Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Harassment in User space.

User:Zsero has openly declared in past discussion that he has abandoned WP:AGF in his interactions with me. In light of this, I asked that he not make edits to my User or User_talk pages until he rescinds said abandonment. He has continued arguing in my User_talk space despite my request; this is harassment, and I request intervention against his continue posting there unless and until he rescinds his abandonment of WP:AGF. Italia^vivi 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no policy, guideline, or even mild suggestion, that editors own their talk pages, and can ban people from them. User talk pages exist to facilitate communication between editors, and any editor who has a legitimate comment to make to another editor, or a legitimate contribution to make to a discussion taking place on another editor's user talk page, is entitled to do so. Doing so does not constitute harassment in any sense of the word, and certainly not in the sense defined at WP:Harassment. As for AGF, it is decidedly not the case that one must continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary; I did AGF of Italiavivi for far longer than I needed to, but eventually the evidence to the contrary seemed to me overwhelming, and I stopped, as is clearly my right. I fail to see how that affects my right to participate in discussions taking place on his/her talk page. -- Zsero 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, I will ask politely one more time: Please abstain from making edits to my userspace until you rescind your declared abandonment of good faith against me. Italia^vivi 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No policy, guideline, or anything else, requires me to accede to such an request. I will continue to make reasonable and appropriate comments on your talk page whenever I see a legitimate cause to do so. I have not harassed you until now, and I have no intention of doing so in the future. -- Zsero 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you have not harassed me until now, now is not acceptable. Please do not make edits to my User space while you continue flaunting your abandonment of good faith against me elsewhere. It is harassment to fill my User space with arguments while openly declaring your refusal to assume good faith in discussions with me. Italia^vivi 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And I have hardly "filled" your user space with arguments. My comments there have been few and modest. Now if I were in fact "filling your user space" or trying to do so, e.g. by posting many KB of nonsense, that would be harassment. But I've never done so, or even come within orders of magnitude of appearing to do so, so I don't know where you come off implying otherwise. -- Zsero 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is generally recognized that when someone asks you to stop using their talk page, esp. in admitted cases of no AGF and no civility, the offending editor should stop. Please limit your conversation to the talk page of the article in question. Continuing to attack him on his talk page constitutes harassment (even if only he feels it's an attack, it's best to disengage.) ThuranX 03:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's "generally recognised" it must surely be written somewhere. Where?

BTW in this case there is no article in question, to whose talk page I could take it; the discussion, about something that happened here on ANI, was taking place on Italiavivi's talk page, between him/her and another editor, and s/he said something that wasn't true, so I pointed it out, as is my right. I was entirely factual, and documented the truth with the relevant diffs. -- Zsero 03:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First, above the 'until now' indicates you KNOW that your actions are taken as harrassment. beyond that, if you're going to wait till the admins block you by demanding I give you a policy citation for a common occurance here on AN/I, then good luck with that free time the block will get you. Your statement that you intend to keep editing there, despite your admission that it comes off as harassment, is a problem. but since you don't believe it, I'll step aside ,and let others get the point across. ThuranX 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. "Until now" indicates nothing of the sort. It means exactly what it says. I have never harassed Italiavivi, and I have no intention of harassing him/her, or anybody else. How you read what you do into it is beyond me. AFAIK when Italiavivi claims that declining a request not to edit a user talk page is per se harassment, s/he is using a definition of "harassment" that is peculiar to him/her. Are you really saying that you share that view? It's certainly not consistent with the definition at WP:Harassment. -- Zsero 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you all just walk away? This seems like pointless instigation at this point, and it's definitely not helping anyone resolve their disputes. --Haemo 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would love for him to walk away. I simply ask that Zsero not make edits to my User space until he rescinds his abandonment of good faith against me, nothing more. Italia^vivi 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct response would be "I would love to walk away", not "I would love for him to walk away". And since you're the one who filed this frivolous complaint here at ANI, I can hardly walk away from that can I? You have not "asked" me not to comment on your talk page, you have demanded it, something that you have no right to do, and threatened that if I refuse you will file frivolous complaints against me, such as this one. That's hardly something I can walk away from. I don't comment on your talk page to annoy you, I do it when I have something pertinent to say. Such as this evening, when you misrepresented what another editor had done, and I pointed out the facts. That's what the talk page is for, and I have every intention of continuing to do so when appropriate and not otherwise. -- Zsero 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Zsero, Italia, step away from each other entirely. Zsero, stop instigating discussions with Italia where he/she does not want to discuss things with you. Italia, ignore Zsero if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you should stop and rather concentrate energies on editing articles accordingly to WP:CIVIL. I did see the message on User talk:Zsero in which he explicitly talks about not proceeding with good faith towards the other editor. that means trolling! WP:TROLL/WP:GAME. Just because there are gaps in certain rules in wikipedia doesn't give you the right to harass someone else's user page and more if the other party doesn't want to discuss things not related to articles but a discussion here.[1] plus Zsero edited over taliavivi's comments (it is considered vandalism WP:TALK). My humble advice is to just drop all this nonsense..!!--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</st>

Excuse me? You've got to be kidding. 1) I am explicitly not required to AGF forever; how is declaring that I've reached the point where I no longer AGF of someone "trolling" or "gaming"? 2) How have I "harassed someone else's user page"? By "gaps in certain rules in wikipedia" do you mean that I'm expected to obey rules that exist in your head and nowhere else? 3) Deleting someone's comments on my own talk page is not vandalism - where on earth did you get the idea that it is? I'm entitled to delete them just as Italiavivi is entitled to delete comments on his/her talk page. I leave comments that I consider useful and constructive, even if they're criticism directed against me. In this case I saw no point in leaving the comment up. -- Zsero 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to consider this resolved so long as you both agree not to talk to each other on each other's user talks. How's that sound?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is what is being asked here, is it not?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ItaliaVivi is blocked for 48 hours for (unrelated) violation of 3RR, and has announced that he leaves Wikipedia, which makes this all rather moot. Fram 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may be relevant. Szero's comment on Italiavivi's user talk page included the word "confabulating" used in an unnecessary and provoking manner and may possibly have been a contributing factor in Italiavivi's decision to try to leave Wikipedia. I think that users should not have total control over their user talk page. They should not be able to use it as a forum where a limited group of people can develop a consensus that does not include all points of view (as I tried to do on a user page once and was criticized for it and stopped). However, posting a comment which does not assume good faith and which is provoking and at the same time is overstepping a request to stay off the talk page is a combination which I think is worse than any one of those things alone. I think Szero has mistaken a user with a very different point of view with a user who does not have good faith -- they are two very different things. --Coppertwig 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not mistaken anything. This was not a matter of a different point of view but of different facts: those in the edit history and those in Italiavivi's mind. The word "confabulating" was carefully chosen to describe what I believe Italiavivi was actually doing, and what I believe s/he has done before. It's as much good faith as I can muster for him/her, and bear in mind that I am under no obligation to assume any GF, having had plenty of evidence to the contrary, but rather than accuse him/her of deliberately lying (as s/he did to me) I gave a more innocent explanation. But the facts remain the facts, and they're not as Italiavivi has represented them, either in that case or in the previous ones.

And it remains the case that nobody has the right to ban others from appropriate use of their talk pages, and defying such a purported ban does not constitute harassment. Which means that this complaint was frivolous, yet another violation to Italiavivi's account. -- Zsero 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of this

I've seen quite a lot of people lately who think they can "ban" other people they dislike from their talk page. It may sound like stating the obvious, but perhaps WP:UP needs to point out that they can't do that? >Radiant< 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Viridae^Talk 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly true, but it's often wise to honor a request to stay away. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a balanced edit to UP, once which explicitly states taht 'while a user's request that you not continue using his talk page is not enforcable because it constitutes a WO:OWN violation, it's often wise to be CIVIL and disengage, at least for a brief period (such as a day, or weekend), to allow both parties to cool off and return their focus to the content dispute.', thus making it clear that it's good manners, but not policy, to stop when asked. ThuranX 11:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider it really bad form to post to someone's talk page if they make it clear they don't want any communication with you. I don't think there should be a policy about it either way. We shouldn't encourage Wikilawyering, but we shouldn't encourage WP:DICK violations either. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I consider it really childish to tell people "whatever you have to say, I don't want to hear it". It's the wiki equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la" at the top of your voice. >Radiant< 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand the concerns about harassment and incivility, but I think these can be dealt with by other means than talk page embargoes. These include comments by uninvolved admins, the dispute resolution process, and (in extreme cases) admin actions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. As a policy, it could be gamed and used to justify harassment. Radiant's stance would make for a mighty fine essay though. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • Perhaps we could add Radiant's note to WP:UP, but also bring up WP:HARRASS on the page and specifically state that as an exception, or something. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Two bands called The Need

Currently, Wikipedia has an article called The Need about a late '90s queercore band from Washington. Recently, however, the article has been getting edits that change the subject entirely, to a different band located in California that happens to have the same name. Starting with this edit on August 10th, several users and IPs have been changing the article to the same version, all discussing this other band. Oddly enough, all the editor names are similar to the lead singer of the band, Garrett McArthur. Gee, wonder who it could be...

