Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive289

Persistent ongoing vandalism by at least one registered and several anonymous editors at Me and the Pumpkin Queen

I am having a hard time keeping up and finding warning/welcome templates. Please help me warn and/or block these users and possibly protect the page. Here are the diffs:

• [1]

• [2]

• [3]

• [4]

• [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk • contribs) 22:01, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected for 1 week. Please use WP:RPP in the future. --Eyrian 22:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for catching this one. Please note that the same anonymous IP(s) and registered user is/are also vandalizing other pages: [6] and [7], as well as now possibly moving on to the talk page as well: [8]. Finally, I just noticed that some of anonymous and even registered users have also been vandalizing Eyrian's user and talk pages. Because Eyrian created the Me and the Pumpkin Queen article, I wonder if this is one vandal or a couple of friends targetting Eyrian and his pages? Perhaps someone should do a checkuser of the registered accounts that vandalized these pages and the IPs to see if there is a relation? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR's destructive behaviour against RfC

A check is necessary about the destructive behaviour of User:DIREKTOR. Among all his POVs against the RfC on Zadar. I've deleted my name from RfC, imposed by another user (non accustomed with RfC rules), and deleted I've deleted it from a comment, because a RfC MUST be anonymous and neutral. User:DIREKTOR has started a (further) edit war to make my name again visible. He is also imposing new edits under RfC, on Zadar and Republic of Ragusa, again using edit war. Moderator Isotope23 has been informed of several accidents, and can be a neutral 3rd part for questions.151.25.29.58 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason my talkpage has apparently become something of a complaints department from multiple editors pushing multiple POVs at Dalmatia related articles (despite my frequent reminders that I know squat about the topic). I'm going to initiate an ARBCOM request tomorrow because frankly there are a whole host of editors who don't seem to be able to work together within the Wikipedia framework and have resorted to edit warring, name calling, and other non-productive behavior... It's a bit more than I can sort out on my own.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Isotope23, but if you recall I was not the one to drag you down into all this. It was the same person whose clear pattern of mistkes in sentence construction had become all too familiar to me, and who's constant, pathetic, and incessant attempts at sockpuppeteering have begun to characterise him. I am of course talking about Giovanni Giove an his statement above. This is outrageous, to think he can actually fool intelligent human beings with this ridiculous display is an insult, and not just to me I might add. Is he really gonna get away with this? I am really starting to lose it, and I really hope the ARBCOM can help. DIREKTOR 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User Noroton still removing many links to MichaelMoore.com

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

User has been blocked, unblocked, pages protected, and this is now an ordinary content and user dispute. Take it to the appropriate talk pages. Cool Hand Luke 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Noroton is still removing many links to MichaelMoore.com. Link There are no more links to the 'edit' pages on mm.com. Noroton knows that. This is vandalizing! •smedleyΔbutler• 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He stopped after Theresa's and MastCell's revert 1. I declined the request for page protection for the time being. Lets cool down now. Edit: Ugh guess I was wrong...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's certainly, certainly not vandalising. You may disagree with it, but it has nothing to do with the teenagers who replace an article with the word "poop". This is a sincere, good faith belief that the site, even without the links to the edit page, is still engaging in harassment — a belief that many Wikipedians might share if their real names and photos were plastered on the front page of a website, along with their wiki-identity. ElinorD (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but it is pigheadeness. The discussion futher up on this page had a rough consensus that it was the linking to the edit pages that was the potential source of attack. There was no mention of the photo, and hardly a mention of the name. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is still an attack and harassment of a wikipedian. Websites enjoy significant SEO benefits from having their links on wikipedia. While that site continues to attack a wikipedian in violation of our core policies, it should not be allowed to realize those benefits. If it was Bill O'Reilly attacking Bmedley Sutler, I would hold the same view, and would support the removal of his links until the attack was gone. All the links can return when the website complies and removes the attack. - Crockspot 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. Wikipedia has nofollow in place for ages because of spammers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. We don't punish websites or organizations because of what they do. --Iamunknown 23:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't reward them for attacking our contributors either. What if the text of the URLs were displayed, but not in a link form? I would not be opposed to that compromise. - Crockspot 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reward, delinking the url affects nothing because they do not get SEO benefits. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And there is, as noted a kajillion times, significant disagreement as to whether the page constitutes an attack. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted at WP:RFPP) can someone please protect the wrong version? Edit warring continues... --Iamunknown 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's temporarily protected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Noroton says that he's going off to have dinner now, too. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A deal

I think THF having a break from editing Sicko and Moore removing that from website would sort this out. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No thats giving in to bullying! PS MM.com still has a picture and the login of THF on its front page, still there with the aim to damage wikipedia and one of its contributors. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds rather random. Arkon 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that the issue for Moore is the COI issue. And it is clear that the issue for THF is being attacked. i'd not call that "random". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just fairly obvious. If there is a COI issue, it should be dealt with through process, not through attacking an individual contributor. - Crockspot 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Someone needs to remove every link to Steven Colbert and Comedy Central. They have asked for Wikipedia to be vanadalized not just edited. Maybe I should start that right now? •smedleyΔbutler• 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No we should start legal proceedings against Steven Colbert and Comedy Central and send a harshly worded letter from our lawyers to mm.com. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • That's right, Crockspot - I can't *believe* Michael Moore is not following Wikipedia process to handle these issues! We should ban him indefinitely! Absent that, let's punish him Wikipedia style. What a joke. Wikipedia is only as useful as the information it has, and this notion we are going to "punish" Michael Moore by not linking to his website, when there are countless links in references and citations, and when we purport to be an encyclopedia that is "useful", makes us look silly, juvenile and a joke. Seriously, who do we think we are? The Mighty Wikipedia? --David Shankbone 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) There are many avenues he could pursue to deal with a COI problem that he feels hurts his interests, including contacting our designated agent. - Crockspot 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Agreed. I am sure he is crying as we strip useful information away from the people who come here to learn. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:24, 24

Um... we can't give in to demands just to stop other people being mean. As was shown with the "lol letz unblock Daniel Brandt i dunt see how it cud go rong" fiasco, doing that is only a temporary fix until they find something else that they don't like. -Amarkov moo! 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...Did I miss something here? Did Michael Moore demand something? --David Shankbone 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point too. Why are we assuming that he'll take anything down because THF stops editing Sicko related articles? -Amarkov moo! 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know, then ask him. Personally, I don't like the idea of cutting "deals" with off-wiki people, and in any case that'd be something for THF to bring up if he wants, not us. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So let's get this straight: if Richard Rossi wants me to stop editing his page, all he has to do is blackmail me with an attack page implicitly encouraging people to send me obscene phonecalls, emails, and death threats? Why does anyone think this is a good idea? Why isn't the analog of WP:NLT the obvious answer? THF 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Noroton block

Krimpet just gave Noroton a 24-hour block for 3RR. People here may want to review that action, insofar as Noroton is claiming that he was justified in reverting due to attack page concerns. One way or another, we need to decide exactly what is and is not an attack page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the WP:NPA#External links rule about 3RR was changed after User:Noroton was blocked. THF 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When he was making those edits, the policy said simply this: "Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked." Therefore, I think that by the letter (and spirit in fact!) of the law, you can't really block Noroton for a 3rr violation. ugen64 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he can, and should. If Norton has an agenda other than writing the most complete article possible, he has no business editing here. Whatever rule that falls under, it's certainly the spirit of how Wikipedia works. VxP 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot single-mindedly say "any action taken with the agenda of writing the most complete article possible can be justified and follows the spirit of Wikipedia". The fact is, we have a policy about No Personal Attacks for a reason. What if Michael Moore's website said, for example, "THF's real name is [XYZ] and his address is [XYZ] and his phone number is [XYZ]"? If Noroton had deleted the homepage then, would we all be complaining about it now? The fact is, the policy specifically stated that removing personal attacks was exempt from the 3 revert rule (as it rightly should be) and therefore, Noroton can only have thought that his edits would have, at the very least, not been threatened with a block. Unfortunately, he did receive a block. Now whether his edits were correct or not, I cannot say anything, but he had justification for making those edits in a policy and as much as we might like to point to WP:IAR, it is very strange in my opinion to block a user for simply assuming that following the letter of the policy would be seen as the correct course of action. ugen64 02:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to the block, which was made more than an hour after the page was protected. The editor was presumably motivated by a wish to prevent harassment, rather than the standard edit warring motive to push his own POV or to enforce his version of the article. It was particularly nasty to have the main page of a website with a photo of one of our editors and his real name and Wikipedia identity, plus invitations to edit his user page. Even when the invitations to edit his user page were removed, the name and photo remained, and they were more serious. WP:HARASS says that publicising the real name, workplace, etc. of an editor without their consent is harassment even in the case of editors who requested a name change but still have their old signatures in page histories. The MONGO ArbCom case allows removal of links to attack sites without regard to 3RR. Now I agree that it's debatable as to whether or not this was an attack site. Certainly, the contents of it at that particular time (I haven't looked recently) were extremely nasty. But it's a question on which one could legitimately disagree. So a block, after it was over, and after the page has been protected (when we so seldom block after a page protection even in an article POV content dispute) sends a very bad message.

I also disagree with the recent edit to WP:NPA, but that's a matter that I'm sure I can discuss with the editor, who is extremely reasonable and approachable. ElinorD (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it doesn't make sense to block an editor for edit-warring after the page has been protected. After all, blocks are supposed to be preventive, and the protection has already prevented any more edit-warring on those pages. I would be in favor of unblocking Noroton. MastCell ^Talk 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I understand that the page where Noroton broke 3RR, Michael Moore, was protected, preventing any further reversions from taking place on that page. However, as I explained on the 3RR noticeboard, Noroton was revert-warring on a massive number of other pages as well, both before and after Michael Moore was protected, and continued to announce his intent to revert indefinitely up until his block. It is for these reasons that I decided a block was needed as a preventative measure. Krimpet 03:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site is very relevant here. - Crockspot 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As the policy was, the user might have been justified. I've unblocked with instructions not to remove the links again in the next 24 hours. I hope user can articulate their position on this and other discussion pages. Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That ArbCom ruling is really vague though. They don't even define what an attack site is! In that context, they were talking about a vile and puerile attack page created on Encyclopedia Dramatica. This isn't even remotely similar to the Michael Moore incident, and does not confer immunity from 3RR to Noroton. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't think links to mm.com that were taken down from the pages that are now locked have to be put back up? •smedleyΔbutler• 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Point me to the links that were taken down but not restored? --Cyde Weys 04:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not a single one of you good Samaritans had the decency to follow this suggestion at the top of this page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." I have done absolutely nothing in this episode but be reasonable, be open to discussion (and in fact discussed what I was doing at length on the Moore talk page, on my own talk page, on the talk pages of people who wanted to talk about it with me), try to follow the rules and the spirit of what we're supposed to be doing here and do the right thing when another person was under attack by a bully (simply by deleting the links to the bully's web site). I'm owed an apology from that administrator as well as a formal statement from Wikipedia that I was wrongly blocked. I'll be pursuing dispute resolution until I get both. You people basically lack respect for others. Why would anyone want to work with you? And the administrator had the unmitigated gall to talk about the spirit of the rules and accuse me of wikilawyering when I was simply trying to follow the rules. What about the spirit of WP:CIVIL? You disgust me. Every last one of you, even the one's who didn't agree with the block. Even you couldn't even tell me about this so that I'd have a fair chance to defend myself. Thanks for not inviting me to the party. How dare you. Noroton 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm... well now I agree with the block. Great job defending yourself, alienating people who defended you for no good reason must really help. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Sorry Amarkov. Guess I'm not a good politician tonight. I've never really been good at smiling after I've been insulted. I'll try not to discomfort you in the future. Why would you think I would want to defend myself? Noroton 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think Wikipedia gives formal statements. It's like herding cats. I think that there may have been some miscommunication, and it was an oversight not to post to your talk page, but I think editors were acting in good faith, including the one who blocked you. Please assume good faith. Cool Hand Luke 05:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In addition to being a phrase we throw around, Assume good faith actually has an article that goes with it as well. There, if I might wikilawyer a bit (because whenever you're referring to a policy you're wikilawyering it up according to a certain administrator), it states: "Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus if possible. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." It also states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." And that would be an exception to a rule. Kind of like the exceptions to the WP:3RR rule, which some of you just possibly might want to take a look at. There's one interesting exception that goes, "reverts to remove content or links to content that harasses, attacks, or violates the privacy of individuals." But there I go with that wikilawyering again. It does say a bit later that you should strive for consensus and even links to Administrators Noticeboard, which is something I didn't know (or maybe I read it once and had forgoten it). It doesn't say what to do when A/N gives you no consensus. Or at least I didn't detect a consensus. I read a closing admin's comment that this should be decided in "other venues". I didn't know what the hell that meant, but thought it might mean the talk page for the Michael Moore article. Or maybe the page-protection page. Which is where I went. But I guess ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they mention over at WP:CIVIL. Really, there's no excuse for me not figuring out exactly what the consensus was and following it. Noroton 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When an editor writes threats like Norotons above, theyre not here to write an encyclopedia, (IMO). As one of the other editors said about me once or twice "I think he needs a cooling-off period" •smedleyΔbutler• 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's uncalled for.

He was blocked, he thinks it was unfair, he's venting but not making personal attacks out of it. This happens.

Please, everyone, stop pouring gasoline and drama all over this incident. Stop posting, stop sniping at each other. It's not helping the encyclopedia, any of the contributors to the thread, etc. Georgewilliamherbert 05:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I think this thread has been resolved now. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Mr. Moore, doesn't Wikipedia look stupid?

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

Please. Stop. The thing is over, and no admin intervention is needed. If you want to bicker about this, please do so somewhere else that does not have the word "noticeboard" in its title. —Kurykh 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't think links to mm.com that were taken down from the pages that are now locked have to be put back up? •smedleyΔbutler• 04:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an editorial decision. Take it to the relevant talk page. But the discussion below is verging on ridiculous. —Kurykh 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Could you imagine any other news source being so tribalistic, so juvenile, in a response to what is a relatively innocuous bit on a web page that changes frequently? Could you image Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN crew acting like a bunch of Lord of the Flies kids over Sanjay Gupta? Welcome to Wikipedia, where the mentality of teenagers rules in our response to what was essentially a factual post on Moore's website about a relatively notable person who edits his pages. And we go ape shit. Like a bunch of a little kids. "HEY MOORE! THAT'S ONE OF OUR OWN! HOW DARE YOU UNMASK A WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTOR WHO USED TO EDIT UNDER HIS VERY OWN NAME AND NOW EDITS UNDER HIS INITALS, AND WROTE AN ARTICLE ATTACKING YOU ON HIS EMPLOYER'S WEBSITE?! No more links for you! Take that!" And we wonder why we are made fun of? Look no further. Because people like MONGO and Crockspot influence the debate to make us all act like a bunch of ninnies instead of intellectuals trying to build an encyclopedia. Thatcher was 100% right, and we all look like idiots. That's the real news story here, and I hope it gets picked up in the media. --David Shankbone 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, David, this was not helpful. Please consider not commenting for a while if you're this upset over the situation. Georgewilliamherbert 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think most of the comments on these threads have been helpful, and I'm actually not upset. I think we just look really stupid right now. And I hope it gets picked up in the media that a well-known person pointed out how often another well-known person edits his articles, and we all went crazy and decided to "punish" Michael Moore by removing his link. I hope it gets picked up in the media, and we are the subject of ridicule, so people like Crockspot and MONGO and Hypno don't allow their ridiculous reasoning, and our own grandiosity, to win the day again. --David Shankbone 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, Shankbone, that was a bunch of overwrought horse hockey. Take a deep breath, exhale, repeat. Geez! Oh, by the way, Michael Moore is a big, fat windbag. Have a good day!--Getaway 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's Limbaugh you're thinking of. Hey, how about if wikipedia would sponsor an experiment: Put the two of them in a fishbowl together, and see which one survives. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Very simple reasoning, mm.com tried to harm wikipedia by attacking one of its parts, an editor in good standing. This should not be allowed, and wikipedia as a corporation based in florida has legal protections that allow it to do buisiness without hindrence. It should use them or these attacks are only going to happen more often to the point we will spend our time reverting vandalism not writing an encyclopedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, who are we to say what Michael Moore should and should not be allowed to do? Who do we think we are? Seriously? You don't think Moore hasn't said and done worse things to other people? THF is a public person, who wrote a public article attacking Michael Moore, and he is writing a longer article about him, and he used to edit under his own name, and introduced himself on his website, and is now writing a Wall Street Journal piece, and all of this was revealed, and we are jumping up and down about what is currently found on MM.com? We take ourselves *way* too seriously. It's really silly - we look like children, and I am guessing most of us are. --David Shankbone 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wait, who are we to say what Michael Moore should and should not be allowed to do" I believe that the american people through their representational democracy decide what he (and everyone else on american soil) can do. And they have given the right to sue to re-emburse damage done that is not criminal. It is not just the outing which was the attack, it is the posting of his login and who he worked for. This was clearly to designate him as the ENEMY on wikipedia, and wikipedia is not a battlefield. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost in respect due, I believe your behavior here today, especially in this thread, is the most childish. Have some decorum, and please reconsider sweeping unfounded generalizations of the type you've made here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL - sure. And the "we should sick our lawyers on anyone who tries to vandalize us" and the "get rid of his link to his site" crowd with pitchfork mentality is, well, looking pretty good also...I can tell you, in my waking life, it won't make a difference to me if Wikipedia considers me childish. And THF, seriously, you need to change your ID, because it begins to get a little silly to dance around the elephant in the room. --David Shankbone 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll take up defending David: It looks to me like David is speaking his mind, in good faith, with honesty. What he is saying is perhaps not stated tactfully, but that does not make what he is saying invalid. Take it from a guy that watches AN/I like a reality TV show, this is all very silly. Actually, the best way to describe the umpteen threads about this here is disappointing. These incidents remind me of one of the questions I asked at WP:BADSITES: what is an attack site? Frankly, I'm not interested in discussing it anymore, because it is clear that it does not do any good. "Sides" are immediately drawn in issues like this, and that is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've yet to see a productive discussion on this yet and do not hold hope there will ever be any. So my caution to DavidShankbone is that it just isn't worth your time to speak honestly about this, the people you are trying to convince will not listen. That's just my observation and I very much hope that it is wrong. daveh4h 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Daveh4h that is unfortunately true as like the death penalty this is a digital choice with only two incompatable possibilties. This means there is no middle ground to find, you are either for or against the death penalty, you either decide to protect wikipedia and its editors or you throw them both to the dogs. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

