 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Semen article 3RR violation

in article semen anon user:65.30.152.217 has reverted or modified four times in the last 24 hours, and I anticipate shall again. The issue is that there is a lead image of a sample of semen that the anon user apparently find to be "pornographic". There has been an ongoing discussion on the talk page about the image, and getting a better picture. The anon user insists on unilateral changes without working with others on the talk page. Could an admin please warn/block the anon IP, and protect the page for awhile? Thanks, Atom 00:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to warn the anon, simply add {{3RR}} on their talk page. If they violate it report them at WP:AN/3RR. Also, this isn't really the place to resolve content disputes—we have dispute resolution for that. —Khoikhoi 01:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have put in a warning on their page, as well as used wp:AN/3RR, thanks. Atom 02:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Iditarod (race)

Somebody please protect this article, I don't have the paitence to deal with this anymore. Several IP addresses are adding very POV content, and I've just stopped caring. Desertsky85451 02:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for protection of articles should be listed at WP:RFPP. Sorry if I sound a bit bureaucratic. --physicq210 02:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie quotes

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I was directed here from the Help Desk. User:Haonhien seems to be in the process of writing an article for each of the memorable quotes of Casablanca (e.g. Play it once, Sam, Here's looking at you, kid), regurgitating part of the plot each time to pinpoint where the quote is uttered, but not really adding any new information. I love the movie, but this seems a bit excessive to me. I haven't contacted Haonhien yet because I wanted to know Wikipedia's stance first. Clarityfiend 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to shuffle you off to yet another place, but the proper place to decide this really is by listing them at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. An admin's descretion (which is all that could be reached here) would not be a good way to delete these articles. However, you should talk to the guy creating them first, really. The closest thing to a "Wikipedia stance" on these articles would be whether the individual quotes have been written about meaningfully by third party sources. But people might add more subjective criteria of "notability" to keeping or deleting them as well... this would all come out at AfD. --W.marsh 03:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Markles deliberately blanking references

User talk:Markles systematically strips links to library resources like JSTOR -- arguing that if he cannot access them then nobody should be allowed to access them. Many millions of Wiki users have free access through their academic or public libraries. Rjensen 03:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added an explanation on his talk page that such references are clearly allowed and shouldn't be removed. It appears that he has only done this a few times, and not at all since your/our messages. However, if he continues removing references, I would suggest a block eventually for disruption or some such, since it does hurt the quality of articles to remove the references. --W.marsh 03:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

While there's no problem with having the links, I suggest that you don't put the link over the title of the book but have it following the regular citation, and also mention that the link requires subscription, as is commonly done when linking to newspaper archives, for example. It's ok to have the links, but it should be mentioned that not everyone is able to access the entirity of the material. --bainer (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Incivility on Talk:Muhammad

quite recently there has been a constant stream of editors who are mistaking the talk page of Muhammad for a forum and their personal soapbox, while these comments are not conducive to improving the article at all. here are a sample of diffs (from within the last day or two, although there are other examples stretching back such as [76]), some of which are in the form of attacking "Muslim" editors as "religious zealots" "campaigning" to "hijack the wikipedia page in the name of Allah", others are as verbose denounciations/defences of Muhammad which i believe is a total misuse of what the talk page of an article is for: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86].

if an admin could step in and take some sort of action about this then i, as well as the rest of the editors who wish to work collegially on the article, would be very grateful. thank you! ITAQALLAH 06:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be actively trolling the talk page, and his own user talk page indicates a continuing history of problem behaviour. This user will need some watching, I think. -- ChrisO 14:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone willing to check Tharkuncoll´s contribution history would surely realise this user has got a very long history of inflamatory comments (refer to Falkland islands and English people for examples)--Asterion^talk 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas's offensive comments

Offensive comments and attacks made by User:MarkThomas at Talk:London#Largest city in EU. Some particularly offensive comments include:

• What we have here could be a long running emphatic anti-English and anti-London bias and POVery thinly dressed up as factual controversy, from French and other continentals with a chronic inferiority complex. ([87])
• London is at least 40% bigger than Paris. Not only that, but people have jobs there and actually go to work, as opposed to just rioting in the streets and screwing their secretaries. ([88])

Hardouin 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, who knew that Basil Fawlty was alive and well and editing Wikipedia. Anchoress 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's funny, but it's nonetheless offensive to other people and should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Would you allow the behavior of someone making fun of the Shoah on Wikipedia talk pages? Checking into MarkThomas's contributions history, I also found out that this user's scornful and offensive language is nothing new. He seems to particularly despise Paris, as these past edits show:

• In an message on March 3, 2006 ([89]), one can find, among other niceties: " I think the global cities page on Wikipedia is in error as actually cities like Montreal, Sydney and Mumbai all have a better claim to be world cities now than does poor isolated and declinining Paris."
• In a message on February 14, 2006 ([90]), he argues that French people are "obsessed" by the issue of whether London is larger than Paris (first time I hear about such French national obsession!), and he states that his personal research has undeniably proven that London is much larger than Paris.

Probably the most bizarre of all is this message which he left on February 15, 2006 ([91]) and in which he claims that the British government grossly underestimate the population of the UK. Says he: "I also decided the total popn of the UK at any one time is at least 70m not roughly 60 as given in official figures." Apparently, this is the result a major government conspiracy: "I think the UK Govt know about this but don't tell people as it would stir up claims of incompetence." Now that is really something, isn't it! Hardouin 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User conduct RfC

Probably someone is already aware of this, but just in case not, I urge admin monitoring to avoid a potential pile-on situation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alastor_Moody. User:Alastor Moody has apparently been making problematic contributions to hurricane-related articles for a number of months and has not responded well to warnings, so there appears to be ample basis for an RfC, although I haven't evaluated all the edits. However, as self-described on his user page, this user is 12 years old. I agree with the general rule that younger users join the fray and take their lumps with the rest of us, but in this situation we may want to make sure that this sound principle isn't taken too far. (Alastor Moody is not a real name, so that's not an issue.) Just a thought. Newyorkbrad 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Amrykid and User:BrainiacOutcast

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that this is an encyclopedia. These two users have about 900 edits between them, about 13 of them being to mainspace [92] [93]. All they really do here is dress up their userpages and have conversations on each other's talk pages. Since I removed fair use images from Amrykid's userpage a short while ago, I've had the pleasure of eavesdropping on such fascinating conversations. You are smell like a but head, deven moves tommarow and you have to teach him to be a ninja(naruto), im going to the ymca today, There's a B-day party. Meet me outside when you come on Sat, Are you coming today, When are you coming to the YMCA? maybe tuesday. WP:NOT a social networking site and all that. I dunno what action (if anything) anyone wants to take. -- Steel 17:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I placed a civil, helpful warning-esque message on both of their talk pages. Srose (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Senordigndong

Please see the attack under You are a bloody moron. It's not nice, it was obviously in the heat of the moment, but it seems not to be regretted. Would someone be kind enough to pop over to the user who vented his spleen and drop him a hint about community scrutiny, please? Fiddle Faddle 17:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CFIF removiong content from WTSP news team and WTVT news team

CFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Keeps removing biographic content from WTSP news team and WTVT news team. Borox 19:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Borox,

I looked through the history of WTSP news team, and it appears you have violated Wikipedia's policy on 3RR. You reverted to your version four times. We have talk pages for discussion of these issues. I'm also going to post this to your talk page.

Firsfron of Ronchester 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You've broken WP:3RR on the other page, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this BenH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again? Guy 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling seems too good, but it could very well be. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling is far too good. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Is BenH different than Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, BenH was mainly known for stubbing every TV station article he came across with a variety of stubtypes along with adding unverified information and nonsensical infomation. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

BenH also never left messages for other users, in fact, seemed incapable of doing so. Aside from the current 3RR violation, do we have any evidence of other problems from this user? If not, it's a simple content dispute, which can be settled with a civil talk on a talk page (pick one). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets indef User:Edipedia

Currently blocked for 2 weeks (block has been restarted twice), this user is rampantly creating socks over the last few weeks. For such blatant abuse, why don't we just make this indefinite.--Konstable 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Note left. I'd like to see what Edipedia has to say for themself. Guy 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Article has disappeared

I'm not sure whether this is the right page to ask this but what happened to the article about Paul Tillich? I can't find it anymore. Is it only me who can't find it or has it been deleted? One thing is sure: It has not been moved.84.167.129.82 21:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems there to me. Try a forced refresh (CTRL-F5 in Internet Explorer, not sure about Firefox or other browsers). Also try purge. Hope that helps. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast answer. Interesting though. I could find every article except this one for a long time though I tried many times.84.167.129.82 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, strange things happen occasionally. Like this. That was a funny one. =) --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

lol... yes, indeed...84.167.129.82 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Main Page disappeared yesterday as well. It was great fun for all. Hyenaste ^(tell) 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My favourite Main Page edit is this: [94]. Many thanks to AmiDaniel for the laughs while testing a new vandalism tool. Bugs rock, sometimes. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical): there are multiple similar reports today. Sandy 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This has happened to me with three different articles today. The page is rendered as if it is a non-existent article, but when you click edit, the wiki code and edit history is there. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment by Ritchy (talk · contribs)

comign from this conversation Talk:Inconsistencies_in_the_Star_Trek_canon#non-corporals. I previously encountered Ritchy months ago when this article was deleted under another name. I contested it consisted of OR, after a length AfD it was removed. I told one of the other people involved I wouldn't oppose its recreation with some minor changes and as long as it didn't have any OR in it. After this article was created under its current incarnation, I was invited by that individual to this article to give my opinion to ensure there was no OR, etc. As apparent from my first comment:

• Magickpickle stopped by and asked me to comment on any OR so we could stay on top of it rather than find the article at another point where it just requires removal.

I made some comments on what I felt consitituted OR as requested. Another user agreed with one of the things I thought was OR and removed it. It spawned the discussion above, where Ritchy falsely accused me of stalking him. [95]

I pointed out that I'd been invited to this article by another user to give my opinion and didn't feel his interpretation of canon was necessarily correct and there were many possibilities for what occured.

• his response was this incivility [96].

I left a civil2 template on his userpage for it, the attempts to own the page, spout profanity and general insults after myself and another user already asked him to calm down warranted that. As far as I was concerned.

• He then continued with some false accusations on my talk page, accusing me of incivility, [97] claiming I was incivil to him months ago on the AfD for the original article, I actually received a barnstar from another editor for remaining extremely cool on that AfD even though I was the brunt of several personal attacks and hostility for even suggesting the article might not belong here. --Crossmr 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New Pnatt sock

• Cranborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - same edit style of community banned user who continually socks in order to avoid ban. Please block indef. Thanks. ju66l3r 23:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done, and I'm going to file a request for checkuser to see if they can block his IP address/range. This is ridiculous. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the suspected sockpuppet category for him should be pretty accurate. ju66l3r 23:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

great waste of time (Afd nominations not based on WP)

Spooky walk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spooky walk - EXCERPT Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It is realted to the various other AfD and CfD nominations for trivial items by the same author/major contribitor. It isn't even important whether this thing exists, or whether you can find it in google. It's as notable as a leather belt, which is fortunatley absent. Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User initiated similar deletion nominations. I consider it a waste of time. This argumentation style is not far from trolling and disrupting. Someone tell this user to stop it. User:Yy-bo 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You might think its a waste of time. However, some of the AfDs the person you are worried about initiates get a mixed reaction. You are probably best served by just participating in the AfDs and improving the articles. The Land 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering if everyone can use this argumentation style. It is not really important if the thing exists, it is important if i like it, and it is similar to a yellow sofa. Where is the button to speedy delete a user? REDO FROM START, TRY AGAIN. User:Yy-bo 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am always content if a nomination for deletion fails or if it succeeds because the community reaches a consensus in either case. However, I am confused and perplexed by Yy-bo's creation of articles by the bucketload, many of which are, to my eyes, not useful or notable topics, and really think the comment in the edit history on creation of yet another, here may show a misunderstanding of the ethos of Wikipedia. I think it is time for an experienced admin to make a judgement over this. Please also see my request for advice over this on my talk page and the response. - Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The volume of your elaboration is too much. Suggest you maintain articles and leave my work as it is. A request for comment is not required, if you do not want it. Save the community time, i do not talk about you except the offical procedures. [User:Yy-bo]] 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yy-bo's user page points to the user page of Nikemoto2511 on Wikisource, which links to a "closed" account Akidd dublin here on Wikipedia. Both Yy-bo & Akidd dublin demonstrate a similarly poor command of English, & appear to edit the same kind of articles (e.g., Baking oven, which has been since moved to Oven, & Red hair). Akidd dublin was a participant in a Mediation Cabal case. In short, this user has been around Wikipedia to be expected to know how it works -- yet still demonstrates he still doesn't know, perhaps due to the language barrier. -- llywrch 20:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User Yy-bo saw fit to remove the above, claiming it was a "flame". I don't see what is enflamatory about the comment -- unless he resents my judgement that he has trouble with the English language. I am a disinterested observer (at the moment), & was merely offering a context for this user's actions. I suggest that if he disagrees with what someone writes that he defend or explain himself in a response. If another Admin agrees with Yy-bo's interpretation, I'll concede to that person's removal; but it is clear that this user either doesn't understand how to behave on Wikipedia, or he is being disruptive. -- llywrch 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yy-bo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been harassing Fiddle Faddle about his clearly reasonable nominations of articles to AfD and related comments, which has caused this good-faith editor some consternation. Yy-bo's behavior is inappropriate. —Centrx→talk • 20:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Having run into Yy-bo before via AfD rationales and his talk page, I feel that he is a well-intentioned editor but occasionally a misunderstanding (by him or another) due to poor receptive and/or expressive English skills becomes a tour de force of policy quoting and chest-thumping from one or the other side, or both. I don't intend to turn this discussion into an RfC on Yy-bo or anything, but I have seen him contribute some good edits/material and also get tenacious with what he thinks is an abrogation of policy (even if that's not the case). ju66l3r 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no argument with that assessment. He has huge energy and creativity. I just wish he would channel it into the excellence he is capable of. However I feel threatened by his attitude, and really would like someone to guide his hand. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User Timtrent, masking it with Fiddle Faddle, this is annoying on its own. This user gets pretty much personal and is better off to stop it right now. The oven article is only edited technically. The information is not intend to be personal. Reference: WP:NPOV, no personal attacks. User:Yy-bo 19:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is an acronym for "Neutral Point of View". I think you mean WP:NPA -- "No personal attacks". However, that guideline refers to name calling & insults; I see none of those in what either Ju6613r or Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent has written. -- llywrch 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not dream of calling people here names or insulting them. Where the typed word has caused any misunderstanding I am always careful to apologise for any offence given unwittingly. Apart from anything else, lack of civility is counter productive and always causes resentment. We're striving for a better "product" here, not a set of disputes. 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This comment was written by Fiddle Faddle, who apparently miscounted how many tildes he typed at the end of his comment

I blame biscuit crumbs under the ~ key. I guess I got more or fewer than 4! Tks muchly. Fiddle Faddle 08:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This report is only about an unarguable Afd argumentation

The quotations about language usage do not belong into this report. I list the EXCERPT again:

Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It is realted to the various other AfD and CfD nominations for trivial items by the same author/major contribitor. It isn't even important whether this thing exists, or whether you can find it in google. It's as notable as a leather belt, which is fortunatley absent. Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way this Afd was about an independent Article Spooky walk, which user Yy-bo is not the author of. User:Yy-bo 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More of User Timtrent: The concept of a "Haunted Yard" is simply not a topic, disambiguation page or not, that belongs in any encyclopaedia I have ever come across. Yes, search for it in Google and there are hits, of course there are, but you also get hits for "Yellow Sofa", which we do not have an article on. In other words, Ghits notwithstanding, it is really trivial and deserves to go (Haunted yard). He used it for Halloween yard, in mistake, maybe a hurry. I stroked out his completely wrong argumentation, to save it from being embarassing. User:Yy-bo 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeating yourself won't do anything, nor will making another account. Your assertions have been refuted and your claims deemed meritless. Fiddle Faddle nominated the article for valid reasons. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet, User:YBO. —Centrx→talk • 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the user about his behavior, see [98]. Hopefully, this behavior will end, but if it continues, it will likely warrant blocking of various sorts. —Centrx→talk • 04:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm conflicted over which would be the more productive response to this user: blocking accounts, or pointing out that his command of the English language is so poor (e.g., "an unarguable Afd argumentation", "I stroked out his completely wrong argumentation") that some of us find it hard not to laugh at what he writes.

Okay, that might be overstating the issue: I find it hard not to laugh at what he writes. Other people may not be amused by how he mangles the English language.