Garrettmcarthur - only edits have been to The Need
72.129.69.164 - only edits have been to The Need
Wgmcarthur - edited The Need, also created page at Garrett McArthur

After the IP vandalized following a suggestion I left on Wgmcarthur's talk page to just create a new article, I got a bit fed up. I've requested semi-protection for the page, but I'd also like to see the two editors and the IP blocked as single-purpose accounts. Garrett McArthur probably ought to be deleted as well. Thanks. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would either band even qualify per our notability criteria?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The original one is marginal - probably passes WP:MUSIC per their touring etc. The "new" one almost certainly doesn't - and Garrett McArthur is definitely A7 and I've speedily deleted it. ELIMINATORJR 06:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The California band definitely doesn't (and by extension, neither does its singer). To be honest, though, I haven't read the original article too closely, so I can't vouch for its notability either way. I'd be okay if someone wants to tag the whole thing for deletion. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New development: Semi-protection has been declined. I'd still like the users in question to be blocked, though. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The promoter (self promoter?) adding the new California band needs a stern warngin at the least. His article's entirely CRYSTAL, as it predicts where we might someday hear their music, based on the fact that they know a producer who worked with some big names. The other band, int he older version of the article, has a passing notability, but not much more. However, that the older article has mild notability, and the new one has nothing but maybes, I'd support a long talking to or a short block if the edits persist. ThuranX 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

72.129.69.164 has just attempted to revert The Need to the version about the band from California again. This has really got to stop. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Final warned that IP. Jmlk17 09:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the last posting, both Wgmcarthur and a user called DelFi Music Group, whom I strongly suspect is controlled by the same person as Garrettmcarthur, 72.129.69.164, and Wgmcarthur, have tried to hijack the article. Multiple attempts to reach all these users have gone unanswered, except for one note on my talk page, asking to be unblocked, even though I don't think any of the names have been blocked. Can something please come of this now? GlassCobra 12:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be able to get page protection. That would slow them down a bit at least. I like the note they left on your talk page. "We have a copyright on the name..." That's odd, since names are not protected by copyright law. --Onorem♠Dil 12:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already semi protected the article for a week to prevent the IP from editing it for a while. Wgmcarthur (talk · contribs) and DelFi Music Group (talk · contribs) have been blocked indef as well, leaving Garrettmcarthur (talk · contribs) as the only unblocked account. Also, Garrett McArthur was recreated hours ago; I've speedied it. If he continues to try and hijack the article, or to recreate the deleted material, please let us know. Regards, Phaedriel - 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Phaedriel! I was wary of page protection, as I had already asked on the 11th and was declined. Could we also possibly get a block for 72.129.69.164? I think it's fairly safe to assume that this is the same person. GlassCobra 13:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recourse for being falsely attributed to broad ranges of IP addresses.

User:Hu12 is attributing past edits made from an entire range of a large ISP to myself, including many which are literally years old and pre-date my introduction to Wikipedia. He insists on attributing this range of IP addresses to me, and I would like to know what kind of recourse exists for these types of claims.

The IP range in question has made over 7,000 edits total according to Wikipedia Scanner. There is inevitably overlap when using such a large ISP, and I will not be held accountable for every edit from my geographical region in the past three years (especially when I have only known of Wikipedia for one year). Numerous editors have already raised concerns about the compliance of Hu's page with WP:RFC's guidelines (especially the lack of prior resolution attempts, mischaracterized diffs, and certification by completely unrelated users), but this most recent development (attributing an entire IP range to myself) is of serious concern to me.

I am also requesting serious independent review of Hu12's RfC against me. I do not believe Hu's page abides by the guidelines at WP:RFC, which reads:

From WP:RFC: "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

What is going on at Hu's RfC is getting out of hand; it is exactly what WP:RFC says is not the way to approach things. It is not a page which complies with WP:RFC, it is not organized, and it is making accusations which I have no apparent recourse against (attributing large IP ranges to me). Hu is placing placing warnings on my talk page for contesting his use of IPs which are not my own; please, I ask that others here take the time to review what's going on at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Italiavivi and tell me if it is what WP:RFC really prescribes. I am open to conflict resolution, but this RfC has been nothing but conflict, with no resolution or good faith whatsoever. Italia^vivi 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will another sysop please prevent this user from removing content from his own RFC? The content that is being repdedly removed is a part of the origional filed Sept 2cnd. thank you--Hu12 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I politely as possible asked Hu to stop attributing these IP addresses to me, and Hu responded by claiming that my request was threats and personal attack," for god's sake! Hu has described me as "irredeemable" and expressed a desire to "firmly remove me from the project." This individual has no interest whatsoever in resolving anything with me, and shows no concern about his falsel, sweeping, indiscriminate attribution of IP addresses to myself. What kind of recourse exists for me here? How is this dispute resolution, and how is this pinning of IP addresses to me not harassment? Italia^vivi 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the disruptive behaviour that has got you into an RfC in the first place. During the whole process you have denied that there is a problem with your behaviour but it is obvious that you now need to open your eyes and listen to what the community is saying. There's nothing wrong with how the RfC is formed, it's a lot better than most - you now need to accept what other users have to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Half your malformed RfC's responses are editors expressing skepticism about the behavior and merits of those who created the RfC against me, and there are suspected sockpuppets endorsing your particular section of the page. You are not a spokesperson for the "community," and you are not an outside view on the compliance of your own page. Italia^vivi 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Same pages, same range. Quack quack. CU would say "sockpuppet. And yes, whole ranges have been blocked for one disruptive user, e.g. Manchester vandal. Will ^(talk) 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we forgo with the taunting? Also, what's Hu using {{uw-delete2}}? Can he not express his own thoughts? The use of templates to communicate in such instances is not acceptable. Nor is revert warring in one's own RfC, of course. El_C 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Many users feel that standardized templates are the best way to keep things from getting personal. See, for example, WP:TTR. I don't agree with that essay, but simply point it out to illustrate the opposing view. -- Satori Son 12:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not many users, it is basically a provocation. El_C 14:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say most users, I said many, and I stand by that. If you look at the debate going on at Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars, I hope you'll agree there is a lack of consensus on this particular issue. Just for the record, I agree with you that it is almost always better to use a personalized message when dealing with a long-time user. I'm just saying not everyone else feels the same way. -- Satori Son 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ItaliaVivi is blocked for 48 hours for (seriously) violating 3RR, and has announced that he leaves Wikipedia. Fram 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Hu12 for 24 hours for also exceeding three reverts in this conflict. The first removals of content, and edit warring to keep them out, from the RFC were actually Hu12 repeatedly removing Italiaviva's comments. Both users also took part in the subsequent edit war with Italiaviva similarly attempting to remove content added by Hu12. While both clearly exceeded three reverts, and were aware of the prohibition against doing so, Hu12 (unlike Italiavivi) has not previously been blocked for this and thus I gave a shorter block period. --CBD 12:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Fram supposedly failed to check both sides. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I only checked what happened at the time I saw the dits (through recent changes), and those were way too many reverts by ItaliaVivi: I also did not consider the reinsertioon of Hu12 of his own comments as reverts, as removing other people's comments is vandalism, and reverting vandalism is allowed. However, I should havce noticed the other edits (reverts) by Hu12, which also deserved a block. Thanks for keeping the balance here and looking at both sides a bit more carefully. Fram 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just normal as contributors in general tend to consider admins as a good example and therefore believe in advance that we (admins) do respect policy more than anyone. This is waht happens. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Check again, Fram - you were right the first time. As you say, the reinsertion of the IPs doesn't count for 3RR, because it was reverting vandalism. And the other edits you refer to are not reverts at all, they're moving comments to the talk page, where they belong. It seems to me that Hu12's block was mistaken and should be lifted immediately. -- Zsero 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So... Hu12's removal of Italiavivi's statements that two of the IP addresses listed were not his was 'proper', but Italiavivi's subsequent removal of those two IP addresses (after his disavowal of them had been taken away) was 'vandalism'? No, I don't think so. Vandalism is a deliberate act to damage or disrupt the encyclopedia. Italiavivi only removed those IP addresses from the page after his statements that they were not his had been taken off. He clearly was not committing 'vandalism', but rather removing the content he objected to since he was not being allowed to show that objection on the page. The vandalism policy does not prohibit removal of materials from RFC pages (else Hu12's removals would have been 'vandalism' too). There is a general prohibition against rewriting the comments of others to change their meaning, but that is not in issue here as Italiavivi left the general claims about IP use and various other IP addresses in place - only removing the two that he was disputing on the talk page. That's a content dispute. As was the repeated removal of Italiavivi's comments from the page. --CBD 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Remark: User:Hu12 is waiting for a review of his block: user talk:Hu12. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, admin got the "Hu thought he was doing the right thing, and since blocks are preventitive, not punitive, there is no reason for this to continue, now that he has been informed." The editor got no such treatment. Keep up the good work admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The cases are not even remotely similar. Italiavivi was removing content from the RFC, on the grounds that s/he claimed it wasn't true. It's to be expected that the subject of the RFC will deny some or all of the accusations, and that's why s/he has a space to put his/her side of the story. That was the proper place to claim that those IPs were somebody else, and offer whatever proof s/he could. Instead s/he simply asserted that it wasn't true, and edited the material out. That's not acceptable, and s/he must have known it.