""we should sick our lawyers on anyone who tries to vandalize us"" YES the perm banned ones that come back!^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is silly, it's not how adults act. Maybe spoiled adults, but we're writing an encyclopedia here. The 1st amendment is alive and well in America, and being the kind of project that we are, we shouldn't be trying to hinder it. We're specifically not a cabal, and this talk of a "no middleground" is nothing but pure fallacy worthy of Joe McCarthy's finest years. My position is my position, I don't care whether it constitutes an improper middle ground, or anything else, in some person's eyes. I don't think you'd find Jimbo Wales in favor sicking his lawyers on Michael Moore for this, nor a majority of editors. This project works because editors can correct problems by reverting articles and dealing with problems on the site as they arise. Nobody entrusted any of us to fight any legal wars. VxP 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No your view just meens that vadalism will get worse, and long term vandals will come back year on year on year, for ever because nothing will stop them until they decide to stop. This wastes thousands of man-hours already and is getting worse all the time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment is alive and well in America, and being the kind of project that we are, we shouldn't be trying to hinder it" This is not about Speach this is about knowingly damaging wikipedia, you can't shout FIRE in a theater. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A lawsuit would be frivolous. I appreciate Hypnosadist's support, but his idiosyncratic views about possible legal remedies are derailing the discussion. THF 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, with that aside, I'd like to propose that we ignore the situation. Not only is it the "right thing to do", considering as an online encyclopedia we'd really be missing something by not having a link to the website of the article's subject matter, but as a practical matter, all the attention we're giving it is only making it worse. As big as we are on ourselves, Michael Moore will move on to other things when he gets tired. I'm sorry, but it It's simply not part of our mission as Wikipedia editors to "defend" other editors from outside threats, it's our responsibility to write a complete encyclopedia. If you're removing a link for reasons other than "writing a good encyclopedia", you're following an agenda contrary to Wikipedia's mission. I don't direct this at any one person, but the reality is that it's true: nobody authorized us to "battle" Michael Moore on behalf of Wikipedia, only to write a complete article about Michael Moore. VxP 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a noble sentiment. You should perhaps suggest a change on WT:NPA, since the current rules say differently. Consumer Reports has an ironclad rule against permitting sellers to use its ratings in advertisements; if a company violates that rule, CR boycotts the manufacturer, even if that means consumers get less accurate information, until the advertising is withdrawn. But the nice thing about the CR rule is that by protecting its secondary interest so fervently, its primary interest isn't ever affected. THF 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see NPA applying. MichaelMoore.com is certainly not an attack site against Wikipedia, it's a proper link related to an article's subject. Even if it contains an "attack" on Wikipedia, its primary purpose is a legitimate site, and that holds a lot more water to me than a questionable attack. What if CNN wrote an article trashing Wikipedia. Surely someone would see that as an attack, do we de-link CNN? And the consumer reports example is not relevant, we are Wikipedia, not consumer reports. VxP 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, MichaelMoore.com's primary purpose is not to serve as an attack site. But any page that contains what is defined as a personal attack falls under WP:NPA's jurisdiction, whether or not that's its "primary purpose". You will have to get the policy changed if you want a different view on that. ugen64 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I should note that, right above on this page, Jimbo has said that BADSITES is justly rejected as a policy. *Dan T.* 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I hope, Dan, that you agree with him that "there is a noble concept behind it, and . . . that a more carefully formulated restricted version of the policy could in fact pass muster." In fact, apart from the troll behind that page, which led to the destruction of much of the protection that harassment victims had previously enjoyed, most of the people who supported the idea did feel that it would have to be considerably modified, which would place us in agreement with Jimbo. ElinorD (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From the post Dan T. quoteed: "I would consider that page to be a hate site page engaging in reckless speech about innocent people, and that's the sort of thing I think we should have the good sense and dignity not to link to directly." THF 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to burst the bubble here, but what about this topic requires administrator intervention? Can we just archive this and be done with it? Cowman109^Talk 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of bad ideas have had "noble concepts" behind them. That doesn't stop them from being bad ideas nevertheless. *Dan T.* 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the really relevant part of his post is where he says "that a more carefully formulated restricted version of the policy could in fact pass muster." I look forward to your support in trying to bring that about! ElinorD (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with David Shankbone here. Our response to Michael Moore's post on his website was downright juvenile and vindictive. We had a bunch of people running around like it was the end of the world, and even worse, using it as an excuse to "punish" him by removing links to his site. This kind of shit is the reason we get in trouble like this in the first place. --Cyde Weys 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I have a friend who is a producer at The Colbert Report and I just sent him a text to call me about this. When they see Moore's little post, and they read some of our choice self-important "punish" "reward" "throw them to the dogs" quotes and see that we started to remove Moore's links on his articles about him because he "unmasked" a notable person who himself has attacked Moore, writes WSJ Op-Ed articles, and used to edit under his real name (as his user name) until only about a week ago, who do you think is going to look foolish: Wikipedia or Moore? How do you think third parties will see Moore's little tiny post of nothing but facts, and our reaction? At least some people in this thread understood the point of it. Enjoy the humble pie. Much deserved. --David Shankbone 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  Speaking of childish, I think this qualifies — dragging people who disagree with you out for public ridicule is not exactly a mature or measured reaction. --Haemo 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Ugh, I really don't approve of this action. This is embarrassing for Wikipedia; we shouldn't be trying to get it on national television! We need to learn our lesson as quietly as possible. Wikipedia already gets enough bad press as it is. --Cyde Weys 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And of course you surely told your friend about your prior conflicts with THF, right? Thatcher131 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I haven't spoken to him yet, and probably won't until tomorrow, but yeah, I'll give him the full background. The real story is "Wikipedia vs. Michael Moore," not me and the name we dare not speak. Actually, quite a few people already know about my THF stuff - it made good party talk. I don't think via any other way but public embarrassment will we stop this kind of childishness from happening again. I don't see any effort to get what Moore did not declared an "attack", but only support for removing his links and this tribalistic "He attacked us, we will fight back" attitude. I mean come on, guys. How could this have gotten this far? How did we let it? --David Shankbone 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your vigorous stirring of the pot did a lot to get use here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, Tom, that's a little too easy. This was something the anti-Moore contingent on this site brought us to all on their lonesome. It was User:MONGO, I believe, who started ripping down the links, and I have a bolded warning about it. Then there was a pile-on in favor of removing the links, page protections without the links...etc. etc. etc. This cauldron was a'bubbling way before I wrote my little rant above. --David Shankbone 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I just had an evil but amusing thought. What if Colbert does do a story, and it ends up focusing on you David, and paints you as a pot-stirring troublemaker? That would be a kick in the ass, eh? But I doubt that would happen. I have never known Colbert to single out individual Wikipedians for ridicule, except perhaps Jimbo, but that's sort of Jimbo's job. - Crockspot 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that would be funny if I was the real story here. Keep dreaming...You always have those in that world you live in! Until then, I concur with Aude and I'll stop posting on the topic. --David Shankbone 03:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not every response, Cyde. I thought Isotope23's act was the appropriate one: ask him to remove the "edit THF's userpage" link. I hope it's not a surprise to find that if you speak to someone reasonably, they respond reasonably. I hear that's how a bunch of crazies created an encyclopedia on the Internet. -- llywrch 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of all the drama here. I think there's overreaction on all sides. I don't think this needs involvement from an admin at this point. Pages in question have been semi-protected. This kind of childish bickering (coming from all sides) on AN/I is the sort of thing that makes me want to remove AN/I and other noticeboards from my watchlist. If it continues, I'll be doing that. I suggest taking this elsewhere. Admin intervention is not needed right now. --Aude (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper AFD closing

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of inventions shown on American Inventor (second nomination) was improperly closed by the nominator. Should it be reopened or relisted or taken to DRV? Corpx 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Its been undone, nominators cant close afds so its a simple case of revert, SqueakBox 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure the nominator's intention was not to withdraw the nomination? - Crockspot 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was, there are two other delete votes tallied. I'm not sure it can be withdrawn at this point. Resolute 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) As has been observed, the nominator "improperly closed" the discussion most likely as a way to withdraw the nomination. However, since Corpx was for the article's deletion, the deletion review seems apropos here. --Aarktica 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Check out this section of the deletion process, the portion addressing non administrators having their closes reverted (located on the tail end of the section) . Since the reversion was 38 (+/-2) minutes after the "closure"... all the needs to be done, has been done. No DRV, no relist (at this point) in my opinion is needed. Best regards, Navou ^banter 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody check this for sockpuppetry

Resolved

I'm offline for a while. Can somebody check into this?

• 75.37.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 76.204.176.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SallyForth123
• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SallyForth123_evading_3RR_block_with_dynamic_IPs and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SallyForth123_evading_block.

Thanks! Sancho 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. See User:Sanchom/SallyForth123 I really need some extra help or input with this. Do we protect all of the articles? Sancho 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Airline route maps under GFDL?

Resolved

Sox23 (talk · contribs) has been uploading a variety of airline route maps, often providing a source link directly to their website (see Image:Spirit Airlines Route Map.JPG for example), but putting them under a GFDL license. Am I missing something here, or are these outright copyvio's without a fair use claim (let alone released under GFDL). Should they just be speedy-deleted? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not GFDL. As to whether they are fair use in articles about airline destinations is debatable. Comments by someone with more fair use experience would be welcome. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They're copyvios. Delete them and re-create using free-licensed maps and the original data. --Carnildo 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't even know what the GFDL is so I've reverted all back to the previous non-free promotional. Sorry- I didn't mean for "copyright infringement"? Sox23 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these maps you're uploaded qualify as non-free promotional either - the are repeatable, as noted above. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They've been deleted. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

COI John Howard

This morning media outlets in Australia have reported that staff from Prime Minister John Howards office have edit his article[9] to removed controversial information. I have fully protected the article, added {{COI}}, and requested editors via WP:AWNB check the article and fixe any issues quickly. Can admins watch for {{editprotect}} tags and fix as quickly as possible. Also as I'm an Australian editor my actions could be seen as a COI can an independent(non Australian) admin review the current situation and make any appropriate alterations. Gnangarra 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think full protection is neccesary. The history shows the most recent IP edits, (which are what Wikiscanner reports on) are typical childish vandalism, and have been reverted as usual. There is no evidence that I could see of substantial editing from someone with a conflict of interest. Kevin 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. The article was semiprotected to limit childish vandalism and it is a good protection from IP edits reported by scanner. On the other hand JH is a Prime Minister, we are nearly elections. Thus, something notable about him may surface any moment and who would add the info to the article? Alex Bakharev 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Phral

for the umpteenth time I have to make a report about this user formerly known as User:देसीफ्राल. I filed a report for wikistalking recently incident report However in the last few days he has gone around undoing my edits[10], [11]. Though I encountered this user in race related articles, he has gone out of his way to undo edits in unrelated articles such as Mother Teresa [12]. I feel like I have big brother watching over me. Other edits that he makes are quite offensive[13] There is a case outstanding for Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hayden5650 for which he is implicated. This editor does not seem interested in making any meaningful contributions but simply to go around upsetting people. Muntuwandi 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note:(Muntuwandi, I think you inadvertently removed this) Phral and Muntuwandi are both involved in a Mediation Cabal case of which Singularity and I are the mediators. Thanks, Neranei (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for fucksake. Pay no heed to he who adds photos of albinos to the white people article. If the situation was reversed, and Muntuwandi was a white editor, pushing the Agenda for whites as he does for blacks, he would have been blocked after his first edit. No admin seems to have the balls to block a Black editor for racism, because 'that's impossible' --Phral 02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral, if you would care to discuss the issue with me, please feel free to do so, either via email (if you want to keep things private), or on my talk page. Please, please remain civil. Thanks, Neranei (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral you have just followed him to Mother Theresa and removed a sourced paragraph w/o even leaving an edit summary or a reason why at the talk page. This is wikistalking. I am therefore blocking you for all these offenses as i'd already warned you before about edit summaries. So all in all, you have followed him to an article you have never edited before. You removed sourced info. You haven't used the edit summary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse; both these editors seem to be totally incapable of de-escalating their argument. If blocks are what it's going to take, I support them. --Haemo 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Biggspowd (talk · contribs) needs to be indef blocked

This person throws a tantrum and retires/quits about once a week, then comes back and resumes editing. He's been blocked several times in the past for vandalism and such things, and is currently blocked for one week for vandalism here [14]. He refuses to recognize this and insists on repeatedly vandalizing his own talk page. When someone is blocked, they're not supposed to edit their talk page except to request unblock, which he did (and this request was declined). He responds by constantly blanking and redirecting the page. [15], [16] This person is obviously not going to listen to reason and it's time to end the games and vandalism. The Parsnip! 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the user blanking his talk page with a desire to leave Wikipedia, so I reblanked his page and protected it. Once a user blanks their talk page there usually isn't a reason to undo it as otherwise it just becomes harassing to them. As for whether the user should be blocked longer, that's another matter which I haven't looked into much, so that should be looked at still. Cowman109^Talk 02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a POV warrior as well. I can't decide if we should give him another chance, doesn't seem like we'd be losing much were he to be indeffed... Grandmasterka 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though we don't block to make people keep their word on leaving, it doesn't seem like it would hurt if he really is leaving, either. But ignoring that, the user does seem to be quite disruptive, so I certainly wouldn't fight an indefinite block for the user. But I'm not sure if it's even necessary unless he does come back again. It sounds like he's gone for good. Cowman109^Talk 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there's nothing wrong with blanking his talk if he's really planning on leaving and isn't currently blocked. Editing while blocked is block subversion. He should wait until his block has expired, THEN blank his talk with his retirement notices (which I don't believe for a second, but that's neither here nor there.) The Parsnip! 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I guess protecting his talk accomplishes the same thing. Thanks! The Parsnip! 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He shows classic signs of playing a trolling game. I ran into him on one article, and then observed his pattern. The anti-smoking rant on his edit summaries (along with the f-word, which might be considered uncivil) have the tone of someone who's on that rant just as part of the game, just to evoke responses. The issue itself doesn't really matter. Also, no one's stopping him from quitting except himself. Blanking and protecting his talk page was the right thing to do, as it silences him and denies him the ability to play the game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Hakozen

Hakozen (talk · contribs) POV, edit warring and disruption by this user he already removed a big section: [17] than he reports me to about 5 admins calling me a racist and nationalist. He violated the 3RR on Huns when I warned him but he ignores it at thinks it will be a acceptation since I am a racist and nationalist. Than he messages me saying: "you are a pure racist and ultra-nationalst. im working about your ban. you will be shoot-out like all armenians who vandalise their homes" --Vonones 03:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? It sounds like a threat to me. --Haemo 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Interesting, I just came here to ask for a block review of my block of Hakozen. I gave him a stern warning on his talk page for harassing Vonones. Immediately after that, he then continues the harassment (with the above threat) and asks me how I can "stop" Vonones. I then blocked Hakozen for 31 hours. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well he violated the 3RR I would prefer a longer block but its okay for now I hope he changes his behavior after the block expires. --Vonones 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, he's been incessantly edit warring and been generally abusive and harrassing to anyone who disagrees with him. My only question would be "is the block long enough"? --Haemo 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well It is very likely he will continue his way. He doesn't know English very well also. --Vonones 03:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

After a look at users contribs the block looks justified to me.--Sandahl 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential edit war

Italiavivi (talk · contribs) has repeatedly re-added My.BarackObama.com to List of social networking websites^[18][19][20]. Inclusion to this list requires a site be notable. However, because My.BarackObama.com is only a day old and was quickly nominated for AFD (within half hour of its creation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My.BarackObama.com, I had asked Italiavivi to wait until the AFD consensus process is finished before re-adding, however this has been ignored. I now fear this is comming close to a 3rr situation, and have warned this user appropriatly^[21]. I have since voiced my view on the afd, and would welcome its incusion to List of social networking websites,once consensus has been reached. My "crystal ball" on what consensus will be in 4 days isn't working, so untill the consensus process is finished, can we remove links to articles with uncertain outcomes?--Hu12 05:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why edit war at all? If it's deleted for not being notable, then remove it. If it's kept or merged, then it can stay. The guidelines are to mainly to prevent spam, and this clearly isn't spam nor is there any urgent reason to remove it. --Haemo 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian and Wikipedia in culture

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

The page is protected and this thread has veered off topic. The original problem is resolved; please open a user RFC if you have additional concerns you want to discuss about this editor.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

I have to get this out of my system. While primarely a content dispute, I have major trouble over how User:Eyrian is conducting in this matter. The whole discussion can be seen here. Basically, Eyrian removed half the page [22][23] and I reverted him twice [24][25], and he reverted me twice [26][27]. Now, I am more then willing to discuss any changes to the page, but I cannot make him see the error of his ways. I believe he should have engaged in discussion after he was first reverted. Instead, he kept reverting, and probably would do it again. Not willing to risk 3RR myself, I stopped.

