Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive494

User:Theaveng

Last night (11/20), User:Theaveng continued to add Nielsen Media market data (under the guise that is was from the FCC) to List of television stations in North America by media market‎, after an edit war (which included this editor), the page was protected for 24 hours and the user warned not to add copyright data to pages, especially this one since it is in violation of OTRS ticket #2008091610055854, but the user continues.

Twice tonight, the user has reverted to the Nielsen data (again, copyright data) and refuses to accept that it is copyright. The user claims his data is from the FCC, when it is the same identical data from Nielsen. I bring it to you for your insight. What do I do? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 08:21

Incorrect. I reverted to FCC changes that I acquired from the U.S. Federal Code, which is public domain, and has nothing to do with any corporation or copyright. Oh, and my real name is "Troy". Perhaps I should have picked a better handle that sounded more friendly. ---- Theaveng (Troy) (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I could not find the OTRS ticket mentioned above. However, if it was an OFFICE action that trumps everything. Your data does appear to come from the FCC but if the FCC is using copyrighted material, with permission, we would still be prevented from using it. I think we need to let the office sort this out since they seem to be the source of the original take down. Clearly, the data is at the FCC site but that alone does not allow us to use it. Let the office make the call. JodyB _talk 12:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In looking further I find two questions but I am taking it to the article talk page and moving it from here. The FCC material does not show that it belongs to Nielsen or anyone else that I can see. Aside from some OFFICE ruling to the contrary It seems sourced and available IMO. JodyB _talk 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that a corporation overreached out of greed or desire for global AYB; I'm sure Nielsen actually did throw a hissy fit over the mess, that doesn't mean they had a leg to stand on. Perhaps that FCC cite is sufficient to tell them to go take a hike but that's a decision that, ultimately, only Mike (the WMG legal counsel) can make. — Coren ^(talk) 15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious copyright concerns, input requested

• User:Chrisieboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following up a note at WT:CP, I've developed serious concerns about the contributions of this user, some of which have made the front page. He several times restored material to Anglia Regional Co-operative Society after it was removed, with explanation, by another user. The article does duplicate text from the identified and several other sources. I then found he had received and removed a CorenBot notice about London Pensions Fund Authority (also removing it from the listing at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations). (It still contains duplicative text and has been blanked.) Now I find that his DYK article Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England is at least in good part a direct paste from a "for purchase" student essay, here. (Internet archives confirm that they published well before we did, here.) I think his other contributions need investigation. I bring the matter here both because of its severity and because the contributor seems to think my investigation is a personal vendetta. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can add UIA (Insurance) as another cut-and-paste job by him. You're in the right here - these are obvious copyvios and I simply don't believe his wikilawyering over the precise definition of plagiarism and copyright. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned the user, and will block without further warning should they persist in either restoring removed copyvios or introducing more copyvio material. Ignorance of our copyright restrictions is excusable, but quibbling over the details once they've been pointed out and removing a notice from WP:SCV is not. Thank you for catching this. EyeSerene^talk 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Hopefully your input and that of Doug Weller at my talk page will help underscore the seriousness of copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might interest people to know that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this - back in January this year he tried to get me 3RR-blocked for reverting his addition of a non-free-use image without valid rationale - see here. More relevant would be the simultaneous discussion on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page (here in his archives), in which Chrisieboy tries hard to Wikilawyer us into believing he's right. It's crystal-clear that Chrisieboy has learnt nothing from this, and the observable trend is concerning - we have a serious copyright violator here. _TalkIslander 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, considering that The Co-operative Bank seems also to have been an infringement I cannot read the source, but the contributor who cleaned it is the one who brought the problem to WT:CP to begin with, and he has been correct with respect to other contributions, as when he cleaned District Bank. The contributor attempted to restore that, too. See here. His response to that contributor for restoring infringement to Anglia Regional seems illuminating: "Sorry, I thought (hoped) you had disappeared." I've been working on some other copyright concerns, but hope to have time to take a deeper look at some other contributions later. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that last message from Chrisieboy in you post is very concerning, to say the least... _TalkIslander 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed 2 or 3 lapses into cutting and pasting by Chrisieboy, that I cleaned up one by one without disagreement. I hadn't wished to trawl through all his contributions, so after inviting Moonriddengirl's intervention, I am surprised to learn that there are so many so early in the search, and surprised that his perception of free content has lasted so long.

He is a serious contributor, and has a featured article to his name (much more than I have) and I have dealt with him cordially in the past. I notice that he has done little editing in the last two weeks, and I sincerely hope that he acts to de-escalate things, and we can look forward to more of his very useful contributions here.

Oh, by the way, I can't read the source for the possible copyvio at The Co-operative Bank either. However, Google Scholar seems pretty certain that the text I deleted came from that 1996 article. Chrisieboy did not contest my deletion there.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have been the very model of civility in this. :) Good contributions can balance well against a lot of concerns, but persistent copyright infringement is not among them. In my opinion, on the contrary, copyright problems are even more worrisome with a prolific and dedicated contributor, since we do run the risk that copyright violations will work their way into what should be Wikipedia's best content. I hope that this contributor has simply misunderstood the policies and laws in question and that there won't be any further infringement, but his defensiveness in response to these concerns (including in the initial article's talk page, on my talk page and in response to the issues raised by TheIslander above) and his removal of the matter from WP:SCV does concern me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Personally I'd like to have some kind of assurance from Chrisieboy that he now understands the issues and won't be repeating them. In the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off, I think future contributions will also need to be monitored, and to protect Wikipedia the account should be blocked at the first sign of any new problems. As Moonriddengirl has pointed out, a good contribution history often does result in the odd hiccup being overlooked, but copyright violation could have consequences for Wikipedia as a whole and we have no option but to take this very seriously. If we don't get these reassurances as to future behaviour, but editing continues, I'd suggest perhaps blocking the account until we do. EyeSerene^talk 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Chrisieboy to come, take a look at and comment on this thread - hopefully he will, and if so, we'll take it from there. _TalkIslander 12:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see that he has not edited in several days, but hopefully he'll choose to participate soon. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Some of the contributions here are way out of perspective, for instance Islander's remarks (on an entirely separate matter which occurred nearly a year ago) "that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this." I can't "get [Islander] 3RR-blocked," only he/she can do that by his/her actions, I can however, follow proper procedure and, on that occasion, Islander was not blocked or warned. Also, in response to EyeSerene's comments "in the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off," I would remind you I am a volunteer here, so please remember to assume good faith. Anything I contribute to the encyclopedia is part of the public record, as my edit history reveals and my attempts "to laugh [it] off" amount to a challenge to deleting the entire page, when only one section was called into question.

The importance of this policy has been impressed upon me, but I do take exception the above character assassination. EyeSerene's warning on my talk page is one thing, but now to "suggest perhaps blocking [my] account" because I decline to participate in this discussion, is quite frankly an abuse of power. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Evidence suggests that you have blatantly pasted content from a for-pay student essay to Wikipedia which moreover was linked from our front page. In light of that and persistent copyright concerns, after notification by CorenBot and advisement by a fellow contributor, blocking your account unless you are willing to address these concerns seems quite reasonable and within policy. The assumption of good faith "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." A refusal to acknowledge and frankly address these concerns would certainly be contrary evidence. In fact, in the face of what seems to be an action that would have you expelled from many educational institutions for academic dishonesty, allowing you an opportunity to continue to edit is in itself an assumption of good faith. In addition, refusal to engage in discussion about conduct concerns is listed as a form of disruptive editing, which can be in itself due grounds for blocking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I must also note that I believe you have misinterpreted the characterization of your actions here. I'm sure EyeSerene will correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine reference to laughing it off was to this edit, which had nothing to do with the blanking of the whole page but with your restoring the single disputed section here, after previously having restored it here, here and here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be continued Wikilawyering here. His characterization of filing a 3RR report as "proper procedure" rings hollow. Filing a 3RR report is a pain in the ass, and people only do it if they expect/hope action to result from it. Nobody fills out a 3RR report just because they happened to notice someone making four reverts in 24 hours -- people only fill out the report if they think the reverts were inappropriate and/or want to see action taken against the person in question. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"I would remind you I am a volunteer here...". Oh please. I would like to remind you that we are all volunteers here. You're continued wikilawyering is doing you no favours - Jaysweet, above, puts it very well. The bottom line, which all editors in this thread seem to agree on, is this: you have been made clear of various policies regarding copyright, and have acknowledged this. Any single further breach of these policies by yourself will result in a block. _TalkIslander 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging v. untagging

Hi there, I did a stint at new page patrol, and I'm rather new to it, so I'm just trying my best. This article Sho Uchida doesn't seem to have established notability, so I've tried to tag it, but I get reverted. If someone wants to explain why I'm wrong (there is no edit summary in the reversions) or suggest the appropriate course of action, I'm all ears... or eyes, as the case may be. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert either, but if the contents on the page is correct the page does meet notability, see WP:BIO "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.[9]", so you should not have added a notability tag, what you might question is the references, my chines is not so good and a better reference should be resonably easy to find. On the other hand, to just revert you was not really correct either, the user that removed the tag should have explained in the comment why he removed your tag. --Stefan ^talk 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm not really worried about the other user, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning. Does this mean that every Olympian can have an article? What about Div. 1 athletes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think so. --Stefan ^talk 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on this line of WP:BIO is currently happening at the talk page of the guideline. Fram (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input and the pointer to the relevant discussion. It's been helpful to me. I think this is resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, why don't you ask the person undoing your edits why they did do so? It is much easier and friendlier than directly going to an noticeboard over something like that. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not an appropriate use of rollback by Yellow Monkey. He reverted clearly good faith edits. Enigma ^message 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have notified YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) that he is being discussed on an Administrators' noticeboard. Should you mention an editor (and especially an Administrator whose actions are being scrutinised) on a noticeboard, please take a second to issue them a notice in the interests of courtesy, and to solicit their view and/or an explanation on the matter—such is the routine discussion etiquette and procedure, really. Thanks, AGK 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't know he was an administrator, as his userpage contains no such designation and he's not in the category. Either way, it was more of an aside than anything. Not worth any drama. Enigma ^message 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • ...erm, actually, he's an Arb.GJC 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is resolved. I wanted a neutral perspective and some insights, and that's what I got. Thanks to everyone involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian maps dispute

We are having dispute between user:LAz17 and user:Ceha about Bosnian demography maps. Because for me and user:Future Perfect at Sunrise problem has not been very clear I have asked users to give reasons what is wrong on this maps [1]. For few short hours everything has been OK. User:LAz17 has writen about problems with user:Ceha map and then user Ceha has writen about problems with User Laz17 maps, but after midnight user Laz17 has exploded because of Ceha arguments (maybe they are false, maybe they are OK, but for this noticeboard it is not important) and started to use words WHO IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, bullshit, peasants and fuck [2]. In my thinking because of that Laz17 has earned 1 little block, but maybe it will be best to block both users to calm down this situation ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If one user becomes uncivil during a dispute we don't block both parties. If the other user is presenting their evidence in a calm and constructive manner block the party who isn't.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very alarmed that the discussion has been purged. The link was here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg ... so what now? Were is all that discussion? How will the third parties decide who is right if anyone is? We need that page back. (LAz17 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

That was apparently done as a routine housekeeping measure by an admin not aware of the ongoing discussion. Talk pages are routinely deleted if their main page is gone. In this case, I've provisionally restored (assuming the deleting admin won't mind). We can move it somewhere else later, but at the moment we still need the discussion preserved.

About the issue itself, I'm afraid the recent postings were "tl,dr" for me. And can't you guys discuss these things without those personal accusations? It makes it really harder to follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

could you please allow the 1991 map to be on wikipedia until the dispute is resolved? We need that map because we agreed that it is an authentitic official one, and this maps helps prove that Cehas maps are full of laws and POV. I will try to discuss stuff with less personal accusations, but it gets hard when I see what kind of absurdity he says and how nobody at all seems to care about the problems or discussion that is going on. We need other people in the discussion, not just me and him. In every discussion that I had with croats on wikipedia, it was a third side that stepped in to help resolve them. The third side has left... we need help to resolve the problems. (LAz17 (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

As called I was called in this discussion, I'll just make a few comments since its weekend and I promised Rjecina to leave the map's issue till next week. Yes, there was a problem with user Laz17. He used some inapropriate words and was heavy on personal accusations. Also by his own word's he has trouble when communicating with part of users on wikipedia. I don't know, part of the problem could be that parts of his english comprehenshion is bad? Anyways (or he is also going to be blocked for puting maps which are constanly deleted) I would like to offer link for putting images on the internet[3]. That should solve that part of the problem. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RanEagle disruption

Was warned on talk, yet continues to deliberately associate organizations with the American State. Latest target: Fox News. forestPIG^(grunt) 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And? RanEagle made an edit at USPS on Nov 14. Was reverted and warned about it on November 19th. He made one edit to Fox News Channel. He was reverted (by you), you haven't posted to his talk (which also indicates that he/she doesn't even know that he's being "talked about" here, how would you feel if reversed?) or the article talk. This isn't the first stop in dispute/content resolution. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check the user's contribs, you will see that their behavior only just falls short of vandalism. RanEagle has been repeatedly warned, and continues to flaunt his/her issues with the American Government by making sarcastic edits of the manner identified. An indefinite block would not be excessive, IMO. forestPIG^(grunt) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right forum. Warn the user and if they continue to be disruptive, take it to WP:AIV. ANI is for issues that need admin intervention right away, and can't be handled through our normal processes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Foresticpig, an indefinite block would be beyond excessive. It's a difference of opinion on content, it's not vandalism (you say as much directly above). This editor made one edit, you reverted him, and then you ran here with your diff to get someone to indef block him? How is that not excessive? I'm also very curious how you've come to determine that you are allowed to ask other admins (according to your userpage, you are a "non-disruptive sock" or somesuch of an admin account) to do your dirty work for you. Use your own damn admin buttons and take your own damn lumps if you screw up with them. Don't demand other admins to do excessive amounts of wikilawyering on your behalf, that's bullshit. As you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of "I have this account so I can edit in sensitive areas and not tarnish my admin account." That's bollocks, and I consider this post of yours, after research, to be most disruptive and distasteful, and I've half a mind to block your sock account (the foresticpig one) so as not to have to deal with this garbage anymore. Don't tempt me. Keeper ǀ 76 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that this use of a sock is what the community has in mind. —Travis^talk 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... seicer | talk | contribs 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's how I found out. I went to his user talk to explain to him that an indef block would be excessive only to find out that he/she is an admin him/her self. Bringing another editor here on a borderline case at best instead of simply handling things him/her self is the very definition of disruption, IMO. Without a logical explanation (that frankly, I'm not seeing), I don't see why the sock shouldn't be blocked. Perhaps I should create a sock, and use the sock to go to WP:AN and see if any admins would be willing to do it? Incredulous. Keeper ǀ 76 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal allegations on talk pages

I would appreciate administrators' feedback and advice on an ongoing situation best encapsulated by this sequence of edits. How can this be resolved? Jayen466 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly by informal or formal mediation for the underlying content dispute. However, the repetition of allegations probably should be resolved by explaining about user conduct RfCs - I'll leave a note on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For better or worse, I have responded to the allegation: here. I would appreciate it if any further such allegations on WP talk pages were removed promptly as per WP:PA. If there are any outstanding concerns, I am happy to make private information available to arbcom. Cheers, Jayen466 15:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This just now being a case in point. Jayen466 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest mediation, formal or informal. We need to be extra-cautious when dealing with the subject of an article who is also an editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise is taking admin abuse to a new level

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

Resolved

 – Yeah, this complaint is going nowhere fast. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems incline to take the definition of admin abuse to a new level. He is the ultimate epitome of unsavory administrator conducts.

In his most recent exploit, Future Perfect at Sunrise aggressively albeit controversially pushed for the lifting of the ban of User:Alex contributing from L.A., who has a habit of making death threats, creating ban-evading sockpuppets, and possessing an overall lack of respect for the due process. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#User:Alex_contributing_from_L.A. He controversially unblocked the ban-evading sockpuppet Alex contribution from L.A. himself after little discussion on AN/I [4] claiming that there was since there doesn't seem to be any fundamental opposition here, I've unblocked

As a neutral editor, I noticed the AN/I thread and immediately questioned Future Perfect's judgment in this episode as well as his categorization of "fundamental opposition". Alex from L.A. was extremely hostile, but Future Perfect's continue to patronize the ban-evading sock. Future Perfect, angry at the fact that someone is questioning his judgment, became extremely defensive and was eager to shut me up by saying "let's close this discussion". He accused me of NPA against ban-evading sock Alex. [5] He then tried to exonerate Alex's pass transgression and sockpuppetry [[6]] as well as demonstrating a flawed understanding of WP:SOCK. He then failed to assume good faith WP:AGF by accusing me of boosting your Arbcom candidature by creating a tough-guy profile on ANI? Good lord. Go do what you must and get your "landmark case" rolling, but try to not waste the time of your more mature fellow wikipedians all too much in the process, willya?[[7]]

He then launched a relentless campaign to wiki-stalk/harass my contributions as well as censor/impede my editing. He even threatened to block me [[8]] just because I questioned his unblock of a ban-evading sock. After he stalked my contribution, an edit war occured at Salma Hayek [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]. He continued to threaten to block me, even claiming that "conflict of interest" does not apply despite the fact that no other editor reverted me during this time except himself. [[13]] He seems to be reverting out of personal vendetta. Even my attempt to compromise by telling him to move the objectionable sentence to another part of the article was rebuffed as he continued to hurl insults in edit summary such as accusing me of being a sexist, misogynist, among other personal attacks.

I urge the community to take decisive action against this rogue admin who plays by his own rule, have little regards for the due process or wikipedia policies. I demand a formal apology and I also sincerely hope this admin can refrain from wikistalking and censoring my edits based on personal vendetta. If this desysopping is the only solution, then we have to do what we have to.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Alex situation, but your behavior at Selma Hayek was quite bad. Your post here is ridiculous. If your other allegations are as sensible as what you're saying at the Selma Hayek situation, I see no reason to look into them. Wikipedia requires that editors behave like reasonable adults. If you're unable to do that, this is not the place for you. Friday (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Friday. You try to force content onto a WP:BLP about someone's breasts and then scream "censorship" when removed? Sorry, not going to fly. Ronnotel (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday, you are one of those people who can't look past my userpage and tried to censor it. Judge someone by their contributions, not by their userpage.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that. This time around, I was looking at your contributions. Altho, now that I look.. your userpage is inappropriate. Please put this content on your own website, not on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go thru your contributions and see if all your edits are as dumb as the one at Salma Hayek, so I guess without research I can't just block you as a troll. But that's a really stupid edit, and it makes me have zero interest in whether you have anything remotely resembling a legitimate gripe here. No, that's not quite right; it makes me quite confident if I actually spent time researching it, I'd find it was groundless. Perhaps leave Wikipedia to the grownups? Or go focus on your sure-to-succeed ArbCom candidacy? Or something? I tried for over a minute to resist hitting "save page" on this, in the interests of assuming good faith and civility and treat the children with respect, etc., but I failed. Shoo. --barneca (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrrrmppphh. Not really worth commenting here, is it? If anybody besides NWA.Rep should want a comment from me, let me know. Absent that, I intend to continue upholding BLP standards of quality against people who think it is a good idea to claim of prominent Hollywood actresses such as Scarlett Johannson that their notability rests wholly or entirely on the size of their breasts [14]. Have fun desysopping me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With contributions like this (notice the player's name and the poor format of a four digit number), this, this, this, and this, maybe it'd be better for you if people judged you on your userpage. Badger Drink (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And you tell people to go fuck yourself? User:Badger_Drink/sandbox If we are not talking about breasts, then we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately, wikipedians are overly puritan.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (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.

(Obviously a new meaning of the word "Resolved" than I was previously aware of :-) "Hi, I'm leaving Wikipedia for good, but please continue to vote for me") ►BMW◄ 14:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not really "retired", he's just an active free agent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one useful thing can come of this

Any reason not to just go ahead and community ban? Apparently many are familiar with, and tired of, these antics. Friday (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at users contribs- quite a few edits exactly the same as those to Selma Hayek- to other female celebrities' articles. While I'm not sure we're at community ban yet, a block for disruption seems to be in order. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and community ban me :-)) – Seriously though, I'm not familiar enough with NWA.Rep to judge such a suggestion. Note that he has a longer history, including some Arbcom conflict, under his previous account name "Certified Gangsta". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Freestyle.king; User:Bonafide.hustla; other former identities of NWA. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well, I see a significant block log, and I see a fundamental lack of "getting it". If he's been around the project over 2 years and still treats Wikipedia like his personal playground, I don't see how it's reasonable to assume he'll shape up. I'm not all that familiar with him either, but in only a few minutes, I've seen enough to know what my opinion on this issue is. Friday (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of such sentences are quite common among the category of big bust models and actresses, usually with citations. I fail to see how an established editor, a rollbacker, an arbCom candidate should be community banned when he questions Future Perfect while Alex from LA is allowed to roam around as a ban-evading sock.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One point; the celebrities and actresses whose articles you have edited with respect to shape, size, naturalness (or otherwise) of their breasts, are not notable for that fact - as they are not for the shapeliness of their legs, the colour and styling of their hair, or the occurrence of freckles upon their skin - but for their body of work and the recognition by the public and their industry for their abilities. In this one matter you are consistently at fault, and no pointing toward other peoples perceived infractions should divert anyone from it. As for your "qualifications"; being around a long time without being banned (although blocked, and under different usernames) is no indication of legitimacy, anyone with the relevant number of edits over the qualifying period can run for arbcom (and you are not really among the favourites to gain a seat, it should be said), and being provided with Rollback is yet another indication on how low the standards are in being granted that tool. In truth, I do not support a community ban because you are not worth the effort of the discussion - sooner or later you are going to do something crass enough to get yourself indef blocked... and no-one is going to be concerned enough to unblock you. You do need to seriously consider whether you are able to contribute usefully on this project, and perhaps decide to direct your energies elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given these five unsourced edits to BLPs[15][16][17][18][19], I've blocked User:NWA.Rep 1 week for disruption and pointy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the block, not sure his talk page should have been locked down so quickly... Tan | 39 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now. His email still works. Meantime, I'm ok if someone re-enables it, if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.Rep is a candidate for Arbcom and feel if he is allowed to contest he should be allowed to use his talk page and also be allowed to reply to questions put up. Through do not think Jimbo Wales who maintains high standards will nominate someone blocked or those with recent blocks to Arbcom even in the unlikely event of the candidate winning.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-enabled Nwa.Rep's ability to edit his talkpage. Gwen, there was no need to restore the block notice when he'd removed it, per WP:USER (Users may only be prevented from removing declined unblock requests) - Nwa was within his rights to remove it, and should not be prevented from editing the talkpage except in the usual circumstances of abusing the unblock process Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even done writing the block notice and adding the diffs (see the history) when he removed it. Never had that happen before. Edit warring with a blocking admin straight off after the block is only another sign of disruption. As for NWA.Rep being a candidate for arbcom, so much the worse was his flurry of disruption and pointy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) He's allowed to remove whatever warnings he likes from his talkpage, except declined unblock notices Fritzpoll (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a warning. I've been editing here for years and I've never seen a block notice removed like that, without someone putting it back. As late as last March, the policy had nothing at all to say about any kind of block/unblock notice. Now I know and won't give it a second thought if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk, I didn't assume it was malicious on your part. I was also checking that I hadn't missed something blatant! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I never took it that you thought I'd been untowards. Out of the thousands of block notices I've seen, that may have been the first time I ever saw one reverted so quick and I can't remember ever having seen one not restored. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I should add that as per WP:BLANKING, the only kinds of talk page messages that editors may not remove from their own talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors) ... and these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The NWA guy's aggressiveness and vulgarity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, over the mundane subject of baseball player templates, raises questions about his fitness for anything with authority attached to it. That's above and beyond today's 1-week block for edit warring, and his apparent abuse of the rollback privilege. I don't know how the ArbCom works. Would they seriously consider admitting this guy to that committee, given the type of behavior we're seeing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we answer ourselves by asking, Bugs. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, between this stuff today, and his previous failure in seeking adminship, he seems to be working his way downhill here, and it just reminded me of Frank Nelson in one particular bit with Jack Benny. Nelson, as a floorwalker in a department store, was giving Benny a hard time, as usual. At one point, it came out that Nelson was related to the store owner, or something. Benny asked him, "Are you working your way up the company ladder?" Nelson answered, "Not exactly. I started as a Vice President!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's written a "poor little me" editorial on his talk page. One of the typical behaviors from someone who's just been blocked. But the block was only for a week. Maybe he'll come back in a week with a bit of perspective and decide that wikipedia is still worthwhile. (I understand, as I've been there too). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove some of his personal attacks on various groups and people on his talk page. He has reverted them. I won't revert back since this will turn out into another edit war. So I'm wondering someone can do something about it =/ Dengero (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One admin locked his user page, and another showed good faith by unlocking it. NWA has now trashed the second admin's good faith. The talk page is riddled with personal attacks towards you and others, and should be both cleared and locked by an admin, at least for the duration of the 1-week block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Seeing as part of the reason he was blocked was for edit warring, should we remove his rollback access? I'm not sure how to tell by edit summaries if an edit used rollback, but it seems like maybe we should. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday already took it away from him. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An undid edit summary will say Undid revision "number" by "User". A rolled-back reversion will be Reverted edits by "user" to last version by "user". HalfShadow 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if there's an accepted practice on this or not, but I would say for future cases any edit warring is a good justification for taking away rollback. Friday (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few rollbacks like these[20][21] [22] which are not reverts of what consensus calls vandalism. That last one reverts a good faith edit back to an edit by one of his own accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are discussing policy re future cases, then regardless of what happened this time. surely a user who doesn't misuse Rollback should be treated differently to one who uses Rollback in an edit war? ϢereSpielChequers 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Is there any way we can start a push to stop indexing user pages? I've seen several cases of what I think are attempts to use userpages for publicity or as articles in the past couple of weeks. dougweller (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User talk:NWA.Rep

The blocked user, allegedly having "retired", is in fact using his talk page for personal attacks. He has twice reverted the attempts of other users to weed out his personal attacks and leave the rest of his editorial in place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those reverting the user on his own talk page were wrong. Criticism, even if incorrect, is not necessarily a personal attack. See WP:WOLF. I recommend letting the user have their rant. Hopefully they will calm down and return later. Jehochman ^Talk 10:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While selective editing of someone else's talk page is certainly a questionable tactic, taking verbal shots at others while under a block oneself (including, ironically, an empty threat of blocking someone else), is normally not allowed. You're in a generous mood today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, what you say is true, but outpourings like this are very likely to happen after an eager user who doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia has been blocked for a meaningful length of time. As for what he has to say, my only answer is that he hasn't brought up why he was blocked: It had nothing to do with anything he's talking about (I didn't even know he was running for arbcom). It had only to do with putting the same shoddily sourced/unsourced text about breasts into a string of at least 5 BLPs, then edit warring over it and bringing it himself under the baleful gazes at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your statement seems to apply moreso to new editors than an editor who's been here since 2006 (with a rather lengthy block log already established, at that). If he doesn't understand Wikipedia by now, and if he's not somehow used to getting blockbucketed by now, I think it's safe to say there's a definite problem here. Badger Drink (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I quit drinking caffeine about six months ago. I've been getting mellower and mellower. Jehochman ^Talk 11:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove his self-appraisals. But accusing various users and groups things, and even those that are completely inaccurate (eg. He still insists his "breast" edits were good, and I'm in WP:CHINA when I'm not). While I extend my condolences and refrain from aggravating him anymore, I believe those partial edits are considerable. Of course, that is open to debate and I happily accept any consensus of the community. Dengero (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's initial instinct was to lock his talk page, and that was obviously the correct instinct. When a guy is blocked he's supposed to be either requesting unblocks in a civil way or possibly writing civil comments, not attacking others. I don't see why this guy is allowed to get away with it... unless it's on purpose, to leave something visible, to further scotch his chances of getting on the ArbCom, which is an interesting approach that has some merit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok it was unblocked though (and said this could be done if need be). Meanwhile he didn't answer my offer to unblock if he'd acknowledge he understood why his edits were taken as disruptive and say he wouldn't do anything like that again. As for his claims about IRC, the last time I logged into IRC was when that longish outage happened about a month ago (?) and even then I couldn't log in to the admin board (didn't bother to ask for help because I was finding out what I wanted on the main one). Moreover, I didn't exchange emails or any other kind of contact with anyone about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He apparently sent an e-mail to someone else, who locked his page with all the personal attacks and verbal shots in place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else? Yes, that's right. You can see in the page history who protected the page: me. Or, well, Bishzilla. I agree with Jehochman on this issue. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