What Hu did, on the other hand, was either proper, or if improper not obviously so. Hu removed, not material belonging to the RFC, but comments that did not belong there. The RFC instructions are clear - comments about the subject go on the main page; comments about the comments go on the talk page. All Hu did was move the meta-discussion from the main page to the talk page. S/he moved all the meta-discussion, not just Italiavivi's. Now maybe s/he shouldn't have done that; I don't know. But s/he certainly had grounds for believing that s/he was doing the right thing. There was clearly no intent to disrupt anything, and therefore no need to block.

Zsero 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you said above confirms what the said editor was having at their userpage long before Hu12 decided to AfD it and file a RfC on them. I've seen a lot of administrative misguidance. Whatever is the case, admins should show a great deal of patience which this particular admin hasn't. Check their RfA. The admin in question has already been blocked before but was unblocked just because he is a good person. I am ringing this bell and would like to see a better attitude from this admin. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

italvivi is unblocked as well. See CBD reasoning above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, and how have you discussed this with me (the blocking admin?)? Furthermore, where has ItaliaVivi indicated that he recognises that he was in error? He didn't even ask for an unblock, he asked to be indef blocked and to have his user page and talk page deleted. I may have missed the CDB post you referred to, but all I can see is a post by CDB agreeing that ItaliaVivi shuldbe blocked, but pointing out that Hu12 should have been blocked as well (albeit for a shorter period). Where has he reasoned that ItaliaVivi should be unblocked, and where have you discussed that possibility with me? You have unblocked him "because he is now informed", which is a rather poor unblock reason.Fram 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Fram and agree w/ some of what you say but the situation is totally different. There was a prior AfD of the user userpage and a subsequent RfC. There is a clear conflict between the user and the admin. You may not have known about all the story but it seems that the userpage in question was talking about admins misguidance (not your of course) and that Hu12 as an admin took it too far until it became a personal conflict. So when the admin was reverting, he wasn't doing his job as an admin but as a regular editor. Admins in direct conflict w/ an editor should show patience and common sense but it wasn't the case here. I saw a clear bias (not from you of course) and i cannot keep silent. Admins and editors are no different except the tools. Hu12 has clearly led italvivi to react that way and vice versa. Keep in mind that this is the second time Hu12 is unblocked because he is a good person and he thought he was right. We do justice. Free them all or keep them locked alltogether. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has italiavivi been unblocked? He reverted 6 times in an hour, has a previous history of edit warring and we have had no comment from him that he will stop. Hu12 admitted his errors and said he would not edit war any more so got unblocked. This should have been discussed more as I stongly object to the unblock in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The unblock will probably do no harm, so I'm not going to actively go after a reblocking. I can follow part of your reasoning, and am certainly not trying to put all the blame on ItaliaVivi, but the difference (to me) is that Hu12 is unblocked because he "now realizes he should have done it differently" (from the unblock reason), while I have seen no statements indicating this from ItaliaVivi. However, as he has supposedly left Wikipedia completely, keeping him blocked serves no further purpose. Fram 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's probably gone anyway guys. I hope admins realize how chasing an editor is bad for Wikipedia health. If Hu12 has apologized than great. If Italiavivi didn't it is because he is most probably gone away. The issue of italiavivi has been dealt w/ in an improper and exaggerated manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep on missing an essential point: Italiavivi and Hu12 were not blocked for the same offense. Italiavivi was blocked for 3RR, in the form of removing part of the accusation against him/her 6 times. Hu12 was not blocked for reverting those edits - on the contrary, Fram agreed that Hu12 was right to do so, because it was reverting vandalism. Instead, Hu12 was blocked for removing comments from the RFC page; but that block was in error, because all s/he was doing was moving the comments to the talk page, which is where they belonged. Now maybe s/he shouldn't have done that; maybe once the comments were made in the wrong place s/he should have left them there. But that's a very different offense from Italiavivi's, so unblocking one should not have any bearing on unblocking the other, and it's wrong to see the two cases in parallel. -- Zsero 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not missing any point Zsero. At the opposite, i showed you more than the tip of the iceberg. Both users needed to be blocked for the all the fuss (AfD, RfC, AN/I, talkpages, etc...). You refer to the consequence and limit it to 3RR. i refer to the cause and the consequence. So i, originally, would have not blocked them for 3RR but for disruption. So it just didn't make sense that one party was unblocked and not the other one who's gone away for good i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero's right FayssalF. This block was in error, despite being well intended. Please don't Mischaracterize my intentions. Is it possible that maby I am a good person? There is no malevolent conection between me and italiavivi, Wikipedia has taken alot of abuse from him as have the many of admins (myself included) who have tried to help him. The RFC was attempt to correct and resolve behavioral issues of an obviosly disruptive editor who has a history of disrupting Wikipedia processes and required comment and assesement by the community. When a user engages in edit warring (intentionaly) then brags "Absolutely proud of and unapologetic of my actions"^[2], it becomes a problem. If the RfC was poorly formed, it was because it was my first. My interest and loyalties are to Wikipedia. My hope was that Italiavivi could change his disruptive pattern, not end up like like this.--Hu12 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion Hu12. he is a good person and he thought he was right are not my words but those of the admins who unblocked your account twice; so there is no mischaracterization of your intentions. I don't read them but all i could do is to read the whole situation starting from the book title till this page. Admins read just that single used page and based their blocks on it. There were reports about italiavivi and yourselves here twice or more i believe. The problem was his userpage and worse than that was the way you handled the situation. In just a couple of days the situation went out of hand. You are an admin and patience and calm are one of the core principles of adminship. That doesn't deprive an admin from finding an appropriate solution. Admins inform by invoking policies, warn and If Necessary block. You could have let another co-admin deal w/ the situation when some signs of involvement of your part became clear at a certain time. You did it from A to Z, except blocking him yourselves. You had editorial conflicts w/ him. Days later you AfD nom his userpage. It was kept. Later you filed an RfC on him. Later warring about IPs both of you. How on earth i should agree w/ your admin behaviour? Where is the patience required? You may be a good person and that's a good thing but why that wouldn't be reflected on your admin attitude? No cool talk, no mediation process followed? So why would we need admins? Remember he was an editor and you are the admin. That wasn't really balanced. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

italiavivi chose his own path,in behavior and action. A significant number of reasonable admins have attempted to correct his behavioral violations since last April. italiavivi's conduct had become increasingly inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and began interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Was he here to contribute and make the project good? Or was his goal to find fault with those whom he had a disagreement, perpetuating disputes to get his views across, or be the one in control by imposing one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community? These answers we'll never know. At what point do we (as admins), stop ingnoring the issue and start addressing the problem? italiavivi stopped listening, refused input and actively denied all obvious problems identified. My point above, perhaps not clear, was don't mischaracterize my intentions for attempting to resolve the problem. My intentions and hope for the RFC was that Italiavivi could change his disruptive pattern through community input.--Hu12 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On Privacy and Harassment

Looking further at the underlying dispute, I think there is reason for concern and greater consideration here. Essentially what has happened is that someone dug up two instances where Italiavivi made edits without logging in, but signed his username to them. Then taking those IP addresses they went through other IPs in the same range and picked out some that they felt to be 'similar' and listed all of these IPs (and the two with identifying signatures) on the RFC. The wikimedia:Privacy policy states that we will only reveal IP addresses in response to a court order, to deal with extensive vandalism from a range, or the like... and WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information prohibits revelation of personally identifying information the person has not themselves chosen to make public. Now, it can certainly be argued that since these IP addresses belong to ranges held by ISPs they may not be personally identifying enough to be of concern and that Italiaviva 'chose' to make his association with these IPs public when he signed his username to edits by them.... but it doesn't smell good. Nor does the listing of IP addresses as supposedly being his seem kosher when Checkuser would turn down cold any request to so link them. Italiaviva says some of them aren't his, and checkuser considers it a privacy violation to review the matter at all... so how is it ok to post them without the imprimatur of checkuser?