Now, as he is the only one wanting to remove the content, I told him repeatedly he needs consensus before making the change. But he doesn't seem to grasp that concept. And to top it of; he is an admin. Like I said, want to discuss the changes, but I'm putting process before content here; it has become a matter of principal for me. So I would like some 'peer review' on his behaviour here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks to me like Eyrian (talk · contribs) is removing some rather pointless, non-notable triva from an article that is almost fully comprised of pointless trivia on the proliferation of the term "Wikipedia" and how it has perhaps progressed beyond a simple neologism. Personally I don't think removing the most trivial of information from an already overwrought article is something that requires any admin attention.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They are complaining about how the user went about the issue, not the issue. They themselves state they would probably have agreed. If you read the discussion they are complaining that Eyrian removed the content "per talk" then posted the talk discussion hours later. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the actual discussion, I posted to talk days before. --Eyrian 15:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was reiterating the debate, not placing blame. Sorry if that was misunderstood. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian posted on 20-AUG, then removed the sections days later. Look, I'm not condoning the edit warring that both sides carried out, but there isn't really anything that required admin intervention here, though apparently someone feels otherwise.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake. It's not relevant. — Edokter • Talk • 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back to before the war began, and protected the article for a few days so this can be resolved on the talk page. I suggest Eyrian starts by listing the sections he is unahppy with, one by one, and it can be discussed whether they ought or ought not to be in the piece. Neil ム 15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... are we not supposed to protect pages in whatever state they are in (barring obvious vandalism or WP:BLP issues) rather than just picking our own preferred wrong version to protect?--Isotope23 ^talk 15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't even looked at the content. I just put it back to before the edit war, which I tend to do. No problem with another admin changing it (probably not Eyrian, as he's involved in the dispute). Neil ム 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I wasn't looking for protection, and it seems a bit overkill. The 'edit-war' is days old. All I wanted was an opinion on Eyrian's actions. — Edokter • Talk • 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment is: "by all means be bold, but if someone reverts your edit, that's a pretty good sign your change isn't wholly agreeable for everyone. If that's the case, discuss. Don't edit war over it, or someone will editprotect the page and make you discuss it." Neil ム 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some days I think WP:BRD would be better as a guideline than an essay, at least in non-vandalism situations.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. — Edokter • Talk • 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems consistant with Eyrians way of doing things - I've clashed with him, and found him rude, autocratic and not a big fan of seeking consensus. He's also been leading a one person effort to get the word "inconsequential" into the WP:NOT section on Trivia, which coincidentally happens to be his favorite edit summary description of material he's working on. I'm not sure anything he's up to is technically "wrong" from a wiki point of view, but I do find him very annoying. Artw 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just recently been exposed to Eyrian's war on "pop culture" pages, so have no previous experience or preconceptions about him. He deletes whole sections from articles, and then ignores WP:BRD if someone tries to restore them. Consensus seems to not be a favored concept. Personally, I think it's better to have content that might be in need of some work than to delete the existing work and have nothing left to start from, as per guidance. Basically, he ignores the parts of WP:TRIVIA he disagrees with (notable the comment "do not simply remove such sections" in the guidance section and WP:TRIVIA#Not all lists are trivia sections, in favor of his POV on trivia, as expressed in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Editing WP:TRIVIA to fit his definition of it seems disingenuous at best, also. Dstumme 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He just blanked a bunch of messages here. if he does that again i;m going to ask for cooldown. Artw 15:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian vs. Dungeons & Dragons

Before I forget, Eyrian nominated a truckload of Dungeons & Dragons monsters for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures) under WP:NOTE, and given the warning he has on his talkpage in regards to his treatment of Cheshire Cat in popular culture, I'm afraid that he might do the same to the 10-15 articles he nominated at once. When I brought it up on the AfD, he said that he'd given his reasons for the Cheshire Cat incident, but didn't say anything about avoiding the use of the same if the Dungeons & Dragons articles are kept. I also brought up an edit to WP:NOT made during an AfD he nominated; I redacted that point upon his request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Giovanni Giove's editing of Requests for Comment

IT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS IS A TOUGH SUBJECT, BUT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF WIKIPEDIA, THEREFORE, THAT A TOUGH ADMINISTRATOR TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO READ CAREFULLY AND FINALLY ENDS THIS MATTER. WHAT THIS USER IS DOING IS AGAINST THE RULES. THE RELATIVE OBSCURITY OF THE ARTICLES IN QUESTION SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY WEIGHT IN THE MATTER. DIREKTOR 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The previously reported user, Giovanni Giove (see the "Incessant unsourced reverting and editing on Dalmatia-related articles" section), has in adition to his previous behaviour, now started editing other users' comments in the 2 Requests for Comment on the articles Republic of Ragusa and Zadar. He is fully aware (and has been warned) that this is not allowed, but for some reason (in spite of being advised to the contrary) he thinks that because he posted these RfCs he has the right to edit them in his favour. I am reporting him on Isotope23 advice me and I have done so in spite of my scepticism that he can at all be stopped. He has been reported twice and blocked before, to little or no ultimate effect. I hope that there is a way out of this, DIREKTOR 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove had removed this comment I've inserted. [28] on 23rd Aug. Kubura 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this user has a pattern of excessively abusive and disruptive edits, and has a sockpuppeteering history. On several occasions, he went "off" his battlefronts across Dalmatian-related articles and actually followed his "wiki-enemies" rv in sight there edits elsewhere. I would also like to note that I tried to be a neutral mediator between this user and several wikipedians from Croatia in a dispute with which I had no connection whatsoever and he responded in a very uncivil manner, threatening me to leave him, despite I calmly asked him to open discussions at the talk page and only cited Wikipedia's policies to him. --PaxEquilibrium 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You know if you want admins to look at this you are going to have to back up accusations with actual links. |It is not reasonable to expect admins to have to go searching. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is really no need to search: just check out the talkpages of these artcles, he's ALL over them: Republic of Ragusa, Zadar and Fourth Crusade. DIREKTOR 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a brief look at this dispute. One glance at the edit summaries on Talk:Republic of Ragusa will show that there's a lot of emotion in play here. And the article's not showing up on the History RfC page for some reason. Any Admin who decides to don kevlar & wade into this firefight probably should first protect the article page on the wrong version, then try to get the folks involved to play nice with each other. -- llywrch 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Beleve me, there is no playing nice with Giove, we've all been there. The man's just returned from vacation, or was unblocked, or something. Before that, all was quiet, but for the last couple of days the man's incessantly venting his frustration and refuses to be stopped by anything. Important: If anyone intends to total-block these articles, make sure that the version is "impartially disagreeable" to both sides. This will not be simple (in fact it is nearly impossible), however, otherwise, i promise you, the discussion will probably stop completely by the "winning" side, I've seen this many times. This is one of the core problems here, so I really suggest a different approach. DIREKTOR 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One of my first experiences with Giovanni Giove was this: [29],[30], precisely he accused me of being a sockpuppet of some other banned user with no any reason and without any explenation where his suspicions came from! It was a few days after I was logged for the first time on Wiki and day after I have come with rich sources [31], [32] which were disputing some of his edits regarding the population of the city, Zadar article. As you can see he didn't contributed to the discussion on the Talk:Zadar. He simply tried to solve his problem of my "existance" by marking me as somebody else's sock puppet.

Another example of his behaviour: first RFC was started at the Zadar talk page [33] where he wrote this comment: You have not intoduced the sources!!! After all my hard work with presenting sources (and work of other users too). It's transparent at the talk page. This user simply doesn't want to see other people's work and he's absolutely blind for other users sources. He acts like it doesn't exist.

Here you can see just a little part of his argues with other users: [34], see section "Why such words?". Actually all that page is a kind of dossier. Zenanarh 10:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: dossier of Giovanni Giove's misbehaviour and vandalisms. Over 70 (yeah, seventy, and 3 is too much!).Kubura 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the best of all comes: his "conduction" of 2 Requests for Comment on the articles Republic of Ragusa and Zadar that he started. In both cases the same thing. Example - Zadar RFC: he firstly changed the article into his version [35], [36], immidiately after that he put the tags [37] and started RFC [38]. When other users wrote their first comments he interfered by changing it. I simply cannot see how can I participate there, even I'm very interested in that discussion. I wrote it there [39], he immidiately deleted it [40]. This is all messed up. Zenanarh 10:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That, when he inserted the template:suspected sockpuppet, is, according to WP:HARASSMENT (section: "User space harassment"): "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page..., placing 'suspected sockpuppet'...on the user page of active contributors...and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.". Kubura 12:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted that section. Giovanni Giove ignored all our requests and pleasing on the article talkpages, so I've referred to him directly User talk:Giovanni Giove on here on 26th June, 2nd time on 29th June, 3rd time on 3rd July, 4th time on 9th July. He still avoided any discussion on the talkpages (his only comment was "my claims are sourced, you're vandal, nationalist") and continued with edit-slaughter on the articles (while others substained, in order to avoid edit war, Giove behaved like the rules don't exist for him).
He was many times called to discuss disputes with us, on his talkpage, on the talkpage of articles of Republic of Dubrovnik and Jakov Mikalja (I haven't seen other articles, other users can whitness their experiences with Giove). Giovanni Giove ignored the data other users gave him. Even scanned pages of historical books of the historical persons concerned (source site was library of Croatian academy of sciences and arts and the Croatian national language institute). See Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik.
He belittled the scientific sources of small nations (especially Croatian, with "that's vandalism", "that's falsificiation", "that's not a trustable source or even racist remark "deliberate falsification that Croats do against Italian personalities of Dalmatia"). But, when he was given the source in Italian, neither that was good (published by local Italian academy of sciences and arts, of region Marche). Even the external link he gave as his source, wasn't good source anymore (RAI, Italian national TV) (case of article Jakov Mikalja).
He even disrupted the discussion and deleted the contributions there. [41]
I don't have to rewrite the whole story again. The talkpages of Talk:Jakov Mikalja is the best example.
Giovanni Giove also expressed one feature: negating and deny the term Croat. In every possible way, he's writing to avoid the mentioning the word of Croat, to deny the presence of Croats, Croat language or similar, or to "reduce" the percentage of Croat by adding "Serb", or "Serbocroatian" [42] and [43]. He's so blatant in these writings, that he even dared to start an RfC, with writing the nationname of Croats in quotationmarks (and that he didn't do with Italian or Latin). He even dared to restore that version [44] with quotation marks.
And when he cannot find the way to avoid that, than he writes the nameforms of persons in the older ortography solutions of Croatian (that used solutions from Italian, German, Hungarian for diacritics in the text written in Latin); the same policy was done in Mussolini's Italy, when the law against the "funny foreign names" was applied, so many surnames like Zlatarić became Slatarich (or completely translated in Italian). Modern historiography uses modern ortography. Kubura 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove also used method of threatning to other users. See this change [45] and comment "Rvv:undiscussed deletion of proper cocnepts&links. Unjustified tag (this accident will be reported". Typical for him. Threatning with "you'll be reported". The article in question was an contentforking, "Dalmatian Italians". Shall we make articles like "Yorkshire Pakistanis" as "historical ethnical group"? If he wants to write about Italians in Croatia, then why don't he writes that in the article Italians in Croatia? Why does he inserts internal links in "see also" like "Zara"??? Croatian city of Zadar had that name under Mussollini's Italy, until it was returned to Croatia after WWII. Do we have to tolerate such provocations here?
Giovanni Giove uses Wikipedia for his revisionist ideas. He even places the links to Italian border and history revisionist sites (www.dalmazia.it). How long do we have to tolerate that? Till he gets in clash with Greeks (Euboeia, Rhodos, Messolongion, Korfu) and French (Nice, Corse)? Kubura 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When he was warned about his expansionist attitudes, he removed those, with comment "JSF stop to bulshit. YOu don't know about my attitutedes (I've delete your vandalism fro here)". [46]. In his previous removal of that warning [47] , he called it "Deleted usual Kubura's personal attacks". But these attacks were the things Giovanni Giove wrote.
Here's the message I posted called "Giove's attacks". [48]. Kubura 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text of that message. This was posted on it.wiki. We don't discuss on en.wiki the things on other wiki's, but this should be a guide and proof for those who don't believe. I posted this for others to see his attitudes.
Hi, everybody.
Here's Giove's message on it.wiki from July 30, 2006. I give it here, to show interested users Giove's attitude towards Croats and Croatia. [49].
"...: La nazione croata è un'invenzione dell'800. Prima non esisteva: non avevate nemmeno una lingua vostra. Ve la siete dovuta inventare a partire da uno dei vostri dialetti...".
The translation: "The yuYCroat nation is an invention from 1800's. Before it hasn't existed: you (Croats, translators' note) neither had your own language . You (Croats, translators' note) had to invent it from one of your dialects...".
In the same message there's an explicit anti-Croat attitude (though, it referres to Croatian War of Independence): "Ti faccio da ultimo presente inolre che hai elimanato tutti riferimenti ai crimini di guerra croati.. "... that you have removed all references to Croatian war criminals". Giove mentioned general Ante Gotovina, althought Gotovina is still under process. And even worse, he "attacked" me for removing that false reference (interesting, he hasn't mentioned any Serb war criminals at all, like Milan Martić and Milan Babić).
That was the message. Denying of Croatian nation and language. That tell's everything. Now make conclusions about his edits here. Kubura 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One last comment

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

The above discussions are closed, and nothing that requires administrator attention is present in THF's comments below. Please do not continue these sorts of things here. Take it somewhere else. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Michael_Moore) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) 11:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

As I forward yet another death threat I received to the admin of the IP of the emailer who sent it, I have one last comment. As a point of comparison, in February I complained about a POV-pushing SPA editor, who never disclosed any COI, and who never adhered to NPOV, and who repeatedly edit-warred, and who posted on a left-wing blog that she viewed herself as the "[subject matter omitted by THF to avoid google searches identifying her] Wikipedia Editor" on behalf of the left-wing blog. When I merely linked to the blog entry that this own editor posted herself under her real name, it was immediately redacted, and I was threatened with an indefinite ban by multiple admins, and almost was indef-blocked without a chance to note that I misunderstood the rule and wouldn't do it again.

I find it interesting the differing treatment I've received here, even though I have disclosed COI when I had it, I have avoided POV-pushing, I have avoided edit-warring, and I have spread my Wikipedia editing over many subjects and devoted substantial time to the scutwork of vandal-hunting, new article patrol, and BLP cleanup. But multiple editors feel free to disregard my request not to use my name even if they happen to know my identity, even if it is readily determinable by the fact that I use my initials, indicate my field of study, and the nature of my employer. And now there is a website linked to from Wikipedia that, in attempting to intimidate me from legitimate participation by encouraging many many crank phone calls, e-mails, and death threats, has printed personal information and an out-of-date photo.

WP:HARASS and WP:NPA#External links are both objective, rather than subjective, policies: application is math, not art, and not a question of "consensus", yet the if-then flow-chart presented by those rules was not followed, though no one arguing that it should not be applied did so with reference to the text of the rule. And WP:NPA#External links explicitly stated (before it was changed a few minutes ago) that edits made under its rule are not subject to the 3RR rule, but an editor following that policy to the letter and spirit was blocked. And not one person addressed ElinorD's reasoning on AN/I, preferring to joust with those more easily refuted.