If the user behind YBO & related accounts can improve his command of the English language to the point we are confident about understanding what he is attempting to tell us, I for one am willing to reconsider the blocks placed on him. If he doesn't recognize this weakness -- or returns under another username & continues to annoy various editors -- I will start adding his posts to WP:BJAODN & related pages. (I'm unaware that WP:BJAODN has ever been used as a penalty, but there's always a first time.) This is my formal warning notice, friend. -- llywrch 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Would mentoring be a practical solution? I would hate to lose the enthusiasm he has. Fiddle Faddle 07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESL? —Centrx→talk • 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Scuse me? Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Centrix has confused WP:ESL with "English as a Second Language" when it stands for "Edit summary Legend". Or perhaps he is making a sly allusion to YBO's confusion over Wikipedia terminology. While I wouldn't object to someone attempting to mentoring him, the primary problem is that of communciating with him. I have read a number of his posts, & beyond some vague impressions (e.g., he is upset about another Wikipedian nominating articles for AfD, he asserts that written policy permits him to do something similar to what he is doing) I honestly have no idea what he is talking about. I agree that he is enthusiastic, & I so no reason to doubt that he sincerely wants to help improve Wikipedia, but until his English improves markedly, he helps Wikipedia by remaining a reader. To paraphrase Centrix's comment, Wikipedia is not an ESL class. -- llywrch 19:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I love the irony of your ESL vs ESL thoughts :) It would take a determined and patient mentor. Many have tried to communicate and many, perhaps all, have failed. Akidd dublin was his declared prior id, and he has similar issues there. I just feel as though we have somehow failed him. I know we don't have a duty towards him, rather he has towards "the greater us" of Wikipedia, but that does not prevent my wishing it could be different. Fiddle Faddle 21:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitsos

It's been brought to my attention that this self-proclaimed White nationalist has been editing disruptively on Pontian Greek Genocide. For example, I note his comment that "...it's a historical fact. The Pontian Genocide did happen and [you]'ll better admit it" (bold in the original), which far from advances civil discourse. I left the user a warning on their talk page, but I would appreciate anyone else looking into the matter. El_C 08:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a self-proclaimed white nationalist isn't in and of itself an offense (as offensive as it is), but judge solely on the nature of their edits. I have no opinion on this user's edits, if they are disruptive, then block him for that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm on my own. El_C 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that Mitsos be tutored a bit on how to handle the problems. He seems to think that there is no reason to dispute the article. I would suggest to him to wait a bit, watch to see the EXACT problems that make the article disputed and then challenge him to find reputable sources to fix the disputes. That way wikipedia will be better for everyone. I absolutely do not believe his white supremacy feelings should enter into the issue at all. He is entitled to his feelings. --Blue Tie 02:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

His opponents argue that the views expressed by the sources he does bring far from represent historiographical consensus. El_C 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sensitive to such things. I think that there are many such problems with wikipedia POV warriors. I have commented on it elsewhere. As far as I see it, there are two areas of concern: History and (relatively) current events. With current events, it is sometimes harder to find balance because not enough time has passed for the balanced views to be available. But with an historical event, enough time is there. If the next action you are contemplating is a block of sorts, I suggest a different path. Instead, Mitsos should be asked to read and explain the concepts in the relevant sections of WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding such things and discuss his goals to resolve disputes amicably. I do not know him and I am not a participant in the discussion. I dont really care about it. But I would like to see him tutored before being punished. But I may not know what I am talking about. He may be impossible. --Blue Tie 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you volunteering yourself as a mentor? El_C 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not really my intent. I saw you say "I guess I'm on my own" and I felt like it would be helpful to you to have another insight. I am concerned that I may not have much time in the next 5 days. But if I do and if I can be of use, I am willing to try. I have to admit though that I am not sure I would be any good at it. In particular, I already have a slight judgment that indeed Mitsos has been disruptive. But I am supposing that he / she needs some help in wiki-ettiquette. Sometimes it is also very difficult to "know" something is true and then to have to prove it by the hard job of research. If you think I might be ok at working this out, I will make an effort. --Blue Tie 04:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 08:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User: J.R. Hercules

He has taken away warnings by me and user:Chacor. After that Glen_S (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) also put a warning on his talkpage saying for him to stop. He then responded on Glen's talkpage. See User:Glen_S#Your_edits_and_threats_on_my_pageUser_talk:J.R._Hercules and Special:Contributions/J.R._Hercules. Hello32020 15:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See also. – Chacor 15:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He had previously deleted my {{npa2}}, along with a whole bunch of other notices by other people, that I did not revert because I was still hoping that he would have a decent discussion. He has now told me "Do Not Edit Other's Discussion Pages"--Konstable 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See also, as well. – Chacor 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

leaked confidential information on TUS Project

I've been told by 68.100.88.213 (talk · contribs), Sukecchi (talk · contribs), and Megaman3 (talk · contribs) that the TUS Project article contains illegally obtained information. How should this issue be dealt with? Thanks. --Ixfd64 19:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For starters, anything that can't be verifiably sourced, which looks like most of it, should be removed. Dragons flight 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What Dragon Flight said. If they have any specific issues that they think revolve around serious legal issues they should probably discuss it with WP:OTRS or the more legal savy admins. Possibly difs may need to be deleted. JoshuaZ 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've stripped down the page and semi-protected it to prevent the anons from reposting the disputed content for now. Dragons flight 20:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ther are minor problems here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TUS project.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TUS Project

The AFD notice was removed by an anon, and never replaced. Ryūlóng 06:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Cliesthenes edits to WP:MOSBIO and other articles

Cliesthenes has been editing the WP:MOSBIO guideline (and getting into some revert wars with other editors on it) and then using the edited guideline as justification for her edits on WP:BLP articles like Lance Bass, Anne Heche, Esera Tuaolo, César Chávez among others. A variety of editors have disagreed with some of these edits for other policy reasons. I am concerned about this action of changing a policy and then using those changes to disregard other editor's concerns--especially considering the delicate nature of WP:BLP in general. I appreciate your time and attention in this matter. Agne 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, anon user:67.162.212.254 appears to be working in tandem with Cliesthenes on WP:MOSBIO as well as on various articles. Agne 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Another note, new user Polmalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s first two edits are to WP:MOSBIO and its talk page, third and fourth edit are vandalism. Also appears to be the anon user Agne is complaining about, based on edit after I reverted Polmalo's vandalism of RMS Titanic.Danny Lilithborne 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Using one's own edits to a guideline as a bludgeon is extremely poor form. [99] [100]

[101] [102] [103]. Furthermore, before this cliesthenes removed warnings from his/her talk page, and had it reverted. This would be fairly normal, except for the fact that he/she went and put back a 'conclusion' onto Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings[104] that removing warnings was a good thing. (Also to self-endorse actions) I don't know if the message I left for him/her is good enough to encourage consensus rather than changing guidelines and/or policies and then using them for self-support. Kevin_b_er 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User: Danny Lilithborne

I have been a user less than a few hours. I have made a half dozen edits, and this user has taken it uponhimself to unnecessarily reverse all of my edits. It was my understanding all of the edits were valid: enforcement of POV policy, deleting unnecessary "sic" term, removing clause that was not cited. All of my edits were made in good faith. Instead of even a polite mention of how they were edited, he gave me seperate warnings without basis that are absolutely absurd.

I do not know what actions the admins can take, but at least, I would like a warning given to him. I did not think I did anything wrong. Due to this, I will be deleting the warnings placed on my user page as I believe them to be made in bad faith, adn to be untrue. Thank you. I wouldn't do this if the user wasn't acting irrationally.Polmalo 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to admins. Before taking action on this please contact me on my user talk page. I believe that the anon, now Polmalo, may have a history of edits that suggest another explanation of the issue. --Blue Tie 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• First, for reference, see [105]; this editor recently started posting as Polmalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and his/her first two changes were to the talkpage and main page of WP:MOSBIO, which is immediately suspicious. Checking the history of the user, I found two changes deleting content from Dachshund and RMS Titanic which rendered the sentences he/she deleted from nonsensical. I left a {{test2del}} notice on Polmalo's talk, and got a response from the anonymous user, who immediately accused me of stalking. The claim is nonsense. Checking the contribution history of suspected sockpuppets is normal behavior. Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note that this user deleted my update of said incident report where I showed that Polmalo and the anonymous user were the same person. Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a case of complex use of AOL anon IP addresses, multiple user names and other anon IP addresses, along with a history of harrassment and edit warring. I believe this is a matter that bears watching. --Blue Tie 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a RFCU might be appropriate here, just in case. --Coredesat talk! 01:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The IP in question will be 67.162.212.254 - see User talk:Danny Lilithborne#Polmalo. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disquietude

I suspect this user of being a sock puppet of Thewolfstar. I'd like a few other opinions on the matter. It's early, but I've dealt with this user so often that it has become obvious to me. --AaronS 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it easier for people to judge:

• Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Disquietude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be better to compare disquietude to maggie's more recent confirmed socks, two of which (lingeron and whiskey) spent a lot of time on the anarchism page.

• Lingeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KingWen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OceanDepths (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Whiskey Rebellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hopefully that helps. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As the original indef-blocker and primary hate object of Thewolfstar, I consider myself highly attuned to her voice and mannerisms. I'd say Disquietude is unmistakably her. For indications on other levels than "voice", I only have to read Disquietude's very latest edits to see her spamming Anarchism editors[106] with the suggestions that Lingeron's old friend, the somewhat notorious MSTCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), should be asked to "oversee" Anarchism (a wonderful idea). Note also that Disquietude appeared at Talk:Anarchism shortly (three days) after the unusually long-running and trouble-making wolfster sock active there, Whiskey Rebellion, was outed and blocked. Incidentally, I know the user knows about open proxies, but in herself, she has a stable unique IP. I hope that's been given a good long block? Bishonen | talk 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Oh, I forgot to mention, I too think this is probably thewolfstar. Especially based on their most recent posts saying anarcho-communism is an oxymoron--typical wolfstar. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, Aaron. I've requested a CheckUser, though I suspect the checkusers are getting bored with the wolfster sock-oh-rama... maybe next time is the time to start blocking all suspects at Anarchism on sight. It's always a little unnerving, I know, as the wolfster in any incarnation is always vastly indignant and "innocent" about it (even with CheckUser evidence...) Bishonen | talk 15:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

No problem. Also, I think that blocking the unique IP might be a good idea, too. --AaronS 20:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It took way to long to get rid of Whiskey Rebellion, even when it was pretty clear who it was. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser verdict: Likely, strong IP evidence. And of course there was already strong content and context likelihood. Bunchofgrapes has blocked the sock, and I have asked CheckUser, who will presumably not divulge the IP, to block it themselves. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

User:Bailrigg and counties

User:Bailrigg a new account, has made various edits pushing a traditionalist POV on various English place name articles. Bailrigg has been pointed by several people at the naming conventions and in their reply to my comment really doesn't tally with what it says. (Briefly the problem here is a handful of traditionalists, wish to use a different geographical system in the the United Kingdom than the ones people actually use. They tend to be very polemical. People generally just smile and ignore them in real life, but you can't do that on a wiki).

Since this can be construed as a content dispute, I'm putting it here rather than blocking immediately myself. It should be noted that this user has made constructive edits (bar perhaps a few spelling corrections), only these dispruptive edits. The user did make a few constructive edits in the last few months, but since yesterday or so everything has been disruptive county stuff. Morwen - Talk 06:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples of disruptive edits ->

• [107] - putting the historic "Lancashire" before the modern information, Sefton, Merseyside
• [108] here he blindly reverts, removing information about Hyde municipal borough I'd added as a compromise, in his quest to push his view of geography
• [109] this is a particularly unacceptable revert, which removed several unoffensive paragraphs of prose i'd written regarding Rutland.

([110] here he reverts me on Mossley for no reason that I can see, but reinserts a copyvio I had removed with the edit summary 'rm copyvio text'.

Morwen - Talk 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Faust (talk · contribs) removing warnings from his talk page

I've recently had a run-in with Doctor Faust (talk · contribs), an unusually sensitive user. After a series of other editors (including myself) disagreed with him on the addition of neologistic definition into Genetic Code, he began to send me a series of uncivil emails and make a series of very impolite posts to his own talk page and to the Genetic code talk page listed above. All that is par for the Wikipedia course. However, he has been slowly and suspiciously removing the more obviously warnings and incivilities page from his talk page, one edit at a time, over the past week. Because of our recent history, if I pointed out to him that this is frowned upon, the result would not be productive. Would somebody else mind taking a look and seeing if they could convince him? Many thanks. – ClockworkSoul 14:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stromness Image

Referring to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:StromnessJM.jpg

Somebody else was at my pc and mistook the "rev" link for revision, not for revert. So there's three reversions of this image, while none was intended. Please delete the reversions. Thanks in advance!

Which led me to Stromness where there was no mention of Peter Maxwell-Davies' Farewell to Stromness. Every cloud.... Guy 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Block review

Some time ago I b locked SoftComplete (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for spamming and vandalism. I have received the following email:

Please unblock me. Now I've logged in on behalf on my company StrongBit Technology. I'd like to edit 'code morphing' page because we have done a hard and long research work on this subject. I would like to ask you to allow to post there the link to strongbit.com web site - EXECryptor home. EXECryptor is a software protection tool based on code morphing. I know you don't allow external links but there are many of them on all wikipedia and I find we have the right to post link to our researches "child". I already told you other protectors have Product overview smelling like an advertisement on Wikipedia as articles.

That looks to me like he wants to go right back to spamming. See also EXECryptor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXECryptor, plus the single purpose account BillyColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So for now I have not unblocked. Review welcomed. Guy 14:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"I find we have the right..." - well, that's convinced me. I'm semi-sympathetic to people adding links to their own websites if they are also doing major improvement on the article and the website is relevant according to our external links policy. That doesn't seem to be the intention here, at all. --ajn (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rude Editor

You so some jerk keeps messin up Northwestern Lehigh School DIstrict. can ya block him? Tiger Talk 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"(motherfuck leave it alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)" was your comment to him when he reverted "the best district yet" from the Northwestern Lehigh School District article. You seem to have been a bit of a Rude Editor yourself! --Guinnog 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This rather rude editor/vandal has since been blocked. HP 50g 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

What is this recent fetish with "verifiability" and having footnotes in every article these days? Not even the most minor article will be spared tagging with "unreferenced" if you dont provide any. When I started editing Wikipedia (on another account, I forgot the name) nobody gave a thought about footnotes and sources. Did something change?Pewlosels 04:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In response, to cite the official policy..."The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." I see the calls for verifiability as based on this policy and the underlying call for quality edits. Kukini 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks. But that policy has been part of Wikipedia as long as I can remember (pre 2005) and last year nobody really made too much a fuss over it, except on high-profile articles. Now people cite WP:V ad nauseam even in regard to obscure ones. So my question is, why the shift?Pewlosels 05:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot more people are editing Wikipedia now, and many are trying to insert uncited garbage. The obvious response is to tighten down the standards. Fan-1967 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A great example of the type of article where this can become a REAL issue is here [111]. Kukini 05:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• But in doing this aren't you kind of scaring off the "newbies," i.e., engaging in "newbie biting," with those new user's euphoria in making edits to Wikipedia tempered by constant assertions of WP:V? It might be seen as demeaning to their new contributions, especially if their proud first few edits, even if of quality, are derided for being "unsourced."Pewlosels 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I see it as a learning process for us all, but especially for new editors to wikipedia. I actually experienced something like this when I began as well. This is why I also believe in leaving detailed welcomes for newcomers to help them learn how to edit effectively within the community. Kukini 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thus spoke Jimbo Wales (paraphrasing): "we have high quantity, now let's focus on quality." —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-18 07:28Z

See WP:DC. It's more important to have 1,000,000 Good Articles than to have 1,000,000 unreferenced stub articles.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 07:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who does OTRS will tell you, we have a fair number of valid complaints from subjects of bios about libels and false information being inserted into articles. It is imperative that WP:V be enforced ruthlessly and with full rigour on such articles. Frankly, better to risk a biting a newbie than risk actionable defamation in our encyclopedia. --Doc 09:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's much more important to make sure that articles on a very popular encyclopedia website have verifiable content than it is to make sure a newbie doesn't get his/her feelings hurt.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 09:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

These things are not mutually exclusive. Newbies, which everyone was once, learn fastest when educated. Part of that education is being asked for citations. It comes down to being not just civil, but being useful with comments on talk pages. "Teach a man to fish...." Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to diferentiate between the clueless newbie making good but unsourced contributions and the POV driven slanderer. Basically, to protect the subject, I'm arguing for a hard line WP:V on bios - as WP:LIVING indicates, it it is negative and uncited, remove it. Outside biographical info, I'm happy to be a bit of an soft-line eventualist - removing probably true things because there is no cite, makes zero sense.--Doc 10:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is evolving into a reliable encyclopedia better than Britannica. Verifiability is part of how we get there. That said, don't delete things you know are true, but don't restore (without an adequate source) inadequately sourced content another has deleted because they do question if it is true. Tell newbies unsourced stuff will eventually be sourced or deleted, but this is a coorperative venture and different people are good at different things so its ok to add stuff that someone else will either source or delete just as it is ok to add some data to an article without having to be responsible for making it perfect. WAS 4.250 10:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is a key policy, and should remain so. On the other hand, new users are an important resource -- the problem is less about whether we should implement the policy, but more about how we do so. Are we scaring off new users and helpful contributors? How would this affect our public image? Is it a problem? How can we do better? That's more the angle I'm looking at. Luna Santin 10:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a social networking site - we are not out to recruit as many users as possible as Myspace is. Recruiting and retaining users is merely a means to an end, that being writing the encyclopaedia. Writing articles to the standard that is becoming less of a misty-eyed dream and more of a requirement takes some effort - I wouldn't say it's hard, but the fact that everyone can write something here does not mean that everyone should. If we scare off people because they can't or won't write encyclopaedia articles that comply with the cornerstone policies, well, that's not really a significant loss, though it may slow down the proliferation of fancruft. "Quality, not quantity" does not just apply to our articles - it also applies to our users. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, Wikipedia is becoming no longer the online encyclopedia "anyone can edit" -- which makes it fun. Its more like the encyclopedia "anyone can edit, with footnotes and sources," which really makes working on Wikipedia more like working on a school term paper. Therefore, more tedious, less fun, and less likely to attract new contributors. Pewlosels 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

While I don't want to sound like a PE teacher from the 1950s, it's not exactly meant to be fun; though personally, I find writing sourced encyclopaedia articles interesting and rewarding. I can think of three important differences between this and homework; a) I can choose what I write about; b) what I write can be seen by anyone interested in the subject with an Internet connection, not just by the long-suffering teacher being paid to and c) whoever reads it hasn't just read the same thing from the 19 other bored kids in my class.

The fact is, not everyone will want to spend their time writing an encyclopaedia. The best we can do is create a community that allows those that do to get on with it and makes them feel appreciated when they succeed; if we tried to make it "fun" we'd probably either fail badly or turn Wikipedia into something it's not meant to be. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Without sources, it ceases being an encyclopedia and becomes a pile of crap. If you want to edit a pile of crap, EncyclopediaDramatica is available. But this is Wikipedia. If newbies are being bitten, then bitten they must be. This project exists for the work, not the poor newbies who don't get to write about their pet cat. --Golbez 04:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is a very good policy to have when the accuracy of information is disputed or when it is about a living person and thus needs to be referenced... but I do think we go too far when people start putting 'cite' tags on every fact of which they were personally unaware - or even those they have heard of but don't have a reference for. Yes, eventually it would be wonderful to have direct easily verifiable references for every single fact stated in Wikipedia (though I note that Brittanica and the like go nowhere near that far), but insisting on such when there is no pressing need goes against what made Wikipedia such a major site. If we deleted everything which isn't properly referenced 90% of the encyclopedia would be gone and we wouldn't be so very popular. The vast majority of Wikipedia was and is written by those newbies who 'must' be bitten. As others have said above, we should use verifiability as a cudgel when it is needed to settle a dispute about accuracy or to avoid libelous comments, but the rest of the time we should just have faith that we will get there eventually. That's the root concept of wiki collaboration. We don't delete completely unreferenced three sentence stubs because eventually they can, and do, grow into perfectly sourced featured articles. Removing valid information during the 'transition' just annoys the people working on it and slows the process. --CBD 11:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. I think the WP:V is being used as a weapon to harrass and annoy other editors, like for example when someone slaps an {{unsourced}} tag on the line "the sky on earth is blue," or some such! Pewlosels 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In some areas, it's brutal. Try editing any article related to Israel/Palestine/Jewish issues. There, even footnotes aren't enough. If the info isn't pro-Israel, editors are held to a very high standard. Otherwise, expect a tag-team revert. Read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid for a picture of how this works in practice. It's a group WP:OWN thing. This intimidates many editors.

It's tough to deal with a group WP:OWN problem. We have 3RR to deal with individuals trying to exert ownership, but we don't have a mechanism or policy in place to deal with teams. So we end up in messy arbitration proceedings, which wear down everyone not seriously committed to the issue. This leads to articles edited only by the most determined editors, who, inevitably, are the most partisan ones. --John Nagle 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"We have 3RR to deal with individuals trying to exert ownership, but we don't have a mechanism or policy in place to deal with teams." Yes. But this is precisely how consensus makes itself effective in practice. Do you have a solution that isn't worse than the problem? I don't. WAS 4.250 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

John is one of those partisans who is part of the problem. For example, he will delete properly sourced and verifiable quotes because he believes the TRUTH to be something else. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does any Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy text forbid removing a properly sourced and verifiable quote that is unfairly biased against what reasonable people know to be true? --Rednblu 23:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mention names, but now I suppose I have to. Some of the usual suspects, those admonished in a recent arbitration, keep popping up in this context. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Administrators_admonished: "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." The commentary at Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Gable quote illustrates how they operate. Now that's group WP:OWN. It's not "consensus", it's just a small group with enough people that they can collectively get around 3RR. There's a messy RfA in progress over that article, which I wasn't aware of until today, having been off doing other things. --John Nagle 23:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid names if we can. There are a lot of unexpendable editors here. But there are undesirable patterns, yes. What fixes to Wikipedia policy would get the work done without us having to organize these undesirable patterns to create and protect good encyclopedia pages? --Rednblu 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this discussion is getting pretty long. Shouldn't it be moved from here to WP:V's talk page?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Stick to the Facts and Stormfront (website) (1st comment)

Stick has been involved in a content dispute over an article on the Stormfront website-- a white-supremacist forum. I got involved by responding to an RFC on the subject. The content-issues on that page can be resolved through the usual dispute resolution process, but more important are some of the behavior issues that have arisen out of the content dispute.