Bottom line - we shouldn't be attempting to 'ferret out' the IP addresses of users. If we continue allowing this practice (and I've seen other recent examples of it) then eventually there will come a day when an IP address which does lead directly back to the person behind it is revealed. Hopefully it will be an innocent case and no harm will come of it, but we can't really know. As I've said before... we should either always protect our user's IPs and identities or clearly state that we don't. Right now we say that we do, but allow alot of behaviours and activities which compromise that. --CBD 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very valid point to make CBD, but if a user chooses to edit with their IP or for that matter a changing IP from an ISP then that is upto them. If they are using IP's to make it appear that they haven't been editing a particular page, or skip past a 3RR violation then that is up to them, but we have a duty to compare these edits and if it is clear a user has been using an IP to make disruptive edits, bring it to their (and the communities) attention. We're not talking about outing an IP that a user has been editing on - that would be wrong as the user hasn't chosen to do this, but comparing edits and saying that an IP and a user are the same person, ultimately abusing WP:SOCK. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact: our privacy policy does not promise to protect the privacy of those who are not logged in, and even specifically says that users who are concerned about their privacy should log in. All promises of privacy that follow are qualified with the words "when using a pseudonym". Without commenting on the appropriateness of all of Hu12's actions, Italiavivi is the one who revealed his own IP address. Natalie 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... so if you don't realize you aren't logged in and you make an edit which can be linked back to you then you are out of luck? Or, as occurs in this case, if people simply think that an IP address may be yours they can and should go about posting it as evidence? We can go that way if people want. I don't see any pressing reason to do so, but if we are going to then I think we should make it more clear that we allow (encourage?) users to do what they can to dig up and post the IP addresses of others whom they are in dispute with. --CBD 14:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say there is a difference between making an edit from you IP that maybe able to be linked back to you, and going back and signing your name to an IP edit you made. The first can only be guessed to be you, and if you really don't want people to know your IP address you have plausible deniability. Whereas the second is more than just not paying attenion - it's not paying attention and then going back and deliberately tying yourself to that IP address. Wikipedia only promises privacy to logged in users, because it is impossible to provide privacy to anonymous users, and Wikipedia cannot do anything if users reveal their own IP addresses. To clarify myself, though, I don't think what Hu12 is doing is acceptable, and I would describe it as harrassment, but I would not describe it as a privacy violation. There is a difference. Or rather, a violating someone's privacy is a form of harrassment, but all harrassment is not violating privacy. Natalie 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the impulse to 'catch the bad guy', but am not sure this manifestation of it comports with actual practice. I recall a case where an IP address made a 4th revert, identical to three preceding it by a logged in user, and WP:RCU refused a request to determine whether that IP address was the same as the user for purposes of establishing whether a 3RR violation had occurred. IPs aren't useful for most types of 'sockpuppet abuse' as they aren't considered in RFA comments and often receive less weight in *fD and the like as well. Thus, they'd only really be 'helpful' in edit warring... and people can always be blocked for that if it goes on at length even if 3RR is never surpassed on any particular day. Thus... is there really any great need to identify 'IP sockpuppets' which would outweigh the potential harm in doing so? If people feel that there is then I return to my statement that we should be warning people about the possibility of their IP being dug up and posted about... and not just with 'abusers', because there are always plenty willing to use any such tool to 'go after' those they simply disagree with. It's the old Ben Franklin, 'if you give up liberty to gain security you will have neither' situation. --CBD 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I thought it was generally accepted on Wikipedia that even if the user voluntarily disclosed it in the past, if a user chooses to "un-disclose" personal information that should be respected. Wasn't that the whole thing behind the THF case? --Random832 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn

Would somebody please help me at User talk:Alansohn. I asked him really quite nicely nicely not to use misleading edit summaries, which prompted him to accuse me of all kinds of shit, and he also thinks that reposting a cached version of an article is fine by policy whereas deleting an article on a living individual drawn entirely form tabloid news reports is Evil. Judging from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn this is pretty much normal behaviour for him. Is it time for further action? Guy (Help!) 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quite nicely? You accuse me of deliberately falsified edit summaries to disguise changes made to the Lizzie Grubman article: "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." You then made an "or else" threat: " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." There is no policy requiring that any edit summary be entered, whatsoever. Every single word added to the article included a reliable and verifiable source. We now have a completely imaginary WP:TABLOID policy that has been violated, when in fact every single reference added comes from a reliable source, and that no one else has challenged. Even the admin who deleted the article in the face of unanimous consensus to keep the article as is (other than the nominator) didn't use teh excuse that teh sources weren't reliable. No other editor has claimed that the content added was "controversial" or attempted to change a word of what you have decided was inserted misleadingly. Every single edit that I have made over the past few years includes an edit summary that provides a clear, concise and accurate description of the changes I've made. That, despite repeated requests, you have never specified what Wikipedia policy has been violated, you have failed to specify what the "or else" part of your threat is and to take take the action you keep on threatening is evidence that there is no legitimate purpose here. It amazes me that an admin can improperly delete an article, another admin can improperly delete the same article after sources were added, and a third admin can make false accusations of a policy violation, accompanied by threats of further action, that I can plead with this admin to move on and have him refuse. I finished my edits of the article, which is balanced, comprehensive and in which nearly every sentence is thoroughly-documented (including such "tabloids as The New York Times and New York magazine). I had already moved on, but an admin wants to fight a non-existent battle. And who has a problem here? Alansohn 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with JzG in regards to you using a misleading edit summary. I do not see where JzG has breached WP:CIVIL here? He did not right off the bat come to you with a stern warning. I think you overacted to what he was leaving as a notice/reminder from the start. Also, there may be no policy about entering an edit summary but policy is clear enough in saying "do not enter a misleading edit summary."¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice" when NO ONE HAS SPECIFIED WHAT WIKIPEDIA WAS VIOLATED, may not be a violation of WP:CIVIL, but it is certainly not "nicely". What battle is being fought here? Are we just having admins defending other admins by attacking non-policy issues? Alansohn 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Calm down. No battle is being fought here. Your edits were believed to be inappropriate. I am not really aware or involved about the controversy of your content additions (so I have no comments in regards to that) but it is easy to tell that you were using a misleading edit summary. Just understand that it is honestly not appropriate to do so. That's all.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you (or anyone else) seriously believe that the edits were deliberately "misleading" as User:JzG accused or (at worst) brief? Do you have any shred of Wikipedia policy that requires any edit summary for any article (Answer: none exists)? Was any Wikipedia policy violated? What is the "or else" threat "to bring this to wider notice" and why was it necessary? I had finished editing the article and moved on. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here; Your fellow admin User:JzG is trying to fight some sort of battle about the article, citing his brand-new WP:TABLOIDISM policy. I don't suppose that you know his motivations or the answers to these questions, but we need to hear a thorough explanation for these actions directly from the horse's mouth. Alansohn 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I do and I explained to you why. You labeled them copyedits when they had nothing to do with small grammatical, spelling, etc. fixes. However, I do understand it might not have been your direct intention to make the edit summary misleading.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I left this comment on his talk page describing the difference between what is considered copyediting and introducing new material into an article. I also alerted him to this ANI thread as common courtesy.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have last week been in a very similar dispute with Alansohn, and this behavious seems to be all too common for him. The RfC hasn't really achieved anything, sadly. Fram 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see all the old tricks here: the SHOUTING, the accusations, the outrage, the wikilawyering and the mindless repetition, all without admitting even the slightest possibility of having done something wrong. The RfC could be re-opened. Eusebeus 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or escalated, since he shows every sign of not just not learning, but of denying any need to learn. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is not a new problem by any means. wikipediatrix 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• No disrespect, Guy, but given that your response to his "what the hell are talking about?" was to simply repeat what you originally said, with added boldface, talk about escalation cuts both ways. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• That was the third or fourth iteration. But you're right, it should have been apparent that Alansohn's response to any form of kickback is reliably denial and attack, so yes I should have taken it straight here or maybe arbcom. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• <Slaps forehead>. Guy, doing the same over and over again and expecting different results is, what, exactly? And yes, I mean both of you. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually Calton, he didn't ask for clarification, he asked what WP policy he was explicitly violating in his summaries, which is wikilawyerish & belligerent, given the discussion that had already occurred. Eusebeus 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Asking "what did I do wrong" isn't asking for clarification? On this planet, it is. And the answer is, to tell him what. If he doesn't shut up then, yeah, it's Wikilawyering, but citations to the International Journal of Because I Said So (to use one of JzG's formulations) are bad regardless of who's doing it or how microscopically thin-skinned your respondent is. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If your edit summaries were misleading, and it was an accident, then just apologize and explain that you'll be more careful? Is that a really difficult thing to do? Why all the shouting?--Haemo 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems apparent that he didn't understand what JzG was talking about -- whether he should have is another question, but is at least ambiguous -- and since JzG's response was to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, it seems Alansohn's response to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, was at least at the same level. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• A note on my page that read "Alan, please try to leave more descriptive edit summaries when making edits of this nature", would have gotten a prompt thanks. I have nothing to hide, and stand behind every single edit (and edit summary) I made to the article, despite the claim of "violating" the brand-new WP:TABLOID policy that JzG created earlier today. Instead, my first contact from User:JzG was the baseless claim of making knowingly misleading edit summaries in bad faith "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice", which User:JzG presents as "asking nicely", is anything but. We deserve far better from an admin who seems to be desperately trying to manufacture a controversy here. Alansohn 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really see why one would get a "thanks" and the other would cause you to react like this. You've made it clear that it was an accident; that's good now. Everyone here appears to be acting in good faith, and it would probably be beneficial if we just left it at that. Sometimes cheerfully responding even to things you feel might be pushing it prevents a lot of trouble. After all, we all have better things to do. --Haemo 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• My version is a suggestion; JzG's version constitutes an accusation and a threat. And you think they're the same? Accusing someone of maliciously hiding nefarious edits to an article and threatening action is your version of assuming good faith? Alansohn 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Except that the issue wasn't that your summaries weren't descriptive, it was that they were misleading, representing significant textual changes as "copyediting". Most editors will not check or patrol an edit labelled "copyediting" by an account with a bluelinked user page. You didn't suggest that this was accidental, what you did was to demand what the hell was wrong with calling it copyediting - and all that does is make it look very much more like you are deliberately setting out to mislead and far less likely that you simply hadn't thought it through. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are still making the baseless and bad faith accusation that the edit summaries were misleading. You still have not justified just how it is that you "know" that they were misleading. You didn't make a request. You didn't make a suggestion. You made an accusation accompanied by a threat. If you look at my past 30 or 40 thousand edit summaries, you will see that a significant majority are prefixed with the words "copyedit and wikify re..." Yet, this is the first time, in over 40,000 edits, that anyone has ever accused me of making a "misleading edit summary". Did you bother to review the edits and look through my edit history, or were you just trying to manufacture a controversy about an article where there seems to have been clear administrative impropriety? Someone else mentioned WP:COPYEDIT as the issue here, but that's a "how to", not a policy. I've asked a dozen times, and you still haven't specified what Wikipedia policy was violated. Why was the bad faith accusation and threat necessary, and why on earth would you think it was appropriate. ? Alansohn 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a serious charge: a baseless and bad-faith accusation. So let's have a look, shall we?