So do I, which is to say, I'm more or less neutral as to what happens to his talk page now. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's good that his venom is locked in place, as it gives the ArbCom a good chance to read it and consider the appropriateness of giving that guy expanded power. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bish* almost never agrees with me. There you go. Thread resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But on that point, how would one feel if they were accused of baiting, sockpuppeteering, having a harassment campaign, having a double standard in policy enforcement, initiating personal attacks and having personal vendetta? Hmmm but I guess we can only leave him now. Dengero (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AS one of the prople mentioned on his talk page I don't give a flying whatever if a user contests a block he made months (years) ago when he makes whatever kind of attacks - its so common from users who have given up in disgust after their particular view of WP morality has been rejected that I am immune (oh and of course, like his recent - most of my blocks are 1 second blocks to apologise for making a mistake" claim, the claim, his claim that I missapply policy in deference to certain parties is demonstrably false. Viridae^Talk 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't archive this thread for another day or so (dear bot). I'd like to review the present block, and I'm busy and it's complicated. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

If at all possible, please let's avoid blocking ArbCom candidates. I have known NWA.Rep (a k a Certified.Gangsta and a few other account names) for some years. In fact you'll see him mention me, if you've read far enough on his talkpage. He's certainly a problematic editor, but I think him well-meaning. In my experience, he responds better to trust and AGF than to threats and contemptuousness. NWA.Rep obviously isn't likely to get the votes to get into ArbCom, but that's not the point: his candidacy is serious, and is no kind of attempt to game the system.
Unblock and topic ban. In order to leave the man some dignity, I intend to unblock him, unless Gwen strongly objects, and to remove the shaming—though well-intentioned—block notice on his election questions page. To replace these measures while I further review the thread above (oh man.. it's so long !), I will topic-ban him from all pages except those directly to do with the election, and also excepting this ANI thread. (If in doubt about what's included in this page ban, just ask me before you edit, CG, you hear me?) Bishonen | talk 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

I didn't even know he was running for arbcom, though I don't think that should sway a thing. Let's wait and see what others have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would we decide to unblock him solely to give him a public soapbox for ranting about Wikipedia? That doesn't strike me as sensible. Running for ArbCom doesn't – or shouldn't – get a candidate a free pass on Wikipedia's user conduct policies. If he wants to preserve his dignity, I would support allowing him to withdraw his candidacy, followed by a courtesy blanking of the ArbCom election pages. Bending over backwards to allow him to continue to participate in what's supposed to be a serious process related to Wikipedia governance strikes me as a way to waste both his time and the community's. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

Sorry Bishonen, but I too disagree here. Keep him blocked. He was blocked for all-out disruption on multiple fronts, one of them being this very report here. (If I were to start enumerating how many plain untruths are contained in his initial complaint above ...) Do you really think letting him back into this thread would lead to anything constructive? And I don't see how his (self-appointed) "status" as an Arbcom candidate changes anything. Calling oneself an Arbcom candidate doesn't give one a free pass; plus, this particular candidacy comes from a person who at the same time claims he doesn't want to remain on Wikipedia anyway, so yes, it is in fact in a very real sense not a serious candidacy any longer, he just wants it to remain listed to make a political point. I don't think we need to bend over backwards just in order to allow him to continue playing that game. (As for what kinds of communication he is likely to respond more or less well to, honestly, in the encounters I've seen him in over the last few days, he hasn't been responding well to anything.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Running for ArbCom doesn't give you a free pass. If anything, the community has indicated that running makes you a target of criticism and abuse.--Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bish, this is an awful idea. Running for ArbCom does not give a person a free pass to edit war and act utterly imbalanced and incivil. He has not been blocked indefinitely, and will still be able to participate in the ArbCom elections when his block expires. What also makes me nervous is the overtures of cronyism that accompany such a proposed unblock. While I'm assuming good faith (that is to say, I don't believe your actions were proposed with an evil, mustachioed grin), the fact that NWA.Rep was so vocal regarding IRC and a handful of Giano Affairs™ makes it very hard to consider you a completely unbiased, uninvolved admin in this instance. I don't consider you "involved" to the point where I would automatically disregard any argument you had regarding his unblocking due to your said "involvement" (whew, try parsing that sentence), but I do consider you "involved" enough to the point where I would prefer somebody else perform the unblock, if such an unblock had to occur (and I'm in favor of it not occuring). Badger Drink (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism? All right. But you must admit it's funny how the phrase "with all due respect" generally turns out to mean that no respect is due. As I mentioned, Badger Drink, I've known the user for some years, i. e. since long before the IRC case. I strongly doubt that the rather ignorant newbie Freestyle King, as he was when I started to communicate with him and treat him (for my crony-collecting purposes) like a human being, had ever heard of me or Giano. (Fuck, is no thread complete without Giano?). Bishonen | talk 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

The reason for the phrase is to state that, despite how the following might sound, it is not uttered with hate in the heart. I need a mention of Daniel Brandt or a link to WP:AGF for bingo. Badger Drink (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least now he has owned up to the reason for his peculiarly sympathetic view toward that character. If someone with the attitude of NWA.Rep gets a power position, then wikipedia will have abandoned its supposed principles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking him because he's an ArbCom candidate? What a joke. Reminds me of a line from The Blues Brothers: "[Jake] is on parole! You can't go calling the cops on him!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, Bugs, this is not constructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like tolerating his behavior somehow is constructive? Fine. Delete my immoral comments. You have my permission. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with Bish* here: the proposal to supersede the block with a topic ban seems amicable to me. Indeed, this new proposal from Bishhonen essentially makes the block itself moot in that NWA is now unable to contribute to the handful of pages he finds himself unable of not edit warring on. With the idea in mind that keeping the block in place would either be purely penal or purely a POINTy action (made to make an example of NWA: being a candidate is not a free pass to not being blocked), I offer a tentative support to the unblock, with a caveat that any failure to adhere to the topic ban by NWA after this lifting of this block will most probably result in it being immediately restored and reset.

  Tznkai and others make a good point, however. Being a candidate to the ArbCom should not be a pass for edit warring or unhelpful conduct across the project, under any circumstances. If I may play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, however, I wish to observe that if NWA was not a candidate this year, it is highly likely that a proposal from a competent administrator (Bishonen does, of course, fall into that category) to remove a block on he, a long-term contributor, in favour of a respective topic ban would pass rather uncontroversially. Just as being a candidate should not be a free pass to ignoring the Community's standards for conduct, so to should it not be a rationale to hold that candidate to higher standards of conduct: such is the remit of the electorate on voting day—the community can give its opinion through a resound rejection there of an unfit candidate, but not through unfairly withholding an unblock.

  Just my two pence, but accurate ones, I think. AGK 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

His actions are immature, tragic and daft, but is this statement part of his attempt at poetry/rap whatever, or the lyrics from a song, and/or also a suicide threat? "Despite all this, now, I must turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it. Put it to my brain and scream "die Bonafide hustla" and pop it " Sticky Parkin 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an uncredited reference to "When I'm Gone": "I turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it / Put it to my brain and scream 'Die Shady!' and pop it." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing, nothing in the world, that pushes my "urge to violence" button like people who quote Eminem. Oh, wait--unless it's wasted potential. A moment of WP:OR, if you please: There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Wikipedia. In the Venn diagram for the two groups--"true gangsta/hustla" and "Wikipedia editor"--the intersection is the null set. The amalgam of the two does not exist. Either/or, not both/and. The dawg in question? Does not hunt.(/OR). What's sadder, to me, is that just leafing through his edit summaries, this user reminds me a lot of myself: one foot in each of two very, very incompatible worlds. Maybe at my age I've hit the point of realization--you gotta pick a side, and (sad but true) the dividends of being on the "boring" side are much more palatable than those of the "edgy" side, to say nothing of the "mammary-fixated rapper-in-waiting" side. Hey, NWA--there's a very intelligent user in there somewhere, maybe even a future admin/arb. Do yourself, and Wikipedia, a favor--let THAT guy run the show for a while. Leave the fixation with hawt actresses for your...erm, quiet time; edit the way you've shown you can edit. This doesn't mean you have to entirely QUIT stirring the sh*t--sh*t needs stirring, sometimes--but once you leave behind the side of your personality that edits like a teenage boy and pisses people off, you'll find that when you DO stir up sh*t, your words will be viewed with more respect. (There. I'm done.) GJC 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Wikipedia." -I just mentioned this elsewhere. This "Growing up in Compton, California, I choose usernames such as “Bonafide.hustla”, “Certified.Gangsta”, and “NWA.Rep” despite significant ridicules from the community. Being one of the few Wikipedians with any sort of street credibility, I often find it frustrating to blend in to the mainstream." made me giggle inside. (Involuntary?) comic genius.:) Sticky Parkin 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The persona he's made for himself here is amusing, sure. But his disruptive behavior is not amusing. It's time to show this kid the door. His behavior is not compatible with being a productive editor. I don't care about his "dignity" at all- his own actions have removed whatever of that he ever had. Friday (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See, I DO care about his dignity. And I'm not amused by his persona--actually, it makes me sad. It sucks to feel like you SHOULD fit in somewhere, but for whatever reasons, you just....don't. I can't think of too much that sucks more, and I'm an adult--can you imagine what it feels like to someone younger??? I think there's a very smart person in there, and just from the little I've seen, I think THAT person would be a very good editor. But--for whatever reason--he's putting his "street cred" ahead of his maturity. I'm not going to play amateur psychoanalyst here (esp. since if I was going down the Freud route, I'd probably run headlong into a wall of surgically-augmented boobage before long) but from what I'm seeing, the minute he realized that his street cred means zero here, and his words and work mean everything, THAT's the moment we gain (I suspect) one hell of a Wikipedian. So yeah--I believe we should treat him with dignity; under similar circumstances, you'd want the same, wouldn't you? GJC 23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So kinda like a cross between Curtis Wilkins and Adrian Mole, then? Badger Drink (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we need to hold compassion at some point. Care about dignity whilst showing him the door, sure—but remember it's a real person behind NWA's persona, however laughable you think it may be. The second we stop caring about our fellow editors' feelings is the day our community will truly lose the ability to write a collaborative encyclopedia. That's a self-evident truth, in my mind, and one I'm not inclined to forget whilst contributing here. AGK 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A block isn't a personal attack. If the wording of the block notice wasn't wholly neutral, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.rep's statement is over 400, which brings up some issues, that I brought up here.--Tznkai (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my experience with this user had been very unpleasant. The fight between the legitimacy between ROC and PRC has just subsided and NWA.Rep comes in on a third side about ETHNIC taiwanese. Except he doesn't even know what they are by definition. Vandals are easy to deal with, but editor who obviously have the wrong views yet know a bit of wikipedia policies are the hardest to deal with (the amount of technical jargon he threw at me-phew). I can dutifully say I solve most problem talking over the table, but his aggressive attitude towards editing was just tiring in the 4 or so days dealing with him. He can revert twice, wait 24 hours and revert again. It was like an endless hounding until you give up. And while WP:USER does not restrict editors from blanking their userpage, his preference to delete the comments that portrays him in a negative view while keeping the positive ones just ticks me off. Plus reconciliation with him after he came back proved fruitless. So to be honest, I think a one week block is very appropriate and hopefully during that time, he can find his mistakes in this cyber world, and perhaps act more accordingly in his real life also. Dengero (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Alastair_Haines

Sorry all, I have been busy and have to rush out the door to do chores. Reviewing civility and RR issues with the recent block issue on Gender of God (again). I'd do all the diffs etc. now but I really have to run. I will do the diffs later, but if anyone looks over it in the mean time and feels all is as it should be then so be it. I am not impartial so as why I am asking for imaprtial eyes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Quick glance suggests that Alastair Haines reverted twice on the article within a week. That is a breach of the arbcom finding and the block is perfectly justified. Presumabaly Arbcom restricted the user for a reason so breaching a formal restriction is only asking for trouble. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Original blocking admin here. Here are the diffs of his edit warring violation: 1, 2. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Alastair_Haines. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Jimbo Wales

User:I am Mario has indicated that he is going forward with an "anti-defamation move" on Jimbo's user talk page. Due to severely limiting connectivity issues, I'm not able to post the dif, but it's under a subsection entitled " response to mr. wales" if I'm not mistaken. Seems like a fairly straightforward legal threat to me, and the account should be indef blocked.--AniMate 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This, for example: [23] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

defamation isn't necessarily a legal term. one simple meaning is "an abusive attack on a person's character or good name". Unless his threat of an anti-defamation move means he's going to be suing and not just cleaning up articles I'm not sure how this is a legal threat. He doesn't really say what that is in the provided diff.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He was going on about pulling in the Anti-Defamation League and the media the other day on there, if one looks further up to the top of the page for the previous commentary on that. It's not really a legal threat, more like an attempt at a chilling effect by invoking some outside forces. Still annoying, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It's certainly an attempt at a chilling effect, but legal action is certainly implied. He's been quite careful not to use the word "lawsuit", but his intent seems clear. Regardless, I'll certainly ask him to clarify what he means by an "anti-defamation move". AniMate 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This just isn't credible. He claims that we're defaming Albert Einstein and unnamed Holocaust survivors by calling their testimonies "POV". I doubt one can sue for defamation on a non-minor's behalf, and a dead person like Einstein can't be defamed. That's why it's the policy on biographies of living people.--chaser - t 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of the administrators Mario is planning on report, I suggest following Jimbo's advice here and just ignoring him. The same articles keep seeing a variety of "new" users who ask the same things, war the same ways, and then get themselves blocked the same way. However, Mario's second comment here indicates to me that he has little interest in anything else other than POV-warring. Frankly, I'm getting tired of insults by various users like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Erikbinder

This user has had three edits, two of which are vandalism, and one of which is their user page. I believe a block might in order. --—Cliffb (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warn him using the templates and then list him at WP:AIV. He's stopped editing since his final warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice again,

Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now, I brought this user up here once before because I was unsure him/her, and due to sleep issues, notifying him/her of the discussion slipped my mind.

My original concern with this new user was this edit to Jimbo's user talk page, which is basically an attack/rant/monologue about how his time at WP was running out, he would be replaced, etc.

So far, this user has been rude to various IP users, who, as we all know, are users too. Even if the content of the IP's edit was vandalism, there is a reason that have standardized warning messages. Here are some more, rather rude warnings that the user has left on others' talk pages.

What made me bring this to AN/I again, however, was this edit to my own talk page, as noted in the edit summery, and in the message, this user is telling me to quit wikipedia because of a small mistake involving common courtesy. Not only that, but... well. No, I'll let all of you read the message for yourself. Something needs to be done here, as this user does not seem to understand how Wikipedia operates. I would suggest mentorship.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy's trolling. A misguided user doesn't write a long, elegant rant citing bizarre historical precedents in response to a minor error - i really get the feeling he's just after a reaction. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAPBOX... Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is probably only fitting that I address all of your concerns in a salient and forthright manner. I would not want anyone to be led astray by the machinations of one Daedalus. As you know, I have already called for his or her resignation. Notice first the inability of Daedalus to confine his or her report to the truth. He or she accuses me of saying time was running out on Jimbo Wales and that he would be replaced. Sadly, neither of these statements are to be found. Given that Daedalus either deliberately misrepresented these facts or lacks the mental ability requisite for the recitation of factual information, asking for his or resignation is appropriate. Nothing short of resignation can remedy the stain of incompetence for which such indifference towards the truth can thrust upon the fact-laden, digital pages of an encyclopedia.

Note also that Daedalus admits to making poor ethical choices while editing due to sleep deprivation. This is an admission of guilt. The integrity of Wikipedia should not be compromised because of the poor decision making of one editor. His or her resignation is in deed appropriate.

Finally, as it pertains to Daedalus, he or she recommends mentorship. I do like this recommendation. Given the significant amount of knowledge I have that I could pass on to others, I do believe I could mentor other people to be excellent contributors to this great project. Unfortunately, I do not possess the time to engage in such mentorship. Hopefully, I can merely lead by example. Perhaps such a compromise would be to everyone’s liking.

Next, I will address Mazca. I thank Mazca for recognizing me as speaking in “elegant” fashion as well as having mastery of “historical precedents.” No doubt such ability and knowledge is valuable to such a project as Wikipedia. Thank you for your words, Mazca.

Regrettably, I come now to address the unfortunate comments of Gwen Gale. This user directed a savage and vile warning at me, for which there was no merit or validity. This user charged me with failing to assume good faith. Note that such an outlandish claim is both unwarranted and unsupported. When I rightly called for the resignation of Daedalus, I specifically said, “If you want the best for Wikipedia, as I believe you do…” Not only did I assume good faith, I assumed the very best of faith on the part of Daedalus. Thus, I have judicially and gracefully decided to dismiss the warning on the part of Gwen Gale.

To my dismay, this ill-conceived venture by Gwen Gale appears to have strengthened the resolve of Daedalus. That editor previously appeared content to resign. Now, buoyed by the misguided reassurances of another editor, Daedalus has renewed confidence. That confidence will likely be manifest in edits that continue to degrade the quality of Wikipedia.

As a final matter, I turn my attention to Grsz11. This editor is guilty of a crime most foul. He or she has engaged in edits so reckless that the very metaphorical fabric of justice has been torn. This user has removed numerous of edits. These edits were designed to prevent the continued destruction of Wikipedia by vandals. These vandals seek to harm Wikipedia by leaving scurrilous epithets, frivolous comments, and otherwise unbecoming intellectual products on the digital pages of Wikipedia. Grsz11 has abrogated the justice due these hooligans. As the people of Mississippi denied justice to Emmett Till, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Adolf Hitler denied Anne Frank justice, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Pontius Pilate denied Jesus Christ Justice, so too has Grsz11 crucified me for my righteousness and honored the evil of the wicked. Grsz11, there is no place for your kind of disdain towards the ethical realm on Wikipedia. Atone for your sins, Grsz11, and resign. In one final act of selflessness, resolve to make Wikipedia a better place. Resign.

Thank you. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for the most gratuitous violations of WP:NPA (and even some wikilawyering) that I have seen in awhile. You had to make 4 or 5 edits to this page, just so that you could slip in some inflammatory commentary (possibly even equating actions to racism). Wow. My applause shall have no end. Gigli was more enjoyable than that rant. ►BMW◄ 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, for any reviewing, even though it may be blatantly obvious, I never said I was going to resign, or that I planned to, and, although I mentioned the diff the first time I was here about this user, I'll mention it again: the user telling Jimbo that, basically, his time is running out. I shall also note this diff above in the starting paragraph of my report.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Given I'd already warned this editor, I've blocked 48 hours for personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. Words fail me. That's an awful lot of words for no purpose at all. I second Gwen's actions. Dayewalker (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that this user isn't that new to wikipedia? Also, I've gone and reverted his inappropriate warnings, as Grz had done(I got what he missed).— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a small note, it had been about two days passed after I notified this user of this thread before he replied, either he doesn't edit wikipedia often, or there is some other reason, my point being, that if it is the former, he might not even notice he was blocked. He needs to be watched.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ungroundable (South Park Episode)

We got some potential problems at this article and its talk page.

User RedPenOfDoom is the victim of personal attacks by the IP address 166.102.104.62 who calls him an "anal douche bag."

User Pizza With Cheesy Crust is accusing RedPen of "bullying" Wikipedia users by constantly reverting articles (mainly the South Park episodes) because "he doesn't believe one thing."

He also is accusing RedPen of violating the 3-revert rule. (which is debatable-see RedPen's User Contributions)

I didn't post anything in that argument because I didn't want to cause trouble, so I posted it here.

Thanks.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I left warnings on the IP's talk page and on User:Pizza With Cheesy Crust's talkpage, as some of the comments that they made were clearly over the line. As far as I can see User:RedPenOfDoom has done nothing to warrant sanction at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I left warnings on a couple editors' talk pages about the edit warring, and also removed some unsourced WP:OR from the article and tagged the article. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Family removal of details about an individual

In the article about Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut there is a section discussin the deaths of four trainees over the course of a number of years, each trainee has a small section representing the conclusions of various studies into the establishment. The father of one of the individuals has removed the section and requested that it not be re-instated, here.

I suppose I'm more looking for opinions about how to deal with this, at the moment the deaths cover a disproportionate amount of the article content. I'm sensitive to the wishes of Mr James that the material about his daughter be removed, but for the sake of proportionality and weight would tend to also remove the other three sets of details. That said, the investigations into Deepcut played a significant part in the ongoing effort to professionalise the service police organisations of all three armed services as well as the selection and training of instructirs and how trainees are delivered and managed. the topic does deserve to be covered.

I'd be grateful for some opinions on the most appropriate approach.

ALR (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit (or part of this edit) needs to be oversighted as the user has clearly revealed their home telephone number. D.M.N. (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

as I read the material, this it is not quite what it seems.They do not object to the inclusion of material, but rather they want to have the material suggest that it was homicide not suicide, as they are of the opinion that the Army is covering up the circumstances. They might prefer to have nothing rather than material giving what they think the wrong impression but this is totally destructive to NPOV, I do not see how we can do other than report what is in published sources, though we can perhaps look for sources other than the government report.

Despite the pain to the family, the material must be included as it is a matter of general public interest. BLP does not apply. Once we start applying BLP-like considerations to the feelings of survivors, where does it stop? This was 5 years ago, not last week. When would we finally be able to write objectively about the incident? If one resents damage to the reputation of ones parent or child, thee would be no history for the 20th as well as the 21st century. However, we should be able to find a more tactful way of wording things. DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not read very well particularly when one of the soliders has been removed and she first gets a mention in a summary. The deaths and subsequent review could really be trimmed down to remove a lot of the details and in an article about the barracks it looks like it has undue weight when the article has no mention about the history of the site or the physical barracks themselves. It may be better to create a separate article about the deaths and review which may make for a better constructed and neutral article without any unreferenced opinion and create a better balance with sourced material. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is a pretty obvious case of reinstating the information, despite the sympathy we might feel for the family. We can only reflect what the reliable sources say and, obviously, most will report what a coroner reports. Yes we have a systematic bias towards Official Sources, but that is simply the nature of the beast. An icky situation, to be sure, but yes, revert the info back in. It is relevent and cited. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think that removing sourced material merely because it is distressing to someone (even though I have great sympathy for the James family on this one) is a good idea, on the other hand, the article does go into rather a lot of detail on these cases, and I think it's a borderline case of WP:UNDUE. That said, I think if we're going to cover one of these cases, we ought to cover them all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the views everyone. I agree the point that we could do with more substance around the barracks, it's been in existence a long time, although most of what's there is what I managed to scrape together a couple of years ago when I first ran across it. The initial article was mainly a rant about the deaths and went into an excessive amount of detail, as well as being unbalanced.

The main issue I see it is that the outcomes of the Blake review were very far reaching, although I don't think there is much in the public domain about that.

ALR (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Angels Live

Resolved

 – I jumped through all the hoops of group MFD creation, and then Gwen Gale speedied it.—Kww(talk) 05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this. Angels Live (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has devoted his entire editing career to creating a very intricate hoax album on his user page. I'm used to kids making up little infoboxes about themselves, but this is an entire fake album with tour histories and extended singles releases for a third party, Jake Glyllenhall.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least two similar pages exist: User:Messager Live12 and User:Devils Live. The three editors are editing each others pages, so there is a possibility of puppetry.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly BatterWow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to be the only editor outside of these three that is editing. He has a lot of involvement with Hard Candy (Madonna album), and that is the actual target of many of these links.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.

Per Wikipedia:USER#What_to_do_if_you_find_someone_else.27s_user_page_being_used_inappropriately, it looks like the User:Angels Live, User:Messager Live12 and User:Devils Live pages should all be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Not sure what to do about the BatterWow issue. A warning at a minimum, for sure.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all three pages need to be MFD-ed. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/DevilAngel.—Kww(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Additional comment: out of idle curiosity, I checked this editor's edits, and noticed that although they started in February of this year, the talk page archives date back to October 2007--and the archives from that month to February were, in fact, User:BatterWow's very first edits. Checking backwards from the posts in them, it seems that the archives are copied from that of a user named BatterBean (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked in March for similar tomfoolery. It appears to be simple block-evasion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the contrib histories I've blocked all three four accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ward3001

Block User:Ward3001 indefinitely. This person is bothering me and messing with my talk page. He's also a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandyu (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's racist? How about what you said here? ►BMW◄ 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything on your talk page that justifies a block of Ward3001. If anything, the incivility has been on your side. Perhaps a few deep breaths are in order?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not even sure it's a pot-kettle thing; I haven't reviewed everything and have to leave now, so please don't consider this authoritative (more admin review needed here I think), but I can't, on the face of it, find anything wrong with Ward3000's recent edits. Pandyu appears, on first glance, to be resisting requests for reliable sources, and is doing most of the name calling here. A data point only, not a decision, as I'm getting called away but thought I'd mentino what I've seen so far. --barneca (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually re-added the contested category. When an actress wins a number of BET awards for her lead work in black family comedies, I'm pretty sure you don't need to source the fact that she's an African American actress. I have also noted this on Ward3001's talkpage - he was a little overly pushy about the obvious on this one, I believe. ►BMW◄ 19:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge Bwilkins' good faith, but I disagree that I was pushy. I don't believe there is an exception in WP:V for ethnicity or ethnic identification. Ward3001 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not the place for content disputes, I was wondering which part of "Black", "Entertainment" or "Television" Awards you were contesting and causes you an issue in this matter? ►BMW◄ 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to further add (simply by reading the External links on that page):

• presenter, NAACP awards
• articles in Ebony and Jet magazines
• presenter, BET Awards.

I know, it could be a stretch on my part. ►BMW◄ 20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe receiving or presenting an award, or being featured in a magazine, justifies an exception to the requirements of WP:V, a core Wikipedia policy. I believe you are acting in good faith, but I will ask you to please stop edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've never edit-warred in my life :) I restored a valid category. My next edit removed a bad external link to youtube, and reinstated a category AFTER placing information on the Talkpage for the article. I would ask anyone else watching this discussion to give him a 3RR warning if he decides to continue playing (I won't do it because I got involved). I won't be dealing with logic issues here. ►BMW◄ 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not violate 3RR (and I'm not anywhere close to doing so), and I do not appreciate your suggestion for a pre-emptive 3RR warning and your suggestion that I am "playing with" the article. I again thank you for your civility, but I disagree with both your overlooking WP:V and your reverting the article before consensus was reached on the talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Quickly, please glance at the external links. One of them (when referring to the actress in question) refers to Contemporary Black Biography, Volume 8, 1994, Volume 42, Gale Group, 2004. This is a little too bizarre. ►BMW◄ 20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I have placed a 12 hour block on Pandyu's account: comments such as this one ("you white fuck.") are not acceptable. Ward, I would encourage you to refrain in the future from all interactions with Pandyu. Also note that I have advised Pandyu that any future misbehaviour—especially, but not limited to, that of a racist nature—will receive a swift indefinite block. This may make this matter {{Resolved}} insofar as the project's Administrators are concerned: I see no more we can do for the time being. AGK 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with your advice to avoid Pandyu, which I will do unless he decides to intrude on my talk page or any of my edits that are unrelated to him. Ward3001 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pandyu has sincerely apologized to me, and I have accepted his apology. I also resolved the problem of reliable sourcing by adding a sourced statement that backs up the category in question. I request that this issue be marked as "Resolved". Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian/Gennarous

I believe Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is back in his Gennarous (talk · contribs) / Tigris the Majestic (talk · contribs) guise. Immense sense (talk · contribs) has as first and second edits blanked large sections of the Sicily article (a haunt of User:Gennarous) [24], [25] and both templated me [26] --a sign of an experienced user, in my opinion -- when I warned him about it and then accused of me of Islamocentrism [27], a classic Gennarous tactic. This seems to be a reaction to my reporting his activity last week on the the House of Plantagenet article. [28], [29]. Link to confirmation of User:Gennarous as User:Yorkshirian : [30]. Can someone please put an end to this? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... once I have stopped sniggering at their claim that you can indugle yourself (... I might block them for that, it sounds sordid...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef per Quacking edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

*snort* Indugle... I missed that. Aren't there laws about that doing that sort of thing in public? ;) Thanks for checking it out. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris Kreiman

Resolved

 – Necessary pages protected.