Stick supports the inclusion of a specific paragraph. As it stands right now, four editors oppose the inclusion of the dispute paragraph on the grounds that it may be consistent with NOR / NPOV. Stick has repeatedly inserted the disputed text. Yesterday, some other editors reported him for 3RR violation, resulting in him getting a 24 hr block . Today, he has again repeatedly re-inserted the same paragraph into the text, again violating 3RR. [112] [113] [114] [115].

His other behaviors have been even more disruptive. Because it was alleged that the disputed paragraph was Original Research / Unverified, Stick then deleted various non-controversial, easily-verifiable facts from the article on the grounds that they were un-cited. [116] No prior warning was given for these deletions, no request for citations was made prior to the deletions, and the citations were immmensely easy to find with just a single google search. In short, the deletions seems to just have been a "if you delete my stuff, I'll delete random things from the article in retribution"

For deleting his paragraph, Stick has repeatedly accused others of Vandalism, and indeed reported me to AIV. Similarly, he tried to report me for 3RR violation. Both reports were unfounded and they resulted in no action.

As of this moment, I've warned him that he's in violation of 3RR, and asked for a self-revert, which has not occurred. But I don't just want to report this to 3RR, get another 24 hour block, and be right back here tommorrow.

So, what can be done to help him be more productive in this situation? I sincerely don't just want him blocked-- I just need help in helping him understand why his actions might not be appropriate. But since I'm now a party in a content dispute with him, I don't seem to be able to be a very effective communicator in this situation.

I also should point out that his feelings are very valid. The article is about a racist, white-supremacist, neo-nazi website. I find myself in the uneviable position of removing criticism of that site from the article, and Stick very legitimately feels that racism and white supremacy needs some criticism. So, certainly, if there's ANY subject that someone can be forgiven for getting a little over-zealous about, this subject is it.

So, anyone who can help him to understand the behavior policies and comply with them, please do so. He won't listen to me-- he probably thinks I'm a Nazi, and I doubt I would listen to someone _I_ thought was a Nazi either! :)

--Alecmconroy 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Stick to the Facts and Stormfront (website)

As for the poor state of the entry itself, once again, I am/was on my (admin) own [Hi, Zoe!]. I'm sure everyone will be pleased to learn that I approached the situation in an extremely heavyhanded and despotic manner. ^{[117] [118] [119] [120]} El_C 09:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr. Conrad

The behaviour by Mr. Conrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ridiculous; I hereby propose a community ban on this account. Yamaguchi先生 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be eligible for an indef block as a vandalism-only account. Already taken care of at AIV. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Question, why was this account only banned for two weeks rather than indefinitely? Yamaguchi先生 21:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand that part either. I checked out quite a large sample, and there were seriously no contributions to the encyclopedia among them. Just messes for other people to clean up. I've blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only accouont. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Possibly slanderous allegations.

I just checked out Cademuir International School, which seems to be nothing mut a hoax with alot of equally suspiscious allegations of malice in it. In particular it states that the school was closed (It seems to still be running), that the offical inspectors highlighted "serious concerns" (Checking through HMIE's reports, they make note of things like improper security or lax maintenence, nothing near what the articel suggests), and that there's been ongoing sexual abuse (I couldn't find anything from, say, the BBC about that, and HMIE would DEFINATELY mention that in a report of theirs). Further ir mentions the principal and directly connects him to all of this (I've checked their site, the name is real). I don't know how potentially believeable this is, but it looked suspiscious to me. 68.39.174.238 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This page has been restubbed and added to my watchlist. Yamaguchi先生 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I found evidence of criticism from HMIE and added it, sourced, along with a nicer story from the BBC about their Higher results for balance. --Guinnog 01:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure if the past history should be deleted, hence this post here. 68.39.174.238 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Marean's categories

Chuck Marean (talk · contribs), a user who in the past has shown a less-than-stellar grasp of policy and procedures (his talk page history/archives is a mess, but there's a lot in there), has now started to create numerous categories that begin with the symbol "!", apparently so they show up at the top of the category list (see his explanation here [121]). As a special addition, he's trying to get a valid category Category:!!! albums renamed because it interferes with his grand plan. The error of his ways has been pointed out to him, but he seems to persist. Two things: (a) is it ok for me to speedy delete all these nonsense categories, and (b) I'm hoping someone might consider a block or similar action (I'd do it, but I've been so involved with him I think someone else should get involved). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I found the policy and have speedy deleted 10 nonsense categories Chuck created that began with "!" and redirected to Wikipedia:Categorical index. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another: Category:! Top-level Categories !. --Calton | Talk 10:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that one. Chuck is being a tad uncivil in his reply to our pleas to cease [122], and he continued to try to add these bogus categories to a couple other pages: [123] and [124]. He's also started (partially) an AMA request for assistance. I think a short-term block is appropriate, but ask other admins to review as I've too involved with this user. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Vienna Symphony Orchestra

This is not yet a 3RR violation, although it could soon be one. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vienna_Symphony_Orchestra&action=history User:62.178.135.36 keeps adding a claim about VSO being among the best in the world. It isn't. Although this might seem like a content dispute, this is like saying "Aston Villa is the greatest football team ever" or "The Memphis Grizzlies are the best team in the NBA" over and over again. I'm tired of reverting the edits, so I thought I'd come here.--Atavi 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Edit warring is never good, and it takes two to tango. The VSO talkpage and the anon user's page are both nonexistent, so all I can see happening is anon is adding something and others are reverting, no discussion. Atavi, why don't you try leaving a note on those talk pages? On the content side, there may be confusion between VSO and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, which is or has been in the past considered by many to be among the world's top tier international orchestras. Success here would be not only "preventing a 3RR violation" but channelling discussion into making a verifiable NPOV statement on VSO prestige/quality/reputation in the article that everyone is happy with, and maybe link or figure out the right way to disambiguate with Vienna Philharmonic as well. Frankly, I got confused at first as well, and maybe am still confused! Martinp 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Malber (talk • contribs) and WP:POINT

I think this user needs to be blocked, and I would do it, but I'm too closely involved at this point. Here's what I've seen: this user was an editor of Roy St. Clair which was deleted after its 4th AfD nomination. The consensus was moderately in favor of deletion. Malber then chose to spend his day nominating the articles of the most prominent Magic:The Gathering players for deletion, citing the Roy St. Clair "precedent" when challenged. A couple of these debates have been speedily closed as bad faith noms, one by me, the other by User:Kusma. I warned Malber that further WP:POINT nominations would result in a block. Since then, he's put up 3 more articles for deletion, and started leaving user talk messages for those who wanted Roy St. Clair deleted (but not those who wanted it kept), informing them about these debates. We can talk WP:AGF all day long, but I know sour grapes when I see them. Also, let me point out this edit. Mangojuice^talk 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the list:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommi Hovi
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Kastle
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Finkel (2nd nomination)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Budde
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Long
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivier and Antoine Ruel
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Selden

He also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering people, but that one has entirely different issues, and is much more justified. Mangojuice^talk 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"For the purposes of WP:BIO, collectible card players are athletes" hahahahahahaha. Only on the Internets. Ah, sorry, you're not going to get any sensible advice out of me after that. When people say "why delete this when lots of other articles have as much merit" after we delete their pet article, our response is usually to give them our blessing to nominate equally bad articles. It's disturbing that if they do so they should be hammered with WP:ABF. Mind you, a pause after the previous nomination is usually diplomatic at least - if Malber had waited a week or two (and there's no deadline here), this probably wouldn't have happened.

I say leave those that haven't been closed open. Those that are obviously legitimate articles will get their keep results without needing premature closing, and for those that garner deletion arguments other than the nominator's, 'speedy keep, bad faith nomination' arguments should be discounted by the closing admin unless they also address how the subject meets policy - the nominator's good faith or lack of it is irrelevant if an independent editor whose good faith is beyond doubt agrees with the principle of the nomination. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:59, 18

September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Mangojuice^talk 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any vested interest in the Roy St. Clair issue. I felt at the time that it was acceptable for inclusion based on my interpretation of certain points of WP:BIO. If I felt strongly enough, I would have taken it to WP:DRV. I'm willing to accept community consensus that collectible card players are non-notable, however if this is the case we should review all articles on ccg players for notability and sourcing. The articles I've nominated do not have cited sources outside the WOTC community. Also note that I have not, and will not, nominate David Williams (card player) because that article is properly sourced and justifies his notability outside of M:TG. I also believe that the debate on the speedily kept articles should be re-opened. Mangojuice (talk · contribs) has peppered each discussion without discussing the issue with me on my talk page. Perhaps the player articles should be bundled under one AfD discussion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's really good that those articles had their own nominations: they are not carbon-copy articles, and there's no reason to think that they should all share the same result. How do you explain your advertising the debates to the delete voters, though? Mangojuice^talk 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to them yet. But frankly there weren't as many keep voters and their arguments weren't much different from the crufty arguments already being made in the ongoing debates. Users are encouraged to invite interested participants to a consensus debate. Those who have a vested interest in these articles are already watching the M:TG pages. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• So you inform delete voters first, then go on to keep voters later? When I inform people of a deletion debate, I usually go down the list of participants top to bottom. Informing just the people who share your opinion is not acceptable, no matter what you think of their opinions. I don't caer about M:TG either, but that doesn't make cruft a good reason for deletion. The word "cruft" is non-specific and doesn't explain what policy the article is violating. We should have world champions for every game and sport imaginable, so I don't see why world champions of M:TG should be excluded (at least one of the listed players appears to be one). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep voters have been notified within 24 hours, but I think several of them were sockpuppets and/or are not actively editing. Votestacking would be where I was advising the editors how to vote. I'm interested in whether or not the delete voters will view Magic differently. WP:BIO draws a fine line at who is notable and who is not. Unfortunately, only the broadest interpretation of "athlete" would sanction inclusion of ccg players. But that debate is for the policy page, not AN/I. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Paris

There's someone using a blacklisted AOL Proxy (IP: User:195.93.102.35) to bypass the WP:3RR rule on Economy of Paris article. This IP should be banned, and this silly revert war should end as it is based nothing on fact. I'm not sure if the proxy is transparent or not (knowing AOL, no), but perhaps this should be investigated as well, as this war has been going on for months now. Regards, THEPROMENADER 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected. El_C 00:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the edit war on that page has been going for months and will start up again without fail immediately after protection is lifted. -- Steel 00:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I outlined on the concerned talk page the reasons why the dispute could wax eternal. THEPROMENADER 07:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Er - things are getting lively on that page all of a sudden. THEPROMENADER 12:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I have some help please? Since posting the above I've been dogged by User:Hardouin who insists on making a disruption around every move I make in the above affair. I had noted some problems in the above page on the Wikipedia:France-related_topics_notice_board for the attention of one knowledgeable in such France-related subjects, the same inappropriately commented my addition to the list, and reverted my move of this comment (as well as my own) to the talk page. The economy of Paris talk page is now filled with vitriol by the same, and all I did was note that the references provided did not at all correspond to the numbers indicated and ask for proper references. It seems that this contributor is the author of the disputed content in question. THEPROMENADER 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No smear tactics please. Read Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you disagree with the content of the article, discuss it on the talk page. The incident noticeboard is not for making accusations against editors that you disagree with. Hardouin 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, he's here too. So you are not dogging another Wikipedian, you did not revert the infobox in question back into place, you are providing the references that prove that the content in question is valid thus justifying your revert, you are not filling talk-pages with vitriol, you are not adding signed comments to what is supposed to be a list, and you are not reverting any attempt to remedy the situation? Oh vey, it's all an insidious ploy.

Can someone please look into this? THEPROMENADER 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:John Spikowski

Myself a other editors of the Panorama Tools (software), Panotools, and PanoTools articles are having quite a bit of trouble with user John Spikowski. If you go through the history of those pages, the user pages, the user talk pages, and other related pages, you will find repetitive acts of vandalism in the form of spam, attention-seeking, user-page vandalism, talk-page vandalism, changing people's comments, and the list just goes on and on. It's not hard to spot once you check out some of the pages. This user has also made personal attacks to User talk:Wuz. It's pretty out of control and I ask the admins for advice on the subject. Never asked for anyone to be blocked before, but I think this case is extreme enough to ask for this request. We could really use some help right now. Thoughts? Roguegeek 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick note. I feel like myself and other contributing editors have made an effort in trying to understand the reasons for John Spikowski editing and have attempted to communicate intention rationally. The user simply resorts to defamation of others are removing comments all together. Please advise. Roguegeek 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned Spikowski to desist and asked both parties to try dispute resolution. Guy 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's frustrating and I've not ever had to go beyond the point of working a dispute through a simple discussion. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanx. Roguegeek 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Peterson

Shawn Peterson is clearly another Thewolfstar sock. She's referencing an email discussion I had with her as Whiskey Rebellion. Donnacha 10:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's already dealt with. Donnacha 10:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Js2Jo

User is repeatedly introducing false information into Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In and not responding to talk page requests to cease. Lambertman 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas's offensive comments

NOTE: The following report was moved to the archives without addressing the issue. Why is that? Are offensive comments permited on Wikipedia? I also note that since I posted this, MarkThomas has engaged in more personal attacks, character asssassination, and threats. You can find these at User talk:Wjfox2005#London financial and User talk:MarkThomas#Gutter-sniping. It looks like this user has a long and continued history of brutal and disrespectful behavior. Can some admins finally look into this? Hardouin 11:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

=

Offensive comments and attacks made by User:MarkThomas at Talk:London#Largest city in EU. Some particularly offensive comments include:

• What we have here could be a long running emphatic anti-English and anti-London bias and POVery thinly dressed up as factual controversy, from French and other continentals with a chronic inferiority complex. ([125])
• London is at least 40% bigger than Paris. Not only that, but people have jobs there and actually go to work, as opposed to just rioting in the streets and screwing their secretaries. ([126])

Hardouin 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, who knew that Basil Fawlty was alive and well and editing Wikipedia. Anchoress 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's funny, but it's nonetheless offensive to other people and should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Would you allow the behavior of someone making fun of the Shoah on Wikipedia talk pages? Checking into MarkThomas's contributions history, I also found out that this user's scornful and offensive language is nothing new. He seems to particularly despise Paris, as these past edits show:

• In an message on March 3, 2006 ([127]), one can find, among other niceties: " I think the global cities page on Wikipedia is in error as actually cities like Montreal, Sydney and Mumbai all have a better claim to be world cities now than does poor isolated and declinining Paris."
• In a message on February 14, 2006 ([128]), he argues that French people are "obsessed" by the issue of whether London is larger than Paris (first time I hear about such French national obsession!), and he states that his personal research has undeniably proven that London is much larger than Paris.

Probably the most bizarre of all is this message which he left on February 15, 2006 ([129]) and in which he claims that the British government grossly underestimate the population of the UK. Says he: "I also decided the total popn of the UK at any one time is at least 70m not roughly 60 as given in official figures." Apparently, this is the result a major government conspiracy: "I think the UK Govt know about this but don't tell people as it would stir up claims of incompetence." Now that is really something, isn't it! Hardouin 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyblade->External links

Various anonymous users have been adding useless fansites here, and I've reverted them twice, but I'm not about to break WP:3RR, so I'm not sure how to deal with this. Any advice? ~iNVERTED | Rob (Talk | Contribs) 12:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If the site isn't actually being cited as a source, then by all means keep removing them. Linkspam removal isn't covered by WP:3RR. So drop in {{subst:NoMoreLinks}} and report them to WP:AIV if they continue to ignore the Wikipedia:External Links policy.

User:Nicolaasuni

Nicolaasuni (talk · contribs) has been posting what I (and several other editors) consider linkspam: external links that lead to a website that is apparently under this poster's control. (The user claims it's a non-commercial website; I have no data or opinion about that.)

The user is annoyed that their links have been removed and is now posting extended defenses to several of our talk pages. See:

• User talk:Atlant#Why are you marking my posts as spam?
• User talk:Femto#Why are you marking my posts as spam?

I think we're at the point where we need an official Wiki opinion, one way or the other.

Reported by: Atlant 13:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

One interesting aspect of this case is that the user apparently takes the view Wikipedia has some obligation not to refuse these links, because many online sources, from which our articles might or might not have taken their pinouts, are supposedly derived from his site. Femto 14:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He seems to post links (and he only posts links - no edits or other contributions as far as I can see) to two sites (but one is a redirect) - the site in question is http://www.technick.net it seems entirely non-notable and the forum is dead (always a good rule of thumb for popularity).

Can you explain me what does it means non-notable? Technik.net is a piece of Internet history (as reported by some important magazines). We published the largest pinouts collection on the web since 1998 getting 10thousand visitors per day (that it was very hard to do with a no-profit technical site in later '90) --Nicolaasuni

Non-notable as in encyclopedic notability. That a website is notable on the internet doesn't necessarily mean links to it would be a notable contribution to the content of an encyclopedia. Femto 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He's a linkspammer IMHO.

--Charlesknight 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just gave him this warning (substed): {{subst:User:LiverpoolCommander/Spam}} which gives advice on external links.

I recommend people use my template, which produces when subst'ed:

Hi there, please be aware Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Please read our policies on external links for more details! Adding external links repeatedly is considered to be 'spamming' and will likely get you blocked, so please be careful! Anyhow, enjoy Wikipedia, and ask for help about links if you need it!

--LiverpoolCommander 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please read what I just posted on my talk page and give me your opinion? Expecially I would like to know why the editors have removed the links/references from technick.net site but not the links to other sites that points to the same resources cloned from technick.net. This is like they are saying that the cloned resources that uses our work (just to make some advertising revenues) are OK, and original resource on technick.net site is not. Can you explain me why? --Nicolaasuni

I doubt you have much proof that anyone has used your website as a source of data; most of the articles where I've reverted your links are articles about well-known industry standards (or de facto standards) where there are many sources for the pinouts, occasionally including a standards organization or commercial company that regulates the pinout.

Also, whether or not an editor has (yet) gotten around to removing other linkspam has no bearing on whether your linkspam gets to stay. Given time, its entirely likely that more linkspam will be removed (but as you well know, it's an uphill battle).