(copyedit and wikify re bio) - but the "copyedit" re-inserts gratuitous detail about her mother's death. Misleading? Certainly not just a copyedit, and when it follows this edit [3] which has the edit summary "(what her mother died of isn't really relevant and adds nothing to the article)", and removes precisely that fact - and that fact was inserted by you in the previous edit! - you cannot posisbly be unaware that what you were doing was, far from copyediting, reinserting disputed material. So: I would call that a very misleading edit summary.

(add additional biographical details, with sources) - really? So the statement "An expert hired by the plaintiffs in a civil case against her who reconstructed the accident based on data from the car's "black box" determined that her actions intentional" is a biographical detail? Since when did experts determine things in civil suits?

But I guess not all your edit summaries are misleading. Take this one, for example: [4] - (You were the one who intruded with knowingly false claims and made pathetic empty threats that you refuse to follow through with. Put up or sht up, once and for all.) Oh, my! Knowingly false, eh? No chance of even a difference in interpretation, knowingly false. Dear oh dear, sounds like you might need to open a request for comment, what with me going round making knowingly false accusations. Or... wait... is it perhaps the case that others here have also said that your edit summaries were misleading? Why, they have! So perhaps it's not knowingly false after all! Perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation under the circumstances! Perhaps, after all, you might need to, you know, be a bit more careful? Perhaps someone should go to your talk page and suggest that you're more careful with the summaries? Ah, but I see that a helpful admin already did that.

FYI: acceptable responses would have been "oops", "sorry", "that's not what I meant" or even nothing at all.

Unacceptable responses include "HOW DARE YOU!" and "SHOW ME IN POLICY WHERE IT SAYS I CAN'T DESCRIBE REVERSION AS COPYEDITING, GO ON, SHOW ME!".

In short, then, I left you a polite note, and you went utterly ballistic and in the process made a total fool of yourself by asserting that it is knowingly false to describe as misleading those edit summaries which were, very obviously, misleading. And from your RfC it seems that this is repeatably how you react. The question is what we might want to do about that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already written an outside view on the original RfC asking why a particular old, resolved dispute was there. Amusingly enough, in that old, resolved dispute, it was Guy/JzG who said at the time as a neutral admin that both disputing parties had lost their perspective. The general consensus on the talk page of the RfC was that the RfC result could be described roughly as "Alansohn never responded directly to the RfC; although some users noticed changes in some of his behavior that seemed to them to reflect criticisms made in it. Other users did not feel he showed any sign of modifying his behavior. No consensus was reached as to whether the RfC had its intended effect or not." If we think there is a general pattern repeating, another RfC seems to be in order, possibly escalating to mediation or beyond. Frankly, I think there is a bit of a general pattern repeating here. GRBerry 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Alansohn's view (see his screed below) seems to be that a good offense is the best defense. The RfC highlighted various tendencies, including:

1. A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
2. A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
3. A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
4. A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
5. A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.
6. A tendency to avoid all compromise, or even the invitation to compromise, in instances where he is convinced of the rectitude & probity of his position, sometimes modulated by an ingenuous (or perhaps heartfelt) belief that he alone is acting to build consensus (or in this case an encyclopedia).

   Many of these are on full display here and below; it is distressing that there has apparently been no willingness to moderate any of these instincts. Eusebeus 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Again, we have Eusebeus and his selective misinterpretation of facts. JzG violated WP:POINT by placing a knowingly false accusation and a threat on my user page in response to a made up policy violation regarding edit summaries. Despite repeated requests for the policy violated, JzG has stubbornly refused to specify what Wikipedia policy was violated; one can't be "legalistic" when there is no legitimate basis to the patently false "warning" and its accompanying threat. That you have added to the disruption in no way minimizes the abusive action by JzG. A cursory review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman, shows unanimous consensus that the original article meets any and all standards of notability. That JzG refuses to abide by this consensus and has manufactured an imaginary "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy to justify his actions is further evidence of bad faith on his part. I stand by every single action and every single edit to the Lizzie Grubman article. I invite any individual who believes the current version of the article violates any Wikipedia policy to take another stab at deleting it at WP:AFD. Until then, this entire process of intimidation is intended to be disruptive, the very definition of a WP:POINT violation. This abuse by JzG must be put to an end. Alansohn 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong on two counts. First, WP:POINT is doind something you know is wrong in order to demonstrate it's wrong. Second, as outlined above, your edit summaries were misleading. Your obdurate refusal to accept that - and yourt increasingly hysterical atacks on me for even daring to say it - is a cause of concern here. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You have repeatedly stated that you believe the article should have been deleted, and that in its current state it violates the "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy you made up. You acknowledge that there is no Wikipedia policy that was violated, nor have you ever mentioned a real policy as an excuse for your actions. Your attack and its accompanying threat were intended to interfere and disrupt an editor who had the nerve to recreate an article you still think should be deleted, but refuse to start a second AfD. The attack and threat you posted are the very definition of WP:POINT. That you can claim to have believed your attacks to be anything other than a bad faith backdoor effort at deleting the article is utterly shameless. Your refusal to acknowledge the intentionally disruptive nature of your threat should demonstrate your unsuitability to serve as an administrator. An apology from you, accompanied by a commitment to refrain from use of knowingly false policy violations, will end this matter once and for all. Alansohn 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did nto delete the article. I did not make a single edit to the article which made it more likely to be deleted. I did not call reverts "copyedits" in edit summaries. I did not repost the article in violation of GFDL. I did not tag the article for deletion. I did not enture an opinion in the deletion debate. Funny, isn't it, how you seem to want to believe that I'm the problem. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• What would be the point of another RfC? Alansohn displayed no interest in the prior one, and any lessons he might have taken from it have proven ephemeral. RfC (or RfM, come to that) presupposes that all parties will come to the table and accept some measure of consensus resolution. What would make this any more likely now than the first time out I cannot guess. In my direct experience, Alansohn does not cease objectionable behavior until he is ordered to do so.  RGTraynor  03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure myself. I'm certainly not going to object if the next step is further along the dispute resolution path. The outcome I want is Alansohn to continue as an editor with improved success at working well with others he disagrees with. I'm not sure how to get there though. GRBerry 14:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:69.230.48.225

This guy has gotten away with vandalizing too many articles for too long. I and numerous others have warned him/her in the past, yet (s)he refuses to relent. He continues to vandalize such articles as Ozzfest, Slipknot, Satellite (album). Please prevent him/her from disrupting these articles any further. Thank you!

Firstly, the IP hasn't edited since yesterday. Secondly, his/her history doesn't appear to contain any vandalism, but rather good faith edits like this one. Now, maybe you disagree with those edits, but that is not vandalism. Could you provide some diffs of this vandalism? Natalie 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This guy continuously adds bands like Simple Plan onto the Ozzfest page, and then adds a bunch of nonsensical miscellaneous information (incorrect band line-ups, etc.). It's happened at least ten times now. But I'm sure you'd know that if you looked at the history...

Also, I find it ironic that you mention Slipknot, given that he totally butchered that article yesterday...

Here you go: [5] [6] [7]

This looks like good faith to you? I didn't think so. 75.60.240.144 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Honey, we're all volunteers here. So when you're asking the volunteers with keys to do something for you, it helps when you provide evidence of an actual problem. I can't speak for everyone else but I can tell you that I don't have time to go through every single edit of anyone, especially for vandalism that hasn't happened in two days. So please try to react a little less poorly when you are asked to provide diffs.

I'll agree with you that it's vandalism, but this is all days old. What are you expecting us to do about it now? Natalie 12:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters you could get off your butt and make sure it doesn't happen again. Or you could wait for someone else to do it, since, as you said, you don't really HAVE to do anything, honey. At any rate, expect to see me back here when it happens again. Stargazer eternal 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the various warning templates available and reporting to WP:AIV when they hit a level 4 warning and do something again? Nothing really requiring Administrator attention really needed here, but although this IP has a history of vandalism, we never block IPs indefinitely, because they may belong to many people. And note that anything we do cannot fully block vandalism - short of blocking all editing of Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll remember your warning templates and rest assured I'll make good use of them. :) 76.247.76.79 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

NOTE: This is a copy of an archived incident, resolved here. I've added one question and a proposed exception to the decision.--Kitrus 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is keeping a record of (spurious) sockpuppetry accusations, such as held here User talk:Kitrus accepted? Interesting juxtaposition of warnings and records http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kitrus&action=history. Thoughts? -- Avi 06:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I always enjoy accusations of sockpuppetry against the likes of Jayjg, they make it so much easier to work out that the accuser is deluded :-) No, this is not an acceptable use of user space. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought so. Thank you, and it's good to see you back, Guy! --- Avi 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Funny, before other things came up for Jayjg, he was editing so heavily any sockpuppeting would have prohibited a job, eating, and sleeping. --MichaelLinnear 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Which administrators were involved in this decision?--Kitrus 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I will restore the section that lists KNOWN, verified sockpuppets and leave "suspected" deleted.--Kitrus 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need this list? Shell ^babelfish 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you care? Why do you have any number of things on your own userpage?--Kitrus 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I care because I can't think of a reason you would need the list, however, if you have a legitimate reason, that would be something to consider. If you don't have a reason beyond singling out these editors then its blatantly inappropriate. Oddly enough, my userspace is used to facilitate working with the community to build an encyclopedia - but you looked at it before asking that question, right? Shell ^babelfish 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Using your userspace to attack other editors or deride other editors is an inappropriate use of your userpage. Plain and simple. Guy is an administrator, by the way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong- The list consists of former editors who have been banned for sockpuppetry.--Kitrus 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And why do you need this list? It seems to violate WP:DENY—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Consisten personal attacks on myself.