Something looks fishy. BBiiis08 brought us to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Kreiman which ended uneventfully with solid keeps except the nom. Since then, two IPs have deleted the content of the AFD, and they are the same ISP, diffs [31] + [32] and [33]. The whois are whois .153 and whois .125. The .153 has also been deleting the talk page for the article, and it looks like several IPs have been deleting article content, although that may be ok as contentious BLP. Would protecting so only reg'ed users can edit be appropriate? It isn't a daily thing, but there seems to be a very concerted effort to delete everything that relates to his controversy (game fixing) and web site squatting. These facts aren't in the article anymore, although they will probably show up again as proper sources do exist. Anyway, something looks fishy and I would appreciate another set of eyes on this, and I have the feeling once the more controversial stuff is added back, it will get worse. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the AfD, there is no reason IPs should change it anyway now it's closed. I don't think the page itself needs protection with the current level of activity. I'll put it onto my watchlist, I suggest you take it to WP:RFPP if the IPs become really aggressive in vandalizing the page. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is doing it - and I agree the anon removal does look fishy - the removal of the disputed material is well within policy. Here's the diff [34]: the removed text was all sourced from blogs and forums, which is never sufficiently reliable, and particularly so for material controversial per WP:BLP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, which is why I qualififed it as ok for contentious BLP. Better sources do exist but not the ones in the article, and why I didn't put them back. I only mentioned as it may indicate who is doing this (the article's subject, perhaps) and to show the whole pattern. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Child's personal details in user page

Resolved

 – Deleted and oversighted.

I'm not sure what should be done about this user page, according to which the user is not quite eleven years old. It gives his full name, his town of birth and his father's and uncle's names. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight request sent. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already deleted the content (and gave my reasons of the usertalkpage), but better safe than sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:BoxingWear2

I am concerned that User:BoxingWear2 may be a sock of indefinitely-blocked User:BoxingWear. The former created his/her talk page with a rant against Wikipedians, mentioning "Paul Vario sr aka mkil". The blocked user's Special:Contributions/BoxingWear contributions shows that he/she had some kind of dispute with "mkil". Could someone look into this? I'm not sure why he/she was blocked indefinitely, and I haven't seen any vandalism from this account (though some of the edits were not very productive).--Srleffler (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of BoxingWear--and after researching the history of this user (with whom many older admins are familiar already), the userspace has been locked down. Blueboy96 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

edit warring spam vandal ... in WP:AIV for over 20 minutes, still ongoing

Resolved

Can an admin take a look at WP:AIV, or at least at 211.115.111.59 (talk · contribs)? It's an anon who has an established history of inserting spamlinks ... usually to redirects that point to a referal link. The user has re-inserted the same spam link to the Spyware article over a dozen times in the last 40 minutes which has been reverted by multiple editors and the user repeatedly warned, and they are showing no signs of stopping their edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, the redirect page URLs have been submitted for consideration to add to the blacklist [35]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just report them after warning them appropriately - if there are indeed a dozen spamlinks, even if there are no warnings issued, you could probably justify adding a 4im and waiting for them to do it again. If they proceeded to do it again, then you should report them to AIV - AN/I is not really for this. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They had exceeded 4 user warnings, and had been in WP:AIV for over 20 minutes with no action taken - which is the only reason I brought it here (due to AIV backlog). They were finally blocked shortly after posting here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I dealt with it. Please understand that we are all volunteers and that some delay might happen when dealing with WP:AIV. Posting here will not change this. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that we are all volunteers. The only reason it was brought here was the 20+ minute backlog at AIV.

Thank you for addressing the issue over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh sock again?

78.148.56.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added "Scotland" to a city list[36] and has changed the photo in Edinburgh[37]. Does anyone recognize this? Is this the same sockmaster that deleted references to UK? I think it's about the same IP range. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the same user, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_Russia&action=history and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (5th), although probably not worth blocking as the user changes IP address so often (e.g. 84.13.115.209 (talk · contribs) yesterday). —Snigbrook 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley6 currently has a few unblocked registered accounts, and is using one.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Location details of Minor

Looks like this person is giving out their school in conjunction with a username that could be their real name [38] - can we purge please? Exxolon (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it looks like the account name is the user's real name, I've blanked a couple facts to conform to WP:CHILD, and that might need oversight, and I've linked the user to this discussiion and the CHILD on his User talk. Admins please review my actions. ThuranX (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested oversight. — neuro^(talk) 18:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted and restored the page, pending oversight, to remove the details from the publicly accesible pages, and forwarded the delted history to RFO. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight done.

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#protecting_minors_from_themselves_in_userspace

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322

Resolved

 – Blocked for a month by Gwen Gale, and page protected for a week by FisherQueen. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) This bad faith editor has just filed this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin obviously as revenge for this ani and Firefly's subsequent blocking here and here. This sockpuppet charge, which will be easily refuted by a checkuser, and since I have no reason to use socks, is a personal attack. Since there is no reason to ever consider that I use socks, especially Verbal (talk · contribs) who shares interests in articles, but doesn't cross paths with me as often as about 100 other editors, I would as an extended block be placed on Firefly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

*blink* I have to say that this does appear from many angles to be a revenge SSP filing. I have suggested to Firefly that perhaps this action is unwise, based on their history of disruption. Filing a completely unreasonable SSP report is going to take more than 1 person's time and energy away from editing articles, and instead off on a snipe hunt - that's purely disruptive behavior. I recommend that if Firefly does not remove their obviously vexatious SSP report that they be given a few days rest to determine if they wish to stop disrupting Wikipedia in the future, or if the community needs to make that decision for them. ►BMW◄ 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's out in the open, so it's too late to take it back and take a time out. I think an indefinite block is warranted. In the Wikipedia world, this like defamation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Editors may discuss a shorter block, longer block or community ban and shift this as they please. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we make it for a year? It's interesting that after his week-long block, he was nice for about a week. Then out of the blue this thing. It's clear he doesn't have the temerity to play nice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to archive close the checkuser, as it's clearly frivolous, or should someone else do it? Is there a different procedure for checkusuers? HalfShadow 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want Firefly to come back claiming "favouritism" or that his complaints were "unheard" or that he was poorly treated. Let it go through, and if he hasn't apologized for his vexatious attitude by the time it's completed, block him for a year. If he does apologize, continue his 1-month block and welcome him back cautiously when it's done. ►BMW◄ 19:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important the checkuser be completed per BMW. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's spurious. But since you asked nicely...  Unrelated ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How many bad unblock requests does he get before his ban is extended? ►BMW◄ 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As a technical concern, I don't see evidence that the block is a ban. (This is done without checking the validity of the block; I lean toward it being a good block.) I have little opinion on the extension; I've interacted with Firefly, but cannot recall whether it was favorable, and favorably with people who have agreed and disagreed with him in the past week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Post-credits scene films

There appears to be some deja vu about this. An IP address is adding a bunch of entries to this category. Trouble is, it's a red-link category. But if you go to it, it has a bunch of entries along with 2 separate discussions for deletion from October 2007 and earlier from March 2007. So evidently someone is trying it again. What's the SOP for this situation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To get to the category, you could go to The Muppet Movie. However, there are many other entries from that IP (71.190.26.165). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The category has been twice deleted and salted. DRV is the next step (I express no views on whether it would be successful) so I'm removing the names from Category:Post-credits scene films. I've asked the IP to stop, and have linked this discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

71.190.26.165 (talk) is continuing to add films to this category, without reply. Bencherlite^Talk 00:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like it's time to take him to WP:AIV, unless someone jumps in here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I just did, and which would leave a bunch of items to roll back. However, I don't want to do that until the IP is blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you gave him a 3-hour tour, er, block. Which end of the list do you want to start the rolling back? Or can you do all of it in one swell foop? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. Bencherlite^Talk 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I also point out these, Talk:List of films with Post-credits scenes, Talk:Post-credits scene in movies, Talk:Post-credits scene in Examples, Talk:Post-credits scene in Movies and Talk:List of post-credits scene movies, all created and filled with lists of movies by this IP--Jac16888 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From the history, it looks as though this is the same individual at 71.247.88.225 (talk), who did the same thing last October, earning a block then. Bencherlite^Talk 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it a deletion discussion. Someone nominated it, no one discussed it and somehow out of that we bore a "consensus" of deletion and salting. Whats the real objection to this being a genuine category? There are a number of movies that do this. Its possible to do cite this by using them as a primary source. so what if it was done by a single user?--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously only read the third discussion, not the first two (first, second). Bencherlite^Talk 09:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

and having read them I'm none the wiser as to what the real problem was. As pointed out trident's reasoning didn't quite make sense as he seemed to be talking about deleted scenes and not post-credit scenes and I see a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes (or were we still voting in 2006? I don't think so). The second one is based solely on comments of "we got rid of it once, do it again". Seems like a compelling candidate for DRV.--Crossmr (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did tell the IP to take it to DRV, but he didn't reply. In the meantime, the consensus not to have such a category stands. Bencherlite^Talk 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a type of trivia, which is not necessarily bad, but it's also anecdotal and depends on original research, in the sense that someone just happens to notice it in a few films and then defines it as a category. It's possible that there's an authoritative source that would discuss this topic, but I doubt it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, he didn't list The Cannonball Run series, which I'm pretty sure had clips or outtakes played during the credits. Or maybe that doesn't count? But why shouldn't it? It could be argued that the category itself is original research. Having said all that, this is the reason I generally don't mess with categories - they're shifting sand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The film is a primary and reliable source, how is that original research to present a fact? Its only original research if he analyzes and presents an opinion about it in someway "This movie is awesome because of the extra scenes after credits". His missing a film doesn't mean there is a problem with the list, lists don't have to be made 100% fully formed. If they were we'd make them and lock them.--Crossmr (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take this matter to the DRV page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by potential IP sock

This edit made by 98.212.143.193 (talk · contribs), on the article Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suburban Express. IP is a suspected sock of Fairmont-m19 (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fairmont-m19). IP has removed the comment, but would appreciate some admin eyes on the other suspected socks for similar threats/bad faith attacks. MuZemike (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing some context, but that diff doesn't seem like a legal threat at all. Just because it contains the word "litigation" doesn't make it a threat. Oren0 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very vague threat if it is; I do recall hearing a lot of scuttlebutt about the owner of Suburban trying to sue their chief competitor in Champaign-Urbana for libel. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm utterly confused - I don't read that as a legal threat in any way, shape or form - not even slightly. Are you sure you linked the right diff? — neuro^(talk) 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a legal threat, just a reference to litigation with domain registrations. Move of a BLP issue. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I put the words "article owned by" along with "computer and IP law circles" and "subsequent litigation" together and came to the conclusion that the user is trying to make some sort of a legal threat in retaliation to the AFD. Besides, I don't know too many people who are into computer-related law who also own a bus line. That was my rationale, but I don't know; maybe I'm reading too much into it. MuZemike (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you did the right think, putting more eyes on any issue that "might" be a legal issue. Those eyes just think it isn't a problem :) That is always better than the alternative. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More User:TheNewHubris socks

As well as User:Hubris25: F U C K and User:Hubris24: Randy Watches You Masturbate (now blocked) two more have turned up: User:Hubris27: Revenge and User:Hubris26: TheNewSirex. Similar names, similar targets. Block, anyone? (note: I'm coming here because I find it is faster to go straight to the source than open longwinded sockpuppetry cases, esp. in obvious situations such as this. Ironholds (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See [39] for a list. Can we get a checkuser to isolate this and issue a rangeblock or hardblock his IP or something? I am working on blocking all that I can find... That would be VERY helpful...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked around for a checkuser; none seem to be online. I recall seeing something about an IP block before, it hasn't apparently deterred them. Ironholds (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: Thanks to Kurt Shaped Box. I'll keep an eye out on the User creation log for more and keep looking for a checkuser. Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Myself and User:Kurt Shaped Box apparently had the simultaneous idea of semi-protecting the main target article in the absence of a CU, except he did it for a day and I did it for a week. Change it back to 24h if you want, KSB. Black Kite 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I picked off all of the obvious ones from the naming pattern (Hubris #); however if he changes his naming pattern, we may lose him for a little while. I would recommend filing an RFCU report with the list from [40] to help the checkusers find the underlying IPs and/or anymore sleepers... Most checkusers look there more often then here, so it will get found easier if you file that report. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this thread now (I had the Deeb article on my watchlist). Heh - that's not the first time that I've protected a page at the same time as someone else. Yeah, leave it at a week. I don't have a problem with that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WGN-TV

Resolved

 – Betacommand gets his way this time.

Unresolved

 – Discussion continues....

I would like for someone who's an expert on the subject to comment on whether Betacommand is correct in removing the logos from that article which have sat there for months with no complaints. [41] He may well be right, but he's been blocked so often for misinterpreting the NFC rules that I can't assume he knows what he's talking about. If someone else could comment, I would appreciate it. P.S. He threatened to have me blocked for reverting him twice. I thought those threats came after three reversions??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the use of several historical logos (specifically for a TV station, just not this one) at WT:NFC. There has not been any consensus yet, though I am involved in that, the best unbiased statement I can state is that the issue is between too much non-free media without necessary commentary, and those that feel the logos are needed to show the historical changes in the logo, and can go without significant commentary. Is beta right for deleting them? It probably would have been better to tag the page with "too much non-free" instead of deleting them without a resolve to the issue - but there's also the fact there doesn't seem to be a resolve - there's no middle ground that can be readily approached. --MASEM 20:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So, in short, Betacommand is taking his usual slash-and-burn approach and threatening anyone who disagrees. Par for the course. He wins this round, from my standpoint. Just as it was stupid for someone to get blocked for a week over the importance of Salma Hayek's breasts, it's stupid to risk getting blocked over a bunch of TV logos. Luckily, I already downloaded them. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You can be warned after making no reverts, but they are unlikely to be taken seriously. Speaking of seriously, yes you can be warned after two revisions or even blocked for same since 3RR is not an limit but a clear blue line. However, BC making such warnings is habitual (it seems to be his version of "hi, I see you have made some changes to an edit I made - can we talk?") and should be considered within context; does it exceed his civility probation? No, and therefore it is better to take the higher moral ground and investigate the basis of BC's actions and determine whether the consensus exists for it. If it doesn't, or is debatable, then the next action is to civilly draw peoples attention to it - and if it does then do right by yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, give up and let someone else do the fighting. As long as Betacommand is here, there will be no peace. And that's the way it is. The best thing is to avoid him like the plague. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

how about you just follow the policy? and all will be well. β^_command 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy set by legal counsel or policy as interpreted by you? I personally go with what Mike Godwin has said, but that is just me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 02:33

Please shut up as you have admitted you have no clue what your talking about. What Godwin was talking about as a legal issue not a policy issue. Non-free content is not allowed in galleries. it might help if you read WP:NFCC and its talk archives. β^_command 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please shut up" is overly aggressive Beta - try for a more moderate/conciliatory tone please. Exxolon (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a violation of his civility probation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 04:17

It is, and I have blocked him for 24 hours for violating that, in addition to the requirement that he "Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion", which it does not appear that he has done. If anyone thinks I'm being unduly harsh, please let me know, but by this point, Betacommand really ought to know better. For reference, these restrictions are listed here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

To be honest, I don't think you are being harsh enough. If it were me, I would have gone 72 hours. 48 hours because he last block was for 24, escalation in time, plus since he violated two terms of his probation, an extra 24. That is an this editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:48

Neutralhomer, please be aware that the legal position of Wikipedia is a completely separate issue from the non-free content policy set by the Foundation. A gallery of non-free images is, as Mike Godwin has stated, completely legally ok, but that's the legal side; a gallery of non-free images weighs down the free content mission goals. We're not going to get sued by having such, but we are hurting the ability to disseminate free content with it. --MASEM 06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, really you are saying, they are "OK", but you are just going to throw any ol' policy at them to get them to go away? When Godwin said they were "OK" to him, that didn't mean delete them anyway. Perhaps we ALL should ask Mike for a detailed opinion on this before deleting everything and if Mike says they are OK and don't violate any policy, I think that should be made policy. I ask for all of Beta's changes be reverted until a detailed opinion on this from Mike is given. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 06:23

They are legal based on USA fair use laws, they are not OK by Wikipedia's fair use policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy resolution. Wikipedia's fair use policy is much stricter than US law (and I believe always has been, this isn't news) in a deliberate attempt to restrict fair use usage, as Masem said to keep within the foundation's free content principles. Mr.Z-man 07:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said the "let's delete everything" idea should stop until we get a detailed opinion on galleries vs. NFCC from Mike Godwin. He has the final say on everything. Also, I don't think Wiki should be able to trump law, because, essentially, nothing can trump Wikipedia. I think there should be something that can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:04

Neutralhomer, you need to start getting the point. Mike Godwin does not have the final say in this case. Now, if it were the reverse—if Mike said "This is against the law, we need to stop it", then he does have the final say, and we would stop at once. But just because Mike says something is legal doesn't mean we will do it. Mike has the final say on legality. He categorically does not have the final say as to whether or not something passes our policy, nor did he even address that issue, he addressed only the legal matter. If he did choose to address the policy issue, his opinion would carry no more or less weight than any other editor.

There are plenty of situations where we disallow something, not because it would be illegal, but because it would be damaging to the project. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for us to allow companies to place spam/ad arguments about themselves. However, that doesn't mean we will allow that. It is not illegal to use sockpuppets to skew a discussion or vote. That doesn't mean we don't prohibit it, we certainly do. The same is true of our nonfree content policy. We cannot override the law, nor are we trying (we would only be doing that if we were using images we did know or believe to be unlawful). However, this aspires to be a free content project. We seek to use as little nonfree content as possible. In order to become a truly free content project, we would have to get that number to zero; however, we still seek to be as close as possible. That's why we have a policy on nonfree content that is much stricter than the law. That's not an attempt to "override the law", we have every right to say "Yes, the law would allow use of a nonfree image here, but we will not." Free content projects do not use nonfree content just because they legally can. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nothing trumps law or is trying to right now; that argument is a red herring. Rather, the NFCC policy is a condition in addition to the law, a policy established by the Foundation, and Mike Godwin's opinion is irrelevant unless he says that this policy is actually illegal according to US law and other laws that may apply. Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should do it. —kurykh 08:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is legal and "OK", then it should be done. "We don't want to" isn't a good enough arguement. If Mike says it's OK, it's OK. Mere editors (which is what we all are) can't trump the head legal dude, which is what it seems ALOT of people are trying to do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:55

I can say spam is "OK." Should we do it? I say advertising is "OK." Should we do it? If I were to say launching personal attacks at you was "OK," should I be permitted to do it? Such an argument is nonsensical. No one has invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT except for you, Neutralhomer. Mike Godwin cannot be trumped if he says what we permit is illegal, not if we restrict actions which are legal. —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is "OK" doesn't matter. Mike's opinion matters and he said galleries of images were OK. The anti-fair-use group, which you are obviously a part of, is the ONLY people who have said I Don't Like It (also, I never "invoked it", you just did). The anti-fair-use group is the only ones who are trying to trump the legal staff of Wikimedia and refuse to get Mike's detailed opinion on this because he might, God forbid, disagree with you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

Yes, I'm part of the secret cabal that will take over this place and wreak hellish anti-fair-use tyranny upon you. Please tell me where I can document my registration. —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And Mike Godwin disagrees with me on what? Point it out and provide evidence of your assertions instead of engaging in abstractions. —kurykh 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which "policy established by the Foundation" are you referring to, Kurykh? There's a lot of misinformation flying around whenever someone says "Foundation", and it generally looks like the anti-fair-use people have gotten into the habit of claiming their preferred interpretation of English Wikipedia policy was mandated by the Foundation when the Foundation said no such thing. Particularly because nobody bothers to question it, except that's what I'm doing right now. If you're referring to a specific thing that the Foundation actually established, though, I apologize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Foundation say "minimal fair-use"? We're circling around what "minimal" means, and some people are wary that anything beyond "almost none" will open the floodgates to "always". In particular, Beta's Non-free content is not allowed in galleries is unsupported at the last discussion thread I've seen. (NB No admin action requested in this post) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess "Foundation policy" was not the most correct choice of words, but I refer you to this. More of a "mandate", I guess. I'm not saying that there should be stifling restrictions (I will leave "stifling" deliberately vague), but to reject the entire policy wholesale just because it is legal to do so does not serve us well. Also, policy changes such as these can be discussed without labeling others without first ascertaining their exact position on the issue (i.e., your seeming labeling of me as "anti-fair-use" when I have neither said nor asserted any such thing). —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that because it is legal to do so...it is legal to reject the idea and it really is OK for us to use galleries....you are going to do the opposite for what reason? Because you can? Because ducks fly? Your logic isn't making sense. It's OK, but we said it isn't? Come on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

No, no, no. You're misinterpreting me again. You're saying that we can do anything because Mike Godwin says it's legal, and that we shouldn't be allowed to add conditions in addition to US fair use law. I disagree with you. Are we on the same page now? Or are you going to talk past me again and call people names instead of discussing this without stuffing words in my mouth? —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NeutralH, it is legal for you to smoke cigarettes in your own home. It's also legal for you to forbid people from smoking in your home. We're not talking about what is most legal, we're trying to figure out how much blue haze is acceptable. It says somewhere near the top, "the free encyclopedia..." We care about the law, but we also care about the goal of being free. So we set our own rules, within the law but also in accordance with our aims. The discussion is not about what could win a court case, it's about what will best meet our conflicting goals of being both free and encyclopedic. Franamax (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Because we are a free content project, and in addition to being legal, nonfree content must pass these restrictions as well. There is a lot of content which it would be perfectly legal for us to use which we still do not because it is nonfree. Indeed, we even do not use "permission for Wikipedia only", "noncommercial use only", or "no derivative" licensed works (unless they pass the nonfree content test), even though we could perfectly legally do so in these cases. Our requirements for use of nonfree content are much more stringent than simply being legal, and that is by design—the Wikimedia Foundation has specified that use of nonfree content must be minimal. Using nonfree content anywhere the law would allow would be maximal—after all, we would be extremely unwise to make any more use than the law allows, so "everything the law would allow" is the maximum possible. That is not in keeping with our goal as a free content project. I think what you're failing to see is that "Yes, it would be legal to use those images" does not translate to "Yes, we should use those images." Certainly, if I went and asked Mike "Mike, would it be legal for me to remove the images?", he would tell me "Of course it is", and wonder why I would even ask. If I asked him "Would it be legal for me to change every instance of 'colour' to 'color' in every article I see it in?" he would, again, tell me that yes, that would be perfectly legal. Would that make me categorically and indisputably right? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. WP's policy is narrower than US fair use, in two precise, quite limited ways. First, because we ask not whether we ourselves could use the image, but whether a commercial downstream reuser using our content verbatim would be okay. Secondly, because we don't accept non-free content, even with permissions, if it could potentially be replaced by free content. Those are the parameters WP:NFC was crafted to defend.

These images aren't replaceable. So if Mike says these images are okay fair-use - which I would understand to mean okay for downstream verbatim reusers, then we should pay some attention to that. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are many, many, many circumstances where things are valid fair use under US law but are not allowed under our policies. Many nations have no fair use laws whatsoever. Reusers in those countries would not be able to use the content. Wiki(p|m)edia's goal is to spread free content, not "sort-of free" content. That is why we limit non-free content so much. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Will people please acquire a clue on the difference between "legal" and "within Wikipedia policy". For example, it's completely legal for me to spam my website on the external links of dozens of articles, but it's not within policy, and would be removed. It's completely legal for me to include reams of unsourced original research in articles, or to create an article about my dog, but ... you get the idea. The real point here is "do these logo galleries contravene WP:NFCC or not?", and IMHO the answer is "yes, they do contravene it". Though since no admin intervention is necessary here, this should really be at WT:NFC. As for the articles, I'd see no problem with tagging them all with {{Template:NFimageoveruse}} to perhaps spark individual discussion on their talkpages. Black Kite 12:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The key letters being IMHO. It would be brilliant if you could ever have your specific ideas backed up by solid judgements, but you never do. All you have is your own personal interpretation of the NFC, and your endless attempts to represent that as the universal opinion with much heat but without any light. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, a Betacommand thread and who pops up? Anyway, solid judgments? Try WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, which aren't my personal interpretation of NFCC, and both of which the non-free logo galleries fail. I put "IMHO" because I don't presume to be the ultimate authority on non-free images, unlike some people. Black Kite 16:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The galleries fail 3a and 8 in your opinion'. That's the thing you never quite understand. You are not the ultimate authority, and quite often, you are not even in the qualified minority. You never even undesrstand this basic point, which is what makes these repeated bs argumnents over the nfc pointless until such time as the foundation educates you on your absolute lack of knowledge of either the purpose or interpretation of the law, and the actual reason the NFC exists.MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You know quite well that the vast majority of non-free image galleries always have, always do, and always will fail WP:NFCC; but not quite all of them, which is why I qualified my statement. Oh, and quit with the personal attacks, you've never masked your dislike of me since one particular AfD many months ago, and your singling out of me for your petty jibes due to a personal vendatta is getting really tiresome. Go and bother someone else, because I'm not replying to you again. Black Kite 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The vast majority of non-free image galleries" is as usual an unqualified, unproven, and just basically pointless statement with regards application of a policy. This is as usual just your personal opinion, you singularly fail many times to convince others of its merits because you never provide anybody with a working paradigm as to why everybody else should be convinced by your interpretations of 1b, 3, and 8. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand keeps citing the WP:NFCC policy as saying galleries of non-free images are not allowed. I'm not seeing that. Could someone point that out to me? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. And yes, this is a guideline, not a policy, because there might be a small minority of occasions in which non-free image galleries might squeak past NFCC - I can't find the article now, but there was one on the history of CGI imaging techniques in film where there was a gallery of non-free images but each was illustrating a particular CGI technique, along with a large amount of text explicitly commenting on the image which of course enables them to pass WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use) snd WP:NFCC#8 (significance). That doesn't happen in these articles - they're just galleries of images. Black Kite 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Based on what I'm seeing above, and based on his edits in relation to Betacommand in the last 24 hours, I believe that something needs to be done with Neutralhomer. This is not the first time he's been involved in warring and incivility with Betacommand. He, more or less, came in and baited Betacommand into a block. He admits, time and time again, that he does not fully understand the policies and guidelines affecting fair use galleries, yet, he consistently engages in revert warring with people who understand the policies and guidelines far better than he does. When he was unblocked in July, he was told to stay away from Calton and JPG. I think that we need to now include Betacommand in this list. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#NeutralHomer, which is another action between these two just a few weeks ago, is relevant here. I think some sort of restriction needs to be put in place here as this is a reoccurring pattern much on the same level as his previous actions with Calton and such which led to his block earlier this year. either way (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Independent of this thread, I have warned Neutralhomer, Betacommand, and Emarsee to stop edit warring over these images. All three need to stop reverting and wait for the discussion to play out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that things need to be done above that. Something needs to be set to prevent Neutralhomer from doing this again. If it's not about the fair use galleries, it'll be about something else. He did the same thing awhile back when Betacommand was tagging images with no fair use rationales. He went through and blindly reverted Betacommand's taggings without reason other than it was Betacommand doing the tagging. A restriction is needed because this is a reoccurring issue. I think the fact that he needs these same restrictions with other users makes it apparent that this is an ongoing problem with Neutralhomer as an editor, either way (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Metros...*sigh*...here "we" are again. Let me answer some of your points.

First, I never baited anyone. People make decisions on how they act, Beta acted the way he did. I didn't make him act that way.

Second, I understand policies about as best as I can, and saying I don't and making is seem like I haven't got thought one in my head (which is the way it sounds to me), is kinda pushing it. I am not a policy genius, but I understand them to the best of my abilities.

Third, you want me to stay away from Beta, all you have to do is say it. No need to bring things up on ANI, just post it to my talk page (it's always open).

Fourth, there is no "something else" to it. I would have reverted Beta's edits if he put "I like penguins" on 26 pages. He broke a rule in his probation, which states if he "undertaking any pattern of edits....that affects more than 25 pages" he must first propose it and "wait at least 24 hours for community discussion" (see here for the full list). Those edits were, yes, something I take difference on, but if it was putting "I like penguins" on 26 pages, I would have reverted. There is no "something else" to it.