Some editors are effectively arguing that I have waived the protections of WP:HARASS and WP:NPA because I followed the rules and disclosed COI when I had it, thus permitting inference of my identity, and those editors have effectively vetoed those who asked for neutral application of the rules. If that's the case, then NPA and HARASS should be amended to say as much. But it's hard for me not to suspect this would have turned out differently if had been David Horowitz pulling the exact same stunt with a left-wing editor of similar prominence. THF 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain you didn't misplace the note above? I'm not quite sure what to make of it. This noticeboard is for incidents which require administrative assistance. You should start by concisely explaining what sort of help you're after. El_C 08:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The title itself "One last comment," implies there were others, yet this section and its confusing contents seems to exist in isolation. El_C 08:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia mention on Australian radio leads to vandalism

Just an FYI... It appears that a Richard Glover, a radio host in Australia, decided to have a contest to play six degrees of separation between Earwax and Theory of Relativity. See history on Earwax and host's article for details. I went ahead and semi-protected Earwax as a preventative measure. -- Gogo Dodo 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey...I played that game on the radio...I lost ;) Anyway - about the protection. He also played games with other articles; not sure if that has had any impact on them each. Are you sure semi-protection was the best move? I mean, he has stopped playing that game now, so vandalism inspired by Glover's show should have stopped by now... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When multiple IPs showed up and started to pile on, I felt that semi-protection was necessary. I really didn't want to babysit the page while all of his listeners kept changing things. -- Gogo Dodo 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wedineinheck

Repeated vandalism[50][51] and personal attacks[52][53]. Warned repeatedly [54][55]. Perspicacite 07:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also warned Perspicacite myself against his arrogant, would-be-threatening tone, which I also consider a personal attack [56]. Also thought it would be more responsible to start a polite discussion about the subject [57] rather than going to bawl to the admins. Am ready and willing to discuss the matter with anyone capable of showing respect. Wedineinheck 07:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Perspicacite was a little heavy handed by issuing a vandalism warning as it was clearly a content dispute. However, the WP:NPA warning was legit. nat^tang 07:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Perspicacite should try to be a little polite with his fellow users if he wants to be respected. Wedineinheck 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Wedineinheck, you could try to assume a little good faith when involved in these types of situations, even if the other editor isn't. nat^tang 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nat, this editor is clearly engaging in vandalism and has continued to make personal attacks since his warning. He has passed the point at which his behavior should be tolerated. Perspicacite 08:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite stated right away that I write "nonsense". He advised me to "use the sandbox" if I want to "experiment". He clearly implied that I am a cretin who does not know what he does. If that wasn't a personal attack, I don't know what that is. Hence, I am perfectly entitled to find him arrogant and obnoxious. Do not consider this as an attack, but as a personal opinion. His latest message here also makes me think that he behaves like a cry-baby. Ok, so I'll try to assume good faith and will now, in the future, ignore Perspicacite and won't engage in any debate with him. If I should assume his good faith, that would lead me to assume that this editor is unable to be polite and respect his interlocutors : so it is simply pointless to engage with him in any kind of heated exchange. I just have no time for this. Wedineinheck 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wedineinheck, the first message that Perspicacite left is a standard message template and not a personal attack. the template that Perspicacite used was {{subst:test2}}. nat^tang 08:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that this template be modified, as it is the best way to offend users. Wedineinheck 08:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The template isn't the problem. The editor who placed it used it inappropriately, that's all. It's obvious that it was a good-faith but ill-judged edit which didn't deserve a nonsense tag. Chris Cunningham 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You, also, need to stop making personal attacks like this:[58] His action was not in good faith, nor have any of his subsequent NPA violations. How many personal attacks before he is blocked? Perspicacite 09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He registered only a month ago, he doesn't appear to have been in any other conflicts which would have resulted in having to read up on template/NPA policy to date, and the "personal attacks" in question are pretty obviously off-handed comments made defensively. I assume the personal attacks would stop if you started acting like his peer and not a wikicop. As for my own record, I don't need to be told I'm not as pure as the driven snow by people who go trolling my edit history for ammo when I make an observation on their behaviour. Chris Cunningham 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite: the edits you list as "vandalism" weren't great edits, but presuming good faith, they probably weren't vandalism. This editor could have used an explanation that the Category:Racism wasn't intended as a list of racists, and the edit might be unnecessarily POV.

I think this was a situation where user warning templates might not do the job. The template would have been fine if this were a clear case of vandalism. / edg ☺ ★ 08:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe {{uw-badcat}}. / edg ☺ ★ 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I could have used that indeed. Anyway, as the category includes people like Matthew F. Hale or even people simply accused of being racist like Edith Cresson, I'd say that it needs some polishing. Wedineinheck 09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Further Michael Moore related issues

The article Controversies over the film Sicko was recently merged into Sicko per a consensus reached at Talk:Sicko. More recently, the merge was reverted by Noroton, the article's most active contributor and most vocal supporter in aforementioned merge discussion. Reverts of this un-merge per the earlier consensus were reverted by Noroton in turn, until he came close to violate the 3RR. [59] [60] [61] [62] The only rationale he provided for reopening the page at that time was an edit summary, stating that he was editing the article "to meet some objections from [the] original discussion", telling other editors to "wait till [he's] done".[63] Yet, Noroton has not posted at Talk:Sicko since, to see if the previous consensus might have changed.

Instead, he has reverted the merge once again, resumed working on it and also nominated it for deletion, arguing that the page had been rather deleted than merged and accusing other editors of a POV agenda. (Another conclusion drawn from the merge discussion was, that the only substantial controversies surrounding the film Sicko were those which were for the most part already mentioned in the main article, hence most of the content from Controversies over the film Sicko was indeed removed as insubstantial, a notion Noroton never objected to at Talk:Sicko.)

Several editors have previously suggested that the controversies article largely violates WP:SYN and that Noroton might be pushing an agenda of his own. Given his consensus defying reverts of the merge, without seeking further discussion and seeing him being mentioned on this noticeboard in connection with other Michael Moore related topics, I have to concede and would like to report aforementioned AfD nomination as an attempt to game the system. - Cyrus XIII 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. He nominated his own 'synthesis,' for deletion? Anyway, with the AfD ongoing, what is it that you'd like done, specifically? El_C 10:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he nominated it for "keep."  ??? --ElKevbo 10:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're-doing-what-now? El_C 10:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a pre-emptive AfD in which the nominator states that "this is a procedural nomination in the sense that I created the article and want to keep it." Either the nominator misunderstands the purpose of an AfD discussion or it's an attempt to game the system (or maybe I simply misunderstand the purpose of AfD discussions). --ElKevbo 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That is certainly unconventional. El_C 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A decision was made to merge the articles in early July on the grounds that the movie had just come out and there wasn't any controversy. But the article was never merged: it was simply turned into a redirect without any content moved. An author's good-faith attempt to resuscitate a well-sourced article was repeatedly deleted on the grounds of the stale consensus reached before there was two months of controversy over the movie. Noroton is seeking a new consensus instead of edit-warring. It may not the best way to do it, but WP:CCC. This is a content dispute, already being addressed at the AFD, and doesn't need intervention. THF 10:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this is related to your note above that didn't make any sense to me? El_C 10:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My note above is related to several closed discussions already on the page. Some of the players are the same, but Noroton's AFD predates the problem of an off-wiki attack site and the enforcement of WP:NPA#External links. Cyrus's complaint here violates WP:MULTI. THF 11:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You may wish to unify it alongside those other sections, then, because it is pretty confusing all by itself. El_C 11:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the noninator nominated it for AFD because he wants to keep it, I have closed the AFD as invalid. Procedural nominations are already stupid and pointless enough without the original nominator for deletion not actually nominating it for deletion. Neil ム 11:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. El_C 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now it needs admin intervention. User A tries to create an article. Users B and C revert the creation and turn it into a redirect without using the AFD procedure based on a stale discussion that clearly doesn't apply in changed circumstances to a different set of content. Why is a self-nominated AFD an inherently worse procedure for dispute resolution than an RFC? THF 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said anything when I made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Gibbs, maybe because they were too busy voting delete. What exactly is wrong with a self-nomination for AFD? ugen64 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone just redirected the long, sourced article, without any inclusion of the information in the main Sicko article. That's essentially de facto blanking. I've reverted the redirect. I have no problem with it being merged into the other article and then redirected, but simply redirecting without transferring the information is wrong in this case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the earlier consensus at Talk:Sicko was to drop a lot of the information from the separate controversies page and to just to keep issues that were considered genuinely controversial, as several editors explicitly recommended to "trim"/"summarize" the page before merging it. Discussion on the matter has now resumed at Talk:Sicko, so please leave that redirect intact for now and let proper dispute resolution (and maybe a change in consensus) take its course. - Cyrus XIII 14:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specific content here, I think that Controversies about X articles should be aggressively avoided. They too easily become POV forks (no matter how well-intentioned at first), can become coatracks for X's detractors, and are too easy to expand to include really minor and petty criticisms that would likely be removed for space reasons if the editors were constrained to keep everything in one article. Thatcher131 15:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here think it's possible that when an "incident" is brought up here you might notify the editor who you're complaining about? Is that really too much to ask? It states at the top of this page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." Is that really so onerous? I mean, with all the time some of you spend here, I would think a quick note on the editor's talk page wouldn't be too difficult. Why can't you just do that? It's a fair, civil question, isn't it? It's not rhetorical: I'd really like to know why you don't. Should this be a requirement for anyone who initiates a discussion here? How can we impliment that?

Second, another fair question: How do you come to the conclusion that my AFD nomination was wrong? I don't know every Wikipedia rule, but I have seen procedural AFDs before. My mind is open and perhaps I'll agree that I didn't go about it in the right way. If I can avoid fighting this, I'd rather do that. So please give me the reason why it was right to close the AFD. I don't see a rule or principle or anything in the discussion so far that allows me to say, "Oh, if I only knew that, I wouldn't have nominated it there." Please, tell me. It's a fair question, isn't it? I've asked this same question on the talk page of the admin who closed the AFD, but I thought I'd post it here too, since you're already discussing it. Am I being reasonable to ask? Noroton 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes as a courtesy you should be informed when someone makes a report about you. Obviously that doesn't always happen, but it should.

Pertaining to your second question, the process is Articles for Deletion not Articles I created and want Keep'. AFD's are sometimes opened procedurally by admins/editors who are going through PRODs or speedy deletions, but as a rule we don't nominate things for deletion to keep them. That is why your AFD was closed. Had I noticed it I would have done the same thing the closer did. If you want to discuss the article, use the talkpage or open a WP:RFC. AFD was not the right process for what you were trying to do.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can try answering the second question. AfD is for nominating articles for deletion, not for preemptive keeping. The procedural nominations you see are those sent from CSD, PROD, or DRV, and not those sent by editors to demonstrate a consensus for keeping. Also, nominating an article for AfD for the express purpose of showing it should be kept can be construed as a WP:POINT violation. —Kurykh 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll follow those links. I've made a proposal on the talk page that informing editors who have been the subjects of complaints should be not just a courtesy but mandatory, in the first line of either the complainant or the next editor to post a comment. Please participate in that discussion. Noroton 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

William Hung

Resolved

Some very strange things have been going on in this article's history; people adding strange content and reverting each other (content appears to be addition of unrelated content, but more than one person seems to be adding this content). I think it needs watching; semi-protection perhaps. Thoughts? Comments? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If the article and editing is steering away from the purpose of creating an encyclopaedia, action should be taken to put it back on track. thats my 2 cents. nat^tang 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism now. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. As Riana said in a very old archive, "Reverted? Blocked? Now, ignore ;)" Turned the autoblock on so he doesn't do any more damage. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a vandal using the 59.xxx.xx.xxx range and Republic of China/Taiwan articles

For the last two months or so several editors and I have been having problems with this person who has been using a IP range (59.xxx.xx.xxx} and vandalizing Republic of China/Taiwan articles with his/her political views; replacing Republic of China, Taiwan, Republic of China (Taiwan), etc, with Republic of Taiwan. In normal circumstances and on other articles, this would be considered as a content dispute, however, the Republic of Taiwan does not exist and is only a proposal by a political coalition in the ROC. This IP vandal has been clearly warned many times not to continue to vandalize articles with his/her political views, but ignores them and there is nothing that editors could do but to revert his/her edits because it would be highly improbable that a sysop or a crat would block an entire range and it would be completely unfair to the IPs that have made good contributions to these articles. What more or less permanent/long-term action could we take against this vandal as this is getting quite annoying and frustrating. nat^tang 12:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only instances I could find were very sporadic, e.g., their last edit to Republic of China was on August 8. Any remedy would have negative consequences that greatly outweighed the benefits. As you have noted, we can't block 59.0.0.0/8, and semiprotecting the articles would eliminate constructive contributions from anons. When problems occur at such an infrequent pace it's best simply to deal with them as they arise. Raymond Arritt 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A note about the {{discussion top}} template

Today alone, I have had to fix the use of the {{discussion top}} template about a dozen times. Please read the documentation. The most important thing is: Place the {{discussion top}} template BELOW the header. Otherwise, archiving bots will NOT move the template with the discussion, malforming both the archive and the discussions left behind (anything below the template becomes "closed"). So please, place it below the header. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:eyrian repeatedly removing comments from AN/I

User:eyrian has repeatedly removed comments regarding his actions from this page, here[64] and here[65]. This is on top of a series of clashes that he's been having with other users for at least 2 days now, which have continued to escalate in in part due to his disregard for consensus and for WP:CIVIL. I request that he be blocked for a cooldown period. Artw 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They were unrelated attacks on me. The issue in question was resolved. If you want to start such a discussion, I suggest an RfC. I would ask that those considering this situation in fullness note that Artw has admitted to wikistalking me, in a manner I would characterize as harassmnet, as demonstrated here. --Eyrian 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That I happen to have checked yuour contrib page a couple of times a reverted what I consider to be bad edits by you (In one case preventing an article from being deleted against procedure due to your misapplication of a templater) is not wikistalking under the description here: WP:WIKISTALK, no have I admited to being a "Wikistalker" - possibly you would like to retract that claim? Artw 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks on your talk page, and your contributions, make it pretty clear that you've been persistently following me around. I believe that it's harassment, but it hasn't gone too far, yet. --Eyrian 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read WP:STALK. It specifically mentions that using a contribs page to follow up on errors and violations of Wiki policy is not stalking. Arguably, repeatedly deleting content (the same content multiple times in most cases) without seeking consensus is a violation of policy. Certainly the deletions in the earlier thread here are a huge conflict of interest issue. So, he does have grounds to keep an eye on someone who's making edits counter to Wiki policy.

Unless he's specifically doing it to harass you, you're making a groundless claim. Dstumme 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you, I've read it carefully. It's because there haven't been any blatant violations that I haven't pursued any further action. --Eyrian 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet you feel justified in making the bad-faith accusation anyway, when you know that it's not accurate. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? You ask it of others as a way of justifying your edits, but other people don't get that same benefit, and instead are accused of WikiStalking? Chalk another one up on the list of policies you have problems with, I guess. Dstumme 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

and [66] again. Artw 16:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely unacceptable to remove other people's comments. If you feel they're an attack, report them, but you have to let people have their say if they feel they have a legitimate issue with you. Their post will be judged on its merit, you may not preempt the whole discussion by removing the complaint. VxP 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not preempting any discussion. User:Artw has raised this issue, and I have no problem exploring it in fullness. The problem begins when a thread about a resolved issue branches out into unrelated personal remarks. --Eyrian 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you should let an uninvolved editor handle it. When you remove remarks about you, it makes it look like you're trying to supress the conversation. VxP 16:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've closed the above discussion... the original problem has been addressed... it's time to let it go and move on to dispute resolution if there are additional concerns with editor behavior that need to be addressed.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Rameriz

Rameriz (talk•contribs) has been making a quite a few additions of "Last words: " to various articles about characters in The Godfather. Nothing incorrect, as far as I can see; not exactly vandalism; but the additions don't flow with the rest of each article, and he seems set on adding them. What's the right approach here? Philip Trueman 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove and link to q:Fictional last words in film#The Godfather (using {{wikiquote}}). The section doesn't exist yet, but nothing's stopping it from creation. Will ^(talk) 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Range block to deal with User:SallyForth123

Resolved

User was originally blocked for 3RR and evaded block by using IP edits confirmed by checkuser. Block was reset, then extended by another admin. I have since been tracking continuous IP block evasion and two user accounts used for block evasion by this user. This resulted in the block being extended twice more; it now is one month long. The articles being edited by the blocked users are many NASA related articles. I've maintained a partial list here: User:Sanchom/SallyForth123. I suggest a range block that covers the IP addresses at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123 or semi-protection of every article edited by this user (including those edited via sockpuppets). I am posting this here because both of these measures have more than minimal collateral effects, but something needs to be done to better enforce the block on SallyForth123. Sancho 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the range block, but it looks like the following ranges would be sufficient (by looking at the WHOIS)

• 75.36.168.0 - 75.36.175.255
• 75.37.8.0 - 75.37.15.255
• 76.204.176.0 - 76.204.179.255

Sancho 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Zac Efron

Resolved

Could someone please revert this edit? I'd do it myself, but the page has been sprot'ed. Av99 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. Thanks. Av99 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt57

As posted on User talk:Matt57#WP:HARASS and Elonka, I've blocked Matt57 for 24 hour for intimidating behavior and stalking another editor. A certain amount of oversight over other editors (including admins, of course) is obviously beneficial: it keeps us all honest and playing by the same rules.

Going so far as to dig through someone's life and prying out things the other person is trying to keep from public view, when they're quite frankly none of any of our business, however, is quite something else. I've redacted a comment (which will hopefully be deleted soon) of Matt57's which in my opinion shows disturbing behavior on his part.