User:Uss-cool has plastered Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz with a number of attacks on my integrity as an editor due to a content dispute, which I am wary of as I suspect he may be involved in this open case. I'll keep it short, this is not about the content dispute as I understand this isn't the place for it; this is about this user's consistent inability to behave in a civil manner. As can be seen by his contribs, most of his activity on this site has consisted of attacks on myself:

• 13:58, 10 September 2007
• 15:09, 10 September 2007
• 11:32, 11 September 2007
• 13:10, 11 September 2007
• 16:29, 11 September 2007
• 16:36, 11 September 2007
• 16:39, 11 September 2007

In addition, he has also used this IP address, for what it's worth.
Normally I would just chalk this up to a newbie not knowing how things work, but that coupled with my suspicion of him in regard to the above mentioned sockpuppetry case and his persistence in these attacks makes me a bit suspicious. Please advise. MezzoMezzo 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He just added three entirely new sections to that article's talk page this morning, all three of which are dedicate solely to launching more personal attacks on me. Even the very section title's are personal attacks. MezzoMezzo 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving warning to Uss-cool. Advise if attacks continue.Rlevse 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk and User:Funkynusayri: disruption and canvassing

Could I ask someone to review User:Skatewalk and User:Funkynusayri's conduct? Skatewalk has been cross-posting on various users' talk pages for days to encourage them to engage in revert wars on several articles, lastly asking them to deal with a user "known for his/her Anti-Arab agenda" [8]. He is also fond of soapboxing on article talk pages, for which I left him two not-a-forum warnings, which he deletes then posts on my talk page instead. Funkynusayri is the user who frequently responds to his calls [9]. Please review our contribution histories. — Zerida 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted on members of the Arab world wiki project, because you are trolling Arabic language pages and claiming dialects as languages!

• the only language to split from Arabic is Maltese, every other nation speaks Arabic as its official language and has numerous local dialects. I ask the admin to review Zerida biased edits history to see what type of agenda she is pushing!
• wikipedia is a scientific encyclopaedia not a place to play edit wars! 90% of your contribuitions are original research that opposes reality and science!--Skatewalk 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Again, when I see sections of articles that are clearly false, or push a nationalistic agenda, I change them to the better. The "Egyptians" article is a huge problem, and is based on a false premise. Funkynusayri 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User Zerida contribuitions to Wikipedia!/sock-puppet Hamada-2

It will take me pages to detail the atrocities this member commited.

• Creating Sock puppets such as Hamada2. participating in negative revert wars. that reduces the quality of wikipedia and its articles.[10], [11], [12]
• A habit of blanking talk pages![13], [14]
• we are dealing with a rude user, who wants wikipedia to reflect his personal feelings!--Skatewalk 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The only claim to which I can respond here is the blanking of the article's talk page, which editors are allowed to do if they are being used as a forum or disruptively. I only blanked that part that was in violation of policy. The rest is a rather long string of personal accusations and attacks that leaves me, more than anything, pretty surprised since I've had almost no interaction with Skatewalk until he began "editing" articles to which I frequently contribute. At any rate, content disputes, if there are any, are not an excuse for disruption. — Zerida 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but explain the sudden apeerance of Hamada2? He only appears to be interested in your edit wars? Look at my history I expanded over 1000 articles, and I use respected refernces in every edit I add. Unlike your biased reverts or ommissions of refernces![15]

• Please explain to wikipedia, why did you delete this reference? [16], its already known and official that Arabic is the language of egypt. The Egyptian govt websites operate in Arabic, the Egyptian dialect exists on TV just like the Southern American dialect or Italian American dialect exists on TV and the streets. However its not a language!. I referenced it because you seem to live in a fantasy world (which is beautiful), just dont spam wikipedia. They have Dramatica for creative users such as yourself.--Skatewalk 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line

Both parties should try WP:AGF and stop their "agendas and sockpuppetry" if they got any. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if asking both parties to assume good faith and to stop their "agendas and and sockpuppetry" (quoting Skatewalk) is exactly assuming good faith. At any rate, I've looked a little deeper into the past, and seeing these page histories [17], [18] throws in a bit more perspective for me. It would be nice though if the sockpuppet accusations [19] and especially the anti-Arab charge [20] [21] [22] [23] weren't bandied about every time one wants to get one's way, particularly when one is standing on pretty thin ice [24]. Another thing that would be nice is perspective by much less involved editors. — Zerida 06:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I talked to Skatewalk both on article talk pages, his user talkpage and even via email to stop creating havoc and avoid confrontation. Next time, he will be blocked. I am of course concerned about the obvious sockpuppetry from both sides. You, him? i don't know and my idea is to run a checkuser on all involved parties in those sets of articles includng myself. How is that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't have a CheckUser run on yourself because 1. you were not editing this particular article, and 2. CheckUser is not for fishing nor to prove one's "innocence". Whether this account [25] is a sockpuppet may not require a lot of investigating, and so would likely not qualify for CheckUser either. That would leave me with your "obvious sockpuppetry" charge! Not that your immediate assumption of bad faith necessarily surprises me given the tone with which some editors who don't share your POV in this subject area are sometimes met [26], but there was no need for all that careful wording to point that out. — Zerida 07:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I love Unicorns, but you don't see me going in edit wars attempting to add them to the Equidae family or atleast the Perissodactyla order. I expect the same from you, you should seperate your rich imagination/fantasy from facts(that you might not like). You can start your own website if you want to create your own world.
• Zerida the reason you have so much edit wars is because you are promoting an agenda of hate towards 340 million humans, for unclear reasons?!. You should take your hate somewhere else. What did you contribute to wikipedia? just look at your thousands of edits in your history and all you see is a long record of edit wars and sock puppetry.
• Irresponsible editing only brings a bad name to Wikipedia.--Skatewalk 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruption on Iranian Azeris

A new User:Elick txu is pushing a self-made "demographic map" into the sensitive Iranian Azeris article. The map was originally uploaded to a fringe website and he is not providing any sources (in fact many other editors thinks that it is incorrect). He was reverted seven times by different users but kept re-inserting the map with nice summaries like [27]. I have blocked him for the PA and warned about 3RR and OR. Still he continued pushing the map as User:Babek Azeri. I have indefblocked the sock and extended Elick's block to 48h. I am reporting the matter here as while I have no interest to this article, I have reverted Elick and his sock twice, so I might be considered a participant. If somebody wants to review my actions, you are very welcome Alex Bakharev 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked the original account as well. I'm not in the business of letting obvious trolls like this run around (edit warring, 3RR, personal attacks, nationalist POV-pushing, sockpuppetry). Moreschi ^Talk 12:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's now socking away merrily, so keep an eye out for more disruption on the way. Moreschi ^Talk 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullying and harassment by User:JzG

That User:JzG has chosen to deliberately misinterpret edits and edit summaries in bad faith, solely to push his arbitrary and baseless claim that the article "violates" the "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy he concocted today, is completely and utterly pathetic and intentionally disruptive. He made no effort whatsoever to discern the purpose of the edits; after going berzerk the fact that an article he opposes in the face of clear consensus was recreated, he concocted an issue deliberately intended to violate WP:POINT, aiming to create an excuse for deletion of the article. The two edits falsely and maliciously presented by JzG as "highly misleading edit summaries", his baseless justification for his deliberately false warning and threats were the following: Edit 1 with an edit summary of "add additional biographical details, with sources" added a source about her celebrity clients and added two statements about the SUV incident; her claim that it was an accident, and an expert's claim that it was intentional, each backed by a separate reliable source. Edit 2, with an edit summary of "copyedit and wikify re bio" reinserted sourced information regarding her mother's death placing it in context in the lead section together with the mention of her parents, and several other copyedits and wikifications including 1) removing the words "and 'fixer'" (no support found), 2) changing "a Long Island nightclub" to "a nightclub in the Hamptons, 3) wikilinking to felony (so that anyone unsure of the definition could look it up), 4) adding the words "Second-degree" before "assault" (to specify the crime she was charged with, based on the source), and 5) wikilinking to "driving while intoxicated". Every single one of these changes was sourced, was made in good faith, came from a reliable source and was made with the intention of improving an article that had already been improperly deleted and had vultures circling around looking for more excuses to delete it again. Well more than 12 hours later, with a stable, thoroughly-documented article far behind me, JzG went bat shit and went on attack. Deliberately ignoring the clear purpose behind the edits, failing to review the content of the article, and purposefully and maliciously ignoring my previous use of "copyedit and wikify re..." in edit summaries, he made a knowingly false accusation that the edit summaries I use were intentionally misleading with an aim of "hiding" something. This accusation is complete and total bullshit, and JzG's insistence that he believes this crap to be true is patently unbelievable. JzG has never bothered to point out any Wikipedia policy that was violated by these edit summaries, the fact being that edit summaries are not required and have never been required. That JzG has misinterpreted my good faith effort to improve an article he wants deleted is his own personal hangup, not justification for a manufactired warning and an empty threat. As there is no basis for his false and malicious claims, there is obviously no validity to his threat of taking this "to a wider audience". The proof of the pudding is JzG's edit summary for his bullshit attack: the incredibly detailed word "warning". That an administrator such as JzG would be so utterly ignorant of Wikipedia policy as to have to make up rules to be violated is a sad and disturbing state of affairs. Appropriate sanctions need to be taken against User:jZG to ensure that this pattern of abuse is not perpetuated with other users. I am willing to accept an apology from him to end this matter once and for all. Alansohn 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute on Lizzie Grubman? User:JzG has two edits to that article as far as I can see. It doesn't look much like "bat shit" to me. Secretlondon 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This screed is way too long for many people to care. For instance, I haven't read it, and I'm not going to at that length. Look at the top of this page. Is there an executive summary? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