Atlant 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny Dyer

Someone is trying to defame Danny Dyer. (Maybe even a whole island of people for all I know as he is now famous on the Isle of Man for his negative comments about them.) i first read of this on the mail. i did my part. I just reverted the latest smear attempt. I am now taking it off my watchlist. WAS 4.250 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The source seems to be ContactMusic.Com if we are reffering to the comment from George.[130] --NuclearUmpf 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Newest Pnatt Sock

• Ban ice hockey fights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's now moved from vandalising pages to creating whole new articles with seriously awful titles in order to post his commentary in an attempt to avoid deletion. ju66l3r 16:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. This isn't as clear as some others due to the lack of the recent dead giveaways, but after looking at the contributions and his talk page messages, I'm sure enough it's him. I welcome review from any other admins familiar with Pnatt in case they believe it's not sufficiently obvious to not waste the time of Checkusers. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing that was telling for me was the continuation of IP edits (also from Telstra/Australia yet again) that I had reverted with during the previous night. Sorry I'm being a bit lazy to quote all of the instances, but he seemed content to edit from 2-3 IPs two nights ago and began on a new tact of fighting over Wild card (sports). When it became sprotected, he signed up for the above sock. A few times I named the IPs and BIHF as Pnatt in my comments and did not receive a "huh?"-style response. He's very aware of what he's doing and that I and others are on to him each time. ju66l3r 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Deolankar

User talk:Deolankar is a medical psuedo science point of view warrier. He is creating a large number of articles that need to be deleted. His articles refer to each other. WAS 4.250 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Some yes, some no. I (not admin) db-tagged a number of the articles that were incoherent, without any context, unsourced, and primarily commentary. As for some of the others, they are more established and have other editors working to improve them as they look to have some good information content. Most of the articles still do require a large amount of work though. ju66l3r 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

217.205.241.199

Special:Contributions/217.205.241.199 has continued vandalism, despite repeated warnings, and should be blocked. All 4 warning messages have been used. Desertsky85451 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, they're blocked now. For future reference, instances of obvious vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV. DVD+ R/W 18:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Macaca clone

It looks like another sock puppet for User:Macaca has shown up. This one is called User:MaCa and all of his edits have been against Talk:George Felix Allen. Being that the rest of these puppets have been blocked this one probably should be as well. --StuffOfInterest 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Grandmasterka 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User Shamir1 (talk · contribs)

User Shamir1 is spamming the Palestinian Christian article with partisan links despite being asked not to and is constantly reverting the page to his version without indicating it in the edit summary box. These are his first edits in which he adds numerous partisan links and a biased personal opinion of an unfamiliar radio talk show host: [131] and here is the page historyto view his reverts. He is also (perhaps deliberately) misspellling the name Anis Shorrosh as Ani. Do a simple web search on both names and you will see that Anis is correct.

His other edits of Palestinian-related articles seem to be offensively biased against Palestinians, and I think he is not trying to apply neutrality at all. Shamir1 will not address my concerns as proved in the edit history, so it is best someone else step in and take action, whatever that may be. --Inahet 21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

5th sockpuppet of User:Eatonsh

User:Londheart is the new sockpuppet of User:Etaonsh, who was indefinitely banned for extremely offensive behavior. His subsequent sockuppets, including User:Continueddonations, User:Cestlogique, and User:Returnoftheman, were all banned, either as socks or for the repeated offense.

However, the current sock, which User:Etaonsh has admitted to be one (as well as the later ones)[132], is not only not banned, but an Admin, Cowman109, has stated - if I read correctly - that for him, the previous multiple bans do not matter: "Well I'm not sure of the details of the previous blocks, but I won't go on blocking you unless something you go on to break policy."[[133]

As the previous blocks are easily checkable, as well as User:Londheart's self-confessed identity with them, what this means, in effect, is that a multiply perma-banned user (with a proven track record of racism, homophobia, physical threats, and vandalism) is allowed to come back as a sock if he only tries long enough and creates one fake identity after the next. Perhaps some other Admin can look into this case and react accordingly. Ebbinghaus 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahah, I didn't have the time to look at the matter extensively when I was first made aware of it(I only came to his page as he was requesting an unblock when he was merely autoblocked), but now I see why he was previously blocked. His edits lately do seem tendentious, but he has expressed a desire to try to do better. He appears to be some sort of expert in his field, and while his attitude is a tad negative he has, as I've stated, said his intentions are to to better. I'm going to try AGFing for a bit to see if he really does want to change after my encounter with him. If he continues with the same behavior, by all means I'll reblock him indefinitely. It seems more efficient at this time to attempt some sort of limited mentorship. Was there ever a community ban in place for the user, or was he simply indef blocked for aggression? I'm not saying we should rely on process to do this, but if another administrator wishes to block him, go ahead. Cowman109^Talk 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as disruptive, if he undertakes to avoid psychiatry and psychology related articles, and keeps away from Ebbinghaus then we can consider an unblock otherwise good riddance. Guy 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This request for mediation is also relevant. (I haven't been notified of the request, but came across it accidentally via a link from Jimbo Wales' talk page.) Newyorkbrad 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange Entries on Wikipedia: Contributing to Wikipedia

There are a series of strange entries by Fourstrings@earthlink.net on this project page, not sure if it is trolling or a newbie who would benefit from some mentoring. I'm not experienced enough to really be of assistance. Risker 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's simply got a chip on his shoulder, though what it is I can't understand. I've given him a level 3 warning as he already had one yesterday. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User: 206.191.69.149

The anonymous IP 206.191.69.149 has been constantly adding nonsense and vandalism to pages across the whole site. Temporary blocking has been tried. I recommend a long-term or permanent block. If you wish to discuss this, please contact me at my talk page. Thank you. Thorns Among Our Leaves 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Erikaeve (talk · contribs)

This user continues to remove the "new album" reference on the Social Distortion and Brent Harding articles. I've been trying to settle this with her, but she continues to revert me by claiming that Social D doesn't have a new album in the works, but according to a recent interview with their singer Mike Ness, he said the band is currently writing and rehearsing the new album. I've notice that Erikaeve was previously editing anonymously to remove the "new album" reference on the Brent Harding article. As Ness said "We are working in the studio now, writing and rehearsing. We'd like to be in the studio next year putting out another album." in the recent interview from July 2006, Harding is still in the band and there hasn't been any announcements if he has been out of the band, so this makes it likely that he would be present on Social D's new album. If this user doesn't stop doing this, I will report her for vandalism. I've had enough and I'm tired of trying to restore the "new album" reference on those articles. Here are some more links about Social D releasing a new album: [134], [135], [136] and [137]. Alex 101 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer

I've made a couple of attempts to remove this long, boring and off-topic discussion to User talk:Phil Sandifer, but somebody keeps putting it back. This doesn't pertain to adminship and it doesn't require admin intervention. And it's HUGE and it clutters this page. Help would be welcome in ways to get this useless crap off this page and onto one more suitable. --Tony Sidaway 05:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This was refered here by the editors of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard after Phil Sandifer refused to accept the judgment of the BLP policy authors (see WP:BLPN#Dave Carter). The bulk of the discussion appears to continue at Talk:Dave Carter. Is there somewhere that we can archive the discussions from both notice boards since it still appears not to be resolved--Maybe a subpage of Talk:Dave Carter -MrFizyx 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin Phil Sandifer claims a Foundation member said it was ok to claim a dead singer was in "pursuit of a gender change in the last months of life" and add him to the Transgender and transsexual musicians category based on "A comment on a (wikipedia) talk page". Phil says "I've confirmed via e-mail that User:Grammer is Tracy, and have added the information provided to both this article and Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer after consulting with User:Amgine" at Talk:Dave Carter. Comments? WAS 4.250 08:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment on the talk page is purportedly from Tracy Grammar her/himself, and the margins are wide —I mean I really had to scroll for a long time!— not sure if Grammar counts as a reliable source though, possibly diction does. boo! El_C 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have no reason to question why Phil and Amgine would want to cook up sich a story. It's an odd one, though. Guy 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

a::Grammer, in this case, seems the very definition of a reliable source. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not good. This is a textbook violation of our verifiability policy:

Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

(emphasis mine). I find it rather baffling that such a fundamental principle of the encyclopedia—and, in particular, its most obvious and most clearly expressed point—is suddenly waived because some low-profile celebrity posted something to a talk page. Kirill Lokshin 11:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I tend to agree with you Kirill. It's not that I don't believe/trust Phil and Amgine, as JzG said there's no good reason why they'd make it up. But it sets a bad example, methinks, in that the standard of verifiability is if J. Random User can go confirm the facts for themselves, and this is straying a little close to the line. In this case, to be verifiable, anyone would need to be able to verify that Grammer is who they say they are. That's if we even accept edits to WP as a reliable source.

I think there are too many question marks here, as it stands, for this material to be acceptable. Is there a public way to confirm the comments? --bainer (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the case that applies - the issue in the author example is the fact that the making of the statement cannot be checked - that is, that the author said it to the editor. That is not the issue here - it is easy to verify. You check the talk page - in fact, the articles cite the exact diff. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Anyone can verify that someone left some comments on the talk page; but how is the fact that the editor in question is who they claim to be verifiable by the general reader? It's not like Wikipedia is known for reliably confirming people's identities. Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet we're willing to maintain Category:Notable Wikipedians. So clearly we are willing to confirm identities of our contributors in some cases. Again, as is almost always the case with issues of reliability and verifiability, a sledgehammer is not an adequate method of working this out. It requires actual thought about it. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but the usual way to confirm that an account belongs to someone is for them to confirm externally that the account is theirs. A note on their webpage, or an email from an address known to be theirs, for example. Private email is not really good enough to do that. Tracy has a website, a comment posted there confirming the account is hers would be good enough for me. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill is entirely correct, and this is especially the case when we are not hearing of something from someone themselves, but an acquaintance. If there are no independant sources for this, it can't be included. There is a general agreement that WP:BLP should extend to the reciently dead, also, for similar reasons as BLP but relating to the estate rather than the person. LinaMishima 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been the main proponent of not including this until another source can be found (which won't be easy). I do not, however, question the reliability of Tracy Grammer as a source on Dave Carter. It is well known that she was indeed his "partner in all things," professional and personal. The issue should be verifiability. The information on Carter's planned gender change is unheard of elsewhere, and we can't expect every reader to verify User:Grammer's idenity. Items for articles must be selected based on verifiability not truth. -MrFizyx 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that BLP applies - which is why I checked with the guidelines on BLP for adding material from the source themself (Which this basically is), and followed it to the letter. Note that they explicitly say that the material can come from the talk page. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "basically" is sufficient in cases like this. The statement in question was certainly not self-published in the conventional sense (meaning that the subject of the article did not actually release the information personally); and there have been any number of cases where information provided by close friends or family members has turned out to be incomplete or unreliable. At the very least, the information needs to be given as "According to Grammer, blah blah blah" in order to make clear that this is, indeed, a third party's perspective. Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tracy Grammer was providing information on her relationship with Dave Carter - that is "the source itself" for all useful purposes. Again, you're trying to apply a horrendously general case, developed largely to deal with some of our most pathologically troublesome articles, to a specific case that instead requires actually thinking about the situation. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nobody's edit-warred/threatened to sue/gone to the press yet, so it must be okay" seems a pretty strange approach to be taking here. Perhaps it might be better to follow the ArbCom's lead on this:

Contentious facts which cannot be verified as having been published in a reputable source cannot be included in a Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Verifiability, see especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources. Information should have been published in a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of unusual or scandalous assertions this becomes even more important, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence.

The point being added here is hardly run-of-the-mill; we should be extra careful in ensuring that the information is coming from a reputable source. Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the arbcom has also looked dimly on challenging things for the sake of challenging them. Second of all, we have been extra careful. We verified User:Grammer's identity, and drew from the single most reliable source in the world on Dave Carter's life and musical career. There are two possible concerns here. The first is whether Tracy Grammer is a reliable source. She is very clearly the best possible source we could have on this, however. The second is whether User:Grammer is Tracy Grammer. Verification of this is well within the purview of what administrators do, and it is highly problematic to say that this cannot be done by administrators. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'd take this whole complaint more seriously if it had even tried to assume good faith. "Claims a Foundation member" all but assumes I'm lying. I'm absolutely floored that anyone would think that it's appropriate to run this to AN/I and say I "claim" to have talked to Amgine, and yet nobody has done something responsible like, oh, leave a note on Amgine's talk page asking her to explain why she gave the all-clear on this. Phil Sandifer 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think calling it a "claim" assumed it to be false. In any case I left a note for User:Amgine. I really thought you would have done that by now. One really shoud assume good faith, blind faith is another matter... -MrFizyx 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I thought Foundation members had better things to do than verify that admins weren't lying when they said they talked to them. Your mileage may vary. Personally, I tend not to imply that I don't believe that someone checked with someone else. Phil Sandifer 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP:V is negotiable. This essentially sounds like hearsay to me, and wouldn't stand up in any court of law (or an encyclopedia entry, for that matter). Please, please, find a verifiable, published source ... if not, I don't think it can go in. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"I was his romantic partner until he moved out and pursued a gender change" is not hearsay. Please try to actually be helpful here. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what hearsay is? Of course this is hearsay, because nobody has provided a credible source other than, "Well, I heard someone say ..." --Cyde Weys 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not published in a reliable source. So it cannot be used in Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If WP:RS were actually applied rigidly, we would have to destroy half of our featured articles. Please actually think about the situation instead of just citing rules. Phil Sandifer 18:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde and others, Wikipedia should not be the venue of first publication for any fact. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source. Even if we accept the source as 100% reliable, I still don't believe that we should include such information because it undermines the principle that readers should be able to verify everything we say with external sources. Dragons flight 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages should not be considered part of the encyclopedia for this purpose - and in fact WP:BLP explicitly provides for that. (Look at the section on subjects contributing to their own biographies, which says explicitly that subjects can contribute information to the talk page.) Phil Sandifer 18:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Their own biographies, yes; but Tracy =/= Dave, I would think! Kirill Lokshin 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a rule that cannot possibly be used as a universal case. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I feel you are misreading BLP. My reading is that subjects may contribute to the article discussion, but any information added to the article still needs to be externally verifiable. Dragons flight 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, DF and others. Let someone else care about this enough to write a story on it. Wikipedia is not a news site. If no one else cares, I don't see why WP should be first. This sets a bad precedent. --W.marsh 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not that no one cares... tons of places would print this. The problem is that, well, it's more than a little disrespectful to suggest that Carter needs to be outed publicly, in a news story. That seems to me a thornier issue, if the policies that exist to protect someone's dignity are being used to force him to either remain permanantly in the closet or to come out in the form of a press release. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So let other places print it, it seems to be "out" now - let's see what happens. Wikipedia simply does not exist to provide help to people with their public relations problems. Like I said, it would be a bad precedent to let people come to Wikipedia and tell us what they want to be in the article (if that information isn't published elsewhere). --W.marsh 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil, WP:V is policy, and if you disagree with the policy, go there to get it changed. In the meantime, you, as an admin, need to promote policy, not try to tear it down. This information violates WP:V, and therefore cannot be kept. If Grammer gives an interview to a reliable news source, then we can quote the news source, but until then, it's not a reliable source. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, WP:IAR is also policy, and if you disagree with using common sense instead of blindly using it as a sledgehammer, go there to get it changed. In the meantime, you, as an admin, need to promote policy, not try to tear it down. The information is clearly accurate and in the spirit of all of our policies, most particularly WP:BLP, and therefore should remain. If Grammer gives an interview to a reliable news source, then we can quote the news source, but until then, it's good enough. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." This is a post on a wiki. Ergo, it is not acceptable. The fact that we can check the poster's identity is irrelevant - we rely on reliable sources to do fact-checking, not us. Remember that Wikipedia policy is "Verifiability, not truth". I have removed this claim and until Ms Grammer's assertion is published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking (we don't even have a reputation for including facts in the first place, let alone checking them), this is not acceptable to include on Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline. WP:BLP is policy, and clearly allows information to be added to the talk page, as supported by one of the Foundation workers, Amgine. Policy trumps guideline, and actually thinking about the situation instead of using them as sledgehammers trumps all. Phil Sandifer 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We are not a third-party source, and we do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:RS makes the prohibition on wiki posts explicit, but any reading of WP:V makes it perfectly obvious that bulletin board, blog and wiki posts are not credible third-party sources anyway. We do not have a credible third-party source, therefore policy states we cannot include this information. What part of this do you not understand? To others: Phil has continued to revert, and as I apply a loose form of WP:1RR (I don't revert unless someone else has) I encourage someone else to remove this unsourced information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP (Which is policy) clearly provides for information to be added via talk pages. And RS clearly allows for self-published sources, which this fits the bill of. There's no useful difference between the talk page and a blog - both are equally fact-checked, and yet we'd take it from a blog and not a talk page? That's absurd - we ought apply sense instead of policy in that case, which is exactly what IAR (Also policy) provides for. Phil Sandifer 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. The statement is not from a "self-published" source. The information you're including is coming from a third party—the actual subject of the article being dead—and therefore (a) doesn't fall under the "self-published" provision and (b) needs to be from a reliable source. More to the point, the assertion being made qualifies as "unusual or scandalous", and thus requires very careful sourcing if it is to be included. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, we don't take information from blogs, ever, unless it's to say "X wrote Y in his blog", which this isn't. And where exactly does WP:BLP give Wikipedia an exemption from the line I quoted from WP:V above? The closest I get is "Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if..." which goes onto say "...it meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies", which this doesn't. And WP:IAR cannot possibly be invoked to overturn verfiability in this case, which is a cornerstone of writing an encyclopaedia. This is not WikiMe.org. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We regularly use blogs as sources, Sam. Please don't try to apply these policies so rigidly as to make them useless. If we rigidly applied WP:RS and WP:V to every article, we'd have to start by gutting the featured articles. Spoo would be a good place to start. Phil Sandifer 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, using common sense is appropriate. For example, when someone makes points about an obscure fictional food on a TV show, we decide to be lenient and not insist on scholarly citations. On the other hand, when someone adds potentially scandalous assertions—about an individual's previously unknown "pursuit of a gender change", for example—we should be extra careful that this information can be traced to reputable sources before including it. Kirill Lokshin 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove all unsourced or inadequately sourced content from all articles, and nominate inadequately sourced featured articles for featured article status removal if necessary. We have a lot of pages, and the fact that some of them are not sourced to the necessary standard does not mean I have to turn a blind eye to this one. Your argument is equivalent to the "if this article is deleted lots of others should be to" line beloved of self-promoters at AfD. ---Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're rather gravely misunderstanding my point. The standards you're citing, if rigidly applied, render the encyclopedia unwritable. It's not a matter of one or two stray articles that nobody has gotten around to - it's a matter of entire categories of articles that need to be eliminated. The community would not support that, for obvious reasons. Which means that RS and V are not policies that should be applied like sledgehammers. Phil Sandifer 19:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It would not render the encyclopaedia unwritable in the least. We have hundreds of articles which are verified by reliable sources. All the articles that I have written are among them, and if some aren't, feel free to challenge them. If I can write a few measly articles that are verified by reliable sources, then certainly dedicated writers can do the same. If adhering to reliable sources would result in some FAs being delisted, frankly my dear I don't give a damn. We can write enough articles while still relying on verifiability that we don't need any articles that are based on what some guy said on some wiki.

When we have written every single article that can be written based on reliable sources and gotten it to featured status, perhaps then we can start to consider whether we should start relaxing our standards. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have acted to revert Dave Carter as Sam Blanning has suggested. I have also removed disputed content from Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer. It seems there is a supermajority supporting the removal of the content. I feel that this really should be respected--at the very least until the supporting foundation member can speak to his/her position on this. -MrFizyx 19:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't imagine that a foundation member is going to say "On the authority of the Foundation, this information must be included". All Foundation Members are entitled to their opinion, and until such time as they make it anything more binding, we are under no obligation to follow it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Foundation Member... that sounds like an accusation. I'm a wikimedian, a volunteer like everyone else here, and have rather less authority on Wikipedia than most of the people involved in this thread.