Hopefully, instead of backfiring on me and causing more wiki-drama, this will cause him to rethink his current behavior and change it to something a bit less frightening to us. Just think of how you'd react if someone were digging up your personal information and posting it all on a site that gets mirrored and google-indexed many times a day.

I can only hope that this causes more help than harm. Opinions and views on the situation are requested. I've obviously been opaque on the actual subject matter for a reason. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the deleted comment, so can't offer any review of it - perhaps it is blockworthy, as you say…

…but you invited Matt57 to edit articles which Elonka isn't editing.[67] To my knowledge, Matt57 isn't editing any articles which Elonka is also editing (though she's invited him to do so.) Which articles did you have in mind when you wrote that?

What Matt57 has been doing is vetting articles that Elonka created last year contra WP:COI - for example this glowing resumé for her father - for original research and other unsourced material, of which they are mostly comprised. That's not harassment.Proabivouac 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is harassment, it is, IMO, incivil of him to single out a particular user in such a way when he appears to have a history with Elonka. I also note numerous complaints about the zeal with which he's taking an axe to them. IMO, it would be wise of Matt57 to keep away from these articles in the future and leave fixing them to other, uninvolved editors. There are plenty of other bad articles on Wikipedia; in fact, there are many far worse than this. I've seen no credible allegation that these articles contain inaccurate statements; rather, that they contain possibly unverifiable statements and are unduly favorable to their subjects. I'd suggest that Wikipedia can survive a few puff pieces on Elonka's relatives quite well, that no harm will result by their remaining for a while in an unfixed state, and that Matt57 find something else to worry about. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"…they contain possibly unverifiable statements and are unduly favorable to their subjects."

Unverifiable and unduly favorable are violations of policy which I should like to correct. Will I, too, be blocked if I do so?Proabivouac 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I supported her RfA, albeit with strong misgivings, per Danny's oppose, due to COI concerns. I became aware of this issue when MAtt57 was unjustly blocked after having been framed by sockpuppets of two banned users; see this thread.Proabivouac 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on how you did it. Why is it so important to you to fix THESE particular possible flaws in the encyclopedia above others? Why is it so important for Matt57 to do so right now? There are some issues that need immediate fixing; those covered by BLP, copyright violations, etc etc. Other issues like these can be handled slowly if necessary, and are best handled when there is contention by attempting to involve as many others in the decision as possible, so that the results are seen as fairly representative of consensus rather than a personal dislike or issue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder once suggested that "aggressively checking the logs of editors with whom you are in a dispute may constitute harassment". Since other arbitrators discarded this principle as a "step in the wrong direction", I believe our definition of harrassment should be reexamined. As I infer from ArbCom's handling of the Abu badali case, Matt's actions should not be qualified as harrassment. He is simply enforcing our principles, just like Abu badali was. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not: I'm involved in all kinds of things. This is just item that's been on my plate since it was brought to the community's (and my) attention on this noticeboard.

Although I will point out that there is a probable BLP violation on Elonka Dunin right now: "Dunin, however, investigated further, and got Dunn to admit that he faked the impersonation, as well as his own death, in a pathetic attempt to gain attention."[68][69] Hopefully, someone will fix that soon.

Re "It would depend on how you did it."

The following diffs illustrate the model I'd like to apply to the articles in question:[70][71] Granted, I might be accused of being partial toward the editor who did that; however I'm confident that he wouldn't have taken this action were it not mandated by policy.Proabivouac 09:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been unfortunately dragged into this dispute over the past few days, and I must say I fully endorse this block. Matt57's behavior towards Elonka in this dispute has been wholly unacceptable: digging through her contributions and stalking her across wikis and other websites, aggressively attacking contributions she made years ago, and constantly accusing her of shady wrongdoings, such as accusing her of conspiring with administrators against him in IRC (accusing third parties who offer an outside opinion as being part of her "cabal," which is how I got dragged into this), and even accusing her of harrassing and wikistalking him. Even after Elonka made a completely reasonable request for him to stop (complete with many diffs of example of the behavior I just mentioned), he only seems to have stepped it up further. Matt57 needs to know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated whatsoever. --Krimpet 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, you threatened me with a block on Commons following Elonka's threatening me on this wiki,[72] (since-deleted page) and conversing with you on IRC.[73] So if Matt57 has accused her of "conspiring with administrators against him in IRC," I'm afraid this strikes me as very credible.Proabivouac 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, your levels of incivility and serial assumption of bad faith has been on par with Matt57's in this dispute (and it appears that I have conflated your allegations with Matt57's; it was not he who made the accusations of her conspiring with administrators, it was you). I did answer a request for informal third-party clarification from Elonka on whether Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg was acceptable on Commons, on the public channel #wikimedia-commons. It was after answering her question and ending the conversation with her that I noticed that this appeared to be part of a larger dispute, so I dug deeper and noticed it was spilling over from here on en.wiki, so I gave you a mildly stern warning that disrupting Commons as part of this dispute on en.wiki would not be tolerated. You then immediately accused Elonka of conspiring with me to threaten you with a block on Commons, though I could have just as easily discovered your disruptive behavior through Recent Changes or any other number of channels -- Commons is a much smaller community than en.wiki. And I notice after another uninvolved admin came across the dispute and concurred with what I said on your talk page, you accused him of exactly the same thing. Your pattern of assuming bad faith and instantly accusing other editors of wrongdoing is completely out-of-line. --Krimpet 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, when I see a threat on this wiki, followed by an IRC conversation and a threat for a block on Commons, what am I supposed to think? I asked Elonka about this several times (deleted page, e-mail) and got a carefully-parsed non-answer each time, which does nothing to promote an atmosphere of transparency and trust.

On Wikipedia, it would certainly not be considered disruptive to remove a user-degraded image from a gallery of otherwise historic artworks; rather it would be considered disruptive to repeatedly add it, as Elonka has done. If things work differently on Commons, and original user art or defaced (literally) historical works, is welcome, contra stated policy, then I suppose it is - I've nominated it for deletion, and we'll see how that turns out. You made no attempt to discuss any matter of substance with me on my commons talk page, or on the talk pages of the relevant galleries, you made no attempt to answer any of my questions about Commons policies - I had to find them on my own - (talk about WP:BITE) - and your accusation of "disruption" remains completely unfounded. If anything, it is another excellent illustration of why discussions should take place on-wiki wherever possible, so that the matters can be examined openly, without being prejudiced by one-sided conversations to which affected editors are not privy and cannot respond.Proabivouac 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember one of Matt's comments at Elonka's RfA. It was quite excessive. There is no sign of acceptance of anything in Matt's response to Elonka's comment here [74].

Aminz, we've been talking about this for awhile now at User talk:Elonka/Work1 for awhile now. You can't see it, because it's been deleted. The bottom line here is that Elonka views bringing her COI articles in line with Wikipedia policies as harassment. You can say, well, it'd be better if someone other than Matt57 did it, and perhaps you're right…did you have anyone in particular in mind? Because these articles have been blatantly out of step with WP policy for over a year now, and no one's anything about it.Proabivouac 08:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt is unique in several aspects: There is only one user that writes the username of Itaqallah as "ItaqAllah" and it is Matt (can one ask why only and only Matt does that?). Matt insists in using people like Craig Winn in criticism of Islam article. Just to give you an idea of who this guy is, I'll provide some quotes from him: "Hitler simply followed Muhammad's path...Muslims, like Nazis and Communists, can’t be trusted...Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived...Prophet of Doom is the best documented and most comprehensive presentation of the Islamic scriptures ever written...Muhammad was the perfect Satanic prophet...As an expert on Islam and terror, I know that all good Muslims are terrorists and that most all terrorists are Muslims...Decadent egomaniacs like Muhammad are deeply troubled and tortured souls..Muhammad was a terrorist." --Aminz 07:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be canvassing, and to have forgotten hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220. Arrow740 09:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure, Aminz, how this has any bearing on the discussion at hand. Neil ム 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt needs to stay away articles associated with Elonka, because his behavior looks like stalking. Whether it is or not is irrelevant; it's what it looks like that matters. He has followed other editors around after disputes with them, which has been discussed on AN/I at least once, so this isn't an isolated incident. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the prevention of the posting of private material on this website and therefore and by extension the blocking of users, for what seems like a necessary and or appropriate length of time, that introduce such content; blocking is not punitive, but preventative, so I think that what has transpired between Kylu and Matt57 is probably to the benefit (and, possibly, the safeguarding, in relation to the consideration and insurance of every users right to keep certain private information/s unrevealed to the community) of those involved. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, strongly support this principle and any actions taken to uphold it.Proabivouac 08:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

However, according to Matt57's unblock request, this information was already avaliable on User:Elonka/About…

if so, it seems that Matt57 has been blocked twice in a row for infractions he did not commit.Proabivouac 11:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• That was hardly a "completely reasonable request to stop". Rather, something that starts with "formal notification" is probably misguided to begin with, and it appears to contain any number of leaps to conclusions. Something doesn't seem right here. >Radiant< 11:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• I only glanced at this in the past, and assumed Elonka was mostly in the right. The behavior of her more aggressive supporters is making me think again, and making me wonder if I was foolish to support her RfA. Blurring out the face of Muhammad bothers me, but that is a question I would let Commons to deal with, as long as we do not use the bowdlerized picture in any of our articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Kylu, again, this was no private information. Its all there at User:Elonka/About. This was a completely unfair block where you probably trusted Elonka whatever she told you in email or on IRC. The link I posted in my message to her is publicly available on her wiki's main page (that link is available publicly again, at User:Elonka/About). I had only suggested her to use her own wiki as a scratchpad. I'm tired of all these blocks and threats which are all about trying to stop me from Elonka's family articles, which contain huge amounts of poorly sourced or unsourced OR and which were originally made by her in violation of WP:COI. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Examined and unblocked

I have investigated this block and the surrounding edits and come to the conclusion that it is both unwarranted and punitive.

• Matt is told to go edit articles Elonka is not editing. However, that's precisely what he IS doing.
• With respect to editing articles on Elonka's relatives, judged by his contribs log he has actually been moving to other subject areas the past few days, and hasn't been editing much overall.
• Matt is told to not store deleted content in his userspace; however, many editors do so, and so does Elonka. The two were holding a conversation in her userspace, that she wanted deleted and he wanted retained. That's hardly inappropriate.
• Matt is told not to post links to people's private sites; however, the link to Elonka's private site is easily found at the top of the links section in the article on her. So he's hardly revealing anything shocking.
• Then we have the standard red herring about the IRC cabal, which should simply be ignored.

I suspect this block is partially based upon Elonka's so-called "formal notification to cease harassment". However, this notification contains numerous overstatements, proofs-by-assertion and misinterpretations. Of course, the title itself is begging the question. It reads as if somebody combed through Matt's contribs and picked out everything that could be construed as problematic.

• For instance, it says "multiple editors were telling [Matt] to back off" followed by six diffs; these diffs are of three editors, only one of which is telling him to back off.
• It refers an image deletion on commons, where allegedly Matt is "continuing with bad faith accusations", whereas his comment in question is "I've told this to Elonka many times but she fails to understand this." which is hardly extreme.
• And, it says that "on the few other subjects that you're working on, you're getting complaints there too" which (1) is irrelevant, and (2) two people complaining is hardly indicative of a problem editor (heck, anyone who does deletion closure gets more than that, daily).

What we have here is a content dispute. While it could be argued that Matt has a conflict of interest over this content, it is obvious that Elonka does, since the content is about her family (which have been subject of COI complaints in the past). I am aware that she hasn't been editing them recently, but she is vehemently opposing certain edits to them, albeit indirectly. Neither side has been particularly nice towards the other, and tempers are flaring all around. However, we do not solve content disputes by blocking one side. Hence, unblocked, and I suggest taking the articles to WP:RFC. >Radiant< 12:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the above analysis is flawed and the decision goes against the grain of the discussion here, which is supportive of the block. I have no time to go into this further. But I ask Radiant to reconisder overruling a block made intelligently and in good faith. WjBscribe 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As the phrase "conflict of interest," like "stalking" and "harassment" has been bandied about rather carelessly in this discussion, for example here, let's refer once again to the relevant guideline. I quote from WP:COI#What is a conflict of interest?:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press…Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members…places the author in a conflict of interest…If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to…cite reliable, third-party published sources

It should go without saying that nothing in this page has any bearing whatsoever on anything Matt57 has done.Proabivouac 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of the block, the objectionable activity (call it stalking, harrassment, conflict of interest, whatever you will) seems to be ongoing and long-term, and I doubt a 24 hour block will solve problems. Hopefully all parties will heed Radiant's sensible advice. Some form of content arbitration needs to take place here. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For all who supported my block and/or are telling me not to edit Elonka's articles: here's the basic situation. Tell me what to do, except not to edit articles on Elonka's family because anyone can edit any article:

• Elonka created and edited these articles last year in the first place, which amounts to multiple violations of WP:COI. She was aware of this policy but as far as I know, she was never warned for the violations.
• Today, these articles still exist, with no reliable sources and often, no proof of notability (Antoni Dunin, Stanley Dunin etc.)
• I decided to take up the task of looking at these articles, taking out unsourced OR, examining the quality of the sources.
• She asked me to stop editing her family articles (WP:OWN). What? Shouldn't she be the one who is told the same as per COI?

Am I doing anything wrong? If you tell me to stay away from Elonka for a while, I can do that, but dont tell me not to edit these articles. Even Jimbo has taken out unsourced or poorly sourced OR from Elonka related articles. I should be allowed to edit these articles. Whats wrong with that?

So, what is the reasonable resolution of this whole affair? I'm willing to take a break to let things cool down on both sides but I wont accept anyone telling not to edit these articles, because I have every right to do so as long as I'm following policies. Please also tell me now why Elonka was not warned for making these COI violations at that time and why she was allowed to freely promote her family members. Keeping your friendships and biases aside, please ask yourself: what is the right thing to do for these articles with OR and COI problems? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, you make the mistake of comparing Elonka's actions from a long time ago against the COI guideline as it exists today. Fortunately this is a wiki, so you can go look up an old copy of the COI guideline and see what it said at the time. Also take a look at an old version of WP:V.

These articles should be cleaned up, or possibly deleted, but not by somebody with an axe to grind. You shouldn't edit these at all because you obviously have such strong feelings about Elonka. Would it make sense to post these articles to WP:COIN to get more neutral editors involved? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the old versions of the policies yourself. The old copy of COI still admonished people about articles promoting their family members. When Elonka was aware of the policy, this is what it said at that time:

any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

WP:V was also pretty clear at that time: "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources"