HA HA HA... I got as far as 'JzG did wrong' and ran for the sig... and then read it all. Alansohn seems to be lashing out. forget that noise. JzG wasn't the oly one revertign excess personal info unrelated to the article subject's notability. I'm starting to get tired of seeing Wikipedia articles turn from 'here's why this prson is notable' into 'here's every available fact about the person. Read a 'real' encyclopedia. Information too far outside notability is NOT included, and WP can benefit from remembering that we don't need to know Lizie Grubman's dog's name, nor about her exboyriend,s OR about her parents' deaths. None of those topics impacted, in any citable manner, her actions in that incident. ThuranX 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is better placed above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alansohn, instead of fragmenting the discussion?--Hu12 02:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not at all what I had in mind when I suggested everyone just drop it. --Haemo 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Plus, I provided categorical proof that, yes, Alansohn's edit summaries were misleading (and I think that everyone else who has expressed an opinion has agreed). He just doesn't want to admit it. He speculates above as to my supposed secret motives, but actually I had no secret motives. Is anyone here in any doubt that if I seriously wanted that article deleted, I'd have deleted it? Have I ever shown myself to be unwilling to take a bold action in the case of a WP:BLP concern? I ahve absolutely zero investment in that article, I didn't even express an opinion on the AfD. Alansohn made at least two edits with very misleading summaries, as outlined in detail above, including calling a reversion a "copyedit", and he utterly refuses to acknowledge that he did, or even that I am allowed to point that out. And while he's talking about assumption of bad faith, I didn't see him acknowledge that Ryan's deletionw as in good faith, or that the deletion of his (Alansohn's) GFDL-violating repost was in good faith, either. Quite the opposite. Id say, in fact, that Alansohn showed every sign of wanting to WP:OWN the article and fight off all comers. Regardless, I think it's time Alansohn stopped spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The claim that edits were made with "misleading summaries" is complete and total bullshit. Every single edit made to the article was referenced using reliable and verifiable sources, was balanced, neutral, encyclopedic, made in good faith as part of an effort to improve the encyclopedic nature of the article and had a clear, concise and accurate edit summary provided, and I stand behind every single aspect of every single edit made to the article; JzG used his mind-reading skills to determine that edit summaries that used were part of a calculated scheme to hide changes, a claim that is completely and totally false and is a shameless personal attack made in bad faith. That an admin would be so utterly ignorant as to fail to understand that edit summaries are not required and that minor changes are tagged as such is an astounding embarrassment. After two admins improperly deleted the article, JzG has been looking for an excuse of his own, going so far as to manufacture a Wikipedia policy of his own -- "WP:TABLOIDISM" -- to push for deletion in the face of clear consensus at the AfD that he is completely and totally wrong. I love the GFDL violation nonsense, which even JzG can't honestly believe; One has to be quite ignorant to insist that copying Wikipedia content violates GFDL, and if that were the case, any content copied within Wikipedia would violate its own license. I don't own this or any other article; it's bad faith attacks from incompetent and malicious admins such as JzG that is the problem here. JzG has refused to acknowledge that the attack and threat posted on my talk page were intended as part of an effort to interfere with the article and to get revenge for the fact that the AfD he so brazenly supports in the face of clear consensus had failed. A simple apology for his disgraceful bad faith attacks will end this matter once and for all. Alansohn 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between "misleading" and "intentionally misleading" which seems to be eluding you here. I suggest you assume good faith and move on. --Haemo 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Alansohn, please stop alleging that JzG created "his own" policy simply to justify his deletion rationale. All JzG did was to create a new redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS, which, as I'm quite sure you know, has been official policy for quite some time. -- Satori Son 19:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Nice Try. JzG has been claiming that use of sources that he defines as being from "tabloids" invalidates the source; There is absolutely no policy that states that. Lizzie Grubman is clearly notable for her career success, media exposure as subject of a TV show and her involvement in an extensively publicized SUV incident, all documented up the wazoo with reliable sources. The effort to delete the original article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman failed, with complete unanimity of all participants (other than the nominator) that the article was notable. After being improperly deleted, the article was recreated. Every single statement in the article is supported by reliable and verifiable sources from "tabloids" such as The New York Times and New York magazine. Yet JzG still stands alone in his insistence that the article violates his concocted "WP:TABLOIDISM". Even the most cursory read of WP:NOT#NEWS will show that there is absolutely nothing relevant there that relates to this article. If JzG (or you, or anyone else) believes that the current article violates WP:NOT#NEWS (or "WP:TABLOIDISM", or any other Wikipedia policy), the proper thing to do would be start a second AfD. The fact that JzG has refused to do so, despite repeated requests is further demonstration that he doesn't believe the nonsense he's spewing. Alansohn 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If you believe his application of WP:NOT is flawed, then stick with that, but continuing to claim over and over that he has "manufactured his own policy" called WP:TABLOID is inaccurate. You are only undermining your own arguments by making such accusations. -- Satori Son 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
            • It's not my application of WP:NOT. I merely pointed out that following Jimbo's strongly worded addition to WP:NOT, the idea that articles on living individuals dominated by negative material sourced mainly form tabloid sources should be deleted, is at least defensible. One of the more amusing facets of this particularly fatuous dispute is that Alansohn is hysterically claiming lack of WP:AGF against him, while at the same time asserting bad faith on the part of three separate admins and anybody who agrees with them. As I say, Jimbo added the word tabloid to WP:NOT, and neither of the deletions of that article were by me - one was on the basis of the tabloid problem, one on the basis of somebody else noting that copy-paste reposts violate GFDL. For some reason Alansohn seems to think this is my problem. In fact, Alansohn seems to think that every problem is always with everybody but him. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhm, copying in that manner *is* a GFDL violation because of the lack of authorship information. Shell ^babelfish 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm, all material on Wikipedia *is* freely licensed for copying. Material is cut and pasted all day long from one article to another or within Wikipedia articles. Are you claiming that every time Wikipedia content is used in any other article the GFDL license is violated? Alansohn 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to read the past debates on similar subjects, every one of which has concluded that copy and paste moves and restores are a violation of GFDL. You might also want to take a look at the responses re GFDL, not one of which supports your position. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• He's clearly pulling your leg. An editor with 40 kajillion edits obviously understands that copy-and-pastes from other Wikipedia articles without attribution and a link back violate the GFDL. That was a major argument against BJAODN. How could anyone have missed that? -- But|seriously|folks  22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to the plaintiff. Calm down. Instead of re-hashing the entire story, what are you prepared to do to resolve this matter? --Aarktica 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do. I will continue with my efforts to build an encyclopedia. I will continue to add content and create new article, all populated with reliable and verifiable sources. I will stand up to those who believe that you have to destroy the village to save it. The one change is to be even more careful to watch my back; I will have in the back of mind that there are people like JzG who will choose to misinterpret actions of others to push their own biases and try to ensure that these folks can't find any excuses to cite violations of non-existent policy. Alansohn 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words, you don't see any problem with your actions either on the page in question, or in your responses to subsequent reaction. In that case, I have a suggestion — assume good faith more readily, always assume civility, and remember that a temperate response is best. --Haemo 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I see absolutely nothing wrong with any edit I made to the [[Lizzie Grubman] article. I will categorically state that every edit made here was made as part of an effort to improve the article in question and to improve Wikipedia in general. My dictionary defines "misleading" as "intended to deceive". That JzG decided in bad faith that my edits contained "misleading edit summaries" is one of the most egregious examples of bad faith I have ever seen. Instead of making a suggestion or recommendation, JzG made a shamelessly bad faith assumption that I was hiding something with my edit summaries, a statement that is complete and total bullshit, accompanied with a threat to "to bring this to wider notice" if I failed to comply with his demands. I pleaded with JzG to find out what policy was violated only to receive repetition of the same baseless claim, later helpfully put in bold by JzG. I don't know how you define good faith, but his false claim he used to start his attack here that "I asked him really quite nicely nicely" is completely and totally false: His initial contact started with an accuation of deliberately falsified edit summaries to disguise changes made to the Lizzie Grubman article: "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." and ended with an "or else" threat: " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." There isn't an ounce of good faith from JzG. Where's the "nicely" part of this? Where's the "good faith"? I will do my best to ignore trolls like JzG in the future. Alansohn 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I know you see nothign wrong with them. That's the problem. For example, you added text that said that an expert hired by one party determined that Grubman's actions were deliberate. The parties and their witnesses do not determine anything in a court case, expert witnesses give an opinion, but the court determines. And your edit summaries were misleading, of course.