If you have anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:00

The baiting of Betacommand is that you came into the thread and added this which only appears to be added in order to provoke Betacommand into saying something to you in response, i.e. baiting him to respond after you knew that there is not solid relations between you two. And yes, you need to stay away from Betacommand. From this point on, the same restrictions that were given when you were unblocked in relation to Calton and JPG-GR will also apply to Betacommand. You are to stay away from Betacommand which includes not reverting any of his actions and not commenting on any of his actions. Any violations of this will result in block. Is this understood? either way (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's understood...and for the record, JPG-GR and I have put our differences aside and are now on the smallest of speaking terms. I wouldn't call use "best buds", but we have had conversations and not snapped each others heads off (all of which was watched closely by several admins). So, I can get along with those of which I have had problems. It is a two way street though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:25

"I understand policies about as best as I can" - Which in this case obviously isn't very well. I count at least 6 users above trying to explain to you why Wikipedia is allowed to have stricter rules than US law, but you have not indicated that you understand this. And this is either a massive misunderstanding of policy or a sarcastic baiting remark after BC forgot to specify "galleries of non-free images." Mr.Z-man 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Surprised no one took a look at this. 3 weeks ago, no less.--96.232.95.79 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't shoot the messenger; there are those who will report BC upon him making the slightest edit in violation of his parole/limitations, and there are those who will ignore BC's occasional slip because of all the good work he does. There is no reason for these two groups to start an argument with each other when BC does appear to have breached his terms. If BC's friends were to notify him when he is about to drop himself into hot water then all this crap could be avoided. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Zahd

Continually violating WP:NPOV and WP:V on pages such as abortion. Has been given sufficient friendly reminders on his talk page. When I pointed out that his continual violation of policies and guidelines might constitute disruptive editing, he responded with a personal attack. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just on his user page, Talk:Abortion#Problems with terms is also worth reading, and this IMHO goes too far. ϢereSpielChequers 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of christian groups do tend towards pro-life and there's nothing offensive or going too far about saying that, even to most xtians. His summary is accurate IMHO. I see nothing wrong in that particular diff (towards the end of your comment,) just expressing his summary/opinion in a content dispute. Will say more in a mo when I've read the other diffs...Sticky Parkin 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the vagueness of "Religious views" in that diff, as well as the labeling of one side of the debate as "arbitrary" (WP:POV, anyone?)--not to mention the utter lack of sources. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, my reason for bringing the matter here isn't to discuss whether he's wrong or right; it's to point out that this individual is violating WP:V and NPOV, and throwing in a dose of WP:PA violation for good measure. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually he shouldn't have said f*ck, I didn't spot that before. Is there an arbcom covering this article, as it's well known as one of our most contentious ones? Sticky Parkin 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Activity is actually rather low, and it had good wardens who were good at handling it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zahd has, in my opinion crossed the line with his incessant accusations of partisanship and bad faith, and I do not refer to the abuse he has hurled my way. As ignoring it, as many users have done, has not made the problem go away thus far, I think an outside admin stepping in would be appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[42]. Really nice :\ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just blanked this as polemic per WP:USER, one gets the impression this user isn't here to help build an encyclopedia. Misarxist 11:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeh??? Them's fightin' words. Kneel before Zahd! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential Libel on Talk:ITT Technical Institute

I am concerned about some of the comments on the talk page made by User:Veecort. In particular, he repeatededly references an alleged class-action lawsuit against the institution ITT Tech, and then proceeds to speculate that the lawsuit is a "pitcher plant" designed by the institution to "trap potential whistle-blowers" so they can be "neutralized". See the comments by Veecort at the bottom of the "Want to add a few sentences but we can't find credible sources" discussion thread.

Not sure whether this is a violation of WP:LIBEL or how to proceed if it is. McJeff (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like a bad trip, actually... L'Aquatique[talk] 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's libel or not, the user Veecort has just returned from an edit warring block to edit war again on the page, replacing the disputed section three times in the last fifteen hours [43] [44] (as IP) [45]. It seems WP:UNDUE to me and I'd prefer that the discussion take place before the edit war (I'm kind of old fashioned like that). However, I do't want to edit war on it myself, so I came here for admin attention. Dayewalker (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, since this happened, Veecort was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR/Disruptive editing, and has had a Suspected Sock Puppet case filed on him. McJeff (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Michael Collins is back again.

He's an obsessed editor, and pops up from time to time. His targets are his perceived conflict with Ralph Merkle and Robery Freitas... Ralph_Merkle Robert_Freitas Special:Contributions/71.114.33.233

Please semi-protect the articles and block the IP. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case, but if it comes down to it (and it is not blatant enough for an outright ban) then you should take it to WP:SSP. — neuro^(talk) 08:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Segregator236

Segregator236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has made a controversial edit without discussion, see [46]. User has been warned repeatedly regarding this on his talk page, and has been recently banned before; suggest permanent ban as he is still not responding to attempts to engage user. ThePointblank (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest it was permanent this time, like Ricky said would happen last time. — neuro^(talk) 08:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. This appears to be a content dispute, the settlement of which is outside the remit of this board. The three edits Segregator236 has made this month, even if they are factually incorrect, do not appear to be disruptive or grounds for an indefinite block. Please pursue dispute resolution.  Sandstein  08:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no point to pursuing dispute resolution with someone who refuses to respond in any way. Our entire system doesn't work with someone who has zero talkspace edits and nothing on user talkspace. I have blocked him indefinitely. If he asks for an unblock and is actually willing to communicate, I have no problem with him coming back. There is no need to waste time with this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this block warning warranted?

I was given this warning that I could have been blocked for a joking comment I made on my own talk page to an editor who had been repeatedly posting on my page. I have never posted on his. Here is the warning:

-- Way out of line comment --

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen editors allowed to use profanity in edit summaries and on users talk pages which was not considered blockable. I have also been personally attacked and have never asked for a block of the other because it seems short-lived and was not perpetuated over time. I am wondering if a joking response on my own talk page is a blockable offense. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to use administrative powers to block editors that one may be involved with. If Dweller had blocked Mattisse for that comment, I would certainly question Dwellers motives, regardless of what was said.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's best to avoid personal attacks in any case. Apparently ADD is a sensitive subject, and it's best to SUBTRACT comments like that. Try to keep all attacks impersonal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That should mathematically eliminate future issues. ►BMW◄ 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a warnable personal attack to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ADD is not a sensitive topic for grownups. I freely admit I have ADD. The editor in question and I are both profession mental health practitioners and know that a joking reference to ADD is not the end of the world. He has been harassing me on my talk page for making comments on his FAC as well as personally attacking me on the FAC itself. It never occurred to me to ask for a block. His supporters have also been harassing me on my talk page. I have never posted on his talk page. I am really confused now about what constitutes a blockable offense. This will definitely limit my participation in any more FACs and I will start a policy of deleting comments on my talk page of the nature this editor and his supporters have made, without giving a response. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, his personal attack on me was merely removed from the FAC and put on the talk page.[47] Then, he and his supporters started harassing my on my talk page because I withdrew from the FAC because of his attack on me. They asked me to return and respond, so this is very very confusing. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On its face, it's a warnable personal attack. However, you're suggesting that the warning itself was personal. That's another issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What were we talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what Baseball Bugs means. Do I think the warning was personal? Hadn't thought of that. My "Oppose" to Casliber's FAC and complaint that he spent time on 10 DYK's & articles, rather than on FAC comments started his harassment of me. Are you saying I think Dweller is favoring Casliber, because his warning drove me away from Casliber's FAC, you are suggesting? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people have an attention deficit without the "disorder" part per se. Reading the alleged personal attack I see the wry juxtaposition of three-letter alphabet soup as a attempt at discordian humor and nothing more. But I can see how some people might take it more gravely and issue a warning without prior warning. Psychological diagnoses—amateur or "professional"—are still a scarlet letter in most circles. — CharlotteWebb 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the "warning" was issued some 8 hours after the alleged attack, and after Casliber spent the night putting more posts on my page. Casliber and I are both mental health professions. It defies credibility in my mind that he takes that comment as a serious attack. Adults are proud of their ADD. I am of mine as in many ways I benefit from it. When he accused me of much worse, his personal attacks on me were merely removed by another editor. Why did he continue to post on my page all night,if he thought I had personally attacked him? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha)

Indeed it looks like he realized it was a joke, so I don't think this is worth all the fuss. — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I still have to worry about a block from this editor? I have withdrawn from everything connect with Casliber and withdrawn from his FAC. I have asked that he not post on my talk page further. Is there more I can do to avoid blocks from Dweller? This is very scary. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because nobody else who has been involved in this FAC has yet chimed in, let me just say that although Matisse has in several ways been creating more drama than is really called for, I don't believe that this block threat is either justified, necessary, or helpful. What is needed is some magical way to get Matisse to slow down, and a block threat doesn't tend in that direction. looie496 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• The block threat requested by Casliber has had the desired effect of driving me away from my "Oppose" to his FAC. And I will net ever oppose an FAC again. So your wish is granted. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing this thread might be a good start. — CharlotteWebb 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we always see calls to close threads here before they've run long enough for people in different time zones to even be aware of them? Casliber is in Australia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that even though it's pretty lame as personal attacks go, it's still warnable. Being warned is not the same thing as being blocked. If the admin was involved in the dispute, he probably should not have been throwing those kinds of threats around, but he was technically correct about it possibly being interpreted as a personal attack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have ADD so I do not see it as a personal attack. So, you are saying he could have blocked me without warning?

It's a judgment call. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

any user can warn, so it isn't usually an admin action to do so, but a warning that one will personally block as an admin, is essentially an admin action. But I think that comment would in fact have been blockable if repeated regardless of joking intent, for it would appear such to anyone who came across it & did not know specifics about the editors--I certainly don't routinely look at user pages to see if people say they have ADD. In an instance like this, I would have either asked someone else to warn, or used a standard warning template. DGG (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It didn't look like a joke up front, it looked like a typical "you must be a [whatever]" that is a typical style of a personal attack. It was a pretty tame personal attack and the admin might have overreacted. But it was still technically a fair warning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further input would be welcome at my ER in this matter. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, enjoyed the part about 11,000+ mainspace edits being "a low participation in articles". :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify for me the origin of the notion that Dweller was an involved editor ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, been offline and back now. Let's get this straight. (a) I did find Mattisse's comment about ADD amusing (b) what I did not find amusing is a string of repeated claims I had been personally attacking her, and I did post a chronology of the FAC to show her that she actually began it. (c) many of her criticisms in the MDD FAC were valid, but some were extremely nitpicky and some were based on incorrect assumptions she had made, and the nature of extremely lengthy and hostile dialogue became problematic. (d) I did not ask Dweller to post on her talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm too unwell to deal properly with this charade. But I'll stress that prior to the warning I was uninvolved in the dispute and that Casliber did not request action from me.

If Matisse wants to know what he need do to avoid being blocked - well it's the same with me as any other admin. Play the ball, not the man. In your debating, argue the point, don't throw mud at people. Even if you personally think the mud doesn't stink, others may disagree and, as it doesn't advance your argument, so what's the point anyway?

Since day one of my time on Wikipedia, I've made a point of being open to criticism and apologising when I'm wrong. Some have told me I'm too willing to do so. In this case, I do not believe I was wrong and I would similarly warn any other user for similar personal comments. --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Divulgance of personal info

A new user User:The Mad Pigeon first and only edit has been to add personal information collected about me off Wiki into an article[48]. While the information itself is public, how it was presented is disconcerting and stalkerish. Can this edit please oversighted and this editor checkusered? I strongly suspect from the last bit that this is a person who I've had a disagreement with before attempting to upset and/or embarrass me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I noted them of this discussion. I agree that this should be oversighted and editors checkusered, but I want to see what others think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I know who this is. In February I had a disagreement with another editor, User:Jdfielder over Bob Ross. This editor blogged about it on his personal blog, making personal attacks against me (by name). On that blog, he calls himself The Mad Pigeon. This would seem the most likely suspect. I also suspect this is not the first time he's done this, made a new account to do some kind of harassment. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked The Mad Pigeon - I doubt if they intended to use the account again but at least there is no longer the option. You may have a word with a CU to see if the previous account is still fresh enough to run a comparison (I would note that Alison is no longer active, you may need to find another). If other accounts pop up, have them CU'd with this one (which has a connection to the first as commented by you) and since you know this persons blog it is likely that any real problems could be resolved to a real person by law enforcement agencies if required. I trust this is of some help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note with a CU to see if they will do the check for this AN/I. The content has also been oversighted (for others reading along). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jfielder account is stale, but if anything along this line reoccurs it may be worth looking into. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

2X Cavaglia

Resolved

 – Cavaglia is created. And Cavaglià looks good. No incidents

I was going to write the article about Cavaglia, a small town in the Val Poschiavo. But Cavaglià already exist as and town in italy. And i dont want to destroy the redirect from Cavaglia to Cavaglià. What schould i do? The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Destroy the redirect, it's fine. At the head of your new article put

• {{otheruses4|the town in Val Poschiavo|the comune in Biella|Cavaglià}}

and at the top of Cavaglià, put

• {{otheruses4|the comune in Biella|the town in Val Poschiavo|Cavaglia}}

You may also want to make sure that stuff pointing to Cavaglia is pointing to the correct article. Follow the links on Special:WhatLinksHere/Cavaglia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

user:fowler&fowler Accusations of Vandalism

The user is attacking me by various fashions. Prior there was one incident of WP:harassment against me here: diff I have informed him about this at his talk page. Now he is accusing me without any base, that I would use vandalism here: diff , as a part of content dispute. Btw, after the first incident, i have offered him to solve the issues in a dispute resolution: diff, in what he doesn't seem to be interested in at all. --Kalarimaster (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced this is anything more than a content dispute. You might visit third opinion to bring more eyes to the document but no admin involvement is required at this point. JodyB _talk 12:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham K. Biggs

I've posted this at WP:BLPN, but vandalism is going uncorrected so perhaps admin attention would be beneficial. This is an article about a recent suicide that was allegedly broadcast live over Justin.tv. It's already internet-famous and has attracted the attention of the chans. There is likely to be a lot of traffic to this page over the next few days, so I'd like it to be on as many watchlists as possible. Danke, the skomorokh 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just speedy this per WP:BLP1E or something? Or per WP:CSD#G13, "articles that drag the encyclopedia even further down into the tabloid gutter"? --barneca (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Topics like this always resurface, and reliable coverage of them tends to emerge slightly slower than coverage in tabloids/blogs. To delete now would not serve any long term purpose. See Megan Meier, Jason Fortuny etc. the skomorokh 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be callous, but if he is dead how is this a WP:BLP issue? – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual response would be family, friends etc. You can imagine how inaccurate information about Abe's suicide disseminated via Wikipedia might effect them. the skomorokh 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point, but as it stands WP:BLP applies only to living people. I agree that the article should stick to the facts and avoid tabloidism etc, but that is pursuant to WP:V, WP:RS etc. If material otherwise conforms to WP policies and guidelines, we should not, in my view, be censoring it out of sympathy for his family.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that the article be censored out of sympathy for his family; I only mentioned BLPN so that editors here would not recommend I post it there. I would simply like responsible editors, preferably including some admins to watch the article so that vandalism is quickly dealt with and high standards of sourcing (note the types of sources that have been used so far in the article's history) observed. Regards, the skomorokh 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article per BLP1E. While there is some coverage by sources much more notable than those that were present, this is still a classical example of what Wikipedia should not publish - we're not a news site nor tabloid. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a way, I guess I am. I don't mean per the exact wording of BLP, but the philosophy behind it; that we should try not to be dicks when it affects real people, like any family or friends. Having this pop up as an article while the body is still warm just makes me feel like I'm associated with jackels and hyenas. I wish we were more civilized and let one of the 10,000 websites devoted to immediate pop-internet phenomena deal with stuff like this. I also wish I had a million dollars, though, and that's not going to happen either. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedily deleted. What foresight.[49] the skomorokh 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by, among others, the Associated Press and The Times. WP:BLP1E does not justify speedy deleting articles, it only justifies—"cover the event, not the person"—moving and refocusing articles. I propose that the Abraham K. Biggs article be restored and moved to Suicide of Abraham K. Biggs, with the aforementioned coverage in reliable sources added. the skomorokh 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Biggs represents a larger issue. Many people are curious about this incident, and there are several links to the now non-existent page. All facts were double-checked, and the page was rewritten for proper tone. Every paragraph had a reference. Several people worked to write a proper page, and no warning of the deletion appeared. Pepso2 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If he represents a larger issue, then write an article on the larger issue. --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore People who just learned about this on CNN are turning to Wikipedia for more information and finding zilch. Pepso2 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If they learned about it on CNN, then there's a strong likelihood that they are now in possession of all the facts which can be reliably confirmed. Since we should not, per policy , have anything more than that, there's not much need for us to have an article until the facts come out, the dust settles, and the wolves and jackals stop licking their chops over the tabloid-exploitable nature of this tragedy. We should let the poor guy's body cool down, rather than sticking a flag into a mountain of questionable "facts" and claim "we got here first".GJC 01:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaction of Biggs' family: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gtO167ywBhMURgOmp4ScpR7rBdvgD94JV9P80 Pepso2 (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be restored. Has been the subject of media coverage, like Kevin Neil Whitrick was.-Boshinoi (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, it should at least be restored and subject to AfD discussion. WP:CSD explicitly does not list "biographies of people notable for one event", so this deletion was out of process.-Boshinoi (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's simple Wikilawyering. BLP violations may be deleted on sight. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He is dead, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. We fall back on WP:RS and the other relevant policies and guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been that recent deaths still fall under BLP, out of respect to the family. If you wish to dispute that, take it up on Wikipedia talk:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

<--outdent OK I can accept that. But for these purposes what is "recent" - days? Weeks? Months? Years? Not being obtuse here, just trying to understand. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule for it. Personally I'd give it up to a year, depending on the circumstances. It's really a community consensus thing though. Give it at least a few weeks, bring the topic up on the BLPN and see if there's any further objection. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec

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

I would like to ask for a community review of editor Krzyzowiec. I have run accross him in relation to the National Revival of Poland article. After looking through the history of his contributions, it seems to me that this is a highly tendentious POV-pushing editor who is a net negative to the project. His user page essentially proclaims that his intention is to do WP:BATTLE here: "I am here to edit a lot of English Wikipedia's articles about Poland and Polish right wing or "middle" movements, history etc. because a lot of articles here are written by Polish left wing liars. I'm here also because Polish Wikipedia isn't fair, 3/4 of Polish Wikipedia's Administrators have left - liberal point of view on everything and they make changes as they believe in real life, so their articles aren't fair." There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Wikipedia (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!" His edit history shows that a great deal of his edits are indeed related to extreme far right, fascism and Jews related articles and appear to be exactly of the kind that WP:BATTLE proscribes against. There are 5 blocks from May to August of this year for edit warring, 3RR, incivility, personal attacks and the like. Although there are no more recent blocks than the one-week block on August 11, it does not seem to me that the editor changed his attitude much or that he is in any mood to reform. Just by looking at the edits for the last few days, one sees the following examples: an anti-Jewish rant[50], tendentious fact tags[51], more tendentious and clearly inappropriate tags[52] on National Revival of Poland (the article is well-sourced and the notability and primary sources tags are obviously not abpplicable), an edit summary[53] Who are you to decide what belongs in the article ?!, and finally the charming placement[54] of the fact tag next to the statement about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax in the List of conspiracy theories article. All this shows a dedicated POV and WP:BATTLE warrior who is here for the wrong reasons. I think that either an indef block or a topic ban on all Poland, Jews and fascism related articles would be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for a community review as you said, wouldn't a request for comment for user conduct fit that bill nicely? That is, that would be the best way to go if a topic ban is desired. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that an RfC is for less clear-cut cases than this one. Here, according to the proclamations at his talk page and his actions, we have a self-described POV warrior whose main motivation on Wikipedia is to do WP:BATTLE and whose actions confirm this. I do not believe that this is a close call. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as a "rant against the Jews" as you say and quote: >>There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Wikipedia (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!"<< I see nothing wrong with what was said, and it's a sad state to see any mention of a Jew lead to accusations of insensitivity or antisemitism. In addition, his ideas and opinions on the "left wing liars" bending Poland related articles towards their views...well it may be true! Who are you to decline him the opportunity to contribute here? The editing power of Wikipedia, the way this place works, prevents a lone person from hurting the project. Everything can be undone. I think you're over reacting, and I see no action necessary against this man. Good luck though. Beam 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You do not think that the passage about the Jews ending with This is how you pay us back ?! as offensive and repulsive? Now, that is pretty sad. What about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax fact tag? Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Beamathan: Sorry no... Wikipedia is not the place to post ones political views regardless of whether said views support the left or right wing of any political system. Wikipedia is about collecting verifiable information from reliable sources and reporting that information in a neutral manner. Its not the place to post random rants about personal beliefs over conspiracies and the like. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, if one wants to post their personal political views, there's another place called "the rest of the internet" where such views are quite welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is precisely what WP:BATTLE is about. Someone who, according to their own user page, comes to Wikipedia with a self-professed agenda of fighting some political and ideological battles here should find another place to do it. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• This report seems to document disruptive editing. The appropriate response is an indefinite block. The user is repeatedly violating WP:NOT by using Wikipedia to advocate their political/historical views. Additionally, they are engaged in a campaign of anti-semitism. It is fairly easy to spot their use of traditional code words and arguments. This diff really gives it away. The user has not edited since the notice about this thread was posted to their talk page. I will hold off on blocking them in case they want to respond here. Should they resume disruption on any other page, I or any other administrator should block them immediately. Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Background

This user is banned for three years currently on Polish Wikipedia for all kinds of disruptive editing block log. Just one diff from pl wiki titled "Why I am (here)" [55] - one section of the user page is titled "Dlaczego jestem Antysemitą ?! (Why I am an antisemite), when long collection of anti-Jewish quotes follows. This is year 2006. And this is year 2008 and en.wiki: [56] openly anti-Semitic rant in Czech language. Anti-Semitic "Talmud quote" (a forgery still popular in modern far-right and anti-Semitic circles) is cited: Žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit. ("Jew can not steal, he takes what belongs to him. The money of non-Jew is a property without owner, Jew has a full right to take it"). This user claims to be associated with National Revival of Poland on his user page. When talking about this organization he often uses word We. So agenda behind his edits at National Revival of Poland article is quite clear. Disruptive abuse of templates is repeated on regular basis for months now [57][58][59][60][61][62]. Recently Krzyzowiec stated what he would never leave this article [63], and I believe him. M0RD00R (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit reluctant to take into account his activities outside of English Wikipedia, although I do think that his behaviour here, in en-wiki has been sufficiently disruptive to merit an indef block. Are you sure, and if yes then why, that the user on Polish Wikipedia whom you referenced and User:Krzyzowiec are the same person? Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the same user behind those two accounts. Userboxes of both account accounts claim that this user was born in Warsaw but currently lives in New York. Political views behind the edits are also identical, so is editing pattern - same picture (now deleted on both wikis) was uploaded and insterted to National Revival of Poland article by User:Krzyzowiec on en.wiki [64] and by Timber Wolf on pl.wiki [65]. IP 71.183.38.75 who is clearly Krzyzowiec [66], on pl.wiki signs his post as Timber Wolf [67]. M0RD00R (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on my non-admin account until I get back to a secure computer. I believe you can go ahead with the block if you are uninvolved. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I am not an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kryzowiec is not here to benefit the encyclopedia. Going through his contribution history needs a strong stomach; take a look at this edit from 22 November. I support an indef block. (Nsk92 notified me of this thread, and reminded me I'd blocked K. previously for 3RR). EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Per consensus on this thread, and my own review of the facts, I have blocked the user for 1 year. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gulnora Karimova article

The Gulnora Karimova article was re-written in a NPOV, press release/fansite fashion in August 2008 (diff). Since then, the single-purpose accounts Danch (talk · contribs), Bespredelwik (talk · contribs), and Unbal (talk · contribs) have resisted attempts to edit the article towards a more neutral tone (there was some related discussion on the talk page; see Talk:Gulnora Karimova#POV issues). Dchall1 has done an excellent job of rewriting the article in neutral, referenced and encyclopedic tone (diff), but the single-purpose accounts continue to revert to the version with POV and tone issues. I'm requesting interested parties take a look at the article to see if any action on an administrative level is necessary. --Muchness (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Muchness. I've tried to initiate communication with the SPAs, but haven't gotten anywhere. I'm not convinced it's malicious, and there seem to be some language barriers involved (for example). Full protection, preferably on the sourced/non-fansite version, might be helpful. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend posting these issues on the more specific Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've requested page protection as a start, but the request hasn't been reviewed yet. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Villain article

I was wondering if I could impose upon some folk to divert a little of their attention to the Villain article. Before I began taking a closer look at it today, the article had no fewer than three 'reference needed' and 'unverified/original research' tags. To address that, I've reverted out the uncited information twice (the info has been there, uncited, for over a year), and transpo'd it to article discussion for citation work. Another editor has added it back in, and I suspect it might get a bit tedious, as the editor is the user who has recently been countering any removal of the uncited content.
I am not in danger of losing my cool, but it might be nice to get some bigger brains to levitate on over for a bit. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong to remove material merely because it is unsourced. If you had some reasonable suspicion that the statements might be false, it would be a different story. Much of the material you are removing is common knowledge. (Disclaimer: These statements should not be construed as an implicit claim concerning the size of my brain.)looie496 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I agree with the removal. It appears to be a big section of original research, more an essay on villainy than encyclopedic content. Dayewalker (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I appreciate your point of view, and respect it; I didn't purge the items simply because they were uncited, thought the lack of citation made some not-so-common connections. Are they speculation? I dunno, which is why they were tagged as uncited for over a year. However, enough is enough. They might have value, if cited. This is why they were moved to article discussion, so that some enterprising soul might be able to cite it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No on is required to tag something and leave it. No one is in fact required to tag anything. They're free to remove anything unsourced that they feel like. Its sometimes a courtesy if the statements aren't too crazy to tag and leave, but there seems to be a big misconception that anyone can add anything they want to an article and just slap a fact tag on it and let it stay there.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider WP:BURDEN - it's fine to remove unsourced material (and it's not fine to restore it without providing a source). However, sometimes it causes less drama to just tag it and either ask for sources on article Talk or look yourself. As to which course is better... it depends. For me, the dividing line is whether the material seems to be verifiable. If you think finding sources is only a matter of time, tagging is best; if sources are unlikely to exist, remove the material per policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On the whole—I'm not really being serious here, and this is absolutely not intended to point the finger at any specific person—I wish there were a principle that people have to create a certain number of articles before feeling free to delete things. People who haven't created articles haven't been forced to think about how difficult it is, and what a waste of time, to find a reliable source for the fact that the sky is blue. looie496 (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring using rollbacks

Pocopocopocopoco (talk · contribs) is repeatedly using rollback for edit warring with other users: [68] [69], even though he complained earlier on rollback abuses by other users: [70]. I did not investigate this further, but Pocopocopocopoco made 48 rollbacks. Note that User:Elysander (whose edits were rolled back by P.) just has been blocked for 3RR violation [71]. I believe the rollback feature should be taken immediately away of Pocopocopocopoco, and perhaps he should be also blocked for edit warring. I wonder how this edit worrier (see his block history) could be granted the rollback privilege.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, "edit warring" with rollback is bad because you don't communicate in the edit summary. The physical capacity of the tool to negate multiple edits is not the fundamental problem. I use rollback (the tool) quite a bit to revert multiple edits made in good faith--the critical part is that I take time to compose an edit summary or make a post on the talk page. I have no comment on whether or not he is actually "Edit warring" (haven't looked that clsoely yet), but I figured I'd make a comment about rollback. Specifically, WP:ROLLBACK says "It is possible to specify an edit summary when using rollback; however, this requires manual editing of the link's URL or use of additional software or scripts. When such tools are used, the issue of choice of reversion method is moot, and rollback may be used for any purpose, provided an explanatory edit summary is supplied." Protonk (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Unless I'm missing something, I think there's some confusion over the term "rollback". A rollback is performed by a special button granted to users who request it; it is an automated, one touch reversion of a given edit and it only provides a canned edit summary (example here). You can read about the feature here. He has had the capability for a little under a year and I was not able to spot any abuse in a quick scan of his most recent edits. Since the two examples you've given above do not appear to be made using rollback, an example of abuse would be helpful. I can see only one block on his log, that a year old as well, so I can't see any reason to remove the ability on principle. If you're making a compliant about his manual reversions, perhaps posting something specific at the edit warring noticeboard would be helpful. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the rollback abuse, either. Can you elaborate? seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the diffs show use of the rollback tool. Someone may want to let Pocopocopocopoco know that calling an at-once revert of more than one edit a rollback has seemingly misled at least one editor into thinking the rollback tool has been abused, when this has not happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was misled by his edit summaries. I do not know how to check if an edit was a rollback or not.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Any revert made with the rollback tool is automatically worded spot on like this. Now that you know what a rollback always looks like, it's unlikely you'll ever mistake anything else for one again :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I thought it was clear because I was calling it a "roll back" rather than a rollback. I'll just call it a revert instead. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What I tend to do is leave an edit summary saying something like, back to last by User:X, blah blah blah. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll do that myself. Thanks. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically if you're not sure whether somebody is using "rollback", it doesn't matter. "Rollback abuse" is no more sophisticated than "edit abuse", which happens to include reverting without explaining any non-obvious reason for doing so. Apart from that, the technical details are pure trivia. — CharlotteWebb 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Block needed on persistent IP vandals on yttrium

Thanks AKAF (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Page has been protected by bot. JodyB _talk 12:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing rubbish on this article, probably other places - threats against User:Possum and the names of Baby P's parents. I've been oversighting these on my lunch break, about to go back to work ... when admins delete these revs, please also email oversight-l so we can zap them - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Violation of WP:outing and reverts of my edits, although based on WP:RS and NPOV policies

Dear Admins, I want to issue the following developments:

Help regarding WP policies and posting repeatedly personal names by WP:Editors

Please have a look at the New Kadampa Tradition article and its talk page: Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition. Editors have repeatedly posted the private name of an editor on the talk page ("Tenzin Peljor" or "Tenzin"; the one they assume to be my personal name), and some of them (e.g. Atisha's Cook) even after I made known the WP:policy about this. The latter also reverted repeatedly the templates and corrections I made which I've inserted using either 3rd party sources or the WP:NPOV policy. For the templates and need of corrections I've given extensive reasons and 3rd party sources at the talk page. (see e.g. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#The_reasons_for_the_NPOV_and_factual_accuracy_template)

The first WP:outing against me was made in October 2006 as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_6#Kind_request_for_kt66_to_stop_editing_this_article Although I included a link to a page I run at may user account on 23:05, 3 May 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kt66&oldid=209994593 the outing happened already before in Wikipedia and the same method of outing was used also at other places in the internet against me. Since October 2006 WP:outing happened different times against me in Wikipedia. Nowhere I've stated my personal name in relation to my user account, neither at my user account, nor on any of the talk pages of the different articles or other editors.