Ofcourse I would be glad to post this to WP:COIN. In the past, when I sought outside advice for this affair, I was accused of forum shopping. I dont have any axe to grind. I've been fair in every way. If I'm told not to edit these articles, I'll contact Jimbo and tell him that people are being allowed to promote their family members and those who come in to deal with these problems are threatened with blocks, and I'll remind him that he has himself taken out unsourced OR from Elonka related articles. Again, I'm willing to take a break, seek community input on my edits on these articles and invite people to edit and provide feedback but its wrong to tell me to stay away from these articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, the point is that many editors think what you are doing is stalking. Personally, I find it spooky. I had no interaction with either you or Elonka until I happened to vote in her RFA and left a message on her talk page. I have watched what you are doing and even commented on it to you in the early stages. There is nothing wrong with cleaning up the articles. There is something very wrong with your continuing obsession. Leave it to someone else and move on. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You like Jehochman and others have supported Elonka in her RfA. Please leave your personal biases aside. I've mentioned that I can take a break but its unfair to tell me not to edit these articles. I'm seriously going to think about contacting Jimbo about this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have a personal bias to leave aside in this case. As I said, I had never any interaction with Elonka in my three years here before supporting her RFA. I have commented on many RFAs during my time here and don't believe that simply deciding that someone would not misuse the tools makes me biased in their favor. (In fact, there are some editors from whom I wish I could withdraw my previous support). What's more, I even happen to agree with you that the articles need to be trimmed of non-encyclopedic material and, in some cases perhaps, deleted entirely. What I don't believe is appropriate is for you to continue to act in a manner that many people consider to be stalking. Driving over the speed limit is neither legal nor safe but if you followed my neighbor around calling the police every time she went 32 mph in a 30 mph zone, I would say you have a problem that is worse than her exceeding the speed limit. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DS1953, per the now-banned anti-Merkey SPAs, you are absolutely correct about which would be worse. However, Matt57 isn't following her around, not even to a single article. The "stalking" consisted of Matt57 finding a user subpage she'd created to harass him.Proabivouac 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DS, I didnt follow Elonka anywhere. She made that whole page on me, which I happened to see using her contribs (seeing someone's contribs is not stalking, per WP:STALK) and I responded to that page on its discussion tab. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How about as a compromise both Matt57 and Elonka agree not to edit these articles for a while? And maybe someone could list the articles we are talking about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka doesn't edit these articles directly; she just threatens those who do. And her threats come true.Proabivouac 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she doesn't edit her family's articles anymore. Most of them can be found here (this is public information, people, lest I be blocked again for posting this 'dangerous' link: User:Elonka/Genealogy. The ones that are being discussed and evaluated nowdays are Antoni Dunin and Stanley Dunin. They're full of unsourced OR that Elonka put in last year. The talk pages of these articles prove that there are almost no non-trivial reliable sources. And yes I can take a break from these articles so we can let things cool down everywhere, but if I'm told by others not to edit these articles at all, I will take that seriously. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 can raise an article RFC, a third opinion, or a notice at the COI noticeboard (or all three). This should attract outside editors to the articles without the drama that comes from Matt and Elonka having previous negative interactions. If other experienced editors agree with Matt's concerns, Elonka would have no leg to stand on. Thatcher131 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nuetral input. This is what I'll do, after taking a break and letting things calm down a bit. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - this would be exactly the right thing to do. Yes, the articles need to be fixed - but your doing it directly is not going to help, since there is the appearance (true or not) that you are taking an axe to them because of previous disputes between you and Elonka. Asking others to fix them is the right approach. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to post more about this matter earlier as I had to catch a train. I am very disappointed this block was overturned. It seems to me that Raidant substituted his own judgment for that of the blocking admin against the consensus here. Instead of raising his analysis in this thread so it could be discussed further and his points responded to, he went ahead and unblocked because he thought that was the right thing to do, not because there was a consensus to unblock. These issues with Matt's conduct are longstanding and his recent attentions towards Elonka are only a recent manifestation. Whilst I agree that there are OR problems with some of those articles, his approaching of blanking most of the content (rather than just that which is unsourced) has been criticised both by myself and Shell Kinney (who has bene doing great work improving those articles). For example Matt seems unable to accept that inline citation is not required by policy, that sources do not have to be in english and that print references are as good (if not better) than online ones. His conduct - goading Elonka on her talkpage when she has understandably decided not to edit those article's further due to WP:COI concerns seems to be trying to place her in a catch 22 situation. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. His approach to the matter has been hostile and combative rather than collegial. Myself and Durova have both warned him that his content has crossed the line into harassment. Other admins (including critics of Elonka) have concurred. Matt57's aggressive approach is not limited to Elonka - SlimVirgin also appears to have recieved very unwelcome attention following a disagreement between them. I also note that in discussion in general he is quick to disruption to make points and seem to regard compromise and bowing to consensus as weakness. This attitude is fundementally at odds with what this project is about. WjBscribe 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response. >Radiant< 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a request for comment might be in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WJ, you were one of the nominator's in Elonka's last RfA so you're not a nuetral party here. I'm just being bullied to stay away from Elonka's family articles, this is what its all about. As for SlimVirgin, she has had conflicts with a lot of people, not just me. If blanking the content was wrong, was Jimbo wrong too? About me opposing consensus, consensus right here on this section has been that Elonka's articles have serious problems and thats what I've said too. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, there may be problems with these articles, but you are not the one to fix them. I'm glad you stated (above) that you wouldn't be attempting to do so yourself in future, but would instead bring up any problems in forums where other editors might help out. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about this situation, but from reading this ANI thread I don't think Matt57 should have been blocked. Kylu's elliptically-worded post that opened this thread seems to be mostly about the (attempted) revelation of private information, and as far as I can see Matt hasn't revealed anything that wasn't already publicly available. If Matt is stalking or harassing Elonka, it might be beneficial to set out the evidence in a user conduct RfC; the community can then evaluate whether blocking or other remedies are necessary.

By the way, Antoni Dunin is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, on WP:COIN#Antoni_Dunin, Matt57 stated he wouldn't be involved in the AfD for now, yet has involved himself in the debate there anyway. In the meantime, interested parties may wish to review my response to the unblocking and opinion of the situation if you'd like. Leave responses here please. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, your allegation on which my block was based on was that I leaked out sensitive information on Elonka and that turned out to be false. It was all public information. Next time, please investigate matters before blocking someone and dont listen to people on IRC (you admitted IRC was involved), because if someone says something about me, it might be a complete lie or a misrepresentation and I cannot be there to correct the facts. I dont know why Elonka frequents IRC so much and why she doesnt contact ANI here when she has a problem. Is that because she knows she has an advantage over the person she wants to get prosecuted since they cant see whats being said? The IRC logs should be available by the way, because I want to know what she has been saying about me. By the way, I took out my vote as a suggestion from THF. Its amazing Elonka walks free while I get blocked and harrassed and told to stay away from her articles, in which she has violated COI herself. Thats because she has all these admin friends whom she contacts on IRC to get them to stop others from doing anything to her family articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear above, Kylu, I am wholly in support of your block, which I think was thoroughly deserved. IMO, Matt57 has a propensity to do things on purpose to irritate those he's had disagreements with (i.e. WP:POINT) and has a major problem with being told he shouldn't do something. There's a lot of editors on Wikipedia who can make the articles on Elonka's relatives be NPOV, or argue for their deletion if they're not ever going to be good encyclopedia articles. Matt57 should be nowhere among them. It's not unreasonable to ask people to avoid conflict and avoid doing things on purpose to annoy others, even if the conduct is within the normally acceptable sphere of edits. Arbcom has done so in the past and will do so in future (frequently). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There's only one thing to discuss on this whole affair: whether the sources are enough or not. If they are, please take part at the article's discussion page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt: IRC RC Bot and Wikipedia IRCD[75]. As I stated , IRC is my preferred method of seeing recentchanges. The block wasn't based on that one incident of personal information (which you didn't post as article-related, and if you're following RS as strictly as you say, shouldn't even be a site to pique your curiosity) but because of the pattern of harassment. Want to know WHO I was listening to on IRC when I first started considering the situation? Visit irc.wikimedia.org, channel #en.wikipedia. RC's a bot. It spits out a list of all the changes on Wikipedia, rather like having a realtime, scrolling special:recentchanges. The channel is, for the most part, full of bots. I have not once seen RC (or any of the other bots) squeak a word, other than RC spitting out its continuous feed. On that server, in fact, Sending messages to channels is not allowed, you can watch but you can't touch. (from the irc.wikimedia.org welcome message)

Did anyone else on regular IRC mention the situation? Sure did, but that was after I'd already made up my mind and started acting upon it. Please don't presume to know what my thoughts and motivations were. I'd like to point out that earlier, in "regular" irc, I suggested to a different admin to not make blocking decisions based on advice gained on IRC. You have to be responsible for your own decisions, and I not only stand by my block, I'm dismayed that you've decided to see Radiant's unblock as clearance to continue your actions. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response. >Radiant< 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, in the post which began this thread, giving the reason for your block, you wrote, "Going so far as to dig through someone's life and prying out things the other person is trying to keep from public view, when they're quite frankly none of any of our business, however, is quite something else." Did Matt57 do that?Proabivouac 01:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from Radiant's talk page) Radiant, I agree with WJBscribe that Matt needed to sit out this block. He has been practically stalking Elonka because she tried to mediate between him and some Muslim editors during a content dispute, and he didn't like the suggestion she came up with. This left him with the sense that she is too pro-Muslim (when in fact she was just trying to find a compromise). He tried to do the same to me a while back after a dispute at Islamophobia, after which he also decided I was pro-Muslim. I forget the exact details, but he later turned up at a couple of articles I edit a lot and tried to cause a problem. He also implied that I was creating sockpuppets that appeared to be him in order to discredit him. I saw on AN/I that there were allegations of harassment from other editors too following content disputes, so this is a pattern. What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues. The behavior has been a bit creepy, to be honest, and Kylu was right to block, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response. >Radiant< 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC

I, for one, completely agree with what Radiant said and think the block was uncalled for. Matt editing the Dunin articles is not stalking. Following Elonka on pages she edits, etc, is stalking. Matt is completely within his right to edit these articles, and no one has a right to stop him from doing so. He doesn't need to be bothering Elonka with what he's doing, but that is all. If Matt isn't allowed to finish cleaning these articles up, I'll volunteer myself to do so. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you have clear issues with Elonka as well, you're probably not a good party for this either. Shell ^babelfish 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Radiant's contention that "we do not solve content disputes by blocking one side". Any attempts to issue blocks instead of pursuing standard dispute resolution procedures are ill-advised and reflect poorly on those who demand their opponents to be blocked from editing, especially by advocating, manipulating, and politicking behind the scenes. I guess we move to arbitration next. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read the entire section. At this point, it looks to me like the block was wrong. Assuming Matt57 is not blocked currently (I am not an Admin and I cannot see how to find out), I would say that the incident is closed and there is no need for arbitration. Matt57 should be bold and try to improve the relevant articles. If Elonka feel an article is going in the wrong direction, she can file an RFC on the article. Matt57 has encouraged others to comment on Talk pages. This seems to me to show an acceptance of the value of consensus. Indeed, Matt57 seems quite reasonable. Whatever has happened in the past, I think she should assume good faith and that he will abide by policy.

Speaking in general, Admins should not, I believe, be trigger-happy with the block button. The wiki will not collapse if they take the time needed to identify diffs showing clearly block-worthy behaviour. ANI should not be a rubber stamp. The fact that no replies to Radiant provided diffs proving a vital need to block is interesting. Finally, we do not solve content disputes by blocking one side - unless that side has been shown to be an unreasonable person. Eiler7 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Johntex's dishonesty (BSA)

I’d like to address actions by Johntex. While they happened a while ago, I stopped contributing soon before, and so didn’t find out about them until later. I made an edit and included two links in support of my claims. Johntex then claimed that I hadn’t included any cites, and I pointed out the two links that I had included. He then denied that I had included those links. I repeatedly and in excruciating detail explained where to find them, yet he continued with his claim. I will put a screenshot of the two links on Johntex’s Talk page.

When I pointed out that he was lying, he had the gall to declare that I was being uncivil by commenting on his dishonesty. Furthermore, this followed an attempt on my part to initiate mediation proceeding. Rather than first bring these issues up in that arena, or otherwise attempting to resolve his alleged issues with me, he simply moved to silence me by presenting a one-sided description of the situation on this page. He filed a complaint based on a dishonest presentation, even going to far as to accuse me of lying in insisting that he was lying. To top it off, he never gave me any notice of the complaint, and gave the complaint a nondescriptive title that included neither my name nor any reference to the article in which the dispute arose. It was only through wading through pages and pages of the history page that I was able to find it, and even then only because I recognized Johntex’s name.

In my opinion, this sort of behavior is simply unacceptable, and if he isn’t banned from editing, he should at the very least be stripped of his administrative authority. No one with such a contempt for the truth should be in a position of authority in a site which has the truth as its primary mission.Heqwm 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to offer any proof of misconduct on Johntex's part. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability trumps truth. On that note, some diffs provided here might be helpful. --Onorem♠Dil 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John has not done anything recently that would warrant any sort of block or strip admin privileges. In the dispute you are mentioning, it seems he was very civil and stated his side of the story. Also, its rather redundant to add further comment on a mediation case that was closed in November 2006. As mentioned above, if you can provide recent diffs which illustrate incivility, lying, or unacceptable behavior then that would warrant comment or action. Diffs from ages ago are really ancient history.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Johntex:

1. Heqwm is referring to events that occurred in October 2006. That was many moons and many edits ago.
2. However, I described the situation fully in my response to the mediation cabal case openned by Heqwm. I provided plenty of diffs that I believe make clear that Heqwm was the party violating WP:CIVIL.
3. None of the above is a surprise to Heqwm. He replied to my posting at the mediation cabal case, so he is being dishonest or disingenuous to now claim that he was unaware of my comments.
4. Heqwm did abandon the mediation cabal case although he did continue to make a couple of edits to the related article and talk page[76] [77] before he left Wikipedia.
5. For some reason, he is starting this conversation up again in multiple places (here and at the cabal case). His "notification" to me was placed on my User page, not my Talk page, so I found it only by accident. I assume this was a simple mistake by Heqwm. Johntex\^talk 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
6. However, he continues to violate WP:CIVIL in accusing me of lying with no evidence whatsoever.
7. I also believe that he is now, just as he was then, violating Wikipedia is not a battleground, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." His dredging this up is nothing short of disruption and harassment.
8. I recommended that he be strongly cautioned against disruptive behavior and/or receive a short block so that his disruption is checked and so that he will understand this is not the right way to go about rejoining the project.

Thank you, Johntex\^talk 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie: “You have yet to offer any proof of misconduct on Johntex's part.“

I prepared a screenshot, only to discover that wikipedia doesn’t allow bmps to be uploaded. So I settled for posting the link and the relevant quote. Here’s the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America&diff=prev&oldid=79701488

Persian Poet Gal: “In the dispute you are mentioning, it seems he was very civil and stated his side of the story.”

Some comments he made: “If you don't modify your behavior, there will be no alternative to viewing your behavior as vandalism.”

“My statement was correct and I expect you will want to apologize for saying I lied.”

Then on top of that, he had me suspended based on lies.

“Diffs from ages ago are really ancient history”

Ten months is ancient history?

Johntex says: “However, I described the situation fully in my response to the mediation cabal case openned by Heqwm.”

Congratulations, you just eliminated your statute of limitations excuse, because now you’re posting new lies. I included the links that you said were not there. You did not acknowledge that. Therefore, you did not describe the situation fully.

“None of the above is a surprise to Heqwm. He replied to my posting at the mediation cabal case, so he is being dishonest or disingenuous to now claim that he was unaware of my comments.”

Except that you made no mention of the fact that you were seeking action against me on the mediation page, so you are the one being dishonest. You NEVER, as far as I know, made ANY effort to inform me of your actions with regard to suspending me.

“Heqwm did abandon the mediation cabal case although he did continue to make a couple of edits to the related article and talk page”

As far as I can see, my last edit last year was 16:23, 26 October 2006. Until 23:01, 26 October 2006, there was no real progress on the mediation case (nor had there been for about two weeks). So your implication that I ignored the mediation case in favor of continuing to edit is yet another dishonesty from you. There was nothing for me to ignore until AFTER my edit.

“For some reason, he is starting this conversation up again in multiple places (here and at the cabal case).”

While I made mention of dishonesty in general on the cabal page, I did not make any mention of this specific case.

“However, he continues to violate WP:CIVIL in accusing me of lying with no evidence whatsoever.”

That I have no evidence is yet another lie. I’m not going to let you hide behind the skirt of civility. Bringing to light your blatant dishonesty is more important than sparing your widdle feelings.

“I also believe that he is now, just as he was then, violating Wikipedia is not a battleground, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." His dredging this up is nothing short of disruption and harassment.”

Wow, you sure are a hypocrite. I was willing to let it go until you went whining to this page with your lies. You’re the one who created this battle.

“I recommended that he be strongly cautioned against disruptive behavior and/or receive a short block so that his disruption is checked and so that he will understand this is not the right way to go about rejoining the project.”

What part of “Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement" do you not understand? I’m not going to buckle under your bullying. You don’t get to block people just because they dare point out your dishonesty.

You really show your arrogance here: anyone who has a problem with should be blocked.Heqwm 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous and childish AN/I thread. The argument happened ten months ago. You left wikipedia for months, after the incident and Mediation. Now you've come back, and your first major act hee is to open this thread, demanding we re-do the entire process now that you're here to more fully participate? Stop wasting our time, and go help build the project, or go back to doing whatever you did while you were gone from Wikipedia. Your immature 'gotcha' style comments above, such as "Congratulations, you just eliminated your statute of limitations excuse, because now you’re posting new lies. " and "I was willing to let it go until you went whining to this page with your lies. You’re the one who created this battle." Are trolling posts. You're trying to get a reaction out of him. Him defending himself doesn't require you to accuse him of lying without proof you've yet to provide, and accusing HIM of starting this again, when it's clear he let this go 10 months ago, and when YOU opened this AN/I thread, is absurd.