While I feel this particular fact is relevant and important to the article (and the public statement on the talk page is verified as from Ms Grammer), at best it should be stated as "Ms Grammer reports..." or some such equally awkward construction. I wonder that no one has asked Ms Grammer to mention this in her blog? (As to the dismissal of the use of blogs as a publication, they are used extensively for just such within Wikipedia and are proven no more unreliable than newspapers or PAC publications which are likewise cited throughout Wikipedia.) However, the Wikipedia community determines the content of Wikipedia, and if the policy monitors consider this statement to be an egregious violation I applaud their decision, and strongly encourge them to examine the articles in Category:Living people, as well as the many articles which have not yet been included in this category but should be. - Amgine 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this an issue for AN/I? I think the RS issue is fascinating, but shouldn't this be subject to normal dispute resolution? The only admin action seems to be Phil verifying that the talk page commentator really was Tracy Grammer, and I don't think anyone objects to that. TheronJ 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we have an admin making or supporting an edit that is clearly outside of policy. If someone makes a comment on the talk page of his or her biographical article it still needs verification somewhere more public than said talk page. If it is someone's partner, even more so. Metamagician3000 05:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil's argument is completely ridiculous. If one wants to self-publish original research and/or reporting, one should go find an online encyclopedia that doesn't require that its material be verifiable and from a reliable source. To put this in context, if an anon was adding this sort of material to a page that User:Phil Sandifer patrolled with the same sort of ludicrous explanation, Phil would have blocked him 8 times by now. Nandesuka 11:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course Phil's argument is ridiculous, and it relies once more on treating electronic communication as if it were documentary. As an editor (I mean a print one), I could not accept any alledged representation of an author that didn't have autograph. Further, any statement from a lover/friend would be a footnote in an introduction to a volume and never, ever, ever a substantial part of any presentation. So, if there were an autograph letter from the lover, it would be a footnote. If there were an e-mail, it would never get that far. If there were e-mail from the subject of discussion, it would be a footnote. Again, those of us who have had to deal with actual figures with actually documented lives know damned well that friends tell lies. Stephen Spender went about for decades making his dinner on the lecture circuit swearing that Virginia and Leonard Woolf were as heterosexual as a Playboy orgy, that TS Eliot and Vivian were deliriously happy in marriage, and that all those people who said otherwise didn't know the Bloomsbury circle, weren't there, the way he was. Spender was, of course, fooling himself and no one else. One does not take a friend's word, and one never accepts any vapor communication. It's not verifiable, and verification isn't even the issue as much as corroboration is. Geogre 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I read through some of this and I think Category:Notable Wikipedians should go, too, because it is original research. Not only that, having the categories on the talk pages looks messy. 12:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Oops I failed to sign correctly. I searched and searched for my name to find my post but could not find it, I almost thought it was removed but no I just did not sign right. Very sorry. Anomo 07:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anonymous coward, it should, but that's not germane. Geogre 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, though. Whee! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Phil Sandifer certainly likes to drop names. First it's a "foundation member" who approved his edits, now its "Jimbo". Heh.

So now we have Phil writing unsourced articles on Wikipedia, then using those as evidence to support his edits on Wikipedia. And claiming that Jimbo told him it was okay. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. The information is not verifiable, plain and simple. It doesn't belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is not verifiable, it should not be in wikipedia. Blogs and wikiuser posts should not be used like that. --Blue Tie 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Jayjg and Blue Tie. This goes against a central pillar. JoshuaZ 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in existing practice

I mentioned this on the article talk page, but obviously it should be considered here as well given the above commentary. Much of the Jimmy Wales article is referenced to wiki edits made by User:Jimbo Wales. Seriously... go check. Above, this exact situation (referencing with wiki edits) is described as "absurd", "completely ridiculous", "unsourced", "ludicrous", et cetera. Should we not then revise the Jimmy Wales article and various others on 'Wikipedia related' topics where this has been standard practice for years? Remove as 'unverifiable' information which anyone can verify the accuracy of by clicking on the diff link in the references section and only include that which has appeared in third party news media. Oh, and BTW... just a wee bit of incivility flying around people. Maybe tone it down a notch? Or twenty? --CBD 11:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself. Nandesuka 11:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem rather self-evident doesn't it. :] If material from a wiki (or blog) can never be considered a reliable source, as stated repeatedly above, then we need to make changes to remove such from Jimmy Wales... and Wikipedia... and Daniel Brandt... and Larry Sanger... and well, you get the idea. If citations from wikis can be used under certain circumstances, as they routinely have been for years now, then we should stop saying they invariably can't and work out the circumstances under which it is allowed. Apparently we all accept that User:Jimbo Wales is Jimmy Wales and treat things written by the former as 'self-published' and citable statements of the latter. Should we not be doing that? Is it really horribly against 'verifiability' and 'reliable sources'? And if it isn't, then what would be required for User:Grammer to be acknowledged and referencable as Tracy Grammer? There is a clear contradiction between many of the above stated beliefs and observable past practice. Resolving that contradiction can only help to avoid such disagreements in the future. --CBD 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that User:Grammer is Tracy Grammer. Phil says she is but he also said that BLP says that the Verifiability policy doesn't apply when in fact it says the opposite - that it is to be rigorously applied - so his word doesn't mean much here when he is getting stuff written in black and white exactly opposite. If it is Tracy, we don't know if she is lying or mistaken so we need corroberation for claims of her dead partner being involved to some degree (she doesn't give any details) in changing from a man to a woman. this is an extraordinary claim. Phil's word that he has her word for a vague extraordinary claim is ridiculous and in no way comparable to using a site (Wikipedia) to verify that a very public man many of us have met and who controls the site to verify that he said some very ordinary thing. And more rules can not help people who get exactly backwords the rules we already have. WAS 4.250 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is rather obvious to point out that the bios that you've demonstrated are exceptions are for people for whom wikipedia is a primary component of their notability. Isn't the involvement of Jimmy Wales in this project well known through a multitude of sources? The involvement of Tracy Grammer with wikipedia is truly unkown to anyone who hasn't e-mailed her to ask. Phil was right to verify her idenity to protect her against defamation, but we need more to say that User:Grammer is verified in a way that should be acceptable to general readers. Let us render unto Wikipedia that which is Wikipedia. However, to make claims about a deceased small-time celebrity's sexuality when nobody involved has had anything to do with the project... just maybe we need another source. Why are we talking about this on an admin board? -MrFizyx 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is another example, and our usual claim is that he was notable prior to his attack on Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a verifiability issue with Grammer. I believe Phil when he says that her identity has been proven, but I can't actually click a link or look up a book to verify it myself. I can verify that Jimmy Wales has acknowledged various things said by User:Jimbo Wales as being his own and thus accept that they are the same. Some of the other cases may be less clear cut (e.g. Daniel Brandt as Phil points out), but in general people seem to be saying that we have to be able to really verify that user and person are the same. That is different then saying we can never reference a wiki source and makes more sense to me (not to mention matching past practice). I would say it is completely verifiable that 'User:Grammer' said certain things... that doesn't mean those things themselves can be verified, but that the user said them certainly can be. If it were verifiable that >Tracy Grammer< said those things then I think that is notable and ought to be included as a claim which has been made. Where she said them (wiki, blog, dinner party, whatever) strikes me as completely irrelevant provided 'Joe Citizen' really can verify for himself that she actually DID say them. Obviously it is an unusual situation, but I think it will become more common as time goes on and more 'notable' people are also Wikipedians. In this case the claims are unique / potentially incendiary enough that I understand strict adherence to verifiability requirements, but if Tracy Grammer were to publically say 'I edit Wikipedia as User:Grammer' then I really wouldn't see any reason to block that material from inclusion. If it were more mundane info I'd say we shouldn't barr it now. We should nail down 'user = person verification' standards though. If verifiable public acknowledgement by the person is required then we've probably got a few references that fail of that requirement scattered about. --CBD 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I pretty much agree with you (I can't speak for others). If there was a post at tracygrammer.com saying, "come visit my user page on Wikipedia at 'User:Grammer.'" I would probably need to seriously reconsider my opposition. I also "believe" Phil, but "trust me I'm an admin," is not a high enough standard of fact checking as a general case, especially when there is nothing to corroborate a claim. -MrFizyx 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposing community impatience ban for Freestylefrappe

... Because the community has been plenty patient up until now.

An additional [138] remedy was recently passed and appended to his arbitration case, limiting him to one account. He chose User:Ya ya ya ya ya ya, or so it seemed. Instead, silently, he began editing from User:EFG -- now blocked by Fred Bauder.

Please read these messages, from after the block: [139] [140] . ("By the way, I'm switching accounts again. Do your best to stop me. It sure has worked in the past. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC) (Freestylefrappe)")

Enough. If he doesn't want to be responsible for his own contributions, and forever flit from account to account when his anger issues get the better of him, let's be done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would concur - he is intentionally trying to make a mockery of the Arbcom, admins and Wikipedia policy with these actions. Daniel.Bryant 03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest banning but it'll hurt my chances at RfA in the future. Mackensen (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I were an RfA voter, I'd vote against you for putting popularity before principle. Follow your principles and trust that your fellow editors will recognize their worth. Cheers, Kasreyn 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the sarcasm. Having been made a sysop two years back, I'm not concerned about my own RfA. Having done the checkuser that verified the sockpuppetry, I'm definitely in favor of the ban. Mackensen (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed your sarcasm in an uncomfortable manner, if it's any consolation, Mackensen :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of us got it, and thoroughly appreciated the sarcasm. It is a shame that an excellent, insightful, tactful, diplomatic, productive, and hard-working editor, in harm's way by working in difficult areas, gets hammered at RfA over one comment. The same thing has happened to editors who work at FAC and FAR. (I'm not an admin, never want to be an admin, try to avoid RfA at all costs as I don't like to witness crucifixions, and can't opine on Republitarian and all his socks, but I should say I'm chagrined that I defended his edits to some articles, as I failed to recognize the socks; which only makes me further appreciate editors who have to do the hard chores, and still do them with diplomacy and tact.) Sandy 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mackensen is I believe referring to a recent RfA in which a candidate got hammered for having mentioned banning as an enforcement mechanism. I also endorse. JoshuaZ 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds entirely fair. — Dan | talk 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban. No need for this.Voice-of-All 03:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I agree; Freestylefrappe has been given several chances to rectify. Until he promises to do so (and actually does it), we've had enough. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yyyyy is now indef. blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this product or service. Ever since he was desysopped, he has shown little desire to redeem himself. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse it too. I tried to help him avoid it, as many others did, and he has only repaid it with, as Daniel said, mockery. It saddens me greatly as I feel I failed utterly in the efforts I made to prevent this. But I'm afraid it's time. He isn't going to change now. --Guinnog 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I endorse the block/ban/[insert appropriate terminology] on this user. While constructive criticism of Wikipedia is good (and, of course, constructive), mocking Wikipedia for personal ends is unfathomable. And gaming the community's patience is intolerable. --physicq210 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse a ban altogether of his accounts and IP addresses if they are static. His disruptive behavior with the sockpuppets has to stop. I wouldn't have endorsed a ban of a former administrator before, and probably won't again, but he crossed my line when he used sockpuppets at my RFA while he was still an admin. Besides, he's recently proven that he can't be trusted to stay at one account, mind WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, and all his edits since his desysopping have been troubling. I wouldn't shed a tear at this loss.. — Moe Epsilon 05:40 September 17 '06