WP:outing was practised also by the editors involved, like Emptymountains, with respect to 79.171.58.252 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Chatral_Rinpoche and the talk page on the NKT website (see responses to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#NPOV_and_others_POV). There is no statement of a personal name in Wikipedia by 79.171.58.252 nor is there a link from which one could have derived a name.

As the strategy of the organisation or members of the organisation New Kadampa Tradition seems to be to out editors (see e.g.: http://newkadampatruth.org/fpmt.php or http://newkadampatradition.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/tenzin-peljor-editor-and-chief/ ) I see the repeated use of WP:outing as harassment against me.

At one point I was so fed up with the continuous WP:outing that I stated at the Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition

Lucy (maybe you are not Lucy but name calling seems to be a proper attitude here), not that bad that idea ;-) However, I think the basics of the changes the NKT truth team made have to been accepted but not: 1. inaccuracy 2. violation of NPOV principles 3. favouring NKT pov while excluding other pov, and 4. excluding neutral academic pov and 3rd party sources to favour a narrow minded version on NKT according to the pov of the NKT truth office.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#Revert_by_Truthsayer62

This is a fault of mine. On the other hand, I felt I have to defend myself in a way. Also I didn't state a last name as it has been done continuously with respect to WP:outing regarding my own person.

I am interested to learn what you think and suggest about this case. I tried to mediate it via another WP: editor (see: User_talk:Koavf#Help_regarding_WP_policies_and_posting_repeatedly_personal_names_by_WP:Editors but until now he didn't reply, maybe he is not active, so I issue it now here on my own. Thanks a lot and please excuse the work I make for you. --Kt66 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say this: there are a lot of links on that version of the userpage, so I'm not 100% sure which one you are involved in. However, a WHOIS database is open to anyone. A WHOIS database lists the "owner" of any domain name. These are a matter of public record. By linking a website you run to a userpage, you have automatically provided some tools for someone to track you - this may even include your personal address. ►BMW◄ 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it should be noted that unless a user is currently publicly and overtly claiming their identity (such as using their own name as a user name, or repeatedly using their own real name in discussions) it is bad form to dig through such reports in order to "Out" a user. Yes, you could probably dig up my real name and address if you are dedicated enough, but that doesn't mean that because you could find it, posting such information would not be a violation of WP:OUTING. It is bad etiquette of the worst kind to publish another user's real information without there consent, regardless of how easy it was for you to find it on your own. If people don't want to be known by their real name at Wikipedia, we must respect that at all costs... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fictional troublemakers - disruption

I have to admit the category about post-credits scenes is a lot more viable than one that a redlink user just created - "Fictional troublemakers", which at the moment has one entry: Daffy Duck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the above, it has acquired a number of entries... and a nomination for deletion. [72] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, we have Youngcolton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 74.47.120.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) both defending that category by removing the AFD template continuously, basically edit-warring with a few of us. I think a holiday break for those two (or actually one) would be in order. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous vandals gaming the system

Resolved

This is partly a "sanity check" for my warning I gave the vandal(s), and if you agree with my actions, consider it a recuitment for admins to watch this IP address. The contribution history of User:134.240.241.2 indicates people who will do a few vandalism edits, and then lay off for a bit, then start up again when the warnings go stale. Also the talk page regularly gts wiped clean of warning messages, so people not reviewing the talk page history generally start off with the level 1 or 2 warnings. I got involved when I turned down a request for blocking at AIV, and an editor contacted me asking why. I explained my reasoning, and I stand by the decision I made then.

I have kept an eye on the IP address since then, along with the conversations that User:Stepp-Wulf as had with User:Berean Hunter about the IP address. It appears that this vandalism has been going on for some time, and these two are doing their utmost to stay on top of it. But due to the sporadic nature of the vandalism, this IP address is not always being blocked. The user(s) has now taken to personal insults, by doing null edits to make an insult (like this one)

I have placed a final warning on the talk page, along with a personalised note warning them about their edits. Policy states that vandals can only be blocked following a recent final warning, but these vandal(s) avoid it by sporadic vandalism and "wiping the slate clean" by deleting past warnings.

So: was my warning appropriate? If not, can you sugggest a more appropriate action against the IP address? If it was appropriate, can I please ask any admins with a few minutes to spare to watch the contributions of this address? StephenBuxton (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe a recent final warning is essential. WP:BLOCK says "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning." Wikipedia:Vandalism says, "Note that warning is not an absolute prerequisite for blocking; accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning." The fact that this vandal is working slowly and, as you say, gaming the system doesn't prevent them being blocked. I think your warning was appropriate, and I think a block on any further vandalism from that IP seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen for picking up on his activities..you're right, this user knows Wikipedia better than they let on and are gaming the system. I have been watching (wikistalking) this IP like a hawk after figuring out what they are up to. He has been exploiting the system and it has worked for him up to now but hopefully this will help bring it to a close. If they vandalize again, I will be filing at WP:AIV immediately if I happen to be the one that catches it. I think J. Delanoy is also hip to what is going on (he doesn't miss anything does he?).

Question: Is there a way of using the hidden categories on user pages to show a genuine warning level regardless of whether they have deleted the template from their talk page? We found this guy but I wonder how many others are using this exploit that we don't know about.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know from hidden categories, but if you file it AIV, you might want to link to Stephen's warning, if it's wiped. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've implimented a six month {{anonblock}} on the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block for this IP that used to be an expert at gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody explain some of this IP's edits, such as this one? What are they doing that makes the red letters different in their version from the original version? There are several edits like that where I don't see any difference in their edits. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the modified version, the "p" in "stop" is actually not a simple "p", it's a 3-byte unicode character that renders as a "p" in the font you are using. (I figured this out by pasting into emacs; there are probably other ways to do it.) looie496 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

in your diff, the the last letter ("p") of the word "stop" in the original revision is the standard latin "p", while in the new revision this is some unicode glyph that looks like "p" but actually isn't (I can't figure out at the moment what it is, might by a cyrillic glyph). 131.111.223.43 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha, haven't realized somebody already answered that question!!! 131.111.223.43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

In fact, looking a bit more, it's actually a Russian "P" (U0420). looie496 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• No doubt there are others playing the game. I detected this site because I knew he had been warned before and realized he was erasing warnings to make himself appear innocent each time he vandalized a page. By this means he was able to prolong his activity and avoid any serious sanctions for some time. It seems to me there is some way the system already detects page blankings, but I may be wrong. Maybe page blankings on talk pages need to be investigated. My personal opinion is that administrators take far too long to crack down on violators. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

• I'd say that isn't true. In this case, if you continually took this guy to WP:AIV before he met their threshold conditions, you would be dissapointed. This isn't because AIV respondends are too lenient, it is because they are responding quickly to a strict set of criteria. In order for AIV (and 3RR for that matter) to run smoothly and quickly, administrators need to rely on "bright line" rules. Vandalism after final warning. All vandalism edits. Blatant vandalism. Etc. Bringing them a case where the IP knows these rules and skirts them isn't going to do anything. Bringing it here with the explanation that User:NurseryRhyme will get something done. This isn't a fault in the system, just a function. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help here. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

User:Pmanderson performed a nonconsensual, cross-namespace move of the Bible citation article in this diff.

I request immediate reversion of that nonconsensual move.

There is a request to revert the move the page via WP:RM. It is being discussed here. But I am being told (incorrectly, I think) that only issues related to content should be discussed there, and it appears that rogue action may be swept under the rug. Hence, this entry at WP:ANI.

As I see it, the main reason to support the current move request is because it should not be acceptable in the community of Wikipedia to impose one's POV via a nonconsensual, cross-namespace move. The current situation seems to be:

• The page is being held hostage -- efforts to restore the content to article space (where it had resided for four years without complaint from others) are being obstructed unless the demands of one editor are satisfied, or
• The page may be effectively deleted (as noted below) if left where it is.

To let the rogue action stand would be an affront to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

User:Pmanderson's knowledge of Wikipedia's policies seems to be substantial. Yet the move was accomplished in a way that created this situation:

Merging_articles#Cross-namespace_moves

the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia.

The ultimate effect (via predictable deletion of redirects) of the cross-namespace move may be to bury information which User:Pmanderson seems to find undesirable.

User:Pmanderson has not answered the question on their talk page concerning their objective in making the cross-namespace move.

Curiously, the cross-namespace move is marked as a "minor" edit, contrary to the expectation here:

Merging_articles#Cross-namespace_moves

Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors.

User:Pmanderson has not explained why their first indication of displeasure concerning the article's content was a cross-namespace move rather than fixing, discussing, or tagging it.

I believe that to do anything short of reverting the move made by User:Pmanderson would reward rogue action that was an affront to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. -Ac44ck (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This sort of action is not out of character for Mr. Anderson... He has a history of being difficult to work with, and on refusing to discuss issues with people he deems may work against his own goals... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And ...?! Are you okay with that?

Why does no one here (in a community that prides itself on consensus, collaboration, etc.) offer any form of agreement with the notions:

• Hijacking ... Bad!
• Hostage-holding ... Bad!

Instead, it is dismissed with: "Well, that's his way"?! -Ac44ck (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The m doesn't mark it as minor, but as a move. It's impossible to mark a move as minor. There's no such box in Special:MovePage.--chaser - t 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted move and article-ified

As also noted on the article's talk page, I've restored this article to article space, removed the unnecessary project-space content, and expanded it using sources. Everyone please note that we already have a project-space discussion of citing the Bible. It's Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, Uncle G.

I maintain that hijacking a page and holding it hostage should not be an acceptable way to encourage improvements to an article. - Ac44ck (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block for two new (obvious) sockpuppets of Baseball Card Guy

• See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (3rd). New socks are User:Nettles 2000 and User:Wrong Glad --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be a surprise, seeing as BBG's continuous involvement in this forum. ►BMW◄ 13:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You are probably confusing User:Baseball Card Guy with User:Baseball Bugs. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When I hear of a user connected with baseball cards, I think of the banned User:Tecmobowl. Ugh. Yuch. Blech. etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that BCG is actually a sock of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, but don't know if it's worth trying to figure out. They may just have used the same proxy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I Hate CAPTCHAS for some of the connections. I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk · contribs) looks like Baseball Card Guy, and is either a sock or meat puppet of Bolly Nickers (talk · contribs), who is connected to suspected socks of Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs) by checkuser. —Snigbrook 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BCG in indef blocked. See checkuser from last week. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have dealt with the user on both WQA and I thought in here, and I thought positively... I could be wrong (and BB is different LOL) ►BMW◄ 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Different" is one of the nicer things I've been called. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacked, blocked, protected his main target, a extensive checkuser is in place. Secret ^account 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Tecmobowl is Back! -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Unlikely it's actually Tecmobowl, as he tried to hide his socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• And another account, Area Peas (talk · contribs), the user's edits are similar, particuarly an edit on 1982 Topps which is the same as one by NaNoooooooo (talk · contribs). —Snigbrook 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• You think you could silence Tecmobowl? Yes I am Baseball Card Guy. You are wrong. I use my laptop to leech off of people's unsecured wireless connections. I use proxies. I use libraries. You don't know how many accounts I have. Your blocks, I laugh at them. You'll just wind up pissing off people who don't know what I am doing. You can't silence me! You haven't silenced me! You will never silence me! 72.229.126.142 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Requesting block of the above IP, naturally. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't have Tecmobowl's writing style. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In most movies after a line like the above there's usually the sound of a gunshot from somewhere off-camera, followed by a very suprised look of the offender's face, the slight spreading of crimson, the ginger touching of the fingers to the sticky, viscuous red fluid, and finally a raspy "you!". Wow, such a dramatic moment. ►BMW◄ 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fairly dramatic. I was thinking more of the line from the movie Airplane, where a radio station announces, "...where disco lives forever!" seconds before the airplane wing clips the antenna and knocks the station off the air. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of Portal and GLaDOS singing how "she" is still alive....Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking. MuZemike (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I dealt with Tecmobowl before, clearly not him, his writing style and choice of articles is much different than BCG. Secret ^account 19:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Was I selfish to ask for semiprotects on the basball card pages? My request was declined. I really see no better way to 'silence' him. I actually do think it is Tecmobowl et al. Writing styles can change as people learn. He is a veteran now and can clearly change modes but it is the subtleties that still seep through. I think he has learned plenty especially by mimicking people he has dealt with. Libro0 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything is possible, but Tecmo wrote about 2 subjects - baseball, and the video game he named himself after. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit to not following this very closely, but edits like this seem to point to the primary account, which I dare not say (pretty obvious, so no need). Has anyone else figured this out, or am I wrong on this? Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that I have been told to stop saying what is pretty obvious. Libro0 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain we're talking about the same thing. Let me say this so there is no misunderstanding: Yankees, Trains, and Television. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Your Radio Enemy, who is also a suspected BCG sock but with very different edit style, edited the New_York_IRT article first. BCG has been known to edit the same articles as YRE to make himself look like a sock. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think this is Tecmobowl. He was devious, adept, and didn't seem as childish and immature as this character, although initially I thought they might be one and the same...because they both had similar anti-social behavior....Modernist (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He did manage to harass Libro0 for half a year without getting blocked, despite many threads here and on other pages. That must take some kind of skill. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone followed the ES angle? (Again, I hesitate to say his name) Looking at the contribs, ES appears to be the primary account. Am I wrong? Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth - Your Radio Enemy's bitter talk page message farewell sounds like both Baseball Card Guy and Tecmobowl...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BCG and YRE sound similar. I'm not so sure about Tecmo, but his last entry under that name, in summer 2007, you might find amusing in a way: [73] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do remember, he sounded far more savvy to me then, then these characters...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

BCG is obsessed with me and YRE is obsessed with us (me and BCG). The above IP that sounds omnipotent was similar to one that appeared on Plate King's talk page after he got blocked and it mentioned me as a target. My observations put his interests at baseball related pages and vehicle registration plate pages. The edit histories of the plate pages look like a full hamper and the bball card pages are well on their way to looking the same way. Libro0 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "The Username You Dare Not Speak", how about giving us ignorant ones his name in Pig Latin? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because judging by what links here, this site has made a great effort to forget him, and for good reason. He probably wants you to name him. I'll give you yet-another-hint: "X Marks the spot." Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not ringing any bells, but maybe that's just as well, so skip it. I don't typically recall contentious editors' names unless I have some special reason to. Generally, once they go, they're gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. Thanks. Didn't know him. Just as well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Howard Rich

Resolved

 – It looks like the misunderstandings have been cleared up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin please look at OrangeStaple (talk · contribs)'s edits at Howard Rich, and decide how to proceed? I think it's time for a block, but being a major contributor at the article in question -- and because the article has contained things at various times that might violate WP:BLP -- I thought I'd defer to somebody else's judgment for the time being. -Pete (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

His edits certainly make a mess of the article. Because he has been so non-responsive to the warnings on his talk page, I've blocked him a nominal 12 hours and am asking him to discuss his proposed changes on the article's talk page and pointed him towards the manual of style. And I've given him a welcome menu. And mentioned 3RR. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit more explanation in this report would be helpful. I'm also a bit troubled by the edits today by other editors to Howard Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm seeing what looks like automated tools (including both Huggle and rollback) used to engage in a content dispute. Peteforsyth — as an admin, you should know better.

Prior to OrangeStaple's edits, it looks like the bulk of the Rich article was negative. Not being familiar with this individual, I don't know if that's deserved or not. It nevertheless raises red flags for me when the bulk of a BLP is the 'Controversy' section, with a lot of links back to sites like stopballotfraud.org. Whether OrangeStaple's edits cut too much or unbalanced the article too far the other way is an issue of content, not vandalism. Huggle and rollback (particularly with their default edit summaries) are not the appropriate ways to resolve the issue.

Meanwhile, I see nothing but templates on User talk:OrangeStaple and no attempt by any party to address the dispute on Talk:Howard Rich. Before coming to AN/I to ask for a block, has anyone tried talking to this editor instead of biting? OrangeStaple seems pretty obviously to be a person new to Wikipedia, and it seems that he's gotten stomped on pretty hard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the templates on the editor's talk page are an attempt to communicate. The lack of response is a bit of a concern. I don't think a 12 hour block and giving the editor a menu and pointing towards the manual of style is stomping pretty hard on anyone. If you think you can engage in dialogue with the editor, by all means post on his/her talk page and try, and if you get a response, unblock or I will if I'm around. In fact, I will unblock myself if I get any sort of response. dougweller (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at reverts like these ([74], [75], [76]) by Neurolysis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While OrangeStaple's formatting isn't spot on, his changes to the page also certainly don't constitute vandalism. (OrangeStaple's version: link; Neurolysis' version: link.) OrangeStaple also at least expressed some reason for his edits in his edit summary: "I am editing this page because prior to my editing this page leaned severly negative and was one users view. I have added and removed some material to bring balance to this page". Neurolysis reverted without comment, leaving vandalism warnings on OrangeStaple's talk page for what are apparently just difficulties a new editor was having with markup. I will be asking Neurolysis to comment here, as I am concerned about his use of both warnings and rollback in this instance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I attempted to communicate with more than templates from the beginning -- see this edit. However, your point is well taken; in hindsight, I see that I failed to suggest using the talk page, and also, I could have done something to make my personalized message stand out from all the templates.

I disagree, however, with your characterization that this is a mere content dispute. I consider the wholesale deletion (otherwise known as "blanking") of any article or section to be vandalism; I also consider the unexplained removal of material that is cited to reliable sources to be vandalism. As such, I think the use of tools like rollback and Huggle is entirely appropriate, provided that some sort of explanation (including a template) is given on the user's talk page.

But, that is neither here nor there. I'm happy to step up my efforts at communication if the issue continues, and am grateful for the additional eyes on the situation. -Pete (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, to be clear: I agree with TenOfAllTrades that many of the citations that have been used on the page are inappropriate (e.g. blogs that are critical of Rich), and I have removed several (both recently, and in the past). I am not in any way opposed to improving the NPOV of the article. I happen to have a very low opinion of Mr. Rich, but of course it's essential to follow all the Wikipedia policies.

However, mixed in with the bad citations, there have been good citations -- for instance, a detailed article from The Oregonian -- that were removed by OrangeStaple's edits. -Pete (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pete, your one and only attept to community started out with the following:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Howard Rich, you will be blocked from editing.

It's an attempt to bludgeon, not to discuss. You then had to backtrack anyway, as you had a conflict of interest on the article and couldn't legitimately use your tools there. Why not start with an invitation to discussion, rather than a threat?

As near as I can tell, the edits made by OrangeStaple removed some content from the article, but also added content. That's not page- or section-blanking vandalism; that's a content dispute on a BLP. Further, we've established that the biography contained unsourced material and content from sources of dubious reliability: material removed by OrangeStaple's edits. The fact that OrangeStaple's edits also removed material that pointed to sound sources isn't prima facie vandalism, either. The decision about whether or not to include even well-sourced material is still one of editorial judgement, and will touch on policies like WP:WEIGHT. Neither one of you made a comment on the talk page related to the dispute.

I hate to come down hard on you, Pete, but looking in from the outside what I'm seeing is an admin who bit a new user, issued templated threats, failed to use talk pages productively to defuse a dispute, misused an automated tool to roll back non-vandalism edits in a content dispute, and in the process restored material that violated WP:BLP. It's easy to get caught up in 'defending' an article that one has written, and I have some sympathy for that. I also think that Neurolysis is the one who really needs to speak up here, as I think that his edit warring today was the most serious problem. It's unclear to me why OrangeStaple was blocked and Neurolysis not so much as warned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ten, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have a conflict of interest. But, I also don't see a lot of use in rehashing past behavior. I agree that I could have done better, but I disagree that it's the big deal you make it out to be.

Moving forward, what do you think should be done? Should OrangeStaple be unblocked? Should I make a fresh stab at talking to him, or would you prefer to do the honors? If you propose a better approach than what's going on now, I'm happy to consider it and pitch in. I'm not opposed to unblocking myself, but if you request that, please also give me some idea how you think the situation should be handled, in the best interest of the encyclopedia, going forward. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that you have a conflict of interest with respect to potential use of your admin tools in this dispute. (As a major editor of the article, it would be inappropriate for you to use your admin buttons here — which you acknowledged.) I didn't intend to suggest that you have any sort of real-world relationship with Howard Rich, nor that you had a conflict of interest in editing the article.

Frankly, I think that if the two of you are both going to be editing the article after his block expires (or after he is unblocked) you're going to have work out how to communicate with him. Politely, and without threats might be good. So far I've not seen any evidence that he's working in anything but good faith (he did heed your request to use edit summaries) but he's met brutal templating and now a block at your request. You might also try archiving his talk page, so that he has a hope of even seeing any new messages left for him. Speaking as an admin, I expect our admins to deal better with newbies. (I don't direct that entirely at you, Pete — Neurolysis has something to answer for here, too.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was notified that I was mentioned in this thread, and it appears to be because of me warning the aforementioned user for vandalism. It is due to my misreading of diffs, and for that I apologise. If you look at this, for example, the portion that is shown in Huggle is simply the first bit with blank either side of it - which looks like page blanking, which is a form of vandalism. I do take time making reverts, and I do look at each diff individually, but occasionally I see the wrong thing altogether. Hopefully this makes sense, if it doesn't, just ask here and I'll answer whatever your query is. :) — neuro^(talk) 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a crack at your suggestion Ten, which I think was a good one. User talk:OrangeStaple -Pete (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like it's safe to close this thread. I want to thank both of you – Peteforsyth and Neurolysis – for following up and making amends. I hope that things go more smoothly at the article from here on in. If it does turn out that OrangeStaple doesn't 'get it' after having a fair shake, let me know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly -- this sort of feedback is exaclty why I thought it might be good to seek some additional eyeballs. Thanks for your feedback and help. -Pete (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Block request: User:Pumre

Resolved

Pumre is a vandalism-only account. Pumre has done numerous unconstructive edits to Parkway Middle School (La Mesa CA). Pumre has requested that I be blocked, even though I am an experienced editor with no history of vandalism, because I have told him/her to stop his/her consistent vandalism. Pumre does not contribute to wikipedia. Pumre is a threat to wikipedia's core principles.Dudemeister1234 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you sure? Because that user has one edit in its career, and it was to its own userpage 5 days ago. [77] I don't even see anything in the "deleted contribs" section of his edits... Please check again, and if there is a user vandalising, please report to WP:AIV. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dudemeister claims to be 13, and has been editing like a 13-year-old the last few days. I have tried a message on his talk page in hopes of getting this under control. looie496 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at Dudemeister's behavior lately, it certainly looks fishy. He apparently warned a username that never deserved the warnings. I will be presently deleting Pumre's talk page, since it is clear that these warnings by Dudemeister were rediculous... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Pumre's talk page. If any admin wants to view what was there, or see what Dudemeister has been up to, please check his Deleted Contribs list, or check the deletion history of Pumre's talk page. I have also left Pumre a welcome message to sort of counterbalance the obviously mistaken warnings... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a decent chance that Pumre is actually Dudemeister, and that this is all a strange experiment -- but of course I could be wrong. looie496 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though there isn't enough here for me to bother going through the all the hoops to file a checkuser report on this one... though if any checkusers reading this happen to perchance want to run one to see if we are right hint hint... avi? luna? alison? thatcher? anyone? that would be cool too... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (re-lurk)

(outdent) I have blocked the puppet account, User:Pumre, indef for disruptive sockpuppetry. The main account I only blocked for 24 hours in hopes that the youngster will assume a more productive editing role. JodyB _talk 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Excuse me for following up on this -- it's for my own education. Dudemeister wrote back to me, before the block, explaining that Pumre is somebody he knows at school and had been arguing with, and who had threatened to vandalize the article he created about his school. Now of course he might well be lying, but the thing is, it's hard to imagine how a checkuser on an account with precisely one edit could possibly show that. How much faith should one have in CU results in cases like this? looie496 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's entirely possible, as both of them edit from the one school IP. In this, though there are a number of computers behind their one IP, both of these editors used the same computer within a few hours of each other - Alison ^❤ 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Opertof

Resolved

Opertof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Yet another sockpuppet of User:Pioneercourthouse. I don't know which venue to take this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a venue, or a lot of red tape on this one. I've left a detailed message on his talk page, I'm prepared to block, we should all just get back to writing the 'pedia. Good lookin' out though, Bugs. -Pete (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just one of the many drive-bys on my radar. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked for block evasion, obvious sock.  Sandstein  22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

sprotect on Bharat Sevashram Sangha

I have semi-protected Bharat Sevashram Sangha due to 68.100.2.7 and cppcat repeatedly replacing the sourced stub with a 13KB POV screed (example), along with accusations of "racial biasedness" (on IP's talk). As I wrote the stub from scratch, I may be considered non-impartial and would like someone to review the protection. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 22:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Good job. I also suggest a lengthy or indefinite block of Cppcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated IPs for being a single-purpose edit-warring WP:TRUTH-pushing account.  Sandstein  22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanket personal attack by User:Cosand

At 14:00 on 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Cosand posted remarks to the Barack Obama talk page. Diff here: [[78]]

The accusations of racism and bigotry constitute an egregious personal attack on editors discussing whether "African American" is the best form of words to describe Barack Obama in his BLP’s lead para. (It seems that this may be an especially American form of words which is not necessarily followed in other countries/cultures. Therefore, as WP is a global resource and not a specifically American one, the question of how best and most clearly to encapsulate Obama's ethnic origins for a global readership – in the context of his being America’s first (e.g.) African American president-elect – is a perfectly legitimate one for discussion.)

The discussion has been conducted in good faith, without a hint of racism or bigotry from anyone involved.

As Cosand’s personal attack has no basis in fact, it appears to be an attempt to intimidate other editors into abandoning legitimate discussion and negotiation – i.e. an extreme POV-pushing tactic. (Unsuccessful in this case.)

At 23:57 on 22 November 2008 (UTC) I left a message at Cosand’s talk. It pointed out the nature of his personal attack on the editors involved in the discussion. It said that if he did not remove the remarks I would request a block at ANI. Diff here: [[79]]

He hasn't replied to the message or removed his remarks.

I trust that personal attacks against WP editors in the form of gratuitous accusations of racism and bigotry are not tolerated here. Please would an Admin either ask Cosand to remove the offending attacks and impose a block if the request is ignored; or consider a block without further ado, if it's deemed wise to prevent repetition (the discussion that contains Cosand's attacks is ongoing).

There is no other history between myself and User:Cosand.

Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Toddst1 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cosand has not edited since the Barack Obama post, so it is pretty likely that he has not yet seen your request. In any case you are over-reacting. What he wrote is a pretty widely held point of view, but he stated it too offensively. It is reasonable for you to let him know that, but you don't need to do it in a way that is very likely to escalate the dispute. If you're going to edit articles on Obama, you'll need to develop a bit of a thicker skin. looie496 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So it's OK to attack other contributors as racists and bigots. BTW I was involved at McCain and Palin through all the long weeks of fierce and exhausting argument. My skin is plenty thick enough, thanks. If any admin has something intelligent to add it would be greatly welcomed. — Writegeist (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, people can and have been blocked for calling each other racists on the Obama talk page. However, a block usually comes only if they ignore a few requests and warnings to stop, and even there only a short time to keep the peace and not as punishment for having acted out. As you know, people are passionate about race matters and it can be a minefield to discuss them without upsetting sensitivities. If they're sincere and open minded, it's best to be soft but firm, let them know of the ground rules, but also let them know that their opinions are valued and we're doing our best to listen. Cosand is a fairly new, inexperienced editor just settling into a Wikipedia routine. Let's assume the best before writing anyone off as a problem user who needs to be blocked. Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikidemon. Sound advice as usual; much appreciated. — Writegeist (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:EmilEikS

User:EmilEikS is engaging in severe personal attacks on user User:Wildhartlivie and to a lesser degree, me.

History of incidents:

First incident: The personal attacks on Wildhartlivie began when she removed a flag icon from the Mae West article. This resulted in a severe personal attack on Wildhartlivie by User:Fiandonca (who appears to have discontinued her editing of English Wikipedia based on her talk page note), which was supported by EmilEikS, on the article talk page here. The conversation was continued on EmilEikS's user talk page here and here. In these conversations, EmilEikS personally attacked administrator User:Garion96 as well as Wildhartlivie. Another conversation related to this incident can be found on Fiandonca's user talk page here.

Second incident: In response to my addition of a Wikiproject Biography banner to Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz, to which I added a C-class assessment and Low priority rating based on WP Biography's scales and advice from Wildhartlivie, EmilEikS posted a notification here on the BLP/Noticeboard. Wildhartlivie responded to the notice as well as two administrators.

EmilEikS posted requests, which included a one-sided, copied/pasted discussion between Wildhartlivie and me from my user talk page, for intervention in what he sees as personal attacks by Wildhartlivie and me here, here, here, and here. Wildhartlivie responded here, here and here, and removed his posting from the Jacob Truedson Demitz talk page here. Please see the other side of the conversation on Wildhartlivie's talk page.

In response to these postings by EmilEikS, I posted a note on his user talk page here, which he removed here. He has not responded to my note on his talk page nor mine as of now.

Any advice related to these two incidents is greatly appreciated. mo ^talk 03:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just waded through several of these edits and didn't find any obvious violation of WP:NPA. Can you be more concise? Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm preparing an addition to this report, but it will take a little time to assemble the specifics. Hopefully it will clarify what has been occurring over the last week+. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided to comment since I am semi involved. This all started on the Mae West article which Wildhartlivie and I did some work on for a WP:BIO project back in October before EmilEikS edited the page. Long story short, EmilEikS' got some bad faith, ownership and wikistalking issues. As stated above, this all basically began when EmiEikS and new editor who quickly "retired" disagreed with Wildhartlivie for upholding the flag icon policy on the Mae West article. After that incident, EmilEikS decided that after I added some references (note some) and did a bit of a clean up on the page, everything was magically fixed and the tags should be removed (despite the fact that the article was still largely unsourced and there were still numerous other issues). After removing the article issue tags once, Wildhartlivie correctly added a refimprove tag. Four days later, EmilEikS left a note on the article talk page regarding the tag and the urgent need for its removal which I answered unaware that Wildhartlivie had already restored the tag for the second time. After realizing she was involved, I left a note on her talk page asking her to give her two cents because I actually don't speak for her or vice versa.

Soon after, EmilEikS left a message on Kingturtle's talk page claiming that messages on my talk page (which can all be found in their entirety in my pretty visible archive) weren't "very nice" (I'm assuming that unnice message was my shock and disgust at how uncivil EmilEikS and his friend were regarding the flag issue) and that somehow my communicating with another editor who is actually involved in the incident is suspicious. Kingturtle didn't remove the tag, but suggested tagging the unsourced content with {{fact}} tags instead. Wildhartlivie complied and in turn, EmilEikS complained that the tags were overkill and then complained that some content needed to be restored. He's got a habit of critiquing the article on the talk page without actually doing much to improve it. Since that day, EmilEikS has pretty much been going out of his way to prove that Wildhartlivie and anyone she talks to is somehow conspiring against him. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's actually doing things wrong and as a new editor, might not be aware of policy or how things work. As noted above, he freaked over an article grading claiming it made the subject look bad and complained that Wildhartlivie "gets old friends to do some of the things she wants done". He then made declarations of help to several administrators copying half of a user talk page conversation between Momoricks saying that he's "really frightened" and "these people have my real name". I can and will only speak for myself, but I don't care about EmilEikS' real life identity and I know nothing about it. Considering I've only edited one article in common with him, if he is scared of me, he should also be scared of the millions of other editors out there. One admin, Garion69, has already told him to he's finding personal attacks where there are none, but considering the way one incident has snowballed into this full out attack on several editors, I doubt the message got through or that this behavior will stop anytime soon. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the perhaps-substantial issues, I feel compelled to say that you're doing people no favors by labelling this a "personal attack". I see a strongly-worded rant against policy. I happen to strongly disagree with him - the last thing we need on en.wiki is more nationalism (just look at the dandy swath it's cutting along the Eastern European articles) - but to call it a "personal attack" is reaching. The rest, like I said, I cannot yet comment on. Badger Drink (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear with my wording. By "attack", I didn't actually mean a personal attack (although I do consider saying that someone appears to be "an unbelievable hypocrite" to be mildly uncivil), more in the sense of an attack on someone's reasoning and motives. I've changed the wording to reflect the situation in more accurate way. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is really as much an issue of overall overt and implied personal attacks as it is of disruptive editing, incivility, a failure to assume good faith, disruption to make a point, engaging in making unfounded accusations (such as ownership and cabalism), contentiousness over extremely minor issues which end up being blown totally and completely out of proportion to the overall project, trying to game administrators by cross-posting identical accusations, and cross-posting one side of a user talk page discussion to the same pages, deriving perceived "threats" and "fears" from them, and a possible sock puppet issue. It concerns User:EmilEik, User:EmilEikS and User:Fiandonca.

I began answering talk page postings on Talk:Mae West mostly because no one else seemed to be responding. My first encounter with User:EmilEikS was under another registered name (User:EmilEik) here, when I removed a photo credit from an image caption [80]. User:EmilEikS returned it, I again removed it after responding above. He again returned it and asked for the credit to remain "in this special case". This issue is brought up later, but by another registered name (User:Fiandonca) when it is claimed that I twice ignored "the humble wishes of this image contributor were not respected, by you, through your speedy edit of the caption." Note that Fiandonca has never edited the Mae West page. Nothing further happened until November 14.

I removed a flag icon from the Mae West infobox here, citing MOS:FLAGS as rationale. A few hours later this confrontational message was left for me, and a nearly identical message was left on the Mae West talk page, with embellishments that accused me of ownership, pleasing the religious right (?), and apparently being unpatriotic. A posting was also left on Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style (icons)[81] and the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) was also altered. I responded to User:EmilEikS here and to User:Fiandonca here. User:EmilEikS posted a response to me, making accusations that I was throwing around my weight, referencing the images he and "his organization" had released to public domain, and claiming that I was threatening him. This continued and escalated from User:EmilEikS and at one point he accused me of talking down to him. Rather than User:EmilEikS responding to my statement that I wasn't, User:Fiandonca responded to it here, which is also the posting where Fiandonca claims I edited "her" photo captions, and included what I consider uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Soon after, User:EmilEikS responded about being talked down to here, after which another editor left a WP:NPA notice on his page, to which he replied with a "fair warning". Across all of this, both User:Fiandonca and User:EmilEikS made rude warnings to more than one editor "not to talk to me again". At this point, I questioned the congruence between contribution claims, postings and "don't talk to me" admonitions.[82] Other editors then posted comments on the behavior displayed and stating that they saw no rudeness or attacks in my comments.

At that point, User:Fiandonca posted what could have been perceived as a legal threat[83] which was questioned by administrator User:Garion96 here, to which Fiandonca then attacked me once again [84]. User:Garion96 replied [85] and [86]. At this point, User:EmilEikS made his first accusation of cabalism [87]. Three of the editors, myself included, noted that we all saw signs of potential sock puppetry in the exchanges. Soon thereafter, Fiandonca "retired".

Things remained calm until this weekend, when I noted that User:EmilEikS pronounced the Mae West article fully referenced [88], at which point User:Pinkadelica [89] and I [90] responded. User:EmilEikS then cross posted requests to three adminstrators, accusing both User:Pinkadelica and myself of cabalism, ownership and apparently plotting and planning against him.[91], [92], [93] I responded on each page, mostly because of implied attacks and stated accusations. User:Kingturtle gave his opinion, requesting fact tags for sources needed.[94], which I did, and to which User:EmilEikS objected [95] and I responded [96], after which he announced he was "done" with the page, apparently because I responded to him and made another of many comments by him and User:Fiandonca that I employ a username. [97]

On 21 November, User:LaVidaLoca placed maintenance tags on two articles written by User:EmilEikS and made a minor edit to an article created by User:EmilEikS, to which he strenuously objected, and posted personal notes at the heading of each page, accusing that editor of vandalism.[98] [99] He also cross-posted accusations of vandalism, sabotage and "personal retaliation".[100], [101], [102] Little response was gained from those posts, except for some very wise words from User:Howcheng.[103]

At some point therein, User:Momoricks and I were exchanging posts about a prior issue with another user who was banned (User:Werdnawerdna) and her work on Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I commented that the Werdnawerdna issue wasn't as bad or stressful as what had gone on over the above discussed flag icon issue and she commented on her opinion of the TCM film. I saw that she had added the WP Biography project template to one of the articles (Jacob Truedson Demitz) and I suggested to her the class and priority assessment levels the article met. I absolutely did not even consider assessing the article personally, although I actively do article assessments nearly daily. At that point, User:EmilEikS again became contentious over the ratings, claiming the rating was gratuitous and suggesting it cast aspersions upon himself as the author and the article subject, and then looked at User talk:Momoricks and cross-posted only my side of the conversation across three administrator talk pages [104], [105], [106], the article talk page in question [107] which I removed because of the inappropriateness of posting such on an article talk page, and filed a WP:BLP report at WP:BLP/N [108],and responding to my posting about by claiming once again cabalism, purposely misrepresented my level of involvement on the Mae West article, accused me of holding up that article for 6 years, claimed that he was being personally threatened and accused User:Momoricks of attempting the same thing on the Demitz article. I attempted to discuss the ratings suggestion with him at Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz#Assessment and told him three times to feel free to request a reassessment. That was not done. The assessment ratings were supported both on the article talk page [109] and at the BLP/N page [110], [111]. He has been told by more than one editor, besides myself, to not take these issues personally, [112], [113][114] yet he continues to do so and launches somewhat subtle personal attacks and disruption against other editors involved who are working in good faith on articles. For what it is worth, User:Pinkadelica, User:Rossrs (who made some comments in the initial flag icon issue), User:Momoricks, myself and a few other uninvolved editors all work together quite congenially across many articles and projects and have never had any WP discussions on article issues that weren't civil, polite and calm and seem to have that sort of relationship with the majority of editors on Wikipedia, yet all of us had encountered issues from User:EmilEikS.

I note on the Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz page that another editor has broached a fairly compelling conflict of interest issue regarding these latter articles and the relationship User:EmilEikS has with organizations that involve both himself and Jacob Truedson Demitz, although I haven't looked at it myself. I have tried my level best to remain calm and not attack this user or be degrading to him, yet all he sees is that very thing from all editors who have tried to disc uss things with him. I have repeatedly asked him to not make these editing issues a personal issue, that it stop, but to no avail. He repeatedly claims he is willing to apologize for any behavior that has been an issue, but that is not forthcoming. No one should have to endure these sorts of accusations and behavior and it needs to stop. If I've repeated anything other editors have posted, I apologize, I've encountered edit conflicts a couple times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• No offense, but...tl;dr. Is there any way that can be condensed into, say, 1 paragraph and 3 diffs? Protonk (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The circumstances dictate the size, I'd love it if this was as simple as a paragraph and 3 diffs, but it's a pattern of behavior that encompasses a lot of things and a lot of posts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Toddst1 and Protonk, I don't see any way of condensing the information or making it more concise. These are complicated incidents that involve multiple policy violations. Per WP:NPA, "[s]erious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." mo ^talk 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Then my suggestion is that WP:RFC/U may be a good route to take. I'm not saying that complex issues can't be dealt with quickly here or that your complaint is baseless due to its complexity, but something long running and nuanced needs to be handled by the community, not just admins at large. I may be wrong--someone may come along and weigh the accusations made here and come to some conclusion. But it is more fair to EmilEikS and to you for the forum to be suited to long form discussion and working issues out. If you think that he is making strong personal attacks now and needs to be blocked, then point to those and we'll make a short block, but it isn't the function of this noticeboard to tease out a solution from complex situations. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Protonk. I'll contact Wildhartlivie and Pinkadelica regarding making a report there. mo ^talk 02:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's time to stop...

I posted here about the article: Nicktoons: Globs of Doom about a week or two ago, and it was about the IP adress 69.137.144.243 apparantly adding false information to the article as well as edit warring with the users KensouYagami and Majora999. The users in question had been warning the user many, many times (however didn't know how to block him), and according to them, the user's constant submissions of Bessie Higgenbottom and El Tigre as playable characters were false. I posted here and the article was semi-protected for 1 week. The protect is up, and the IP is back at it. A 1 week semi-protect isn't going to do it this time. Somebody has to do something like a block or a really long semi-protect, and it has to happen immediately. Thank you. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content in the article is in such poor shape (i.e. unreferenced, unverifiable original research, game guide material, and trivia), I am surprised that some dunce like myself has not opted for deletion of this article; I cannot, unfortunately, as there are reliable sources here, and I recommend using them along with a chainsaw to clean up the article instead of edit warring about content that doesn't even belong in Wikipedia in the first place (apologies for being so blunt, but that's my take).

In any case, this doesn't belong here; maybe in peer review (video games) for cleanup suggestions or even dispute resolution, but not here. MuZemike (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please block User:Lightbot

Lightbot is an extremely controversial bot which is charging ahead delinking dates. It has various technical problems, itemized at its owner's talk page: it is changing book titles and quotations, and producing gibberish, as it goes.

Yet more seriously, the guideline it is attempting to enforce is itself disputed - edit-warring over it is why MOSNUM was protected - again; there's a wide-ranging RfC on the general subject here, which should be posted tomorrow; and a more narrow (and protested) RfC here. Under these circumstances, Lightbot should be stopped pending consensus; I thought it was.

As an aggravating factor, it is resetting its own stop button. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the validity of the bot's edits but offering a Stop facility that the bot will immediately undo itself is a total no-no. I've posted on the owners talk to come here and join discussion. Exxolon (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with block until repaired and discussed. ThuranX (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot blocked pending discussion. Blueboy96 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Support block of this aggravating bot. I and no doubt 99% of the wiki community could not care less about the MOSdate wars, but I have sadly had to reduce the size of my watchlist by at least 50% because of these tedious and downright annoying edit wars over dates made by bots and users with scripts. In fact annoying doesn't even come close. I am certain nobody gives a crap whether dates are linked or not, but for me, watching over backwater articles for vandalism or dubious additions/removals will have to wait until these people get a clue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the bot owner logged in and removed the stop button him/herself. That is not a bug; it looks like the owner thought the issue resolved. I have no experience as to the edits, so I won't comment there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This diff is very troubling. It reveals that the operator has, in fact, repeatedly removed the 'stop' command himself, without addressing the problems. As such, I'd support a disabling of the bot entirely, until MOSNUM is settled AND the bot properly reworked. The problems with the 'as of' test additions clearly continues, and there's no apparent effort on the operator's part to actually fix and resolve this stuff. ThuranX (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, this bot is approved to complete certain tasks involving the linking and unlinking of dates. It should not be un-disabling itself or communicating with other users as that is outside the scope of its Bot Request for Approval and an inappropriate use of a bot account per Bot Policy. I will not unblock the bot until I have the owner's explicit assurance that it will cease un-disabling itself and cease being used as a communication account. MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-enabling, but the operator is enabling it without correcting behaviors nor responding to complainants, which is far worse. ThuranX (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block, I'd personally like to see a full review of what this bot is supposed to be doing, and in contrast what it is actually doing. — neuro^(talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To request a formal review of a bot, please see WP:RFC/BOT. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I logged in and edited the page. That is all. It isn't rocket science. If you had asked me on my talk page, I could have told you. I provided the facility as a convenience and a courteousy. It doesn't actually control the bot itself, I do. I expect courtesy from others too. I do not expect 'block first ask questions later'. I note that Pmanderson has been on my case for some time now and has been repeatedly stopping the bot without quoting an edit. So I no longer take his stalking seriously. He even 'stops' it when it isn't even running. I note that he hasn't quoted an edit to you guys either. If anyone wants to discuss matters unrelated to the false assertion of 'auto-starting' bot, then feel free to take it to my talk page. If I am going to be blocked just because I log in and edit my own bot page, then it is better if I simply don't provide the facility. Sigh. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your gripes about Pmanderson don't override bot policy. — neuro^(talk) 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Lightmouse had removed the stop, using his own account, that would not be a problem; the rest of the questions about Lightbot's actions would remain. If he used Lightbot's account, he violated bot policy, and WP:SOCK. If Lightbot undid its own controls, that would indeed be a serious problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, posting on your talk page has the same effect as pissing in the wind if the request amounts to stop using a bot in a controversial area. The fact is, you are dogmatic, your opposers are dogmatic. Everybody else could not not give a shit, but the collateral damage is that articles dont get watchlisted for vandalism/bad info because of your actions. Maybe you just don't realy care about that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide an example edit. Lightmouse (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pick any edit by your bot, reverted by someone else, reverted by someone else, then reverted by someone else. Like I said, I can't provide a diff because I gave up watching these articles long ago after the third or fourth revision. Date linking or not is clearly more important than vandalism or factual accuracy. 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot is innocent until proven guilty. Blocks can't be imposed without evidence. Provide an example edit. Lightmouse (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. I'm a liar. Carry on. Nothing to see here. I imagined the whole thing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you imagined the whole thing. I believe that you have seen something that you didn't like. I just don't know what it is. The block was imposed on me and it is very hard to find out the evidence for the block. I am the victim here, not you. Lightmouse (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Per his assurance not to use the bot for communication purposes, I have unblocked it. I do this expecting Lightmouse to listen to the comments and complaints brought to him w.r.t. the bot and without prejudice to another administator blocking for any other policy violations that may occur. MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. Lightbot is not now running, which is acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The linking or unlinking of dates is a cornerstone of wikipedia. Everyone I know, who goes to wikipedia to look for info, asks me about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The bot is innocent until proven guilty."? Nonsense. BOTS are guilty until proven innocent. USERS are innocent until proven guilty. That being said, unlike certain other bot operators, Lightmouse seems willing to hold off making edits where the consensus for those edits is disputed once it's pointed out to him that it is disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was merely emphasising that in fair trials, evidence is required. Wikipedia isn't Guantanemo Bay. Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence had been provided that your bot had both been making errors and enforcing a disputed style "consensus". I see no reason why it needed to be presented again here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You have no evidence of a bad article edit worthy of a block, otherwise you would have provided it by now. You haven't actually looked at what the bot has been doing lately have you? Lightmouse (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you have apparently stopped the disputed delinking (and broken delinking) the bot had been doing. If it does it again, I'll recommend a ban, not just a block. Obviously, as an involved admin, I can't block the bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a specialised MOS wiki, which could be edited by everybody who cares. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim: I don't know what you mean, the MOS can be edited by everybody (perhaps you are making a joke). Lightmouse (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikien Empire

In a recent MfD a similar project was deleted along with the creator being blocked. Another user (most probably a sock) has recreated a similar project and has started adding wikiproject template to various articles. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 07:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a mistake. This project isn't endorsing any real positions on Wikipedia. It is rather a fun way for users to protect pages from vandalism. His.Wikian.Majesty,Emperor.Victor.of.Wikipedia(For Royal Inquests, Click Here) 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blatant sock, requested blocking. — neuro^(talk) 07:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emperor.of.Wikia. — neuro^(talk) 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

MfD started. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

...and closed. — neuro^(talk) 07:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Down with the Emperor! Vive la révolution! —kurykh 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Or possibly "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss" in light of the WP:SOCKing. --Rodhullandemu 10:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User page in mainspace again

Resolved

 – Moved back to userspace. Bencherlite^Talk 07:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin move the user page+talk Danmw1 back to its user space location from main space? The move reason listed in the edit summary is a bit confused; it appears to be something about keeping his listed website a secret from those seeing his wikipedia name. Anyway, the page needs admin rights to be moved back at this point (to be thorough, I again tried undo and move, but it didn't work). The user page content may tilt towards G11 depending on one's interpretation of what is blatant advertising in user pages, while the talk consists of a single pre-move CSD warning on a now-deleted article, should an admin feel deletion to be appropriate instead of a move/restore. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fatal!ty speedy deleting OSU season pages

Resolved

 – User banned; see below

Looking at Template:BuckeyesFootballTeams, I noticed most of the per-year season articles were redlinked, so I've started creating stubs for them - Fills out the infobox, and the "CFB Schedule" templates for the scores, which is pretty advanced so a good start for the article. User:Fatal!ty has started slapping all of the articles I've created with SD templates, and isn't interested in my "please stop wasting time" arguments. Could someone weigh in on this? --JaGa^talk 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a sample. There's a lot of work in that! --JaGa^talk 10:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See here--Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that while A7 might technically cover these articles, it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what was intended. One could argue that being an "Ohio State Buckeyes football" team is an assertion of notability. I'll wait for other editors to chime in before removing any tags, though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

That's the thing. I didn't invent the convention of having an article for each year's team; I'm just getting those articles started. The templates were in place - and not objected to - long before I got involved. If Fatality wants to delete those pages, he should get that template (and the other similarly-structured football templates, there's a lot of them) changed as well. --JaGa^talk 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also speedied and then went to AFD on Mario Fernando Hernández & Hilary Teague, both of who pass WP:POLITICIAN, thus not only not speedy but also not AFD. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A notable musician was speedied by Fatality without checking that the article is in good form. Speedy undone, but was he passed it to AfD. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this user also SD'd Eastern Alamance High School. I think Fatality is blurring the distinction between "notablility" and "stub". After all, if 1944 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't exist, 2005 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't either. --JaGa^talk 10:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They have also speedied several Olympic athletes so I think its time for a short block to get them to stop and read the criteria as their editing has become disruptive. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked more closely into this editor's recent edits, there appears to be a number of, shall we say, ill-considered deletion nominations. I'm going to assume good faith and just say that User:Fatal!ty is either just having a bad day, or is genuinely unaware of the generally accepted notability standards, but at the same time the volume of these nominations is becoming disruptive. Hopefully they will be able to provide an explanation as to why they thought that these three notable politicians would be deletable (other than the obviously shaky nomination statements), until then I would urge the user to desist from starting any more deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I've removed the speedys on the Ohio State pages. They're stubs, but I feel they're notable. Dayewalker (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not speedy candidates. We're talking about a team which plays in front of 100,000 people, not some pub side. I'm going to remove the speedy tags. If Fatality really wants the articles gone he could try AfD, but personally I don't see any reason for deleting them at all. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it can become quite disruptive to have new articles tagged like this. I believe he is doing so because he believes that stubs tarnish wikipedia's reputation further. Count Blofeld 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} I've summed up everything I'd like to say on my talk page. I view my behavior as justifiable and "encyclopedically-correct". Seeing as neither party is willing to compromise, there are a few options to resolve this "dispute". 1. You take the easy way out, and block me indef for disruption. 2. Start a RFC. The choice is yours.--Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And he has been asking for retractions from people who remind him of the rules. [115]. Time for a block until he learns about our deletion policy. DGG (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I certainly wouldn't consider refering to India as "Wup-Wup" as acceptable behaviour. To be it looks completely racist and narrow sighted that towns with a population of 7,000 are not worthy of encyclopedia coverage. Count Blofeld 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I note to avoid confusion that the Blofield was the ed Fatality asked for a retraction from--it was Fatality who made the wup-wup comment, and Blofield properly called him on it. DGG (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the removed talk page history, we have very recent removed RFA, revoked and renewed denial for rollback rights, and a recent unblocking, so it appears that this is more of some sort of pointed editing that is not inline with their unblock request: I would like to be unblocked so that I can prove to the community that I am a solid and helpful editor, and that from hereon in, I will use my time wisely - to build and expand the encyclopedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

as these continue even as we are talking, I have blocked Fatality for 3 hours. Looking at his block log, with recent blocks for vandallism from several admins, I invite some other admin to extend the block--I suggest at least a month.--I'm about to go to sleep, so if anyone should want to unblock, feel free, but look atthe log first-- Thatcher previously blocked indefinitely. DGG (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll see how he responds after the 3 hours is up and whether he has learnt his lesson. If he continues to disrupt by his mass tagging again then perhaps a more lengthy block will be neccesary. Count Blofeld 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I Support this block, and support extending it if he gets straight back to his old tricks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've decided to be bold and started closing some of his nomination, for which the consensus is clearly speedy keep and for which the reasons he provides clearly do not apply. (BLP on dead people, WP:RS on articles with sources from NYT or BBC, etc) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• User:Fatal!ty just came from under an indef block on Nov 20 on condition that "he edit productively". In view of the resumed pattern of disruption and belligerent behaviour, I think that another indef block is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note: The day after coming off a 2-month long indef block, this user applied for adminship, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fatal!ty. I did not vote there since it was clear that his RfA was doomed to fail, but I thought that the RfA was basically a WP:POINT violation. The remark in his answer to RfA question 3, "It is just a website for fuck's sake anyway", was particularly telling. Nsk92 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who lifted that block, I totally agree. The unblock was based on Thatcher's comment to me that since the IP was clean there was no evidence of the sockpuppetry that led to the indef block in the first place. However, it's clear that there are other problems with this editor. This is the first time anyone I've ever let out from under an indef block has abused his good faith. I was tempted to reimpose the block but I am deferring to DGG and others involved in this discussion. But the next block, if there is one, should be indef. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just over at the user's talk to notify them of this clearly incorrect speedy... personally, I'd suggest forcible removal of Twinkle for the time being. — neuro^(talk) 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Fatality is going to continue editing, I would ask for a topic ban from deletion process. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back, and although he's made a lot of perfectly good edits, he's been reverting totally valid edits as vandalism, sometimes restoring vandalism in the process, complete with erroneous vandal warnings for the editors concerned, e.g. [116], [117], [118], [119]. I think a longer break is in order.--Michig (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See also this response to one of those editors.--Michig (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From a glance through his contributions, I can only conclude that he's reverting edits more or less at random. This is just yanking our chains. Someone block now please. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above, an immediate block is urgently required, as he is still enageged in a massive reverting spree, using Twinkle. Nsk92 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this edit go through (complete with vandalism warning), I've blocked for 48 hours pending discussion; it looks to me like he's reverting every IP edit he sees. I appreciate 48 hours is possibly a bit draconian, even in light of his previous warnings, and give explicit consent to any admin who thinks it's too harsh to reduce or lift the block as they see fit. – iridescent 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 48 hours is too much. I can't tell if Fatal!ty is being pointy or genuinely doesn't get it, but his first block (and all of the attempted discussion that led up to it) didn't seem to help. He's shown that when he's ready to go, he covers a lot of ground before anyone can check him. It's best if he takes enough time off to learn his lessons before he comes back to the wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The block actually strikes me as unduly lenient (and coming from me that is saying a lot). I'd suggest at least monitoring this editor closely when he returns, and pulling any rights he has to use rollback or other automated tools. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked and protected his monobook, so if he does come back he'll have to do it manually. As far as I'm concerned, any further silliness warrants an indefblock. – iridescent 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the block. It is certainly not draconian but rather too short. Please make it an idef. It will take a long time to undo the damage. This is a user who had come off an indef block just three days ago on the pomise of best behaviour and look where we are now. Please indef block him. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He's come straight back from a block and continued his disruptive editing. As Daniel Case said above, "But the next block, if there is one, should be indef." --Michig (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored the indefinite block. After reviewing his edits since the last block expired, I can no longer assume good faith about him or his editing. Even after the block he was still getting messages on his talk page from puzzled users. Yes, I feel angry because this guy burned me, the first time this has ever happened, but I think I'm not the only one who's exhausted his patience here. Confused? Perhaps, but student drivers don't get to run over this many people and wreck this many cars before they tell them driving isn't for them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Regretfully, I agree with Daniel's indef block. This is either cluelessness on a truly monumental scale or a deliberate attempt to troll us; in view of the account's history I am unable to assume the former. A shame because he was obviously capable of writing decent content when he wanted to, but there you go. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fatal!ty has now implied that another account is "the real Fatal!ty" (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. – iridescent 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• User 1onepuposeaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now jumped in. — Athaenara ✉ 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And a Checkuser has already been requested. If it comes back positive, can we consider a community ban? It looks to me (not that I've been directly involved in any) like one of those cases. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) looks like the same user as Avi15 (talk · contribs); both have edited similar subjects, Avi15 was blocked indefinitely a few days before Fatal!ty started editing, both used the same welcome template on new users' talk pages, and both added inappropriate deletion templates to articles. Fatal!ty also restored copyrighted content added by Avi15 on the Glen Eira Town Hall article. Avi15 was also suspected of sock puppetry using a vandal account In5ecUr!ty (talk · contribs), and is also a suspected sock puppet of Lsdjfhkjsb (talk · contribs), as are a few other vandal accounts. —Snigbrook 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• He does indeed seem to follow the exact same patterns as the Lsdjfhkjsb (talk · contribs) sockfarm. Self-references, random deleting sprees, similar articles. I've added a tag. Kuru ^talk 00:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure this thread is quite ready for being marked as "resolved". In the last couple of hours of editing Fatal!ty was on a mad reverting spree where, as best I can tell, he was randomly reverting edits made by IPs. In some cases his reverts did undo vandalism, in some cases he reverted perfectly good edits and in others he actually restored vandalism. His contrib record really needs to be looked through rather carefully to undo some of this mess. I have reverted some of his edits but this is a rather big job requiring several pairs of eyes. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved marker removed, 1onepuposeaccount is pretty much blatant. — neuro^(talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Look now, he is actually pointing out damning evidence about himself. Looks like he is only here to cause drama. — neuro^(talk) 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

notifying editors--I have already sent explanations to everyone--some of them newbies-- whose contribution was incorrectly marked for deletion--could someone please do similarly for the people sent other inappropriate noticesDGG (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In a few cases where his "vandalism" reverts were clearly wrong, I have undone them and erased the warning messages that he left at those users' talk pages (I pointed to this thread in the edit summaries in such cases). But this really is a lot of work since one has to look carefully at his reverts and figure out which ones were undoing vandalism and which ones were random reverts of good faith edits. What a mess... Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we please move on to a permanent ban? This user used up any AGF long ago and has piled on more sockpuppeting, and now I come back from sleep and see s/he is saying I'm him/her!? It is clear that his editing was disruptive (how many of us have commented here/wasted our time here and cleaning up the mess), basically has led to biteing of some newer editors (which obviously discourages them from adding the Wikipedia if there perfectly legit work is tagged for speedy/AFD), and now what I will classify as a personal attack against me with him/her saying I'm the real Fatality (and though I can be rude I don't do shit like this and I've never been blocked). Take into account his comment here along with his reply to the block (cya in 3 hours or something like that = fuck you people I'll be back in three hours doing the same stuff), what s/he did do when they came back from the block, and then their last comments on their talk page "I'm off. I guess you guys will have to deal with the fallout. Wiki can get stressful at times - but don't let that hold y'all back :). Oh and WP:AGF - maybe a rethink of policy>?)" Enough is enough. Ban time. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow's {{resolved}} comment was probably fun to add but it seems premature while one or more accounts are still being used in lieu of the blocked Fatal!ty account and the question of a ban is still open. — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed again, there is still a lot going on. — neuro^(talk) 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back as "possible", based on technical evidence, but Luna suggests behavior is more useful. And I think that gives us all we need to block the sock. So I'm doing that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of this editor