Admins, I'd support any Admin giving Heqwm an indef block as a SPA trolling account with a grudge. ThuranX 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"demanding we re-do the entire process" what does that mean? You didn't DO the process, so there is nothing to RE-DO. I'm helping build the project by trying get rid of someone who obviously has no concern for the ideals of wikipedia. Your use of the term "gotcha" is absurd. When I made edits that Johntex didn't like, instead of dealing with them on the talk page of the article, he simply had me suspended. There is nothing "gotcha" about pointing out that clearly Johntex is the one violating the "not a battleground" rule. Your use of the word "trolling" is in flagrant violating of the AGF rule. There is absolutely no evidence that my intent is anything but what I have said it is: to get Johntex stripped of admin powers, if not banned. There are three main elements to my charge: I included the links, Johntex said that I didn't, and Johntex got me suspended based in part on the lie that I lied about him. I have proven the first. If you're going to dispute the others, then go ahead and ask for proof, and I'll give it to you. Showing up here and criticizing me for failing to provide proof that neither you nor anyone else has asked for is completely unconstructive unless your sole goal is to simply piss me off. I never claimed that he started this again. Your accusation of SPA trolling is yet another absurdity. Are you seriously suggesting that I created this account solely in the expectation that Johntex would have a disagreement, he would lie about me, and I would then lodge a complaint against him?Heqwm 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You chose to leave the process the first time. You walked away, and YOU dropped the ball. Wikipedia isn't about to give you a do-over on it. Since then, Johntex has continued to improve things here, and you've been gone. I can see NO good reason to dredge up an old case that you didn't feel was important enough to finish. As Johntex demonstrated ,you were still editing on wikipedia, and could have finished the process, but instead opted not to. You can't undo that choice now and demand we all jump to your orders. This is Over. stop pushing for it, or I'll file a complaint of obvious disruption and harrassment of Johntex. ThuranX 05:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your fishing for some sort of banning or "de-sysopping" based on something that happened months ago. Sorry, but this isn't the forum for this, and I suspect that at the end of the day this is just going to be ignored.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Your fishing for some sort of banning or "de-sysopping" based on something that happened months ago." Any plans to finish that sentence? "Sorry, but this isn't the forum for this" Unless someone informs me of a better place to put it, I'm going to keep it here.Heqwm 00:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's NO proper place for this, drop it, move on. ThuranX 05:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war/warring at Carlossuarez46

• Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobo54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's been a constant edit war between a group of users (partially involving me) at this userpage, so I thought it'd be best to bring it here. It started when Cowboycaleb1 posted a question at the bottom of his userpage [78]. I reverted it, with the edit description being: "Undid revision 152976001 by Cowboycaleb1 (talk) - use the talkpage to ask questions" [79]. Cowboycaleb1 seemingly ignored me, and reverted my edit, with the edit description "asking a question. about a page deletion"[80]. Miskwito reverted his edit, stating "Again, ask questions on the user's TALK PAGE, not here"[81]. Bobo54 comes in, and reverts Miskwito's edit, bringing back in Caleb's question, with the edit description "user does not have a talk page"[82]. Clearly this is wrong as Carlossuarez does have a talkpage - after all Bobo54 was editing it. The Fifth Horseman reverts it, stating "Then create it. What's the problem with that?"[83]. Cowboycaleb1 comes back with the edit description "trying to ask a question AGAIN.", still not knowing that a talkpage is in existance.[84] I then reverted it,[85] before Bobo54 reverted it saying "leave the guy alone and let User:Carlossuarez46 answer his question"[86]. I have just yet again reverted it. Is there any chance Bob54 is a sock of Cowboycaleb1? Also, Cowboycaleb1 has been causing enough hassle, and sent me a harrasing e-mail, which I do not which to reveal. Me and Rlevse have been discussing the e-mail. Caleb recently also violated WP:3RR, and removed a perfectly good source from Ashley Massaro's paage.[87]. Should this user get a block for his actions? Davnel03 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Infact, look at Bobo54's contributions. I think it's pretty obvious he's a sock of Cowboycaleb1. Block needed. Davnel03 16:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the sock and am warning user. Please do try to communicate with the user in question first. Using edit summaries to communicate is not an efficient method. Sasquatch t|c 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to, but he simply removed mine (and several other) messages, and decided to leave on that weren't doing any harm (see here) Davnel03 16:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the user but I still don't see any discussion on this specific issue... WP:ANI is more of a last resort in dispute resolution when other communications attempts fail... Sasquatch t|c 19:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I've seen of this, but User:Cowboycaleb1 did it again since your final warning [88]. I don't know whether it's ok or not for me to block him, but someone should - I'd rather not have to protect my own user page. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Sasquatch's comments were polite and crystal clear on using talkpages so I can't see this as anything other than deliberate disruption on Cowboycaleb1's part. Incidentally it appears he is autoblocked as well; I'd be interested to know how that went down.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sneeky edits in Planetarium (song) & Planetarium (song)

[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]

An IP is repetitively redirecting page removing article content. It is hard to notice because bots "fix" the double redirect before this is been noticed. I do not want to classify the IP as a vandal as per his/her/its useful contributions. Never the less there seems to be a problem. -- Cat ^chi? 07:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While I do see quite the colourful collection of templates, did you or anyone try to simply explain to the user what they are doing wrong? El_C 11:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"An IP is repetitively redirecting page removing article content." Can you put that in English?Heqwm 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy of political violence in user page by User:AlanD

User:AlanD has a userbox supporting political violence. Specifically it says:

"This user supports antifa in combating fascism in both word and action.

If you read the antifa page you'll see that this is a thinly veiled promotion of political violence and intimidation. This is both a "polemical statement" and a "reference to real world violence", and it is not civil. If we replaced the terms with something like "This user supports KKK actions to combat miscegenation." or something along those lines the cries for blocks and bans would be incessant.

These sort of statements on user pages are extremely disruptive to wikipedia. They cause unnecessary conflicts, create the appearance of POV-pushing and an agenda, and could be potentially intimidating to other editors. I have asked this user to remove the template and his response was to rudely infer that I must be a fascist.

If these sort of userboxes were genuinely allowable on Wikipedia I would certainly not object to this person expressing his beliefs or will to act, but I don't think it's really allowed, by the policies or by what people are blocked for in practice. Some clarification of any policies relating to this would be welcomed.

-- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a note on his talk page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not removing the material. Nobody has an opinion? I don't see how stuff like that can stay because it opens a floodgate of offensive images, statements, and hidden harassment and intimidation of other editors. What is the line between a political statement and advocating violence? And is it ok to advocate violence against people of certain beliefs on your user page? If it is I think that should be made clear. I mean I wouldn't mind seeing some commies and nihilists getting beat up by street gangs, maybe I should put that on my page??? How is that supposed to work? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(cc on user talk) For the same reason you were blocked for removing stuff off El C's userpage a few days ago, if you do that again to AlanD's or any other user's User: page you will be re-blocked. Stop harrassing and pushing buttons like this. Georgewilliamherbert 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can an administrator delete two copy-vio images with fake licensing?

See Image:Whitney_Houston_On_Stage.jpg and Image:Whitney_Houston_In_Concert.jpg. Thanks. Miranda 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The uploader claims they were self-taken and is releasing them under the GFDL. On the site linked to in the speedy deletion requests, the copyright information is: "All photos belong to the original copyright holder. If you see any of your pictures here and they are copyrighted contact me.". It is possible that the uploader did take the pictures. Sancho 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pictures are on wireimages, a NC-ND site here. Thus, they are not free images. But, hopefully they will be deleted after 7 days. NC-ND pictures are not allowed to identify a living person. One was deleted. Miranda 18:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can buy images from Wireimages.com, but the rights don't necessarily belong to the buyee, but rather the person who took the pictures. Miranda 18:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The best place for this is WP:CV. If you think the images are copyvio but are not sure, see WP:PUI. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Coburn

I am currently involved in a content dispute with User:TDC at the article Tom Coburn. Talk page discussion, RfC filed, all that is okay. But TDC insists on harping on some unrelated edits in another article instead of discussing the article at hand. An editor should engage in talk page discussion but should not be forced to defend his edits on an entirely different article. (Note that I've already stated I will defend the edits he objects to on the talk page of the relevant article) I have refused to take his bait and have removed the off topic personal commentary instead of responding in kind and trolling through his edit history to drag in some additional irrelevancies. TDC has a long history of incivility (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2) against other users as well as me personally and has been sanctioned by Arbcom (more than once I believe). I have chosen to remove his off-topic commentary, but he has reverted my removal four times today. I am willing to discuss the Tom Coburn article with an antagonistic editor, but I feel this behavior is not something I should have to put up with and I request intervention. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than risking 3RR by reverting, it might be better to just ignore him. I also don't think, in general, that it's completely inappropriate to point out to an editor a perceived inconsistent application of the same policy in different articles. It's a matter of degree, I guess. - Crockspot 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• And I could point out many such instances of his behavior. Where does that get us? Tit for tat doesn't resolve the original content dispute and such a flame war would be unproductive and inappropriate. I want to avoid that and discuss only the article at hand. Why should I be forced to put up with deliberately antagonistic behavior? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's why I recommend ignoring him. If taking up the discussion on other pages helps the situation, all the better, but that's up to you. You cannot control how others behave, only how you react to them. - Crockspot 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, removing my comments from the talk page is WP:Vandalism, especially considering that you have not alleged that it was a personal attack here. Secondly, as I explained on the article’s talk page, your behavior on the article, as well on others, might be of interest to users that you have continued to revert, many times W/O explanation. They deserve an explanation why you argue policy on one article, and take the flip side of it on another. This is also not the first time you have been accused of doing this (Lori Klausutis comes to mind, (and what exactly did the real Joe Scarborough have to say about that one?). But thank you for coming here, as I asked after your first revert on the talk page. And lastly, you breched 4 revrts on that page befor I did. And, for the record, that RfC is over 2 years old. My behavior has been much better since then. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are suppose to remain on topic when discussing articles, meaning you should only be discussing ways to improve said article, not faults you find in editors on those articles. There is also the issue of using ad hominems. What is the point of making other users aware of what you believe is bad behavior? There is a method for this in the form of a RfC. Like everyone else, including Crockspot, I think the two of you should discuss articles on the relevant talk pages and attempt not only discuss the content of those articles. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment seems directed at Gamaliel. Please use his or her talk page for these types of comments. This page is for discussing incidents requiring administrator intervention. Sancho 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the choice here is that either you are both blocked for 3RR, or you try to work this out. You both have valid positions. TDC, I think you could be less combative about it. Gamaliel, I think you could try to have a little more introspection about it. This inconsistency issue, whether real or perceived, is a problem I see a lot, and am accused of myself. I try very hard to edit neutrally and apply consistently, but a truly neutral editor recently pointed out a few things that made me realize that while not pushing POV, I was not quite as neutral as I had believed I was. We all have room for improvement. I think you are both mature enough to walk away from each other for a short time, and try to work this out later civilly and with an open mind. As Sancho says, there is no need for admin intervention here, unless you both want to be blocked. - Crockspot 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If TDC feels there is a pattern of improper editing, then he (as I have previously told him) should bring it up on my personal talk page or start an RfC. Talk:Tom Coburn is not the proper forum for this. I have always been willing to stand by my edits and defend them, but I am not willing to do so as part of a cheap ploy to get the upper hand in an unrelated content dispute. (I doubt, in the example you gave above, this neutral editor brought your editing issues to your attention in such a manner.) Do you really think that this is appropriate behavior? If so, then I could easily bring up plenty of examples of his shoddy behavior. How would that do anything to resolve the issue? When an editor is acting appropriately, the proper response is not to advise other editors to ignore him, but to intervene to stop the inappropriate behavior. I wish to resolve this issue in a civil manner, but being forced to put up with this behavior is not a satisfactory or appropriate response. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion should continue in more appropriate venues, and I think that I implied that. As you well know, I have no power to do anything other than express my opinion. I think you guys should just take a break from each other, and work this out with cooler heads later. I also advised TDC earlier on his talk page not to further aggravate the situation. - Crockspot 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that you personally should have done any more than you have done, but that "ignore him" is not an appropriate repsonse in general to a dispute requiring intervention. TDC has removed the offending material at your request, which is a satisfactory conclusion to this matter, but his long term problems with civility remain an issue. Since you seem to have some influence with him, perhaps you should have a talk with him before he ends up before Arbcom yet again. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should have clarified "ignore him for today". - Crockspot 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Taking a bit of time to cool off is always good advice. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Per the above I have blocked User:Jamessouth per WP:DUCK as a SPA sock/meatpuppet. And I'd reinforce what Crockspot said; the blocks (for 3RR or just tendentious editing) will be coming out very soon unless this stops. ELIMINATORJR 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that I am in any way related to Jamessouth. Please clarify. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that, but the account is fairly obviously being used purely to edit-war (incivilly) on those articles, so I blocked it. ELIMINATORJR 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Sorry about the confusion. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Misou harasses another editor on talk page

An editor put this notice on Misou's talk page: [95] Misou then cut and pasted that notice and put it on User:RookZERO's talk page. [96] I think this is disruptive behavior. --Fahrenheit451 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Misou's Block log:[97]--Fahrenheit451 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 has been an extremely tendentious, POV-pushing and insulting editor for some time now who has been clearly "out to get" Misou and other editors who have been in disagreements with him. Misou's no angel, to be sure, but Misou doesn't deserve this routine harassment and net-cop tattletale wikistalking that Fahrenheit451 inflicts on several other editors on an almost daily basis. As someone who is often myself on the receiving end of Fahrenheit451's most unpleasant baiting, heckling and insulting behavior, I fully understand how Misou might lose his/her temper once in a while, and/or come to the conclusion that such angst is acceptable after observing others doing it freely. Don't take my word for it - a simple perusal of Fahrenheit451's contributions page for the last 2-3 months will clearly illustrate what I'm speaking of. wikipediatrix 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix seems to want to misdirect the reporting of disruptive cofs editors. That is too bad.--Fahrenheit451 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Was it harassment when the original message was left on Misou's talk page? --Onorem♠Dil 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant. It came from one editor and Misou pasted on the page of another editor.--Fahrenheit451 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand... he left a comment on another user's page. That comment doesn't appear to be uncivil, although I don't know the history nor why he would paste it there. The user in question hasn't complained or removed it. This really isn't the complaints department, and it's hard to see how that action warrants urgent administrative intervention. If RookZERO doesn't want the comment on his talk page, he can remove it. If Misou keeps replacing it, or starts getting more demonstrably uncivil, then we'll see... but this really doesn't seem actionable to me. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I will explain it again: An editor put this notice on Misou's talk page:[98]Misou then cut and pasted that notice and put it on a different editor's User:RookZERO's talk page. [99]

Pardon me, but that is quite obnoxious. Perhaps RookZERO has not logged in and noticed. --Fahrenheit451 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I suppose I was wondering if there was more to it than that. Apparently there is not. Maybe we can wait for RookZERO to decide how bothered he is by the post before coming here? I'd still suggest that the best response to an unwanted talk page post is to remove it with an edit summary gently discouraging such posts. If it becomes a recurrent problem along the lines of harassment or edit-warring on someone's talk page, then that's different. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it may be more of a harassment issue than it seems, and there is a history. Misou and RookZERO have been involved in some edit warring: 3RR 17 August - ANI 20 June. *note* they also interacted between these two diffs, I just want to illustrate how long this has been going on. Anynobody 05:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

There are what appear to be genuine rumours (ie the rumours are genuine) that he has died but nothing official of course and thus its becoming a bit of a struggle to stop over-eager new users from trying to declare this "fact" in the article. Any admins who wanted to add this to their watchlist would be appreciated, SqueakBox 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright. (ps. I linked the article in the title for ease of use). LessHeard vanU 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All the talk about "apologies" and ArbCom cases and such is quite confusing. What's that all about? android79 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As some major news organizations [100][101] are beginning to report the rumours, and the Cuban government has officially denied them, it may be worth adding a one-line reference that his death is rumoured in the section about Castro's health. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

These sources are reporting upon the rumours that are being circulated (one quotes the blog which seems to be the current source of these claims) and nothing in regard to Castro's supposed demise. Perhaps a line or two in a couple of days when the current rumour mongering dies down - or Castro's death is announced - on the continuing claims about his health will suffice. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom? Lol. Even if he is dead we wait for major news sources, but you all know this anyway, SqueakBox 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I declined the page protection request, because I want folks to be able to respond quickly if it is announced. However, I'm sitting on that article camped out right now and watching for speculation. I've already blocked one person for continually putting it in there (3RR, unsourced BLP violations, etc...) - Philippe | Talk 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) this is a controversial and popular enough figure that there are probably far more than enough people watchlisting this, it should be no problem to maintain without page protection. It's better to offer people a window into how Wiki works than keep everything under wraps for the sake of accuracy. Citizendium can do that for us --lucid 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Cool. There is no question that the rumours are real and I posted here because I didnt want protection but do want admin input into protecting this article. Obviously reverting his death date more than 3 times isnt 3RR cos its unsourced BLP vio but claiming the rumours are real is 3RR. We have to be squeaky clean (lol) on this one, so block away, SqueakBox 22:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A user is deleting sources to articles, deleting warnings on his talk page, and acting extremely uncivil

User:Daddy Kindsoul first came to my attention when he deleted a source I had added to the NOFX page.[102] Since then he has deleted sources on that page 3 other times.[103][104][105]

When I confronted him about this he deleted my comment.[106]

I confronted him again, and again he deleted it[107], as well as left me an incivil message on my talk page.[108]

I hope an administrator can at the veyr least set this user straight.Hoponpop69 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Kindsoul was unfairly deleting your original source - of course then you deleted his that he added ([109]). I've just included both sources as a compromise.--danielfolsom 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I deleted Kindsoul's source was because the same source cited the same information in the articles infobox.Hoponpop69 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have left a note on his talk page. However, suggesting to him that he could be blocked for reverting your changes perhaps wasn't the best way of going about things. As for the article itself, as I said to him, content disputes are best fixed by discussion on the talk page. Unless this escalates, there's no reason for admin intervention here. ELIMINATORJR 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) is the new name of Deathrocker (talk · contribs) who has an extensive block log and is under revert parole per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. You may want to shift this complaint to WP:AE. Thatcher131 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A legal snag with 6 new images

• This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#A legal snag with 6 new images. Anthony Appleyard 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by xl five lx (talk · contribs)

I'd appreciate input from other admins on this issue, as I'm too wrapped up in it myself to proceed. Around August 4, there was a dispute on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships about a style issue. A new user, xl five lx (talk · contribs), made a personal attack against Benea (talk · contribs). I warned him, and Benea replied on WP:SHIPS. Benea also posted on my talk page about it; he was bothered by the attack. The situation between the two of them got diffused into a series of good-natured barbs.