Ban, and block any IP he brags from. --Golbez 05:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has thousands of good edits under his belt. I know he can be aggravating, and the socks certainly do violate policy, but I'm not sure a ban on Freestylefrappe is really in Wikipedia's best interest. User:Ya ya ya ya ya ya's got close to 1,000 good edits in less than a month. I don't think I'm a soft touch; I blocked user:"new user" when it was clear it was FSF's latest sock account. At the same time, I don't feel a community ban is in the best interest of Wikipedia, at least in terms of article space. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, so I'll step off my soap-box... Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We have blocked good users before because their bad eventually outweighed their good. The case in point will always be Wik. And even worse than Wik, FSF was someone that was given the community's trust and abused it. --Golbez 06:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't refute anything you've said, Golbez. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that a ban is in perfect order, I would like to add a small comment, if it's ok. This is a sad day for wikipedia. We should always feel bad when a former administrator is indef-banned. It truly is a sad day Oskar 05:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a sad day that the deficient voting process we have to give people sysop status let such a bad apple through. --Golbez 06:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Want some vinegar on that chip? As above, FSF has a mass of good edits under his belt. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, right? If the process never made any mistakes whatsoever I reckon it would be an indication that it was too restrictive. As it stands we have what has been characterised as "arbitrary demands for shrubberies" in RFA, as a result of which many excellent editors are not given the tools; this is to my mind a worse problem than the very occasional mistake. This being a wiki, all mistakes can be remedied. My greatest regret here is not that FSF was an admin and was desysopped, it's that we can't think of a process which will allow him to continue contributing, and allow us to limit the problems his editing sometimes causes. William Pietri has some thoguhts about this which he's raised on my Talk page, but we don't have a proposal yet. Even clue-based adminship is not going to work with FSF because it essentially means that every edit has to be watched, and that is simply too much work. Ultimately, FSF has to respect consensus - and given that he apparently doesn't, the consequences are probably inevitable. Guy 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deckiller's law strikes again. — Deckiller 06:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So... he stopped using the Ya ya ya ya ya ya account and started using the EFG account exclusively... and therefor he was in violation of the ArbCom ruling that he only use one account? How exactly? He even said that he was switching accounts. Does the ArbCom ruling require that he identify the new account? It doesn't say so, but I suppose it could be taken as implied. Even then... he sent me an e-mail about switching to EFG. Unfortunately, I've been away / had very limited wiki-time since Tuesday and missed the latest brouhaha. Was he required to post public notification? For some reason he's gotten the idea that there are people here who don't like him and would bother or block him if they knew what account he was using. --CBD 08:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and edits like this of course show his absoulte sincerity in just wanting to be left alone to get on editing. --pgk 11:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, I who do not like or dislike him, strongly dislike the fact that he has edited under all these accounts, without being open about what he is doing until challenged, and using edit summaries like "Guess who's switching accounts? Guess. Guess. Guess. Guess. Guess. Guess. Guess. Guess." I think it might be good for him to have a long rest from editing. It would certainly be good for Wikipedia. He claims to think that "most if not all administrators on Wikipedia are worthless, destructive elements" ([141]). I think he has never recovered from the desysop, which I agree is terribly sad, but I also think we have better things to do than hand-hold someone who shows so little commitment to, or respect for, the goals of the project, or to consensus. He has been treated very fairly by the community, and has repaid it with contempt. --Guinnog 11:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What we asked him to do was pick one account and use it. He picked yyyyyy but then switched to a new account. He then used his anonymity to mess with someone's RfA. That is what brought him to our attention. I propose he start over and pick one account to use now that he knows we are serious. He is welcome to email me regarding this. Fred Bauder 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm not going to play the guess-the-new-account game, but if we find problems with the new account and it turns out to be FSF up to the tricks he's engaged in in the past, then I will be unlikely to be very forgiving. FSF seems to want drama. If so, he can go away. If what he wants is a quiet life, then he should just register a new account, let Fred know what it is, and go about his business. And for the record WP:TE was actually largely inspired by the actions of another editor entirely. Guy 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of the guess-the-new-account game, anyway? From the comments cited by Guinnog above the intention seems to be little more than to troll people. I'd definitely go along with Fred's suggestion. -- ChrisO 14:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Several people have said how 'sad' this all is, but what gets to me is how little effort people put into understanding why it happened. Oh well, he's just a 'bad disruptive user'... block and move on... nothing to see here. That's the sad part. Because, absent understanding of how and why... I can guarantee you that it will happen again. Consider that FSF's 'anti-Wikipedia' activity which kicked off this two week meltdown was an attempt to uphold WP:BLP on Vicente Fox (small problem of a paragraph about how lots of people think he is a racist - with zero references)... and then ponder how we got from there to here. --CBD 15:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is though, you and I and many people have tried to enforce BLP and other policies but haven't done so by describing ourselves as "admin-hating" and so on, using 5 sockpuppets, and ending it all with ourselves community banned for (among other things) taunting everyone on AN/I. Sure, a lot of people oppose FSF out of spite... but he did do something to generate all that ill-will, it just didn't appear out of thin air. It's time for him to accept some responsibility for the fact that so many people are upset with him, rather than just continue to escalate the situation as if he's perfectly innocent. If he just said "Okay, I've screwed up, but no one disputes I do make a ton of good edits... can we just start from square one and I won't go around provoking people?" I know I'd forgive him if he followed through on his end. --W.marsh 15:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'sockpuppet' issue is a bit of a red-herring. People associate all kinds of negative behaviours with the term 'sock puppet' which do not apply here. There was no 'multiple voting', 'joint editing', et cetera. He changed accounts because he believed he would receive unfair treatment if people knew who he was. Untrusting, but not particularly nefarious. As to the other, he did apologize for his actions on Talk:Vicente Fox... but it was reverted. Presumably because of the rant at the end against admins (specifically including me) who had not removed the comments about him being a 'fascist dictator'. Personally, I'd rather if people had not reverted virtually every edit he made after getting unblocked. So he called me impotent and/or ignorant... that's ok. I'm a big boy. I can take it. When all your edits are reverted it isn't "paranoid" to think that you'd be better off switching to another account. --CBD 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, this started back in December, at the very least, when he suddenly started accusing other admins of sockpuppetry and vandalism. There was no substance to these allegations, nor did he even attempt to provide any. When questioned, he responds in a rage and with a new flurry of accusations. His behavior borders on paranoid and it's impossible to reason with him. Go back and read the original arbitration case which led to his desysopping. His behavior has not changed since then. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, I'm very familiar with his behaviour and the case. I was asked to participate in it - by both sides. Yes, he has a big problem with civility. But no... I don't think that calling him "paranoid" is justified - or helpful. --CBD 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but at least part of his disruption on Vicente Fox was his bizarre insistance that WP:RS means that only English language sources can be considered reliable for well known people. He edit warred on statements which had reliable sources and indeed still exist in that article today. Just saying you are upholding WP:BLP (when in this case it was at best a wild misinterpretation of policy) is not an excuse for edit warring, attacks on other users etc. etc. Reading the general tone of his comments, they come across as little more than trolling, if as a result of that people get fed up and treat him as nothing more than a troll, then sorry I have little sympathy for him. --pgk 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[142] I'd be interested for you to point out the claims of racism in that. --pgk 15:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I was referring to other sections -> [143]. The argument that this text did not violate WP:BLP perhaps led to his being less trusting of the good intentions of other editors on the BLP issue than he should have been. Though the fact that it was restored, sans references, after he was blocked might also indicate that he wasn't so wrong about that. For the link you provided I'd imagine the objection was probably over using a spanish language reference for the claim that Fox's second marriage was religiously controversial. Is 'La Crisis' a reliable source? I dunno. In any case, while WP:RS allows foreign language sources in limited circumstances I'm thinking that was probably not intended for extensive use in a major article / to address possible BLP issues. --CBD 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So his experience with other text and other editors (I had no other involvment with that article and none I remember with him), makes it reasonable for him to edit war, put people on his "black list" (for want of a better word), jump up and down about arbcom action etc. That's a great way for him to drive off good faith editors and did he deserve to be picked up on it and blocked, absolutley. As to the interpretation of WP:RS allowing foreign language sources in limited circumstances, I suggest you reread it, it allows foreign langauge sources as being every bit as reliable as English language sources in every circumstance "However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.". It expresses a preference for the readers convenience and indeed if he had sources in English I doubt anyone would have complained if the links were changed. As someone else pointed out the idea that sources in Spanish for the leader of a Spanish speaking country should universally (as was his contention) be considered unreliable is ludicrous. --pgk 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pgk, you did not (as I understand it) add those references. Rather it was the same users he was in dispute with. No? As to the rest, I did not say it was "reasonable" for him to edit war/keep a black list/whatever. Indeed, I said that he should have been more trusting of the accuracy of their sources. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was an actual WP:BLP violation on the page... with the same users fighting to keep it in. As to foreign language sources... 'do not use them if there is an English language source' and 'subject to the same reliability requirements' strikes me as 'limited circumstances' by definition. Again, is "La Crisis" a reliable source? I have no idea. Do you? Being in a foreign language / less known to speakers of English makes establishing the reliability of the source that much more difficult. --CBD 22:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What has muy adding of them or not got to do with anything. His argument as spelled out in his edit summaries and on the talk page is that non-English language sources are always unreliable for well known people. We aren't talking about a mad 5 minutes where there is misunderstanding we are talking about his conduct there over a period of hours and overall a "vendetta" kept over a period of days. As I have said reactions like that are totally unacceptable, how many good faith editors have been driven away from the project by such activity? You seem to want to paint him as an innocent party or at least one we should be understanding of, sorry his action here and in the past warrants no such understanding. He is either willing to be part of a collabrative project (which involves stepping back, biting ones lip etc. once in a while), or he is not. It seems quite clear that he is not. Perhaps if you see someone who is constantly in car crashes you should consider perhaps it is their bad driving which is the problem, not everyone elses. As to WP:RS again. You reading of limited is obviously very different to mine, the sources are by the plain language measured for verifiability by the same standard as English language sources i.e. the same limit. The other "limit" is when English language equivelants are available and are prefered, this has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of the source and certaintly is again by the plain language not a reason to remove those sources and anything based on them, it is an argument to replace them with the English language sources, something which of course was not being done here. --pgk 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevance is that you said it was "other editors" who were arguing with him over whether accusations of racism require references... it was not. The tired accusation that I 'want to paint him as an innocent party' is plainly false (I said he was wrong about foreign language sources not being allowed and had violated civility standards right from the start) and completely misses the point. That being, this attitude of 'that user bad - punish him' only serves to make things worse. When he was blocked, for doing exactly the same thing Chacor (who was not blocked) did, the article went back to blatant violations of WP:BLP. The only thing preventing that was the 'bad' user. None of the people who villified him bothered to follow up to see that he had a point and that not taking him seriously caused a bigger problem (IMO) even than his civility issues. Very few users set out to be disruptive... and none of those rack up thousands of positive contributions. Dismissing someone as a "troll" when they plainly want to help the encyclopedia is IMO very short-sighted, clearly against what our policies actually say, and itself damaging to Wikipedia. Freestylfrappe's incivility absolutely IS a big problem... but it is not the only problem. --CBD 11:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find it was you who suggested that his removal of the material here was due to the earlier dispute, not me. I certainly haven't discussed that particular matter with him. Since you are tired of that suggestion that you are trying to paint him as the innocent party, perhaps you should look at what you are saying and how it is likely to be interpreted. He was blocked as he was very aggressively edit warring, immediately before the block he had edit warred on this particular item, nothing to do with accusations of racism. Look at his final edit summary before blocking, it is directly referring to this accusing individuals of deliberate violation of WP:BLP in this matter, something which clearly it is not. The fact that it was reverted afterwards given the reason that those involved felt so uncomfortable with his overly aggressive approach to it should tell you something about the damage actually being done outweighing any good. As to your stuff about punishment not working, what do you suggest then? Let him run rampant attacking good editors on false premises because of previous problems with an article? How many good editors does he have to drive off before you suggest we take some action? How many good editors have already been driven away by him? A user wanting to help Wikipedia and actually helping are different thing?s, again how many good editors who want to help wikipedia do we let him drive off with his overly aggressive attitude before we say enough is enough You know I agree with you the bad-behaviour punishment cycle in this case is ineffective, he quite clearly is unable to work with the acceptable norms of wikipedia, you've convinved me that permenant removal is the only option. --pgk 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD: My problem is that the EFG account and the promises to continue with that sort of thing are about 5000 miles outside of being within the rather obvious (I think) spirit of the Arbcom addendum. I don't even care about the specifics of his latest conflicts: it's the pattern that matters. I am curious, if he emailed you and disclosed his new name, why did you (and he) let the misinformation stand in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe about User:Ya ya ya ya ya ya having been chosen as the single account? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I haven't been around much for the past several days - as you know since you said the same in your e-mail to me. Why he didn't say anything seems obvious... he believes that he was being mistreated / would not be allowed to edit in peace. You can disagree that was a reasonable inference to draw from the mass reversion of his edits, but it's clearly what he thought. --CBD 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Support ban ... and for the love of God CBD, please stop being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. It's really irritating reading WP:ANI when, every week, you're the only one attempting to defend various and sundry banned trolls. --Cyde Weys 17:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't do anything "for the sake of being contrary" and I won't stop trying to get people to look at the ways in which admin behaviour influences user behaviour just because you find it "really irritating". Back when the ArbCom case was filed against Freestylefrappe I was asked to get involved. I didn't want to, because in truth I'm not a big fan myself. But I did, and now you're stuck with me because it doesn't do anyone any good when we goad users into complete meltdowns with false statements, uneven blocks, snarky comments, et cetera. We're supposed to be the calm / level-headed / 'tough' ones... so why is it always like sharks with blood in the water? Maybe there's nothing which can be done... he'd be angry and disruptive even if he received perfectly fair and polite treatment. But he hasn't... so we really don't know that. And can't place the blame entirely on him. --CBD 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD didn't explicitly refute the ban proposal, he just disagreed with the way that it is being handled. The ikiroid (talk•desk•Advise me) 17:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And he wasn't the only one in support of allowing FSF to continue editing if he picks a new account and lets someone (e.g. Fred) know what it is, and then just goes quietly about his business. Mind, had he doen this with the several other blocked accounts we'd not have noticed that they were FSF, but it is true enough that he has made very many good edits in the past. Guy 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. He always manages to find something to complain about. And in the end, he always ends up causing more strife than it's worth. --Cyde Weys 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly (sorry CBD!), you are right. I totally sympathise with CBD and JzG trying to let FSF edit in peace under a new account. I don't think either of them is being "contrary just for the sake of being contrary". I would be as happy as anyone if he was able to just get on with things, I just think he has shown himself incapable of that, or of showing any real appreciation of the amount of trouble he has (seemingly gratuitously) caused. By consistently getting involved in controversy under each of his new accounts, he has certainly exhausted my patience, if not the community's. I agree he has made good edits, which is why I tried to support him in the past. I just think the ratio has been in the wrong direction for a while now, and shows no good prognosis of improving. I'm not saying I'm sad about that in any rhetorical sense, I am genuinely sad that we cannot support this talented editor better than we have. However, I think we have done what we can at this point and the onus is on FSF to demonstrate reformed behaviour, and I just don't see evidence of that. --Guinnog 18:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't block Yayayayaya for being a sock puppet, but for the trolling, disruption and general all-around assholiness. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And people wonder why I say admins provoke this kind of behaviour. --CBD 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I do wonder. I wonder at whether you think before you post. I wonder if you've ever been trolled in your life. I wonder if you have a gram of sense. You've been ignoring everything that's said to you, because if read the arbitration case you'd see that I, for one example, was made a target of his vitriol out of nowhere. I did nothing to him, and he made it his mission to make my life hell. From this day forward I won't respond to you CBD. If you leave notes on my talk page I'll revert them. You clearly have no respect for anyone here unless they've managed to anger another admin, in which case they're obviously on the side of truth and have been wronged. Mackensen (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've reached the point with CBD where I can no longer see any validity in his opinions, and though I won't ignore him by reverting him, I'm not going to be putting any stock into anything he says, either. --Cyde Weys 20:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys need to chill out. —Nate Scheffey 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, here. "I will never speak to you again"-type posts aren't going to help matters. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean "hear, hear." Newyorkbrad 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you. I'm tired of CBD showing up in these forums and acting like it's all the evil sysops fault. FSF brought this on himself and hurt a good many people in the process. I'm angry, and I'm not the only one. CBD can troll here all he wants, ignoring facts and taking quotes out of context, but no one can force me to listen the same tired bullshit over and over. I have been polite. I have pointed him in the direction of pertinent information. I have been patient. All to no avail. I tried reasoning with FSF many times–this only aggravated matters. I hope that if you gentlemen ever find yourselves in a similar situation you'll find someone willing to take your part. Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously chill the fuck out. —Nate Scheffey 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We can do without your profanity. We are here to discuss whether FSF should be banned by the community, not to voice your grievances about CBD. And we are definitely not here to see you spurn other's efforts to cool down the situation. --physicq210 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I can do without CBD's trolling. If we're going to cool down the situation, we could start with the two gentlemen above allowing saying something substantive. When someone's obviously angry and has a real grievance, a pithy one-liner is not calculated to "cool down" the situation. Quite the opposite in fact. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you have problems with CBD. But starting your response with "fuck you" won't help you either. --physicq210 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And can we get back to the topic here, which is deciding whether FSF should be banned? The discussion is starting to drift off... --physicq210 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah. I've dealt with trolls, angry users, and the like. No one's ever dropped the F-bomb on me for a 2-sentence comment. Especially not someone I respected and liked. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It brought me no pleasure, but I'd been pushed to the breaking point by CBD's last remark there. I regret having said it in that it detracts from my position and makes me look foolish, to say nothing of the disrespect it suggests. At the time, it's an artifact of how angry I was thirty minutes ago. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Never post when you're that angry. It avoids all sorts of foolishness. Georgewilliamherbert 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not "I'll never speak to you again," it's, "I have no faith in your judgement." There's a huge difference between the two. Once someone realizes that a significant number of people no longer have faith in their judgement, maybe they will start reconsidering their actions. --Cyde Weys 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fuck you". "troll". "assholiness". Do you really think this sort of thing is going to change my 'judgement' that some admins act on anger and behave in incivil ways that damage and disrupt the encyclopedia? I'm sorry that you 'do not have faith in my judgement', but the fact that a "significant number" of admins blow up and violate Wikipedia's standards of behaviour in ways that would get regular users blocked is the cause of my concern - not something to get me to reconsider it. We, meaning Wikipedians as a whole, aren't supposed to act this way. Admins doing so because they can get away with it / not even being able to discuss it civilly is, in my opinion, a very serious problem. --CBD 22:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what I said. --Cyde Weys 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, you're first in line to defend troublemakers when they're accused of the very things you attack admins over. When a "regular user" is rude, you absolve them so you can blame admins... when an admin is doing the same thing, suddenly they're damaging the project. You make it sound like admins are what's wrong with Wikipedia, and troublemakers are all just innocent victims of us evil admins. That's simply not good... I really am starting to think you don't understand the problem people have with your actions. --W.marsh 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you say is completely untrue. I "absolve" no one. Regular users who swear and attack and harass are bad too. Obviously. But that gets dealt with... swiftly and sometimes harshly. Admins doing the same generally does not. If a user objects to being told they were incivil or to a block for the same they are labelled 'disruptive' and get another block... an admin responds by telling people "Fuck you" and you think there is a problem with the behaviour of the person pointing out that this is bad? Several people have said that they object to 'my giving bad users a free pass'... but as I don't actually DO that, and they aren't actually 'getting away' with anything you're right - I don't put a lot of stock in that claim. Any stock really. To me it seems more like some admins just don't like being challenged or told that they should be nicer. --CBD 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, I think the main reason you see so much more administrator behavior than the rest of us is because you consistently incite it yourself. It's like poking a beehive and then being shocked that bees are coming out and stinging you. What you seem to want to attempt is to somehow "fix" the bees ... rather than just stop poking the beehive. In short, you seem to be on some sort of crusade against all of this perceived administrator malfeasance, but rather than getting any closer to fixing it, you're just causing more of it. --Cyde Weys 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This metaphor seems to imply that admins act incivily because it is their nature, and since there is no hope of changing that, the solution is to stop discussing it. Frightening. —Nate Scheffey 22:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the metaphor then. The bees aren't normally aggressive ("uncivil"), it's only when you go poking their beehive. --Cyde Weys 23:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't they? Did I tell them "fuck you"? Was it me who said "assholiness"? Do they never act this way in interaction with users? I think the answer to all those questions is clearly 'no'. I agree with the logic of your 'poking the hive' analogy though... I've been going with 'baiting the bear', but same concept. The problem is that if admins can act like this in response to the 'poke' of mere polite discussion... how exactly do they justify crucifying regular users for doing the same in response to put downs and blocks? We should have thicker skins than we expect of users... not go flying off the handle at the mere mild suggestion that we might be less than perfect. --CBD 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're admitting that you're trolling for negative responses, so that you can then jump on their backs for behaving incivilly? --Cyde Weys 23:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... no. Please. I say "assholiness" is incivil and you people start shouting 'trolling'. It's more than a bit bizarre. People ask me if >I< know what trolling is? Because I assure you, that's not it. I'm not the one swearing and calling people names. I'm not trying to make anyone mad and disruptive. I'm saying that they have already been mad and disruptive and should stop that. --CBD 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are trying to make people mad and disruptive. You've admitted as much when you said you were "baiting the bear". You are purposefully ticking off admins by constantly taking the side of problem users in some misguided effort to "expose admin incivility", nevermind that you are ultimately doing a lot more harm than good (and hurting your image in the community to boot). --Cyde Weys 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No Cyde, you are apparently misunderstanding me somewhere in the analogies... "when you said you were 'baiting the bear'"... I didn't say that. I said that there is validity to the logic that criticizing a user/users (aka 'poking the hive' / 'baiting the bear') can sometimes cause the behaviour we are trying to prevent. It's a point I've raised myself several times in relation to harsh admin criticism of users. I did not say that increasing bad behaviour was my goal and don't agree with your characterization. I am not "purposefully ticking off admins". That some respond to attempts to explore the causes of 'problem behaviour' or any criticism of their own actions with explosive rage is an observed reality, but neither my goal nor fault. I don't exercise mind control over other admins... we require users to not respond to criticism (often much more harshly delivered than mine has been) with angry rants (or they get blocked) and I don't expect any less from my fellow admins. I assume they will be able to respond to criticism of their actions politely and reasonably... as I have stiven to do in response to the criticisms of myself for daring to do so. :] Please stop assuming bad faith - your claim that I am "trying to make people mad and disruptive" in response to my direct statement to the contrary suggests both that I am lying and that this is a 'nefarious plot to trick admins into behaving badly'. I would hope that you know that is not the case, but if not then you really should try harder to 'assume good faith'. --CBD 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that FSF has wounded the feeligs and exhausted the patience of many editors, and has often behaved unbecomingly; but as an editor who has worked a lot with him in developing WikiProject Chad, I feel I should speak of all the good work he has done as an editor, countering systemic bias that, as well known, is rampant in Africa, and countries like Chad more than other African countries. I feel that if we consider the good and the bad, the good, in the sense of useful and valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, is far bigger. For this I advocate leniency, and doubt a ban would be in the best interest of the project.--Aldux 20:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Aldux. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deep breath

• Mackensen, you're only damaging yourself when in one comment you "wonder at whether [CBD] thinks before [he] post[s]" and at the very next one you say "fuck you" to him. There's simply no way you can advance your arguments if you aren't able to exercize basic restraint. El_C 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• El C is right. I invited CBD to this discussion as soon as I proposed it, and I'm dismayed at the treatment he has received here. These ad hominem attacks on somebody trying to stick up for a clearly troubled individual (who has, in fact, made lots of good edits) are not a good thing. If you have an issue with CBD's larger behavior, take it to his talk page, but allow him to discuss FSF without personal harassment. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  No worries Bunchofgrapes. Obviously, trying to get people to see the positive aspects of a 'troublemaker', the reasons that he reacted the way he has, and how we as admins contribute to the problem is going to be less than popular. I knew that going in, but I think it is worth doing... so I can take a little heat. Compared to various things I've seen in over twenty years in online forums (going back to Compuserve and local BBSs with my high tech 300 baud modem) the incivility here was nothing and I don't hold any anger towards those who disagree with me. Mostly I'm just confused by the continued insistence that I "refused to see anything wrong with FSF's behaviour". I can't fathom that at all in the face of my numerous direct statements to the contrary. On the original issue, I think all the known accounts should remain indefinitely blocked - there's no benefit to anyone in unblocking them. I think he should be allowed to edit under some other account - in part because... he will anyway, and knowing who it is would at least allow an eye to be kept out for civility problems. Also, I'm not fully convinced that he couldn't have been gotten to remain within acceptable bounds of civility and collaborative effort if he'd received more of each himself... though I begin to fear that may be impossible and we are evolving towards a system where we cut users loose not only if they are incapable of reforming, but also if we are incapable of allowing them to do so. At this point there seems little hope that everyone will 'forgive and forget' and thus a 'community ban' might be a way of 'cutting our losses', but to me it feels like giving up and admitting that we failed. --CBD 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think its important that this users positive contributions be weighed against any negative actions of recent. If even admins have shown and argued taht a few uncivil remarks do not out weigh the contributions they make here everyday, then one would think it applies to all parties. I have been looking over their edit history and think the idea of letting them resume from a new account that only one or maybe two admins, who they feel have not been bias against them, will know is a worthwhile proposal. As for the F-Bomb I just hope everyone can remain civil and take this as an example of what at least "perceived goading" can cause. This almost seems like an extension of the past arguement when the focus should be on FSF --User:Zer0faults 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've withdrawn from this discussion; I've apologized to the person to whom my gravely uncivil remark was directed. I've interacted with CBD on his talk page before and always been frustrated with his responses. I don't take back I word I said regarding CBD's behavior; over the past week he has refused to see anything wrong with FSF's behavior, and I find that perverse. I hope it's obvious from above that separate parties were being engaged. I regret that I distracted from the primary focus of the discussion; I hope that in the future CBD will try to understand why his actions and words can so obviously enrage other people. If he can't see why FSF is deserving of a ban at this point then no power on heaven and earth can ever make him see, and I for one will stop trying. Given FSF's stated support for de-sysoping the first thousand admins on Wikipedia I'm not sure if there is such a thing as an uninvolved admin, but I suppose you can try. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • My apologies, my comments were not meant to be directed jsut at you. As for his support of desysopping anyone, that really should have no affect on an admins decision when looking at his situation here. Its odd because to insinuate it would is almost stating he is not paranoid after all, and in fact admins dont like him for mroe then whats being discussed openly here. As for CBD I am happy to hear you and him have resolved that. CBD has repeatedly said in this thread that FSF was wrong in things he did "I did not say it was "reasonable" for him to edit war/keep a black list/whatever. Indeed, I said that he should have been more trusting of the accuracy of their sources" & " I did not say it was "reasonable" for him to edit war/keep a black list/whatever. Indeed, I said that he should have been more trusting of the accuracy of their sources" & "Freestylfrappe's incivility absolutely IS a big problem... but it is not the only problem" --User:Zer0faults 15:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • One correction. As the "F-bomb" was not directed at CBD I have not apologized to him for it, but rather to Firsfon. I've directed no apology towards CBD because as I've noted above I stand by my remarks. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I only have one last comment on this subject. WP:AGF doesn't require us to fall on our swords. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Incivility and its causes