On NWA.Rep

Seriously, what is going on? By coincidence I saw that NWA.Rep took a leave of absence after a conflict with some admins - well, too bad I thought. I took a look at his talk page and saw his apparent farewell message and noticing a small edit-war, with the result of Swatjester blanking the page, citing personal attacks - which I don't contest. Looking at his user page however, content was deleted by Swatjester (claiming a section was "disruptive to the project" - what project?) and Gwen Gale (called his practical joke "highly disruptive") - in my personal opinion ignoring WP:BLP#Non-article space and in fact censoring Wikipedia. Right now a full indefinite protection is on. I hope there is an admin out there who has the courtesy and decency to look beyond a personal grudge towards a feisty Wikipedian and shed some light on the subject. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The project" refers to wikipedia itself, and userpage editorials about why women should not wear clothes has nothing to do with furthering wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it makes the whole project look exceptionally foolish. This is myspace stuff, kids. Take it there. Friday (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, wait. Bishzilla undid the removal of user content, calling it "dancing on the grave".

So, what if NWA.Rep is of the opinion that women shouldn't wear clothes? Just a matter of opinion. And no, it doesn't further Wikipedia, but neither does having a picture of Bugs Bunny on your user page, now does it? I hope it can rest now. Let go of the grudges and let him be. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked what "the project" meant, so I told you. The other part was explaining why they (temporarily) deleted it. Whether it's there are not don't matter to me none. And it will all be moot when his block expires. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read what's way up above, or just going by some off-wiki contact that you might have had? My wife, for example, is well-known for many positive things. I know that if she had an article about her, she wouldn't want to be added to "Women with large breasts" category, or having the phrase "she is also known for her tremendous knockers" added to her article. I mean, it's fine to have a breast fixation, but keep it off Wikipedia because it's disruption. ►BMW◄ 20:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually did read what's way up above, and it doesn't have anything to do with this. I think its unfair to bash a guy who already left the building, that's is what my argument is about - even if he is somewhat of a pervert. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It does have to do with this, in that his apparent breast fixation is what led to him getting blocked. Also keep in mind that the user does not own "his" pages. However, you're right that it's usually considered bad form to mess around with a blocked user's pages, and that's why the admin restored them. One exception would be if he's indef-blocked, in which case his entire talk page might be cleared and protected, at the admin's discretion. He wasn't indef-blocked, only for a week; and his pages were protected due to fanning the flames (by him and others) and the protection will expire when the block expires. He hasn't necessarily left, he's just angry about being blocked. Check back when the block expires. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, let's clarify: what resolution are looking for? His page is protected as is to allow him to have his "final" say. Those who blanked it got bashed a little. What are you looking for? ►BMW◄ 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the argument above does have something to do with it, but not with the point I'm trying to make. I don't like the tone of that particular section on his user page either, but I, in my most humble personal opinion, believe that it is not up to admins to remove content from another Wikipedian's user page without any discussion, let alone a warning. That's even more inappropriate when he's blocked. Little below the belt, don't you think? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Users do not own "their" pages, those pages are subject to the rules. Tendentious content is not permitted. Personal attacks are not permitted. In general, content that violates wikipedia policies is not permitted. And admins have the right to remove such. I'll concede that there was not enough discussion here, though; otherwise, we wouldn't have admins reverting each other. It would be easier if he actually were leaving, because then his pages could be wiped and it wouldn't matter. As for him actually leaving, I'll believe it when I don't see it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• At least get rid of the 'New Messages' bar. It wasn't funny the first time some pisswit thought it was 'good for a laugh' and it hasn't improved with age. HalfShadow 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's by no means original with that user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right Bugs, any Wikipedian should be following guidelines. But I'm sure that you would agree with me that normally speaking any user — admin or fellow Wikipedian — would've asked NWA.Rep politely if he'd either take the section out or change the tone, and if not then other steps would be taken. But that didn't happen, because of that whole fuss ↑.

And a final note, I honestly believe the new message bar practical joke should be left standing. Whether you would find it hysterically funny or annoying beyond comparison, it doesn't hurt anyone and it is just on that particular user page. If WP:LIGHTEN UP would exist, I'd be citing that. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 00:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a little hard to ask him and expect an answer, given that his talk page was locked. Besides, he says he's leaving, so an answer might never come. There's no clear-cut answer to the question, and that's why the various admins should have discussed it first and reached a consensus. If he were indef-blocked, they would have wiped it. It's the short block that's the dilemma. As for the "new message" bar, it's a bit annoying but it's harmless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And if he does come back, maybe he'll rename himself DELTA, as NWA will soon be obsolete. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someday, someone will take the name Pan Am and do a sub-genre called Juan Trippe-hop. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. The firm that went from a major airline to a carnival sideshow offering rides on domestic animals, hence the term Juan Trippe pony. So, when an airline goes bankrupt, does it de-plane? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fake "New Messages" bars are unbelievably annoying and pointless. But edit warring on a protected page, as several folks have been doing, is strictly against the Code of Thug Life. Please, kids, settle down. :/ krimpet✽ 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Most other users such as User:Editor510 have had these banners removed from them as they're against a policy on media wiki interfaces or something. Sticky Parkin 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SMI ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The page called Wikipedia:User page points out that offensive material can be removed by any editor, and there is no indication that permission is required. Attacks against other editors (which NWA has many in his "retirement" essay) are also against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is a policy on media wiki interfaces that can be quoted to get rid of those message hoax banners I'd really love to know what it is so I can use it! dougweller (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This - WP:SMI - is on that User Page page, but it's a little vague, as it says "generally frowned upon" rather than "prohibited". My guess would be that going around unilaterally deleting them off other users' pages could be considered as disruptive as having them there in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, Bugs. WP:SMI came out vague because the text is a compromise after a hot debate. If we must discuss these trivialities yet again, please take it to WT:USER, where I have posted on it at boring length. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

Leave that "New Messages" bar. A debate has run through and through. Remove his personal attacks on his talk page instead in some bits I have suggested. Dengero (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're debating the wrong topic. They should clobber (i.e. delete like any user can, not destroy) his narcissistic "retirement" / attack essay, and probably also his entire user page. If he does, in fact, come back then he can simply revert it and/or deal with these complaints directly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but User:Editor510 was warned for edit warring, I think his page was protected as admins were determined he couldn't have it and linking to the SMI thing in edit summaries.[120] Just saying, the policy's been acted on plenty of times. Sticky Parkin 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What a discussion I did start, great! Thanks to anyone who participated. I hope everyone has learned from it, I certainly have. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion and userpage vandalism by User:Ragusino

I know this probably isn't the exact right place to report this, but could someone please just semi-protect my User talkpage [121]? User:Ragusino is constantly making ridiculous edits and reverting my own (see History [122]). He is currently blocked one month for block evasion (obviously :P) [123], and the IP is undoubtedly his. IP 190.21.84.122 is vandalizing my talkpage, while the guy was blocked for using IP 190.21.84.207 (see block [124]). I gave the guy a period to give up and stop on his own, but he's pretty persistent. I won't pretend I'm not curious as to whether this kind of continued block evasion and userpage vandalism warrants further measures? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, um, could I get a response :P ? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talk page for 24 hours to try to cut this down some. Looking at the history of this situation, it looks like this one person is using multiple IP addresses which change so frequently that playing "whack-a-mole" with these IP addresses would have little to no effect. It looks like they are editing from a dynamic range that appears to be something in the 190.21.64.0/19 or /18 range. This covers either 8000 or 16000 IP addresses, perhaps a checkuser could look into that range and see if there is likely to be collateral damage from a rangeblock. If harassment continues, a soft rangeblock may be just the ticket to stop this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a "WHOIS" on one of the IP addresses in the range that is harassing you, and returned this: [125]. The smallest range that the WHOIS reports is 190.21/16, which is probably too big for a rangeblock; though we don't know if this range is or isn't subdivided in a way to make a smaller rangeblock effective, as I have suggested above... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I see... perhaps a more extended semi-protection then? I doubt 24 hours will deter the guy, since he's been at this for days. Also, his main account (User:Ragusino) had been originally blocked one month due to continued block evasion, and I'm wondering if an extension of that block is warranted by this kind of behavior? Nothing personal, but I get the feeling he's not getting the message... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I'll post another request for longer semi-protection if (or when) the guy once again starts harassing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Murder

Could someone wise in the ways of template vandalism take a look here, I can't figure out what's causing this? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like whatever template it was has already been cleaned up? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

While I was typing, even. --Rodhullandemu 16:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny how that happens sometimes :-) ►BMW◄ 17:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Six templates, all needing oversights. They're gonna love me. --Rodhullandemu 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at my edit summary for that comment above: "Murder: it happens". Funniest thing I've seen all day! ►BMW◄ 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another troubling user page - Judge Florentino Floro

I just removed a whole ton of comments. Here is why: WP:BLP applies to *all* pages of Wikipedia, not just articles. This is a real person we're talking about, or a name that belongs to a real person, and we don't even know if the editor using this name is actually the individual it belongs to. Can folks please, please stay away from drawing conclusions about the personality behind the account, and try to keep in mind that we should treat all BLP issues with seriousness and respect and not disdain or deprecating humor? Avruch ^T 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro -- I blocked this user indefinitely for outing (and you should see what he's written on this talk page now), and never looked at his user page. Is it a record for weirdness? And is it acceptable? He talks a lot about other people so I'm a bit worried about BLP. If I type his name into Google, his user page is the first hit (hey Diligent Terrier, you're in the snippet!), which doesn't seem too good. And our article (Florentino Floro) on him is 2nd, which is no problem obviously. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that fact mentioned on his page, but anyway, wouldn't it be better if Wikipedia prevented user pages from being indexed by Google? Surely such an action would prevent certain Wikipedia admins from bragging on slashdot that they're more popular than other famous people with the same name, but I don't consider this side effect a bad thing. Pcap ping 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

o_O I had no idea that we actually had an article on him... Wow. And Cortez, I'd be glad to remove your brain :) Anyways, what is it that we should do? ♫ IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read the last version of the mainspace article that was written mostly by Floro himself [126]. Quite different from the current article, isn't it? He was clearly using his user page for more of his POV. The article and his user page are the top 2 hits on Google when searching for "Florentino Floro". Indexing of user pages makes soapboxing too easy for all but banned users. Of course, given his psychotic antecedents, Floro just embarrasses himself on his user page, probably without even realizing it. I don't think that facilitating self-ridicule of the mentally ill is a goal of Wikipedia. Good job blanking the page, but not allowing Google to index such pages would be better. Pcap ping 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention what I actually came here to say. Users LUIS_Armand_and_Angel and Judgefloro are two of the dozen alternate accounts he claims to have. This is in addition to the now blocked Juanatoledo. They haven't been active since 2007, but should something be done about those accounts? Especially since he declared his intention to keep editing either anonymously or under another name. --Migs (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, it is good to see this issue (finally) getting some attention from the community. I think the proposal to prevent google from indexing user pages is a really good one. Where could that be taken up? xschm (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins may also want to be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro, which he has recently been claiming that he won (presumably on the grounds that his account wasn't permanently banned on the spot). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply, deeply upset by the comments I'm reading above. It's completely inappropriate to talk so disparagingly of someone who has worked hard on Wikipedia for quite some period of time. Can we consider unblocking him now? Have any conditions been discussed? If there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. At the very least, let's restore his user page and quit adding insult to injury. Everyking (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring his user page would in no way be in the interests of Wikipedia. If we did that, it would be a statement that almost anything except attack pages is acceptable in userspace. dougweller (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so totally pleased that people are now finally talking about how crazy this is. For so so long, I thought no one else could see it. TheCoffee (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wake up, and smell the coffee! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Pcap ping 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I IAR and delete the personal images? We (and I suppose, he) don't really want anybody out there to turn some of those into some internet meme or something, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dang, they are all on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we just need to find a commons admin. I don't know if the user is even blocked over at commons yet? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are, uh...nice pictures -shifty eyes- , but I really can't see any encyclopedic value in them. I'm not really familiar with the deletion policies, but I really feel uncomfortable with just letting those images sit there. ♫ IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the time and patience to go over his uploads, I think most of them can be tagged for deletion [127] because they fail [128]. Pcap ping 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

When someone devotes a year or more of their own time to help us build an encyclopedia, that is something worthy of our respect, not ridicule. This discussion, filled with claims of mental illness and insults, is wildly inappropriate. If we cannot agree on unblocking Florentino, we can at least treat him with some measure of respect. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Everyking. Respect for everyone, especially the weaker members of society, should be a motherhood issue. Understood and followed by everyone. Dr.K. (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax people. He's indef blocked, we're not going to unblock him, and arguing over semantics here isn't constructive. Concerns: 1) have all his socks been blocked 2) what are we going to do about his upcoming unblock? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] If yer not gonna unblock him, why should we be concerned about his "upcoming unblock"? X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm wary of another thing like this. And I won't be the one handling the upcoming unblock because I recused myself by declining the first unblock. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested on my talk page that if Floro agrees to be more civil we should unblock him. It is my position that given his behaviour in the past this wouldn't work and that he is not in control of himself enough to do this. And of course that there are other reasons why an unblock would be wise, which we don't need to discuss unless someone seriously starts a new discussion about unblocking him. dougweller (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Everyking, I don't think anyone else is pressing from an unblock. Given a review of this archive, I don't think an unblock is warranted in any situation. I don't care that he suffers from a mental condition. I care that it clearly affects his editing, and in the end, it's a giant net negatitive. He's clearly not responsive to any attempts at reasonable discourse to change his behavior. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What should we do if he tries to subvert the block by using a sockpuppet, maybe User:Lux Lord? xschm (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch, how did you find that one? I'm blocking it indefinitely. TheCoffee (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Better keep an eye on this fellow as well. I suspect this is Floro, though I have no evidence other than the speech patterns on the few talk page edits he has. --Migs (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And created just about 5 hours after Floro's block. Remember, we know that Floro has created sockpuppets in the past, there is every reason to believe he is likely to be using them now. dougweller (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely floro. The MV Sirius Star is one of his obsessions. xschm (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My position is that we ought to outline conditions that would make it at least theoretically possible for Florentino to resume editing, if he is willing to modify his behavior, rather than saying, like Doug, that he is fundamentally incapable of working within the environment and should never be allowed back under any circumstances. As I pointed out on Doug's talk page, this is only Florentino's second block ever. Florentino has been around for quite a while, and if he's such a difficult and troublesome user, why hasn't he been blocked more often? It's not normal to move straight to an indef when dealing with an editor like Florentino. Why don't we try short blocks to see if his behavior can be guided in that manner? Everyking (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just tossing off some ideas for unblock conditions:-

• F. Floro acknowledges that the behaviour that got him blocked for harassment was unacceptable and undertakes not to repeat it;
• F. Floro accepts an experienced editor as a mentor;
• an experienced editor volunteers to mentor F. Floro.

How does that sound so far? Sufficient, or is there more? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Those seem like reasonable conditions to me. The fundamental thing--I think--is that he face the fact that he has behaved inappropriately. Also, since I have seen him be adopted before, I think we need assurances from the adopter/mentor that floro will be closely supervised, and actively coached on what constitutes good editing. I think the indefinite block is unnecessarily harsh, but if he comes back, I think it is reasonable for the community to expect a more conciliatory tone from him and a willingness to listen to criticism. I have been among the harshest critics of his editorial style, but all along I've said that I don't think he is unredeemable (if that's a word). xschm (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This will not work. Check his talk page archives yourselves and see. He refuses to be adopted by Filipino editors because he believes there is a conspiracy against him. He also believes his first adopter resigned due to being harassed by said Filipino editors. When criticized, he does not respond with anything constructive but rather says "DENIED" and asks us to course our complaints through his adopter instead. It's clear that he thinks of adoption as protection. This is supported by the fact that Floro began looking for a new adopter and canvassing for help at the same time the ANI discussion began. He even titled the heading "Help me, then, adopt me, if you please"!

As far as asking him to acknowledge his own behaviour, I need to remind everyone that this is only one of the reasons the block was made indefinite. Again, check the previous discussion for the full breadth of Floro's faults as an editor. Not only that; even if he does refrain from harassing people on Wikipedia, he will continue to do it offsite. I had previously linked one of his many blogs where he quite publicly discusses the lives of several Wikipedia editors whom he's encountered, and I can personally attest that Floro has been pestering at least two editors on other websites. Sure, this may not be happening on Wikipedia, but it's clearly a related matter and I think several people are uncomfortable enough with that as it is.

Lastly, the discussion about his self-admitted psychosis has been removed. I don't know why so many people are unwilling to hear this. It is not irrelevant at all. We have never opposed Floro because of his mental problems but because these mental problems are very clearly reflected in most of his edit history. He accuses editors of conspiracies, "outs" them as being connected to real-life disasters, and defends his non-notable edits by saying his psychic powers told him they were notable. This is not something that can be fixed by reprimanding him. And yes, we know he's the real deal because his uploads to commons are pictures that only the real Floro would have. --Migs (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a whole ton of comments. Here is why: WP:BLP applies to *all* pages of Wikipedia, not just articles. This is a real person we're talking about, or a name that belongs to a real person, and we don't even know if the editor using this name is actually the individual it belongs to. Can folks please, please stay away from drawing conclusions about the personality behind the account, and try to keep in mind that we should treat all BLP issues with seriousness and respect and not disdain or deprecating humor? Avruch ^T 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef is just that, Indefinite. It can be hours, days, months, years. The point is to protect Wikipedia, right? I think he has shown that he is incapable of working within the environment (indeed, I don't think he really understands the environment) and I'm unhappy about his blog where he discusses the personal life of Wikipedia editors - do we welcome him back and ignore that? And recall that he is evading the block in any case. Do we just ignore that and unblock him? Is everyone happy with his edits here [129]? It isn't quite as simple as just acknowledging that the behaviour that got him blocked was unacceptable, not any more. I just had an edit conflict, if we think the editor using Floro's name isn't Floro then we really should be concerned, but I doubt that is the case. dougweller (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the link to his blog here had been removed. dougweller (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think blocking him permanently is the best solution. He reason he's even lasted as long as he has is because so many people have assumed he has the ability to listen and adapt to criticism, which he has not demonstrated. At least two people have formally acted as his mentor and have been frustrated to the edge. At least two more people have scrutinized his edits obsessively and provided a wealth of criticism that he simply outright rejects. He is nearly impossible to deal with using logic (for one, see his edits on Jimbo's talk page). This is a guy with serious mental issues, and should not be writing an encyclopedia. If you look at his history with the Philippine Supreme Court you'd empathize with them... he's frustrated them to the edge as well. He'll listen to nothing less than a block, which is exactly what the SC did to his career as a judge. I oppose a move to unblock. TheCoffee (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When I gave him an Indef block, I expected that he'd apologise and stop the behaviour that led him to being blocked. Which was fine with me. It was only after the block that my position changed. Before we can seriously consider an unblock we need to examine his apparent use of sockpuppets and his seeming willingness to out Filipino users (and others), both on Wikipedia and off. dougweller (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone request/run a checkuser if there's concern about him abusing sockpuppets? Pcap ping 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1RR violation report

Violation of User_talk:Boodlesthecat#1RR_restrictions: revert 1: 00:20, November 23, 2008 and revert 2: 10:54, November 23, 2008 (two reverts within 8 hours). That's the third violation of this restriction (User_talk:Boodlesthecat#Blocked, User_talk:Boodlesthecat#Blocked_3) in the past few weeks. PS. Proof of my involvement in the article: [130]; refer to the discussion of past blocks for clarifications that this restriction generally applies to any article the two of us edit (his last block was for the same article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly? You want to get Boodlesthecat blocked - during an arbitration involving you and also him (and others including myself) - for two reverts in a revert war with a person who originally got into the case with Boodlesthecat thanks to your canvassing in the Poland-related noticeboard ([131], thus hardly a 3rd party as required) and has furthermore violated 3RR right now (previous version revert to: [132], 1, 2, 3, 4). You've not even been involved in the revert war. If that's not Wikilawyering, what is? Sciurinæ (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus was also aware of the 3RR issue regarding Radek. After his fourth revert, Radek received a line in Polish on his talk page ([133]) that when put into the Google translator says something about "Rule of Thirds rewertow". Apparently Radek doesn't have IM contact with him yet. Sciurinæ (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First, do the math a bit better...the two edits were more than 10 hours apart, not 8. Second, Boodles has a legitimate point here from a policy (rather than a content dispute point of view). The part Boodles was reverting wasn't in the referenced material, despite Radek's assertion of it. What was removed was technically OR, which was a legit removal. I see no justification of any block at this point. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First I would like to say that I would really appreciate it if when other editors mention me in these controversial and contentious cases they let me know. Otherwise I find out about it through indirect means well after things been said, and what can I say, not having had a say I feel like it's a dishonest use of my edits. It's basically talking behind a person's back. Second, I did not get into a revert war with Boodles due to canvassing by Piotrus. I first ENCOUNTERED Boodles after a post on Polish Wikipedia's Board by Piotrus but what's wrong with that? I saw Piotrus post a notice about an article that I thought was of interest, I checked it out, I saw what I thought was POV material I reverted it. Little did I know at the time that I stepped into a nasty quagmire. Boodles (or somebody else, I don't honestly remember) reverted me after which I took it to the talk page and did not revert Boodles (or whoever) again. There was no revert/edit war involved, at least as far as the interaction between me and Boodles (this is also a positive comment on Boodles' behavior). Second, in reference to the current situation over at the Rescue article, I am NOT in violation of 3RR. Please note that some of the edits Sciruinae offers as evidence are consecutive edits - in other words they're on a single edit done in two parts - and the 3RR rule clearly states that "A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

Finally, after my 3rd revert, Piotrus left a message in Polish on my talk page. Sciurinæ's paranoia basically displays his bad faith. What Piotrus' said, verbatim, was "Please watch the 3RR rule. It would be stupid of you to get a block". Basically Piotrus saw that I made 3 reverts and was telling me not to make another one. He's also chastised me for my sloppy referencing (and I am sloppy with the inline references, I admit) in the past. Why the freak out? Now, all of this could be simply ascribed to Sciurinæ being paranoid and ..., well, I don't quite know what his problem is having never interacted with him before. But the last sentence: "Apparently Radek doesn't have IM contact with him yet" is the perfect display of BAD FAITH that this whole situation has deteriorated into. In point of fact and as strange as it may seem to some, I HAVE NEVER USED IM IN MY LIFE. With Piotrus or anyone else. That statement is all about insinuation ("Are you now or have you ever been guilty of using IM?) and completely empty of substance. This is what this discussion has become. Insinuations, threats, accusations and a complete lack of the assumption of good faith on the part of one's "opponents". From people I've never interacted with before. It's Wiki at it's worst.

Sciruinae should apologize for his incorrect accusations, for his assumption of bad faith, and for talking about me behind my back.