However, xl five lx also e-mailed me. He was verbally abusive in the e-mail exchange, eventually stating "You are a liar as well as a pathetic little punk," and "Good luck in life. You'll need it - pussy." I warned him again on his talk page, as I consider personal attacks using the "E-mail this user" button to be essentially personal attacks on Wikipedia, and hadn't had any problems since. I've tried to avoid dealing with him, but I am a very active member of WP:SHIPS and we participate in the same discussions. Today, xl five lx posted this; I'm posting here asking for another admin to please have a look. TomTheHand 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I warned him again (level 4 NPA plus nice long verbose explanation). I'll keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships as well. Georgewilliamherbert 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirect of Metroid-based articles

Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)has taken it upon himself to redirect almost every article pertaining to the Metroid series to the specific game they are featured in with the edit summary 'article is nothing but plot regurgitation'. I've reverted the articles back and messaged him concerning that there doesn't appear to be any sort of consensus to him doing this. I'm not sure if my message could be construed as being rude or not, so I'd just like an idea if I did the right thing here? HalfShadow 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was brought up on the video game project. TTN 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, redirecting them to the games is a bad idea, and they should be redirected to at least lists. Complete obliteration of the content is bad, too Metroid (series) doesn't give me enough context into what Zebes is - just that Samus visits and blows it up twice, which is not enough to be descriptive (and I'm a mergist/deletionist). Will ^(talk) 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT by 2day old user

(note: similar topic below) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Johnjoecavanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnjoecavanagh seems to be actively WP:CANVASS a pettition link ^[110] on project and talkpages as aresult of "his" article (Redboy) beig deleted. Examples such as this [111], are evident in his contribs. Obvious attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Hu12 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio by Blytonite

The above user is the primary editor of the Amal Hijazi article and has uploaded numerous invalid fair-use images (most were violations of WP:NFCC#1 and have been deleted) and included them in the article. An example is this image, which was uploaded and deleted twice. To evade this, he apparently created this account on Commons, uploaded the same image there with an apparent fraudulent license, and then inserted the image back into the article. I've flagged the image at Commons but haven't yet removed it from the article pending comment here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD keep

I'm presently in conflict with another admin (User:Crum375) who claims that, if an article has an AFD resulting in "keep", that article may not be edited, merged, or renamed. I claim that all three of those are regular editing actions and that AFD does not in any way prohibit that. Perhaps not so coincidentally, he wrote the article in question. Could we get some outside opinion from other admins please? >Radiant< 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In general hypothetical theory (i.e. without seeing an article) a Keep doesn't mean an article exists in suspended animation post AFD and those things you've mentioned absolutely can be discussed and undertaken if there is consensus to do so. This is essentially the same thing as when an article is deleted, it may be recreated at a future date provided it meets relevant policies and guidelines. An AFD outcome just decides if the current article as it exists stays or goes it's not a content discussion. I'd also mention that WP:BRD is a good guideline here.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course every article can be edited - that's a fundamental part of wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also consensus can change. Majorly (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD does not in any way prohibit normal editing actions on the article afterwards. If, however, there is consensus on the AfD about an editing-based decision (e.g. if there is a clear consensus at an AfD not to rename a page), making that change boldly afterwards (especially soon afterwards) without further discussion first is probably a bad idea, not because it goes against AfD policy, but because making a change that you know consensus is against is probably a bad idea. (I don't know the details of the specific situation, so what I say may be irrelevant to it; I'm talking in general terms here.) --ais523 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreement with ais523. If an article survives AFD, it certainly can be edited, but immediately merging it away is probably not the best idea. Unless, of course, that's what the AFD said. Please give the specific case if you want more details. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in questions seems to be Mourning sickness. As best I can tell, the main point of contention is that it was originally at Anna Svidersky. The AFD on that article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Svidersky (2nd nomination), resulted in a "keep". As soon as the AFD ended, the article was redirected to Mourning sickness. Radiant, who did point out Crum375 was the creator of the article, didn't mention it was Radiant who created the AFD on Anna Svidersky, and when it was closed as a "keep", promptly redirected it. I don't really have any comment on the actual discussion, just thought all the facts should be mentioned. Neil ム 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the AfD it was pretty much acknowledged even by the "Keep" voters that the article wasn't actually about Anna Svidersky herself, but the reaction to her death. I would have thought, though, that the article should probably have gone to "Death of Anna Svidersky" or suchlike rather than to a catch-all article about public mourning. ELIMINATORJR 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mourning Sickness article was created after most of the editors at the Anna Svidersky article noted that the one single element that was notable or encyclopedic was the reaction to her death. As Crum himself noted "The notable element in the article is the so-called (and reliably sourced) 'mourning sickness' phenomenon, Crum375 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)" Unfortunately rather then focus on this encyclopedic element, the Svidersky article tried to act as a biography for a decidedly non-notable person and essentially became a memorial filled with details about when Anna was a little girl and got a reprimand in elementary school for acting up and the time she cut off her hair and donated it to charity, etc. The overwhelming consensus of both AFD's is that Svidersky is not notable nor is her death but rather only the reaction to her death. The section of the Mourning Sickness article dedicated to Svidersky is meant to retain the notable info that the Keep editors wished to retain but with the focus squarely on the encyclopedic content. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To get back to Radiant's question: of course an AfD keep does not preclude later actions such as redirection, moving, merging, or editing of any kind. That said, when an article has just been kept at AfD, it should be thought of as a debate that bears on what to do with the article. To ignore the opinions in the debate is probably unwise... but then, WP:BRD gives a simple way to resolve it, and those debates don't always show a clear opinion on particular solutions. Mangojuice^talk 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like the AFD had some people saying it should be merged, just like this, and some saying it shouldn't. Good faith dispute. Go talk it out on the article talk page; you may want to contact the people who participated in the AFD. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the point that most people are missing is that the "article to merge to" is, as Agne points out above, not a seperate article, but a rewritten version of the same article as started during the AFD. >Radiant< 08:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant has blatantly misrepresented Crum375 (note the lack of diff), who is far too experienced to make the claim falsely attributed to him. What Crum375 actually said, less than an hour before Radiant posted here, was, "Please leave this article alone, with the correct post AfD Keep name, until consensus is reached on this talk page."[112] That is entirely in line with the AfD consensus, which the closing admin summed up as, "The result was keep. Please defer merge related comments to article talk."[113]

The history of this is that on 7 August, without any discussion, Radiant moved the article (about a murdered teenager, Anna Svidersky) to the name of the murderer, David Barton Sullivan, [114] which is peculiar, since the sources focus on Svidersky, not Sullivan, as indicated by Google hits 26,500 [115] and 73 respectively.[116] When this was reverted Radiant immediately nominated the article for deletion. The result, as above, was keep and discuss any merge; Radiant then redirected the article, again without any discussion on the article talk page, to Mourning sickness,[117] when it was obvious that this would be a controversial action. His action was reversed and he reverted.[118]. I left a note asking for consensus to be reached first before the redirect was made.[119] The matter was still in dispute on the article talk page, and Radiant made the redirect twice more, [120] (with needless history merge) and [121] (incorrectly claiming consensus). Discussion is still ongoing on Talk:Anna Svidersky, and there is no consensus for the redirect. Radiant's conduct is not exactly a shining example.

Tyrenius 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Irony strikes again. My point is that there is no such thing as a "correct AFD keep name", as the many editors above state (since AFD is irrelevant to article naming and renaming). You're just mudslinging here, rather than contributing to the actual discussion. >Radiant< 08:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the first time irony struck was the "mudslinging" that started this thread. AfD isn't irrelevant if the consensus was "defer merge related comments to article talk", which you failed to mention. You've misrepresented Crum375 again by taking a quote, "correct AFD keep name", out of context: it was only made in this specific application and with the proviso "until consensus is reached on this talk page." There was no notion of it being an absolute statement. You raised the point of correct conduct concerning the AfD, so your own history, which you implicitly associate with "regular editing actions", is relevant and also subject to review. Tyrenius 13:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I just politely asked you on your talk page to please consider performing a history split for the 2 articles you merged. I perceive that a certain amount of bad blood (or at least irritation) has been aroused among several of us, but I think that with the collective experience of the editors interested in the future of that article, we can come up with a better solution than the mourning sickness redirect/history merge. Even if some of the past discussions haven't gone well, I think you can trust most of us editors to be civil, prodcutive and deferential to both policy and consensus. There has to be a suitable compromise in store.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is need here for a cross-ex on this admin or that admin's conduct. I think this is a simple content dispute and I'd like to steer the interested parties to the Request for comment so that we can start to work on that compromise.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not cross-examining anybody, I'm simply pleading with Radiant to undo that damned history merge so that I can at least make sense of the histories of the two articles. I want to help, but I can't even respond to any arguments or proposed solutions centering around how and why the silly mourning sickness article came about, because that history is now buried among all the Anna Svidersky stuff. If Radiant won't fix it, will you?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

History split done. Tyrenius 03:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tyrenius. It would have been nice if someone not in conflict with Radiant over this (preferably Radiant himself) cleaned up the mess, but I'm still glad it's done.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Johnjoecavanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) trolling a petition link

(note: similar topic above)

Johnjoecavanagh had been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks on both SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Woohookitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the latter who later on relented and unblocked him.

Now, he's started circulating a petition around, saying Wikipedia's deletion policy is ridiculous.

I also think that Johnjoecavanagh's first ever edit is a bit suspicious. Can an uninvolved admin please take a look at this? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wiki policy about circulating anti-wiki petitions outside of wiki?Rlevse 02:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked John but then decided to give him another chance. He's continued to make personal attacks as well as what is essentially trolling. No contribs to articles outside of adding an incorrect hoax tag as well as to the Redboy article, which is now deleted. I will say that his first ever contrib was actually to the Redboy article. It's just that it can only be seen by admins as far as I know. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked him. I gave him a last chance after he spent essentially all of yesterday canvassing people trying to get them to sign this petition of his. I basically said (nicely) that he should spend more time contributing to articles because there needs to be a balance between pushing for what you want and actually contributing to the encyclopedia. His response was to post a notice on a user's talk page stating that he was refusing to contribute to articles until the deletion policy is changed. So we essentially have someone who came on the site all of 2 days ago...contributed one article about a supposed urban legend that was well known in a city of 5,000 people and had no sources from google stating the truth of it...and now has spent the last couple of days asking people to sign a petition of his. He refuses to read policies or listen to reason. There is one word for that kind of user: Troll. Gave him a couple of shots and he's just continuing on. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious reincarnation of blocked user

Resolved

Phral (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sockpuppet recently. Now we have Phrallus Secondus (talk · contribs). Regardless of whether or not this is actually Phral (IP-wise), it is either him or one of his friends trying to play a game with us. In any case, a block is warranted. Thanks in advance for help on this particular. The Behnam 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Name matches, behavior matches, so I've blocked the user indefinitely. Thanks for the report. Picaroon (t) 06:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Another one: User:Phral von Phralstadt. ornis (t) 08:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dena cali

Resolved

Deleted by Academic Challenger. Someguy1221 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio of the biography on her website. Click skip for two images, click bio and wa-laa! Copyvio. Miranda 07:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just tag for speedy? I've gone ahead and done it. Someguy1221 07:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Web page is tricky to navigate? Miranda 18:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You can also report it to WP:SCV if you want a second pair of eyes before tagging it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fashion Icon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please take a look at TFI's highly disruptive actions, not least the consistent deletions of material from his/her talkpage, particularly this one? Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're pretty much allowed to do whatever you want in your own user space, as long as you don't insert defamatory material etc. Users are given a lot of freedom to delete what they don't like on their talk page. The fact that he removed the message implies that he read it; if he didn't, well, there's nothing to do about that, but you can report him when the "disruption" continues. I suggest leaving his talk page alone for a while, because edit-warring over that message isn't going to accomplish anything. Melsaran (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Geraldine Newman

I would like a Wikipedia Admin's opinion. I did a Filmography and Television credits for Geraldine Newman, see here [122].

It is nothing like the IMDB filmography, see here [123].

Is it valid for Wikipedia ? I have used Wikipedia formats.

Tovojolo 09:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking if it's a copyright violation to include a filmography list? I don't think lists are copyright and if they are we have a serious problem as such lists are in thousands of biographies. Sarah 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so I will go ahead as it's not a copyright violation.

Tovojolo 09:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User Comander Phralson closed his AN/I

This user has "closed" his own sockpuppet report (imediately above).[124] Is anyone going to do anything about this user, or is he allowed to ride roughshod wherever he likes? Alun 11:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also accused me of personal attacks, but this is not a personal attack, it is simply a statement of fact and a report of such to AN/I.[125] Alun 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've barely even had a chance to edit and I'm already on the WP:AN/I defending myself against you. I take it as a personal attack. What did I do wrong? Nothing. --Commander Phralson 12:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Alanrachins real life person?

See this user's talkpage. This user appears to be Alan Rachins. I am not familiar with how a user proves he's the real life person of the same account name, so I'm asking help on this. This name has also been reported at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention. Rlevse 12:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Alan rachins is a fairly well-known actor. It's likely that this user is a fan. @pple 12:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Then that would violate WP:U#Inappropriate_usernames, item 2. I see the name needs to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tks, I'll notify user.Rlevse 12:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:White Cat / User:Cool Cat sig changes/page moves again

Although User:White Cat's previous sig change blitzes led to numerous complaints and multiple AN/I topics, it looked the issue had finally died out. Now he's started moving RfA pages with the summary "As per username rename". In fact, before these moves, he commented to several ArbCom members that he knew sig changes (let alone page moves) were controversial. Fred Bauder even replied to his inquiry that "Updating signatures is a waste." This has now gone way beyond updating a few sigs after a name change (which was months ago) and has become either a breaching experiment or attempt to initiate an ArbCom case. Chaz ^Beckett 12:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey I'd love to block someone for username drama as much as the next guy, but this is 4 pagemoves... it's hardly disruptive. Just silly. --W.marsh 12:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• No no no. He must have been told 8000000 times not to do it, and went on to do it again. He was specifically told not to move this page. Someone please use the block button. I'm tired of this. The Evil Spartan 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you show where he was told not to do this?Rlevse 13:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ay. The only two I can find right now are AN/I thread 1 and AN/I thread 2, but I know there are more, because this continued on. More upcoming. The Evil Spartan 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I thread 3. If you look at the threads, there were an abundant amount of administrators from the beginning telling him to "stop it now or get blocked" (e.g., Cyde Weis' comment at the end of thread 2). I think we've been telling him to "stop it now or else" for far long enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 14:01, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I have exhausted all forms of dispute resolution on this (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive275#This_is_officially_pointless, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott). You may have just noticed but I actually renamed my first rfa some 2 years ago. Feel free to start an arbcom case as this either falls under WP:HA or WP:V. -- Cat ^chi? 14:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool cat, if we start an arbcom case over this, you will get what you get. If by "I've exhausted all dispute resolution forms", you mean, "the community told you me to stop or get blocked, and I chose to ignore them", then yes, you have exhausted all forms. The Evil Spartan 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for such a block? And based on what policy would I be blocked for? Moving my own rfa pages? Is that prohibited? Such a block would be an epic WP:LAME candidate. The community as I linked to you while is at a disagreement over the necessity of the edits (some call it stupid) agree that such edits are not outlawed. Wikipedians no lesser than User:Thatcher131, User:Mackensen, User:Fred Bauder had commented on this. Most notorious vandal bot writers are given this basic courtesy. Even their vandal evidence pages are deleted.

Wikipedias guideline on reverts (WP:REVERT#Do not) is pretty clear on this. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith. [...] Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly. (emphasis not mine) -- Cat ^chi? 14:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My positive contribution of my moving of my own rfa pages is in good faith, I'd like to see this firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. -- Cat ^chi? 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Such a block would be even more of a waste of time than White Cat's desire to move his RfA pages. I would strongly advise against blocking for the highly disruptive practise of moving - what is it? 4 pages? Right. Guys, get a sense of proportion. What is this more about - White Cat's edits, or the fact that it's White Cat? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the block would not bring about a change in character, then it is against policy. Sysops do not have the authority to issue blocks merely in punishment. Given the above comments, I would consider a block in this matter to be contrary to policy.

On the specific matter, I consider it a waste of time without benefit - but it's his time that's wasted. The only thing wasting other people's time is the insistence on dragging this here.

James F. (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, there is a slew of debate on this. I did not see where he was told "or get blocked" though I did see he was told he should stop, though I could have missed it. I suggest contacting an admin who told or strongly suggested he not do it. Failing that, I'd suggest arbcom since this needs settled vice continually reoccurring. The continual reoccurring is a waste of time, this is why it needs settled once and for all.Rlevse 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has bigger fish to fry. I think it would be easier for those people who are unnaturally bothered by this to find some more diverting occupation. Once again - a sense of proportion would be nice. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this continual insistence on bringing this pointless but non-disruptive activity to this forum is in itself pointless, and perhaps if the complaints continue they themselves could be considered disruptive. Please stop this continual whining about White Cat's edits. His edits are content-neutral and esthetic in nature. The only people who object to them are those who falsely believe that his edits are in some way disruptive. If I thought that asking those people to "grow up" would help, I would do so. --Tony Sidaway 15:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)