It seems to me that it's hardly a sociological mystery that admins should often be uncivil to problem users. All other things being equal, an admin who's invested considerable time and effort in the process of dealing with a disruptive user (and likely received in return a torrent of abuse, protestations of good faith, accusations of bad faith, conspiracy, cabalism, Freemasonry, and so forth), is considerably more likely to lose their temper or be uncivil in describing behavior than an uninvolved party. This is simply human nature. Furthermore, judging from my perusal of this noticeboard over the past several months, there seems to be a relatively small cadre of admins willing to tackle particularly disruptive users. When the Civility Police swoop down crying "You said troll!" without acknowledging that there is, generally, a long history of provocation from the insulted side, it should hardly come as a surprise that they get blown off by the targets of their criticism. There's a certain Dilbertesque air to the proceedings, which seem to be based on the same principle as the idea that, since you can do one minute's work without mistakes, you can do it *every* minute, and that perfection is, therefore, expected of you. I think a more realistic solution to the problem of incivility is to lead by example. The greater the number of persons willing to navigate the processes necessary to curb a contumacious user, the wider the pool over which their obloquy will be spread, and the less isolated individual admins will feel in dealing with such a user. By contrast, it's unlikely that the current approach will achieve anything more than aggravation. Choess 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how many admins there are, considering you do see many of the same names over and over. --User:Zer0faults 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When you scan the noticeboard you see the usual cries: "Waa, Clyde spoke harshly to me;" "Kimmy said I should be desysopped;" "Tommy deleted my page." It is easy to spot an uncivil remark by an active administrator. It is hard to come into an on-going dispute, wade through the diffs, wait for the pages to load, and then find out after two hours of tedious research that the admin was right all along. After a while you want to just ignore the whole business, write articles, and revert vandalism when you see it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The uncivil remarks are never right however, or so the arguement has been. The idea is that uncivil admins create an atmosphere where users feel they can be uncivil and people who are being accused of being uncivil feel justified. How can you ban person X for being uncivil when your ban message is that they partake in "assholiness", quite an uncivil remark in itself. However I think we should get back to the issue of FSF and his contributions and recent acts. --User:Zer0faults 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the model of ideal conduct in Wikipedia follows the dictum "be conservative in what you transmit, and liberal in what you accept". That is, we should endeavour to be civil in our dealings with other people, and, conversely, we should not allow the incivility of others to divert us from civil and productive behavior. Obviously, this is an ideal that we don't always live up to. The protests here against admin incivility implicitly admit that users will not react with perfect sangfroid when rudely addressed. But if we extend this doctrine to administrators, then we must acknowledge that their behavior, under provocation, may also fall short of the ideal. As for the question of how they can ban someone for "incivility" while acting incivil themselves, the answer is obviously that it's a question of degree. Banning every editor who has ever been uncivil would, obviously, be seriously counterproductive. However, banning someone discontented by WP:OWN who abuses and stalks other people who edit their pet article is clearly beneficial to the encyclopedia. Minor incivility is, if not admirable, an ineradicable feature of Wikipedia, indeed of any collaborative project. Gross incivility may merit blocking or banning — instances where the "friction" of interpersonal contact has caused the local system of collaboration to seize up. The precise dividing line between the two is, necessarily, subjective. Anyway, my point in writing this was to point out that the recent practice of hunting for minor incivilities in handling long, messy cases of user conduct and using them here as a club to discredit the admin and/or process is pernicious, to some degree self-contradictory, and more likely to provoke and disrupt than to encourage increased moderation and tact among admins. Choess 19:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Choess, you say that it is not surprising that an admin might eventually lose their patience and slip into incivil conduct after long tiresome efforts to help a user behave better. Certainly reasonable. But tell me... how long had Zoe been trying to 'help' Freestylefrappe before blocking him for "assholiness"? Long time? Tiresome efforts? Or was she the relatively "uninvolved party" and just being nasty because she can get away with it? >I< have been trying to get him to improve his civility (off and on) for a long time. He recently accused me of being incompetent and irresponsible. Why am I not flying off the handle and violating civility? Why am I not cursing out Mackensen and Cyde for saying mean things about me? Because that wouldn't do anything to improve the situation. It should never be 'ok'. Not when a user feels persecuted, not when an admin is exasperated, not when you are in a position to get away with it, NEVER. Yes, we can forgive the lapses which we all make in varying degrees (and should extend that forgiveness in equal, if not greater, measure to the USERS)... but we do need to say something about it. You suggest that is 'nit picking' which only serves to inflame the situation, but extending the same logic would indicate that we should not ask users to be more civil either... let alone go around strongly warning them to do so, blocking them, et cetera. Surely these things also are likely to aggravate people, 'destructive', and thus to be avoided? :] Or perhaps we should politely tell people when they are contributing to a problem? Nor, when a user is being criticized and faced with an indefinite block for switching accounts, does the reason they did so seem to me unworthy of mention... that reason being the reversion of more than a dozen of their edits. Apologies, an ArbCom request, talk page notices, article improvements... all reverted. Then the user is called "paranoid" for saying that they had to change accounts to be allowed to contribute. That is not "minor incivility". That's a problem of the admin community collectively pushing users into behaviour which they then ban and/or ridicule them for. You can say, 'oh but there were reasons for all of those reverts' (though I'd call several of them questionable)... but even the slightest effort to 'put yourself in the other guy's shoes' would reveal that it certainly wasn't going to look that way from their perspective. It seems to me completely wrong that we should go so far out of our way to ignore our own mistakes and avoid any suggestion for improvement which might cause annoyance... while expecting the users to calmly deal with harsh criticism, ridicule, and humiliation... or face further blocks for responding poorly. You cite the 'ideal' of Wikipedian conduct, remaining civil even when faced with incivility, almost as if it were some lofty near impossible challenge for admins to live up to (though, in truth, most do just fine)... but it is simultaneously not a 'remote ideal' but the 'general standard' against which user behaviour is measured. Too often we mete out blocks when users fail of this standard and congratulatory support when admins do. --CBD 11:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, one can view Wikipedia as a form of international diplomacy. Since we cannot actually see each other face-to-face, and therefore must express our emotions and thoughts in written (or typed) words, others may mistake a seemingly benign comment for a hostile threat or equivalent action. Admins, as editors whom the Wikipedian public has entrusted with additional tools, and hence are to be held at a higher standard than other editors, are to be much more careful with their words, as a slip of the tongue or a different choice of words can indicate and/or differentiate between a genuine interest in helping a besieged editor or an intent to further trample upon the oppressed (or any other interpretation).

While minor incivility can never be eliminated from Wikipedia, I believe that gross and/or blatant violations of policy and/or a declared or implicit intent on conducting disruption and incivility cannot be tolerated in Wikipedia. Just like diplomats, a sensible editor of any rank should be able to express one's viewpoint with a clear declaration without offending the listener(s). Wikipedia is a collaborative project; minor incivility is to be expected (but not condoned), but blatant violators or policy and basic human ethics should not be defended. --physicq210 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's hardly a sociological mystery that admins should often be uncivil to problem users. All other things being equal, an admin who's invested considerable time and effort in the process of dealing with a disruptive user (and likely received in return a torrent of abuse, protestations of good faith, accusations of bad faith, conspiracy, cabalism, Freemasonry, and so forth), is considerably more likely to lose their temper or be uncivil in describing behavior than an uninvolved party. This is simply human nature. Furthermore, judging from my perusal of this noticeboard over the past several months, there seems to be a relatively small cadre of admins willing to tackle particularly disruptive users. When the Civility Police swoop down crying "You said troll!" without acknowledging that there is, generally, a long history of provocation from the insulted side, it should hardly come as a surprise that they get blown off by the targets of their criticism. There's a certain Dilbertesque air to the proceedings, which seem to be based on the same principle as the idea that, since you can do one minute's work without mistakes, you can do it *every* minute, and that perfection is, therefore, expected of you. I think a more realistic solution to the problem of incivility is to lead by example. The greater the number of persons willing to navigate the processes necessary to curb a contumacious user, the wider the pool over which their obloquy will be spread, and the less isolated individual admins will feel in dealing with such a user. By contrast, it's unlikely that the current approach will achieve anything more than aggravation. I just had to put that in bold, and in blue, because it's so bang-on accurate that I would hope everyone reads it. --Cyde Weys 02:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

tb;dr. El_C 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite a colour, and it's very like what Choess said above! I liked it too; worth highlighting and repeating as an insightful summary of where we are. How can you not like somebody who uses words like contumacious and obloquy? In all seriousness though, I think it's easier always to agree we should lead by example, than it is always to do it. I do think we can all aspire to improve how we get on with each other as a community; using positive language to describe even problem editors seems important to me in that regard. --Guinnog 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So in short, you mean use constructive criticism? --physicq210 03:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though it is hard sometimes, as we are human. Labelling problem editors as trolls, for example, even when that is clearly what they are doing, doesn't seem to me to help the situation, as then we just have an insulted problem editor, with less likelihood of improved behaviour. --Guinnog 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Often it is not hard for someone to give constructive criticism (that is, if it is worded correctly and carefully). In many instances that I've seen through my 11 months of Wikipedian experience and as a (sort-of inactive) member at the Mediation Cabal, it is hard for the person given constructive criticism to accept it for what it is: advice designed to better them. It is hard for many to swallow the bitter medicine of learning from positive admonishment from their peers and fellow editors, and many stubborn editors refuse it and end up destroying their Wikipedian careers. --physicq210 03:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

El C does have a good point. However, I also see a double standard here, in that it seems as though Wikipedia is all too willing to give one side a "free pass" while being quick to pass judgement on the other. Things work inversely as well; there are so-called "problem users" who respond with incivility due to harrasment and abusive behaviour by admins. Uncivil behaviour, by it's nature, is disruptive. It is reasonable to say that there are situations were it is understandable that one may stoop to incivility, given the weaknesses of human nature, the nature of Wikipedia, and the determination of trolls, but the community should be cautious about being overly tolerant of uncivil behaviour. It should also be realized that attacking so-called "trolls" may goad these users into more abusive actions; it is far better to respond with reason and tact. A situation is seldom defused by incivility, but rather by calm, rational discussion - and a ban hammer, if needed. Speak softly, and carry a big stick. --72.160.108.167 10:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to mention an obvious point that supports what Choess has written above: the only other person contributing to this forum who has had an account on Wikipedia at least as long as me is Zoe -- & neither of us have participated without a break here since its creatoin. Dealing with problem editors on a regular basis is a taxing experience, & it leads to a heavy turnover in volunteers willing to try to work with these people -- rather than label 'em an (insert favorite invective), ban them for ever & return to contirbuting content. -- llywrch 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior by anyone is unacceptable, but a consistent pattern of unacceptable behavior by an administrator is particularly problematic, in that the behavior of those individuals is implicitly endorsed by the community which "promoted" them, and that they set an example for how other users should behave. Yes, it's a hard job, and yes, provocations are bad, but if you're blowing up in response to trolling, then maybe you should devote your efforts to other tasks on the encyclopedia where you're less likely to be trolled, and leave contentious admin tasks for other users with thicker skin. The watchmen for any society (real or virtual) need to be pure beyond reproach like Caesar's wife if things are to function the way we'd like them to function. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. Mackensen, for goodness sake, be careful! Think - what if this makes it to your RfA! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: AN/desysoppings

Given that the "let's desysop X admin" usually become huge threads, clogging this page and by using this as a discussion forum making difficult for everybody to use this page as a noticeboard, AND given the fact that noone seems to remember that community discussion should go to Village Pump while Admin's noticeboard is for dropping reports asking for adminsitrative stuff, I hereby propose the creation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Desysoppings so people can bait, flame, discuss, or whatever it takes and keep this page (and WP:AN) neater. -- Drini 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that such discussions wil llead to nowhere and no action being taken, since RFC + RFAr would be the way, several megabytes of heated discussion won't do much than cause an OUT OF PROCESSS!!11!! desysopping that should have to be undone afterwards -- Drini 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confused, are you proposing a useless black hole venue for upset editors or are you opposing your own idea? --User:Zer0faults 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I?m proposing a balack hole to keep the useless huge threads out of this page and making people who use this as a noticeboard have an easier time not needing to be flooded with such threads. But I also point that such discussions will lead to nowhere, but since they will happen anyway, better to have them contained at a separated place. -- Drini 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of /Desysoppings, could we at least call it Room 101? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

*wink* -- Drini 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia Review was the venue of choice for pointless whining about Admins. Can't we just direct them there, and save our severs the strain? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Frivolity aside, it's an absurd suggestion. AN and AN/I deal wtih things exactly as their participants wish, and their participants are a great many administrators. If you feel that you cannot use the pages for the presence of such discussions, then I am sorry for it, but people respond where it is logical. If Tony Sidaway comes back to a dead issue to get in one last dig, don't be surprised that people respond there, instead of copying out most of the discussion to some other place.
• Finally, nothing is "desysop X." Until there is a proper demotion process, we will come up against the problem of highly abusive and selectively abusive administrators from time to time, and from time to time the lack of an adequate process to follow will cause an acute problem. Geogre 16:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread is so ironic because its complaining about wasting space by wasting space, further tis complaining about items being where they dont belong and this thread if serious wouldnt be proposed here! Kudos. Your a) Sarcasm or b) Wit, is quite superb. --User:Zer0faults 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of this silliness, we should simply ignore who propose desysopping here, and deal with whatever actual problem there is. If a thread is only about desysopping, we should ignore or even remove it. How does that sound? -- SCZenz 17:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be the best. Except when removing one gets called vandal, bad admin, censorship, and generates a 2nd call for desysopping ;) -- Drini 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why ignoring silly threads is much better than removing them, I suppose. --Conti|✉ 17:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not an absurd suggestion. It a sugegstion to make this place a better one. I fully support the creation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Desysoppings. If you won't need it today, make sure you'll need it tomorrow. Besides that, what's the problem w/ better organizing stuff over here? -- Szvest 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is not about any specific incident. Create the page and see what happens. I suggest we need some clear(er) policy. Admins should be setting the example for other editors and instead I often see confusion and dispute here. Sometimes to the extent that I think that harm is being done to the project. --Jumbo 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I surely agree w/ most of the arguments against but it is better to leave this place for other disputes. -- Szvest 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Drini, what you did was perform a move without discussing it first, without announcing it. You just moved it. That looked a lot like deletion to most folks. This is in addition to making errors in the move. The topic was very, very hot, and therefore being edited like crazy. That should have been a warning by itself that folks were not interested in scattering their comments. Further, moving some things to a user page was way out. Pump is not where anyone thinks of going for the discussion of how administrative tools were used or misused by a particular set of administrators. They thought, instead, of AN. Getting some consent before the move would have been key, and then there would have been the subject of where to do the move. A new page transcluded at AN might have worked, but not the pump. Geogre 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Be bold in updating pages -- Drini 21:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I may regret getting involved in this later, but that is a gross misquote. Reading the first line of that link (emphasis mine), "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles." Oddly, it said nothing about encouragement for admins to be bold in moving any discussion. I'm not saying you were right or wrong in moving the discussion (in fact I know nothing about that), but I think you're misusing WP:BOLD. BigNate37_(T) 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can move this discussion to the discussion page, as it doesn't actually refer to any specific incident? --Jumbo 00:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does, which is why I have resisted having it deleted. This whole thing is rather thick in subtext and bizarre in liminal text. On WP:AN, there was a discussion of user:Tony Sidaway's behavior with regard to user:Giano. For some reason unclear to most, if not all, Drini moved the discussion to Tony Sidaway's user page and to Village Pump, and, during the moves, several posts disappeared. No one actually accused Drini of intentionally deleting posts critical of Tony but amazingly preserving all in favor of Tony, but it sure was annoying. If one or more persons thought that Drini needed to be arbitrated for his insistence, it's not shocking, although it's probably without merit. Now, Drini here proposes that "let's desysop X" is a common absurdity and that it needs to be moved. Therefore, people who didn't know the AN incident will miss the context, and those who did will be a little miffed to see the very serious issues around Tony Sidaway treated as if they were IP anon's ranting for the heads of people enforcing policy. Geogre 10:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're so getting desysop'd for that "thick in subtext, bizarre in liminal text" intransigence! And being critical - insolence! El_C 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It was just a matter of time, anyway. It's the fate of anyone who writes articles for Wikipedia. -Bot makers and -box wranglers don't like the competition. Geogre 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The main namespace? I've heard of it... El_C 12:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Fearless leader says that we must never confuse edits to Wikipedia with contributions! No.... Contributions come from being on IRC and imperious grunts at the groundlings. Geogre 01:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Football vandal?