As to AKRadecki's point, yes, technically what Boodles reverted wasn't in the reference, if by "wasn't" you mean it wasn't there word for word. But then if we stuck to word for word rendering of referenced materials Wikipedia would be one big copy vio. What it was, despite AKR's assertion, was not OR, but a summary of what was in the source. Which is what we do with sources, paraphrase and summarize them. There was no personal opinion (contrary to some false edit summaries) nor 'editorializing' involved. So no, Boodles' revert was not legitimate. It was more of the same "assume bad faith" attitude displayed by Sciruinae above, and then revert away. I have no idea whether or not a block is justified for Boodles, not having kept up with his restrictions or the trouble he gets into. But I do resent the dishonest statements made above.radek (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not digress. This is not about Radek or anybody else. Boodlesthecat is on a 1RR violation yet has reverted twice within 10 hours. What should we do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, would you mind not trying to make out like you're a neutral admin when Boodlesthecat, who you constantly campaign against, is one of your greatest POV foes? It's only fair and honest, as not every admin who comes here will know the background. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, as a person who launched an ArbCom against me, perhaps you should state your likes and dislikes first? I have linked the 1RR restriction which goes into history of mine's and Boody's interaction. This is not a place for anything more.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you may have tried to convince others I (a Scottish phd medieval history student of Irish descent) am a Russian Polonophobe in order to derail that ArbCom hearing, but I can't let that bother me, and I got a responsibility to uphold neutrality and perceived neutrality. Perceived neutrality is exactly why I ignored the Boodlesthecat 3RR report (I was patrolling AN/3 when that was listed), despite the fact that, our relations aside, I'm actually neutral. Was this really necessary btw? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1RR restrictions were on both you, Piotrus, and Boodlesthecat when reverting one another, which did not happen in the relevant edit war, so no more funny arguments. Secondly, tag teaming was declared a focus in the arbitration, so I didn't ignore the unusual sight of a 3RR reminder in Polish, and supporting the argument that it was in Polish so that it would be overlooked by others was also that Piotrus and Radek had no IM contact where such messages would be easy. Thirdly, I'm sick of having to clarify and add things because you, Piotrus, overlook the offenses by certain people while seeing (wrongly) those of others, or at least when you makes those mistakes one could expect a better attitude than hostility for providing missing information. Fourthly, I triple-checked all the reverts, consecutive edits and the time of each, and it was a clear-cut 3RR violation. Lastly, now that the article is protected, the need for the block on Radek has diminished. Perhaps it would be a special gesture of goodwill to lift the block early (though this should not lead to yet more pestering the blocking admin as if he had acted improperly). Sciurinæ (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. 1RR applies to reverts of any other editor in any article both of us are editing. This is a clear violation. Please stop trying to turn this into discussion of something (or somebody) else.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the block was placed on Radek after the article was protected. Since Radek is not cited with edit warring on other articles, the block currently serves no purpose except as punishment. I would respectfully request this block be lifted ASAP. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pietrus, given the general nature of the material in the arb com cases, and the expressed feelings of various parties that there is some degree of collusion (in whatever direction), was it really wise to write the message in Polish? If the translation above is correct, the message seems innocent and proper enough, and writing it in English would have prevented the apparently unjustified suspicion that it was otherwise. When things are as they are, it helps to be utterly straightforward and do everything in the most obvious and transparent way. DGG (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have used English; I was tired and forgot. In any case, anybody assuming that Polish language messages are wrong violates AGF. And we people are ignoring the clear 1RR violation by Boody? That's beyond me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What's beyond me is that despite your agreement to stop calling me "Boody", which I told you I dont like, you continue to do it. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Block

Resolved

I'm not really sure how to do this, or if this really is the right page for this. But an unnamed IP address recently vandilized my talk page. Could I please get some help? Wise dude321 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism's been cleared up. For future reference, you may like to have a read through Wikipedia:Vandalism which gives a good overview of how to deal with it. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Goa protected over edit war

User:Deepak D'Souza and User:Husond has been edit-warring over the article Invasion of Goa for a long time. The dispute seems to be about (of all things!!) whether to use diacritic marks on the names of some towns. (an example diff). After 6 reverts -- 3 each by these two users -- over a 24 hour period, I have protected the article for 1 week. I am putting the article protection on review for all admins here (since any such protection seems to raise the "wrong version" accusation these days!!). I have also advised the edit-warring users to refer to dispute resolution processes such as request for comments and involving knowledgeable 3rd parties to resolve this.

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT

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

Resolved

 – all offending links are now DEAD from Delicious carbuncle's userpage

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a link to an off-wiki website entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Wikipedia" on their user page. I am pretty sure this contravenes our user page policy; Bellinghaus is a real person with an article here, and Dickinson is his colleague. I removed it once after discussion with the user, and the user has now restored it. Rather than block I thought I would bring it here for others to review, as I have been involved in editing the Bellinghaus article and am therefore not disinterested. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block? For what? I restored the userbox after reviewing WP:UP#NOT and finding nothing that seemed relevant. I asked you in the edit summary to bring it here or MFD if you continued to have concerns. Your comments on my talk page were added after I had restored it, fully 20 minutes after you had removed the material from my userpage. I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your comment about blocking me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than repeat the discussion here, please see the discussion on my talk page here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a block is premature until DC refuses to take down the link. This link is definately bad; one should not game the system by linking to pages that merely exist to contain information that would not normally be allowed at Wikipedia. We do not allow this sort of information on a userpage, so we also should not allow links to this sort of information. A userpage is not about discussing the behaviors of other people in this way; we don't maintain lists of "perceived wrongs" at Wikipedia, and therefore we should not also link to such pages from our userpage. The link should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The very short version of this is that I am falsely identified in several places on the internet, including Bellinghaus' own blog as Pauline Berry. I am not Pauline Berry. I have linked to the page on Berry's site where she addressed this misidentification. I do not control the content of the site. Most of the page is actually just cut and paste of WP discussions. I am not refusing to take down the link, but I don't have time for this discussion at the moment. If a consensus is reached that the link must go, please leave the userbox intact and just remove the link. Thanks. 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since DC is being falsely linked to Pauline Berry on other sites, it is not unreasonable for him/her to want a denial on the userpage. However, DC, I wonder if you might be willing to remove the link. Perhaps people can e-mail you if they want more than just your denial. Let's leave aside hitting DC with policy, and just ask nicely. Would you please, in the interests of reducing drama, be willing to remove this link?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, if I say my name is Xing, will you do as I ask? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Having read all the proof (following the links on DC's talk page)((PS: I read it a long time ago)), I was astounded at the attempts to identify DC, and the lengths someone went to in order to trash them. I have NO issue with DC defending themselves. You insist they remove the link, then DC can just copy and paste a whole whack of it ... and place <ref> </ref> with it, so that it's properly cited. ►BMW◄ 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est folie ! L'escarboucle doit utiliser tous les outils il ou elle a à leur disposition pour se défendre du "bellinghaus" d'équipe et n'importe quelle suggestion autrement serait comme mettre un tas des briques sur un hamster et l'instruire au " équilibre, " de monsieur. Les tendrils de la marque Bellinghaus vont loin et profondément. Cahiers du jason (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Parlez en anglais, s'il vous plait. C'est la "English" Wikipedia. (Putting bricks on a hamster and telling it to "balance" - have to remember that one.) Avruch ^T 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloqué pendant une semaine pour perturbation, je suppose avec Google translator. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacré phoque!!! ►BMW◄ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest resolving any off-wiki problems off-wiki and just doing stuff on here that is designed to improve our encyclopedia. I don't think this falls into that area which is why I raised it here, after my attempts to persuade Delicious carbuncle to remove the material were unsuccessful. And, although naturally we are all highly able linguists here, this is best resolved in English. --John (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki things are often brought here, such as threats, etc. We have a policy against WP:OUTING. Editors may also defend themselves. They're not spamming/advertising. Case closed. I see very little support for your attempts to remove their defense. On top of that, I know that I am a cunning linguist, and the block of a user noted above is partly because of comments made in this thread, so relax a little. ►BMW◄ 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of "defense". "He did it first" is not a defense against WP:BLP. I am relaxed about most things but this is a flagrant breach of a policy which exists to keep our organization safe from being sued. I am not relaxed about this. I do not want to see anyone blocked over this, I just want the offending and unencyclopedic content removed in accordance with our policy on user pages. --John (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to settle any dispute through having this link on my userpage, either on- or off-wiki. I'm simply trying to correct the misidentification by pointing to the web site of the other person being falsely identified. Let me point out again that what you refer to as "the offending and unencyclopedic content" isn't on my userpage. People coming to my userpage will not see it unless they choose to click on the external link. I don't think there's anything even remotely actionable on the external web page, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BUt the whole point is, if its information that would not normally be allowed on your userpage, then its not information you should be able to link to from your userpage. The distinction between "actually printed on my userpage" vs. "printed in a link from my userpage" is moot, and attempting to claim that the former should be allowed where the latter is not is simply gaming the system. The link should come down! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, either, but there are tons of editors linking to their personal blogs on their userpage. Instead of racing to claim the lofty moral righteousness of Policy, why can't people start off with the basics - that the page linked in DC's userpage makes them feel uneasy; nothing more, nothing less - and then have a level, paced, reasoned discussion from there? Part of what's dragging the project down (as well as many other Web 2.0-style projects, I should add) is this notion of discussion as a "race" of some sort. If people could feel comfortable asking for clarification and/or elaboration ("What do you mean? ~~~~") without being looked down on as trolls or threadshitters, not only would we all collectively end up with a lot more clarity and elaboratification, but long-winded folk (*cough*) wouldn't feel as pressured to address every single conceivable point in one long mass of tl;dr, perhaps skipping over important nuances in our drive to explain all. Focused conversations are good, but there's such a thing as too focused. Badger Drink (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I think there's a difference between the content actually being on WP and being on an external site. If the guidelines are to protect WP from being sued, as John suggests, there is good reason to disallow certain content on user pages, but that no longer applies if the content only linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes any difference? More importantly, what is this contributing to our mission to build an encyclopedia? If you cannot answer convincingly, you should take the link down. --John (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES was rejected. --NE2 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur though. I am not objecting to this because of BADSITES but because it contravenes WP:USER and WP:BLP, neither of which has been rejected. --John (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you suggest above, WP:BLP exists to protect WP from potential legal issues, then there is no issue here since the content is not on WP. I still don't see any part of WP:USER that applies here - can you be more specific? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. WP:BLP exists to ensure that this project does no unnecessary harm to living individuals. It way beyond what might be legally actionable. It certainly does apply to userspace, and can at times apply to links that contain libels, or other grossly unhelpful material. We don't link bios to attack blogs for instance, and we don't link the names of private individuals to unauthoritive attack pages. BLP is pertinent here. Please do remove the link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:USER that may address the charge from Jayron32 that I am attempting to "game the system": "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." The clear implication is that content which is not allowed on user pages may be freely linked to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well and good; but BLP trumps USER I'm afraid. Please remove the link. --John (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I know you've corresponded with Bellinghaus and you may feel that you need to protect him. If he were simply posting nasty remarks about "Delicious carbuncle", I really wouldn't care. Sadly, he is targeting an entirely innocent party and claiming that we are one and the same. Bellinghaus' account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here for similar comments. I am simply linking to the page on her site where Pauline Berry defends herself against Bellinghaus' accusations. I don't feel that the content of that page is offensive, but it's a moot point since it is a private website and WP rules don't apply. She has, as a result of the discussion on my talk page and unbidden by me, changed the title of the page to "Mark Bellinghaus Accusations Addressed". I don't feel that I am violating any policy or guideline by linking to the page, but does the title change alleviate your concerns? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If somebody accuses you of something on-wiki, we can deal with it, as you have seen. Off-wiki stuff doesn't need to be dealt with on your Wikipedia user page. I find it astonishing the amount of time and energy you have spent defending this link. It contributes nothing at all to the reason we are here; why is it so important to you to keep it? --John (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The time I've spent defending it is only as the direct result of your attempts to have me remove it. I've explained several times now why the link is on my userpage. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I will remove the link if that is the consensus that is reached. I honestly don't see that consensus here, nor do I feel that I am in violation of any WP rules, but I'm sure there's an admin or two who will weigh in shortly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm growing rather tired of John's continual one-sided arguments about this. It's starting to look like a jihad witch-hunt relentless-chase-very-much-along-the-same-line-as-the-hunt-for-the-one-armed-man. We got your point from the start. Further repetition of the same point, although with different wording, is not swaying anyone. I see no real consensus to take punitive action, and I really still don't get why there was any feeling that immediate intervention was required. ►BMW◄ 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A link on wikipedia to a web site, where someone complains of "being harassed by telephone and being defamed online as a 'criminal'" by a named living person is completely unacceptable. It is indeed a one-sided argument and is spelled out clearly in WP:BLP. We do not allow such links. Ty 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review this entry on Bellinghaus' blog entitled "Pauline Berry, 45, the Cyberstalker & Marilyn Monroe mocker is bored to death in New Zealand and hiding behind names like Delicious Carbuncle on Wikipedia and more of the hired haters, freaks & creeps". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite irrelevant to our policies, which are not dictated by people's blogs; nor is wikipedia a place to promote off-wiki attacks on people, whether justified or not. Your implication about John above is quite unfounded. Both he and I have had email correspondence with the individual in question, and both of us in the last 24 hours have received what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life, so I can assure you there is no motivation for personal favours. I am, for the record, apparently John, as well as some other people I've never heard of before, and am in league with Delicious Carbuncle. Now, will you kindly remove the link. Ty 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Through no actions of my own, my username has been inserted into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between two people and my userpage linked to by one of those parties. As Bellinghaus' own blog entry shows, the parts of the linked web page that you picked out as offensive are factual. I don't think that it is accurate to characterise Berry's site as an attack page, nor is it reasonable to expect that any external site will follow WP policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External sites can follow whatever policies they want, but users on this site have to follow wikipedia policies. That is a requiring of having the privilege of editing here, and that is why one of the individuals involved in this dispute has been blocked from this site. It is not appropriate for a user page to direct people to extreme accusations in a vicious blog war. As you don't seem to be willing to take the link off, I am making a proposal that it is removed regardless. Ty 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of this pointlessly long thread, I am perfectly willing to remove the link of there is consensus for me to do so. Despite John's constantly shifting reasons for deleting the link and your assertion that this is in violation of WP:BLP, I don't believe that I am in violation of any WP policy and I don't see any consensus for removal of the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To date those asking for removal are John, Jayron32, Scott MacDonald, Tyrenius. The only clear supporter (in English) of this link is BMW. It's quite obvious that the consensus is that it is not appropriate. Ty 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took Scott MacDonald's comments as a request to reduce unnecessary drama, and I think I addressed Jayron32's concerns about WP:USER#NOT earlier in this thread. NE2's statement is pretty clearly against removal. I don't know how to take Badger Drink's comments. BMW also finds that no consensus has been reached. You and John have dominated this thread. Given that both of you have been involved with Bellinghaus' bio and have off-wiki communication with Bellinghaus, I question your neutrality in this matter.I think I've said everything I need to say here and I'm tired of repeating myself, so my only request is that someone other than you or John remove the link if they decide that there is consensus to do so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my 10c worth as owner of the site pointed to from DC's page is this: since both Ty and John are in contact with Bellinghaus could they possibly suggest he could solve his own problems by removing HIS accusations on his blog?[134] I know its almost too simple a solution to consider. Then DC I am sure would have no problem removing the link, the same as I would have no problem with taking down the page itself referring to this wiki dispute. I have to say there is nothing attacking in my page, (Ty said "vicious" - I am really confused about that, as I think that word applies in a "Godzilla-like" way to the above link on the Bellinghaus site about myself). At most, there a little sarcasm on my page, which outlines my looking into the reason for the phonecalls etc. I don't see how it can be viewed as "accusatory" either, as it simply reproduces "on record" wiki conversations between myself and DC including Bellinghaus's own words. Accusations? I am not accusing him of making a threatening phone call, it actually happened and you can hear a recording of it on my page. Yes the text is somewhat damning - yes, the text gives a very bad impression of Bellinghaus - but he authored it and admitted his wiki ids! He is the author of his own bannings all over the net. No, the page is an explanation for anyone catching a very bad impression of DC and myself via highly critical and incorrect information on Bellinghaus blogs.

Furthermore, I dare not communicate with Bellinghaus myself, as anything I could possibly say (and I tried total understanding and kindness, believe me) will be twisted against me and reproduced a 100 times on various blogs.

On another note; Ty and John are worried about threats of Wikipedia being sued, rest assured Mark's threats are simply that. I have heard all that before (as can you if you listen to the recordings on my site). Now a question: is the threat of a lawsuit an actual threat? i.e. an empty lawsuit threat is simply a tool of intimidation, thus a threat, is it not . . . . ? Restawhile (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Restawhile. If you read upthread a few posts you will see that Mark Bellinghaus and I are no longer in contact with one another as a result of some highly abusive emails he has sent to me and Tyrenius, accusing us of both being one and the same and also being someone who he has been in conflict with, so the idea of me or Ty asking him to do anything like that is out of the question. Let me also clarify that I have no interest whatsoever in your blog, Bellinghaus's blog or any other blog. My interest has only ever been in removing this offending material from Wikipedia. Once that is done the matter is concluded for me. Furthermore BLP is not entirely predicated on the likelihood of a user actually filing suit against the Wikimedia Foundation, but simply in preventing harm to living people. However ironic it may seem after MB's abusive behavior, I remain committed to correcting this situation on-wiki. --John (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that John or I are not neutral because we have received emails from MB to be absurd, unless it means we are biased against MB, which I don't think is what was intended. I mean, DC, please actually read the post you are answering: it describes the emails received as "what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life". So I am under no illusion about the nature of the aggravation involved. But it has no place on wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia. WP:BLP mandates that no contentious material about living people has any place on the project, unless it is properly referenced by reliable sources, not personal interpretations of the blogosphere. That includes links on wikipedia which go to such material. Find acceptable sources which think it is a sufficiently important matter, and then it can go in the article. Until such time, wikipedia does not provide space to promote it. Ty 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "basic human dignity" goes both ways: if someone's pointing people to a user page, saying that user is someone, that user should be able to deny that. And for everyone that says BLP requires removal of links such as this: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statement, March 1st, 2008 --NE2 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an objection to a simple statement of denial (especially as the RL person mentioned is supportive). It's the link that is problematic. The linked page had an extremely inflamatory heading, which has now been toned down, so it is an unpredictable page (just the reason blogs are steered clear of), but essentially geared to negative information about a third party. Jimbo's statement is not criticising a third party: it is defending his own actions and relationship to wikipedia. Had there been a litany of Rachel Marsden's perceived flaws, it would have been received very differently. Ty 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

John apparently has a problem with more than just the link. --NE2 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The diff shows him removing the link(s). If you mean he removed the user box as well as the link in it, well, that's just nit-picking, and is not going to help reach a solution, which seems to be evolving further down the discussion. Ty 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a highly tenuous connection for you to make for two reasons. One is that the Jimbo sex scandal was a major gossip story back in March, placing it in a different class entirely from these people bickering over who said what about Marilyn Monroe's dress. The other is that while people half-jokingly refer to Jimmy Wales as a god-king, we all know that he does not create policy or precedent by his actions.--John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how someone's user page can be considered part of the building of the encyclopedia, its simply a user page, of no consequence to actual articles on wiki Restawhile (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP does apply everywhere, including user pages. The question is whether it applies to this statement and link. --NE2 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess Jimbo Wales is in trouble too. I am for the general consensus bearing the weight of decision. If my vote counts, I say "keep". However, I didn't ask DC to link to my site and am well used to my stalker, so I don't really mind what happens here. I do however, thank DC, if chivalry was behind the linking, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about my real name and his/her user name forever being linked on the internet in such a negative way.Restawhile (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to make a signed statement on DC's page that there is no evidence that DC is Pauline Berry and all the evidence indicates that (s)he is not, and that DC is a respected editor on wikipedia. If some other editors provided something similar, it would be immediately informative to anyone going to the user page, having read about it elsewhere in a negative way. Ty 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great solution to me. Perhaps mention there is no isp number in common? Restawhile (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would be happy with this solution. Far better than linking to an attack blog out of some misguided sense of equal time. Wikipedia is not here to provide equal time or to address perceived wrongs off-site. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what people's IP addresses are, but for the rest I have the evidence of my own eyes. Ty 06:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This solution has been rejected by Delicious carbuncle.[135] Ty 05:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This link is not acceptable

This page[136] would not be permitted on a user page. It violates WP:UP#NOT and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space. It is not acceptable to game the system by posting an external link to it instead. The page concerns a banned editor, and a real name, where the person is said to be "a deranged fan" with the comment "I couldn't have agreed with this statement more", who "writes new lies about you daily", and who makes phone calls "in a menacing manner": the commentator states, "I was being harassed by telephone." It mentions the real name of an associated third party, who is accused of being a "co-harasser". The fact that some of this was stated on wikipedia is irrelevant. Some of it shouldn't have been in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be compiled and attention drawn further to it. All of this is far in excess of Delicious carbuncle's purported motive of simply asserting that s/he is not Pauline Berry, which can be achieved by a plain statement to that effect. If Dc, as appears the case, is not willing to voluntarily remove the link, then it would be best done by someone not significantly involved in this discussion. Dc has indicated that this is acceptable, but if they then replace it, they should be blocked for doing so. Ty 05:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would second the above. The link is not acceptable merely because DC has found some random line on a guidleline page that may be used to kinda-sorta justify it. WP:OUTING is a sacrosacnt policy at Wikipedia. We cannot control what happens off-wiki, but we really should prevent people from making any attempt on-wiki to out other users, and linking to a page which outs a Wikipedia user is the same as outing on the wiki itself. If the link is removed, then there would be no problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread I'm being unnecessarily threatened with blocking (both times by admins who have off-wiki contact with Bellinghaus). I've made my position clear in my earlier comments. If quoting the guideline that I'm supposedly breaking is finding "a random line" and wikilawyering then there's little I can say in my defense. I'm making no further comments here so that I won't be blocked for being "disruptive" which is usually what comes next in these kinds of witch hunts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at resolution

I personally believe that this does not need to be solved at an administrator level. As I'm officially a neutral party with no real previous interactions with either, I have offered to John and DC to informally mediate. If they both agree I would personally like to put this ANI issue on hold until then. To start, I would like to only involve the 2 original parties, and will involve additional comment later. I am awaiting response from John and DC on my talkpage in order to move forward with a resolution that is acceptable to WP and all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

A mediator should be neutral. I do not regard Bwilkins as neutral, so I reject this offer. The consensus here seems reasonably clear in favor of removing the attack link. I suggest that Bwilkins or another party remove the link, and that DC be blocked for a short period if they restore it. DC has rejected what seemed to be a reasonable compromise offer in favor of the status quo, which I don't think is acceptable. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a sad understanding of both WP:CONSENSUS and of my own neutrality, if the above is actually what you believe. I'm actually quite blown away that you have no realization that your "opponent" is also a human being with feelings, and that I (as about the 4th person who was disagreeing against only 2 others) was somehow against "consensus", and is anything other than neutral. Wow. Good luck with your future interactions with the human race. ►BMW◄ 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT Marking as resolved as the link no longer works from DC's page. ►BMW◄ 00:47, 23 November 2008 (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.

Block evasion (related issue)

Mark Bellinghaus' self-identified account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here. An account previously part of this Bellinghaus-related SSP case has recently begun editing again, on Mark Bellinghaus. Anyone having read the above thread should understand and recognize the accusations made here, even though they didn't make sense to me at the time. Weareallone (talk · contribs) is quite obviously Bellinghaus evading his block. SPA TerpischoreMuse (talk · contribs) is a likely sock as well. Can someone please look at blocking? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban for Weareallone and Delicious carbuncle from editing the Mark Bellinghaus article, in the interest of reduced dramah. MB should not be editing his own article, and DC has amply demonstrated that a conflict of interest exists for them on this subject too. --John (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to get into this debate too much, as it looks like many concerned are getting very caught up in it, but I think it's worth pointing out the state of the article when DC made his first edit on it: 1, at a point when seasoned editors John and TY had made edits but not had an issue with the content. To me, that looks like an article with need of a lot of improvement, and looking at the history, not only has DC patrolled the page, removing both unreasonably positive comments and negative attacks, s/he has also incurred a great deal of abuse from the parties involved in the page simply because s/he was following WP guidelines. To prevent anyone from editing the page if they have been contacted by Mark Bellinghaus would first exclude practically everyone who does, as MB seems to get in touch in most of these cases, and secondly would definately exclude DC, TY, John, Pauline Berry especially, all of whom have confirmed that they were contacted by Bellinghaus. If DC is to be banned for COI issues, then surely John and TY must undergo the same sanction. You can't just have one rule for one in this case, surely? Fantastic Work (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Get the facts right. The article as lasted edited by John and myself[137] was nothing like the version you linked to. It had subsequently had multiple edits by Weareallone to bring it to the version you cite, whose contents I would certainly have an issue with. You might like to be more specific about and substantiate "s/he has also incurred a great deal of abuse from the parties involved in the page," as this casts a negative light over anyone who has edited the article. What COI exactly do you think I have? I have no involvement with any of the RL activities of the people involved, nor any particular interest in the subject. Ty 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This is Fantastic Work's first edit. Who are you a sock of? Ty 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very simple request to look into block evasion. It's not drama and it's not in any way, shape, or form an attack on the individual using the accounts. Bellinghaus has never contacted me off-wiki. Can we just deal with this like any other admin request, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI does not just mean that though. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". It is a line you have crossed with the user page comment and (now-dead) link you are still fighting to keep. There are plenty of other editors who can work on that article. You should not, and neither, I agree, should its subject. --John (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Weareallone has now been blocked. I'm not sure what I'm being accused of here. I have no "outside interests" in Bellinghaus. Bellinghaus inserted my username into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between himself and someone else after I nominated the article for deletion many months ago. That was nothing to do with me. My interest in the article is exactly the same now as it was then, except I now know more about Bellinghaus. I'm happy to treat the article as fully protected and make suggestions on the talk page. Will that satisfy you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban on Mark Bellinghaus proposed here--I broke it off because this thread is getting way long. Blueboy96 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it just below. It belongs with the rest of the talk here. Ty 03:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Mark Bellinghaus/Mmmovie/Weareallalone

Since it's obvious that Mmmovie=Weareallone=Mark Bellinghaus (see above), I've blocked Weareallone indef. And given that Mr. Bellinghaus has been inclined to harass Wikipedians offsite, I also propose a community ban. Blueboy96 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some past history--Mmmovie, alias Mark Bellinghaus, was blocked indef by me for an attempt to out another user's real-life identity. A discussion on the above-linked thread reveals that Mr. Bellinghaus has made several atempts to harass other Wikipedians offsite. While I agree that Delicious carbuncle probably needs to take a long break from editing Mr. Bellinghaus' article, harassing other Wikipedians offsite is not acceptable. Ever. Therefore, he needs to be sent on a permanent Wikibreak. Blueboy96 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to derail this discussion before it starts, but I want to repeat the suggestion I made at the other thread above: I'm more than willing to treat Mark Bellinghaus as fully protected and make my edit suggestions on the talk page. Since I seem unable to make even the most mundane and uncontentious change to the article without it being scrutinized and revised, it's probably better for everyone involved. Is this a reasonable compromise? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me ... but my point is that his off-site harassment would not be acceptable regardless of the circumstances. Blueboy96 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could deal with Delicious carbuncle's insistence on maintaining a link on their user page to off-site harassment. The discussion in the threads above on this— which I see as a consensus that the link should not be kept—was closed by Bwilkins on the basis that the matter was void as the link was dead. However, simply copying it into google brings up the cache of the page.[138] I can see no reason for maintaining a dead link unless to guide people to where to find the cache. As I have pointed out earlier, the page which the link refers to is about the banned editor and real name, where the person is said to be "a deranged fan", who "writes new lies about you daily", and who makes phone calls "in a menacing manner": the page owner states, "I was being harassed by telephone." It mentions the real name of an associated third party, who is accused of being a "co-harasser". There is some degree of reconciliation between the page owner and the target of the page, so to keep the link is doubly provocative as a sabotage of the page owner, who no longer wants it to be online. Ty 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... good point, Ty. To my mind, this now becomes a "two wrongs don't make a right" issue. Bellinghaus' harassment, on- and off-wiki, is miles beyond tolerable. But there's really no reason to have a dead link on a userpage once you know it's dead. I'm removing it.Blueboy96 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why I can't have a dead link on my userpage? I've already had this discussion with Tyrenius on my talk page. The page that Tyrenius refers to no longer exists, there is nothing offensive or even suggestive about the URL, and the idea that people reaching an error page will then Google the URL for a cached page seems somewhat ridiculous to me. Google's cached page will likely be gone in a matter of days anyway. There may be no reason to keep it, but surely that's for me to decide? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised the link hasn't be redirected to GoatSE yet. Suffice to say, you have no idea if it'll ever link to anything else. And a dead link is useless to any reader. At best, it's confusing; at worst, it could be misleading. Finally, we don't own our userpages, though editors tend to get some leeway. If consensus is you shouldn't have the link, you may as well take it down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right - the woman who was previously using the page to defend herself against some pretty awful online accusations will probably redirect the link to a pornographic shock site. I'll restore the userbox without the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the ban discussion get moved back to a separate thread? No one with any sense will touch it here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely offended by Hands that Feeds You's suggestion. Just goes to show perhaps that Mark Bellinghaus has indeed marred my reputation and perhaps someone has read his webpages and believed that perhaps even some of what he said is true. I thought his internet abuse was only hurtful to me if I came across it and had no bearing on real life, but judging from the above person's comment I feel it has damaged me after all. I have been very forgiving of MB against a mountain of abuse and I would never, ever dream of linking to extreme pornography or anything else remotely like it. Did Hand That Feeds actually read my page about MB and wikipedia? if they did I think their comprehension is dubious. I had to google to even find out what a GoatSE was. Hand that feeds should also see this page: www.marilynfansunited.com I think HTFY should retract the above disgusting suggestion about my possible behaviour! One more time, all the quotes from my page describe actual events and are/were not accusations. All these actual events were admitted by Bellinghaus himself! Its what I actually suffered and now it is being used against me! Restawhile (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Restawhile (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)