Could someone with some knowledge of football (or soccer for us Americans) please have a look at the edit histories of User:82.168.59.236 and User:82.92.94.108? They have been alleged to be the same person, have been blocked multiple times before, etc. I don't know anything about the topic so I don't know if all the changes (without edit summaries) are in fact vandalism as has been claimed, but someone who knows about this subject should evaluate whether some long term intervention or blocking is needed. Thanks. Gamaliel 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

These are Tiscali IPs, so be careful if blocking, since Tiscali uses dynamic IP addresses rather than static. --LiverpoolCommander 09:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

These ips are related with a user too, i requested checkuser request but answer is "Obvious 3RR evasion should be treated as such". So 3 of them are long term vandals. Their edit patters show everything, even if they are not sockpuppets they are meatballs. There is a minor thing to show the harm of them, Galatasaray article has edited more than twice before they start editing, but improvement is near zero:) --Ugur Basak 12:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So the edits are in fact vandalism? If so I have no problem blocking these address as they've been subject to multiple blocks before. Gamaliel 21:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Their edit patterns are similar, they edit same article in different times. Revert to same versions. For example, see history of Ertuğrul a Turkish football manager. He continuously adding The TFF has made a agreedment with Ertuğrul Sağlam to take over the national team from Fatih Terim after Euro 2008, besides his contract with Kayserispor is till 2008, i add fact tag but he removed it, even after warnings he did the same. Before that he is adding Suat Kaya, ex-Galatasaray player, will be new Gala coach etc. Once Galatasaray article was vandalising by one of that ips, he was reverting an outdated version that include rumoured transfers and other predictions. I request for protection of article or an admin semi-protected it (now i don't remember). Just after article semi-protected, Burak18 started to edit same artice and reverting it to same version. He has blocked for breaking 3RR several times. Also Suat Kaya's history can be checked. I tried talkin to him (them), using edit summaries, talk page and user talk pages. But he didn't respond. Also there is an interestin edit summary of him, "im sorry that i am misusing burak18 his profile but he never shows up on the site" after warnings. User:heah asked what did it mean while posting block message, but again no respond. User:Samir (The Scope) adviced me to try WP:RfC, but i guess i'm a bit lazy and busy to start a case. If it'll be necessary to start a case in RfC, i'll try it. --Ugur Basak 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While i was writing above text, other ip has removed fact tag again:) int Ertuğrul Sağlam article. --Ugur Basak 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Help requested

User:Nfitz keeps putting bogus warning templates on my talk page, and this has gone into a edit war on MY OWN TALK PAGE. I am NOT a vandal; I am former administrator here with a lot (Something like 8000) of edits. Nfitz has done this elsewhere as well; User_talk:Kprobst, User talk:Warrens (there is discussion here as well about the warnings on my talk page; for those who are curious this centers around a "personal attack" which was "Please take your crusade elsewhere"). There has been long, drawn-out painful discussions about the validity of those warnings (my talk page, the other two as well); I would really just like to blank it at this point and take a wikibreak without looking like I'm some kind of vandal. So, could somebody please revert any nonsense that is on there and protect the thing? MY DEITY you know its gotten bad when you ask your own talk page to be protected... RN 22:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go protect it. If you want the revision with the wikibreak notice restored I can do that too, and I'll make the protection log note this was at your request so it can be unprotected when you return. Syrthiss 22:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I had been debating on whether I should follow this up or not, and I had decided that it is wasn't worth it ... as I just can't understand RN's motives. However now that RN has made this accusation, I feel I have no choice but to raise this issue here. User RN has been blanking his talk page; which in addition to my warnings about his personal attack on me, also contained links to his archives, where previous warnings have been posted in the past, including details of his previous block. My understanding, is this stuff shouldn't be deleted from Talk pages, without providing Links to an archive. RN has continued to do this, despite being warned. Now he is accusing me of placing bogus warning templates; the warning templates were not bogus. Nfitz 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

None of that material has been deleted, it is still accessible from the history for anyone who is concerned...and any blocks are easily accessible from his block log. As much as I personally dislike people blanking valid warnings, I also don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy for people who persist in hounding other editors. He clearly saw your warnings as he had to revert them, and it is in my opinion reasonably poor wikiquette to use standard templates on established editors and threaten them with vandalism blocks. You can of course contact me to unprotect his talk page if RN returns to editing, since people would not be able to communicate as easily with the user concerning their edits. Cheers. Syrthiss 22:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But why is he above the rules, and allowed to wipe warnings? I haven't been hounding him, BTW. I've popped in occasionally, to see if he's followed up the discussion ... but when I see that he has simply wiped the warning, and removed the links to his archive which have always been there, then I don't see any alternative than restoring the warning, and raising the warning level. Is this not the procedure in such cases? Nfitz 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My advice is to let this one go. You're both productive editors when you're not clashing with eachother. Whether or not his comment can be considered a serious personal attack is questionable in my eyes despite its hostility. You saw it as an attack, he didn't, and you both were already frustrated with eachother. Because you were the one to warn him rather than someone impartial in the matter, I think it fanned the flames so to speak. A short break, a calm demeanor, and a liesurely skimming of WP:WQT might help. As a side note not related to talk page warnings per se, I've noticed that we're generally pretty lax about talk page archiving for established users, I know some who simply "purge to page history" as their method of choice. BigNate37_(T) 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I had decided to let it go, as I noted above. But now he has gone and made this accusation, and I've got Admin's using the word harrasment, then I don't think it can be let go. The guidelines are quite clear that warnings should not be removed; or links should be provided to the archiving. Why should established users be above this. And if this were true, then that should be noted in the guidelines. Perhaps more serious, than my warning; is that there are other warnings in his archives, that are not linked. Nfitz 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The only guideline I could find regarding this is

“ Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings. ”

(from Help:Talk page). We had quite a large discussion on whether to make a proper guideline covering this, and it really didn't lead anywhere. The only example I can give is this: while RN did remove your notices from his talk page, in reality this is more of a content dispute than vandalism... You felt he was incivil, he disagreed, you started placing vandalism notices which he probably viewed as incivil, and the situation devolved from there. Previous warnings are previous warnings, and if there is anything true about Wikipedia its that people have long memories. If there is a reason to dig up old warnings, someone will. Does that help? Syrthiss 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What about

“ ... to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of legitimate warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors. ”

(from Wikipedia:Vandalism) Again, I note, if it was only my informal warning about civility, I wouldn't have been concerned; but there are warnings from earlier this year, and also be blatantly removed my recent warnings about removing warnings, without trying to discuss the issue. Nfitz 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for this to be dealt with properly. Allowing someone to clearly break the rules, and then instead of penalizing or at least chastising them, to reward them instead, is not on. If the Talk Page is to be protected, shouldn't it be protected in it's state when he went on his 'wikivacation' with the archives linked? Nfitz 13:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nfitz, it is disputed whether your warnings in this case were valid. RN considered them invalid, and so removed them. It is not clear that he was incorrect, so he is not at fault. Simply let the matter die. Xoloz 15:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else I can explain it to you, and suspect that we may just have to disagree. There are at least two users who have asked you to drop the matter, and I've been holding off making further comment here to see if someone else would have some insight. As for reverting the page to show the archive notices, protection isn't a pick and choose which version. The version that exists when the admin applies protection is what gets protected, with no endorsement by the protecting admin of the page content. Syrthiss 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure why the matter should be dropped. The only explanation I can fathom, is that former administrators are not subject to the same rules as others. If that is the rule, that is fine, and I will go adjust the guidance documents to reflect this. Sure, I can understand the protection is frozen issue, and all that. And as I have noted myself, my own warnings are not the issue here (not sure where Xoloz's comments are coming from - he seems to be ignoring the prime issue) ... the issue are there are other warnings that are now not there, nor are they on linked archive pages. Wikipedia:Vandalism seems quite clear on this; or should I be editing that as well. One way or another, further action needs to be taken, either in cleaning up guidance, or dealing with RN. I'd have thought a simple revert to his earlier Talk Page, which is pretty much blank except his Wikivacation, and the archive links would have been a decent solution - but I guess (and I'm not quite sure why) this isn't an option - so further action seems to be the only available course. Now do we do that here, and if not, where do I start this? Nfitz 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've blanked and protected pages for other users before per m:Right to vanish (which in my opinion is what RN requested). I've said before that if RN returns from their break and starts to edit again, then the page will be unprotected. I've said before that previous warnings exist in the history, and that even were they deleted...which they are not...adminstrators can view deleted edits. I've said before that any previous blocks exist in the block log for anyone to see. This excessive zeal to push the WP:VANDALISM policy over Assume good faith is puzzling to me. Syrthiss 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If he is exercising his m:Right to vanish then I would agree with you. Though, if that's the case, he could have avoided all this, by simply answering my question. Okay, I see your point. Let's just wait this out ... Nfitz 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others who've commented that this seems a non-existent problem, and the vehemence with which it's being pursued is unbecoming. If the user resumes editing constructively, the warnings are irrelevant. If the user resumes editing and there are difficulties, the warnings (meritorious or not) are in the history to be called up if needed. If the user does not resume editing, the matter is moot. In no case is it a difficulty that the page does not bear the warnings. Newyorkbrad 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was unbecoming that it was brought here as well. RN as a former admin, should have known to try and deal with it directly, and also to have let what was then a dead issue go, when he brought it here; it was clearly a calculated move, to stir the pot - which does seem to be his trademark - that is, to go one move too far, to provoke reaction. If one follows through your logic, in its entirely, then, the direction inWikipedia:Vandalism needs to be changed. Also, I'm not sure why we are still discussing this; I thought we'd just all agreed to let it go? What is the reason to discuss it further? Nfitz 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be at a stable point so far as this page is concerned. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll just note for the bazillionth time that the line from Wikipedia:Vandalism cited above actively encourages edit warring on other users' talk pages and inevitably leads to situations like the above where a user trying to 'enforce policy' winds up doing things that look very much like (and in some cases are) harassment to the person on the receiving end. It is a horiffically bad idea that never should have been inserted into the policy (without consensus) and ought not to have been restored after any of the dozens of times it has been removed as inappropriate. --CBD 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

Why can't I edit the main page anymore?Pewlosels 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, non-admins cannot edit the main page. – Chacor 03:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since when?Pewlosels 03:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been like that for a while now.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 03:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Really? I must have been gone for a while! Did something bad happen? --Pewlosels 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, any website doesn't want to have their front page vandalized, right? ;-) --physicq210 03:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You say "I must have been gone for a while!" but yet your account User:Pewlosels was created recently.[144] Are you someone who has used Wikipedia before? Do you remember your old account? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • AN/I troll? Anyone? --InShaneee 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you got it in one, InShanee. -- llywrch 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Just looked: except for creating a userpage, all edits have been to WP:AN/I -- even though said person claims she wants "to start and work on the Mynwyw article". -- llywrch 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• February 2006 appears to be when it was first fully protected, from looking at the protection log; I thought it happened a lot earlier than that. Grandmasterka 03:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The protection log clearly does not extend back far enough. The Main Page has been protected as long as I've been here; the last anon-IP edit to the main page, barring temporary unprotections, was on February 25, 2002. In the News became permanently protected sometime in 2004; the final straw was indeed a submoron putting up a penis on ITN. --Golbez 03:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • iirc, it became the defacto policy in 2004, but I cannot remember the page where I saw it stated. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • According to this signpost story, the main page (and its associated templates) weren't completely protected until February 2005. Graham87 09:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Now I remember: as mentioned on WP:PP#Images protected while on the Main Page, it was images on the main page that became defacto policy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: As noted above, I blocked Pewlosels, & despite acting very quicklystill believe she should be indef blocked for trolling. She has asked for an unblocking. I have supplied my explanation on her talk page, which all Admins are welcome to review, & if they disagree with my reasoning, unblock her. -- llywrch 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary/Personal attack on Jimbo Wales

On the Telescope article, in the edit summary, is this message:

(Personal attack removed)

I'm pretty sure this is sexual harassment against Jimbo Wales; as well as an inappropriate message to be displaying out there. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to report it) Nwwaew 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty inappropriate to be displaying here as well. It's in the history here and there, so it can be checked if needed: [145]. has apparently been oversighted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Maybe it could be oversighted or deleted/undeleted without that revision, although it's probably not quite bad enough for oversight. --ais523 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

More Thewolfstar socks

Larry Craven - see: [146] and [147]. A related edit by a no-name here: [148]. Donnacha 20:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Larry Craven blocked indef, the IP for 24 hours. Grandmasterka 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Donnacha 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And, once again, this time without a name [149]. This is getting very tiresome, every day (if not twice a day), we get a new identity from the same person. Donnacha 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's like whack-a-mole! Blocked 24h. Grandmasterka 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, here's another one! [150]. I don't know why she keeps adding what I've admited was early morning narkiness (with a typo!) Donnacha 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sam Allardyce

After tonight's programme on the BBC a lot of anonymous users are already putting defamatory comments on this page. Would there be any chance of protecting it? Maybe the same for Bolton Wanderers F.C.? (Pally01 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

I've semi-protected both. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably time for the slashdotted template. Geogre 01:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion

I'm loath to bring the matter up, but I would like to know if I making too big a deal over nothing. As some may know, I lashed out in a rather unprofessional manner on this noticeboard several days ago. Since then, I've made what apologies I thought appropriate and actually interacted with CBDunkerson again, so I'd call that progress. My generally good feeling about the progress made came to halt this afternoon when it was drawn to my attention that Zer0faults (talk), with whom I've had little interaction (save commenting in the same thread), had created a page whose sole purpose appears to be to document the stronger two of the outbursts: [151]. I queried him about the overall purpose and intent of this page, but received no response: [152]. Taking matters into my own hands, I edited the page to add context: [153]. This change was reverted by Zer0faults later this evening: [154]. Noticing that he was active again, I immediately made a follow-up query on his talk page: [155]. I have yet to receive an answer to either question.

What I'd like to know is whether I'm taking this all too seriously. I'm not used to being on lists, or having a deliberate record of this kind made of my mistakes. Perhaps I'm just supposed to expect this as par for the course. I'm somewhat disturbed at what has to be a deliberate lack of communication on Zer0fault's page: he must have seen my first query on his talk page; he saw and reverted my edit to his sub-page. Am I wrong in asking for and expecting an explanation? Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that his revert, with a curt edit summary, removed simply a reference to your apology suggests that he's determined, for whatever reason, to cast you in a bad light. He renders this goal somewhat absurd by his refusal to reply to your reasonable requests for elucidation, and by his removal of a clearly significant piece of information. The page has the look of the start of an arbcom evidence page, though I doubt he'll find much more material in your edit history, as I have always found you eminently reasonable. As he's ignored your comments, I'd suggest just deleting it. — Dan | talk 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Beat ya to it. Grandmasterka 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It was the start of a RfC I will also note the deltion there I guess. Please do not delete subpages simply because your friends are on them. Thank you. --User:Zer0faults 10:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The page was deleted not because someone's "friends were on them" but because it was an attack page, and when an explanation was asked for, you did not reply. Your accusatory comment here, impugning the motives of those who removed an attack page, is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Where was the attack? Its his own difs. However I simply posted the dates on my talk page, better now its not an attack page, just a log of the incivility they displayed. If I ever find anyone preparing an RfC I will post on your talk page about so you can remove it. Also did you realize that some people work and there was 8 minute difference between when he asked and when he posted here ... This is why patience is a virtue. The deletion date will be recorded as well however. Thank you for your quick reply. --User:Zer0faults 10:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also my apology Mackensen for offending you with your own comments. I am sure its quite embarrasing to have flown off the handle in such a manner, but the collection of evidence toward an RfC is not against any rules. --User:Zer0faults 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I had not seen the timestamp difference. You're right; however why the snotty tone with me? "If I ever find anyone preparing an RfC I will post on your talk page about so you can remove it. Also did you realize that some people work..." Why so hostile and argumentative? Try to be a little more civil, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you'd just told me that's what you were up to I'd left it alone and not bothered with any of this. Communication is a wonderful thing. Mackensen (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, somewhere out there I'm sure most of us have half-completed RfCs against us, it's no big deal. I hope Pat won't mind me bringing up this relic of past disputes. But WP:OWN does also apply, and if one is not allowed to apologise and have one's apology recorded than it's not a terribly good reflection on the person compiling the case, I feel. Are we supposed to be plaster saints? Guy 11:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's an RFC, then please label it as such. We all need to summarize in private before going through the rigors of an RFC or RFAR. If the page is properly labelled, it probably won't get deleted. I suggest (and it is with a heavy sigh) that Mackensen mirror the page and add context and follow-through in his own space. However, if there is no RFC in a month or so, Zer0faults should be aware that anything he's assembling will be stale and probably no use in an RFC. The longer it goes without an RFC, the more it becomes just an "enemies list." Geogre 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's just an RfC on my own actions I'm not terribly worried; beyond these diffs I can't imagine there's much in my recent history (unless I'm really forgetting something horrible). If this is a broad RfC regarding various administrators over the last week my own sins are somewhat minor indeed. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting involved in edit disputes over someone assembling evidence against you strikes me as a poor strategy. Keep an eye on it, assemble your own devastating arguments, and if and when they use their material, you can be prepared to tell your side of the story in a calm and well-researched manner, rather than having to respond in haste. --Jumbo 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it an edit dispute. Please read the full discussion. He never called it an evidence page and never responded to queries. I made one edit and got reverted; that brought me here. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Natalia Tena

Natalia Tena has several IPs repeatedly adding fan sites, in violation of Wikipedia:External links rule allowing one fansite per bio article. I guess I'm requesting a temporary block on the article. Desertsky85451 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected. Please use WP:RFPP or WP:AIV in the future. Naconkantari 03:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Desertsky85451 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:69.130.82.106 continues to vandalize Dog The Bounty Hunter adding links to websites selling t-shirts. He has been warned by 2 users on his talk page.

user posts racist comments

i have noticed the following anonymous user User:58.107.175.127 has made several racist contributions, such as comments on the Gilbert Gottfried talk page or the White Supremacy talk page. in fact, several of these comments are still there (nobody has reverted them). i find them incredibly inflammatory, but i leave action to someone who knows how to deal with the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=58.107.175.127

thank you.

Looks like the IP has a history of nonproductive edits to Wikipedia. I blocked it for a week. --HappyCamper 04:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, MONGO blocked it for a week already. Thanks for bringing it to our attention here. --HappyCamper 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Jomonkl (talk · contribs)

I'm finding that User talk:Jomonkl pops up a lot on recent changes patrol, and it looks like that Jomonkl and an anon (probably a significant other) are using it as if it were an IM window or e-mail. The page has been reverted several times by others, and I left a warning, telling them that this violates WP:USER, and they acknowledged it...before blanking my warning and continuing on. The user has made no contributions outside of his talk page, and there really isn't anything else I can do, so here I am. --Coredesat talk! 06:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pinged them with an "absolute final warning" considering they'd already been warned. I encourage any admin to enforce a brief block if that user, or the IP (I left them a message too) breaches WP:NOT and WP:USER again after these final warnings. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Robbie Williams sprotect request

It's getting a real working over this morning from some anons. Might want to consider some level of protection. Cheers, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Decided not to protect as the flood of vandalism has ceased. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, please take such requests to WP:RfPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, page needs editing

Last paragraph of Lee Harrison needs removing, its abusive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cleaningthispage (talk • contribs) .

Already taken care of. Syrthiss 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Help

There are a few editors that are removing seepy tags on this article IFSZ. Can I get a SYSOP to inverine please. This article as been recreated twice and deleted twice. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Article has been deleted never mind thanks! Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That should sort it. -- Steel 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steel Advertisments are annoying. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:AlexWilkes

Hi, just wondering if anything could be done about User:AlexWilkes. He's continually ignored comments of other users, and refuses to engage in dialogue over his disruptive edits to Wikipedia, primarily adding excessive and non-encyclopedic headings to sections, and using emotive language in articles instead of writing from NPOV. He has been blocked before, and it doesn't seem to have done much to disuade him. Thanks. QmunkE 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Representatives of Thomas Kean Jr. pushing POV?

I spotted a series of blog posts about astroturfing on an unrelated site (here and here), which claim that the IP address 70.90.20.85 belonges to the Thomas Kean Jr. campaign. This IP has made anonymous edits to several pages connected to the Kean campaign, particularly Robert Menendez and New Jersey United States Senate election, 2006, and as such, probably bears monitoring. Just wanted people to be aware, in case it becomes an issue again in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bloomberg literally paid his "volunteers" to watch over his article during the mayorial election, though I doubt he was personally aware of it. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a policy against paying people to edit your article--152.163.100.65 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But there is one against a single purpose POV pushing account...hence the request for it to be watched. --InShaneee 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bloomberg Incident suggests that there isn't--152.163.100.65 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'm 'suggesting' that any account that can't follow guidelines and policies will find themselves blocked, and that goes double for an account that's here to push an agenda. --InShaneee 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Paid editing is possibly a blockable offense per Jimbo precedent. See Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest and User talk:MyWikiBiz. WAS 4.250 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Block for review

I've just blocked Mykungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours for continuing to place suspected sockpuppet notices on other users pages after I asked and then warned him to wait for RFCU to look into it at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ccson. I've informed the user on their talk page that I will release the block pending a promise to not replace those templates pending RFCU confirmation of sockpuppetry. For transparency, I have listed this block here and if another admin wishes to overturn it they are welcome to without checking with me first. FWIW, Mykungfu has an RFC currently pending against them at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian. Syrthiss 20:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User is an AOL user and is evading my block on their account to restore the notices here. I've protected the two userpages who have requested it. Syrthiss 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Lord Chess and personal attacks

User:Lord Chess, who was banned for harrasing me (see block log), and recently warned for personal attacks on me and User:Golbez, is now "warning" random users about me. Warnings of what, I do not know. However, I've had nothing other than continual harrasment by this user, on effectively no basis other than his own perception of me, and I'd like something to be done about it, if possible. There is also substanial evidence that he has a sock puppet army, which I can provide if required, although having done this at the complex abuse page seemingly acheived nothing. --Kiand 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre. Blocked. Guy 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kiand 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)