• • Many others are here to build an encyclopaedia as well. The only concern I have is that you have elected to assume bad faith going forward. Nevertheless, I wish you all the best. Cheers, --Aarktica 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I look forward to working with them. Alansohn 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• That'll e a first, judging from your previous RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

IP address 74.100.231.137

It's nothing much, and I'm probably overreacting, but IP address 74.100.231.137 went insane on my talk page, and removed a comment made by someone else.

All I did was post on their talk page about Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, and the whole Mother Brain =/= Aurora unit.

Before i undid what this user posted, here is what they posted:

"Ok Dude STFU, do you have some kind of pickle shoved way up your ass or something?"

"...you need to in general learn not to be such a god damn asshole.."

You can see the whole message(s) under my history page.

Again, probably something minor, but this REALLY shouldn't be the kind of thing that happens to users.GreenAiden555 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

People occasionally go bananas. If they go persistently bananas, you can report them as a vandal (if they are vandalising) at WP:AIV. Also, keep in mind that IP addresses can be used by many different people, so there's no guarantee that the person using the IP address right now will be the same one using it an hour from now. Just take things in stride and brush off the little things. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove vandalism warnings from your talk page either. Secretlondon 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really vandalism when the page in question was a joke, and I signed a petition to keep the page by saying "YES KEEP IT"?GreenAiden555 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy forbidding removal of anything from your own user talk page. It'll still be in the history, so it doesn't really matter anyway. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no prohibition as such on removal of warnings. But when checking out vandal reports and the like, if I see someone's history shows they have regularly blanked a lot of stuff from their talk page I often think "hmm, wonder what's going on here..." and start looking in more detail. There may well be nothing of concern, of course. Raymond Arritt 03:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cowboycaleb1

Resolved

If I have to put up with this user's nonsense trolling anymore I'm going to go off on him, and that's putting it mildy. He already revert warred with me, unsuccessfully accused me of 3RR, which I was told to ignore because he seemed to be wrong about it [28], and now he requested I be "blocked from editing the WWE roster site" for adding "false information" [29]. This user has been a problem for the last month having been blocked for disruption three times. Comments or action would be appriciated. — Moe ε 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Moe_Epsilon has now making threats of dealing with me.Look here[30]. Someone needs to talk to him. User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the threat of dealing with you? You really make yourself look bad. — Moe ε 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be harassment. I find Moe to be in the right here. It also looks like borderline, if not absolute, trolling; he continues to make disruptive, and falsely founded reports at places where true vandals are reported. This must stop. I bring into suggestion, but will not presently bring into force, a block for some period of time. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a warning of sorts on the talk page. No block needed for now but the childishness of it all should stop. Pascal.Tesson 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive289#Edit_war.2Fwarring_at_Carlossuarez46Rlevse 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Hopiakuta

Can anyone make any sense out of this user's page or talk page, signature, or the user's edits? Hopiakuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I think the original block was probably not so far off base - this seems like a lot of gibberish to me. Tvoz |talk 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the user's signature - everything within and including the outside brackets:

[[ user : hopiakuta |[[ hopiakuta ]] Please do [[ sign ]] your [[ signature ]] on your [[ message]]. [[ %7e%7e ]] [[ %7e%7e | Thank You. ]]-]]

which comes out like this, including the brackets: [[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]]

Tvoz |talk 08:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to his talk page, and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Does anyone think he/she is copying a message someone left for them at one time? And what's with that warning at the top of the page? R. Baley 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to contradict his own rule about clear signatures.. — Moe ε 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful Moe, that little greek character there might be considered vandalism. Someguy1221 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just vandalism, but SPAM VANDALISM Better add "ε" to the list of bad words.. — Moe ε 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I looked back through his/her contribution history (which is a little scary) and he looks to have tried to get help with his sig back in November 2006. I'm sure there are other issues at play here, but is it possible that he changed his sig at some point and just never got it right (looks like his name didn't have traditional characters in it early on). I'm not sure she/he knows enough english to be helped. Btw, she added back the quotes to the Obama page, but it's still unclear what she wants. . .R. Baley 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this person is trying to recreate WP:BJAODN? Both user & talk pages are truly ... odd. -- llywrch 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From the talk page: "Please do respect my disability access need." Actually I think this user might be blind and is using some screen reading software. That would partly explain the copying of system- and error messages into the edit window. — Edokter • Talk • 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I got that impression when I encountered him some time ago - is there any kind of support group here for that sort of thing that he could be put in contact with? --Random832 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would also explain the concern with others signing their comments. For the sighted, it is a simple thing to click on the history tab and see who made the edit. On the other hand, if you have to have it read to you, what an ordeal that must be. -- But|seriously|folks  01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm blind and use a screen reader - using Wikipedia effectively with a screen reader can be very difficult if one does not understand much about the technology. The closest thing to a support group for users like that is probably wikipedia talk:accessibility but I suspect English is not this user's native language. I've left a message at the talk page anyway and I'll see what I can do to help. Graham87 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the response. Make of it what you will. Graham87 12:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In trying to make sense of it, I managed to track down the "extremely racist, extremely handicappist, policy page, about vandalism." - he objected to the inclusion of this image to illustrate the concept of "doppleganger" [which apparently meant, at the time, closer to "sock puppet" than to what we now use the term for] - He considered it racist because the subjects are black (though, no comment on whether he would think the same if a picture where the subjects were white had been used instead), and handicappist because either he considers being a twin to be a disability, or because of the (by no means obvious from the picture itself) fact that one of the subjects suffers from Aplastic anemia (though it seems the motivation was not in fact racism, but simply because it was an available picture of twins, the use of a picture of living people to illustrate it was certainly in bad taste) - he had some difficulty communicating this objection, leading to accusations of vandalism etc which understandably left him with negative feelings about the wikipedia community --Random832 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot out of control

User:RFC_bot has fried his circuits and is now severely disrupting RfC. Not only is he failing to record RfC notices in the noticeboard, he's removing them when added manually. The owner seems to be on a break: User_talk:Messedrocker#Bot_not_working. The bot needs to be immediately blocked until he can be repaired. Loom91 08:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bot updated page, and they will always be removed when updated manually. Viridae^Talk 11:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bot is not malfunctioning, users have malformed template use, When adding a RFC template to a page please make sure that it is properly formated. β^_command 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:PIO

I would like to report User:PIO for his repeated attacks against both me as well as Users No.13 and Kubura. The complication (I hope someone can resolve) arises here: the user in question is apparently experiencing "technical difficulties" so he uses an IP, however he signs his edits (with PIO), and it is unmistakeably obvious (due to the identical, rather shaky grammar as well as my experiences with the user) that this is indeed the person he claims to be.

The best example's of his attacks are here (in Italian, but still obvious), and here. I have warned him repeatedly, both on his IP and registered talkpages, he, of course, deleted all the warnings. The user also allegedly uses sockpuppetry, and apparently thinks he can get away with murder if it is done in the Italian language.

This user has infringed upon even the low standards of decency that are kept in the unending edit war between Croatian and Italian users. In his post on Giovanni Giove's talkpage, besides calling me a lunatic, he also calls me (and others) an idiot and mentally disturbed, he insists on incessantly calling me a communist, of all things. I do not mean to be pretentious, but if these are not textbook personal attacks, I do not know what is. At least some action is warranted by Wikipedia policy, is it not? DIREKTOR 09:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how all opinions on your edit summaries, with the sole exception of yours, agree they were misleading. Interesting, too, to compare how many edits we each have to that article. Stop spitting in the soup. Guy 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.81.201 (talk)

Stop spitting in the soup? I do not understand what you are talking about.

• There was my version of the article.
• There was PIO's version of the article.
• I edited some parts of his version, while allowing it to remain, in order to create a "compromise version". It was my hope this version would remain there until our discussion has brought us to a consensus. It was not meant to be permanent.
• I made every effort to engage in civil discussion, what are you talking about? DIREKTOR 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User Kemet

This editor came to my attention when he tagged an entire linguistics article by adding the (expert) and (source) templates at the top. There were no edit summaries and no reasons were given on the talk page to justifiy the branding of an article that, since April 2002, had received the attention of multiple editors. A previous (neutrality) challenge had just been overcome through expansion of the article to include concurrent theories. Challenged to give his reasons, the new editor was unable to motivate his (expert) request. His (source) request turned out to be loosely relevant to two sub-sections and (refimprovesect) tags were added at the top. A (weasel) suggestion was accepted at the top of a paragraphe. All of his concerns were aimed at edits from previous editors and none of my own contributions were affected. The history of actions taken is summarized at the Creole language talk page.

Reviewing the contributions of this new editor elsewhere on Wikipedia for a short period going back to just 01 September 2007 reveales the following editing record:

• | 01:05, 11 September 2007 | Execution by burning | +fact, -fix | No S/D | SmackBot |
• | 01:17, 10 September 2007 | Creole language | +expert, +sources, -fix | No S/D | Noula69, SmackBot |
• | 01:28, 10 September 2007 | Multiracial | +original, +style, +sources, -fix | No S/D | Malik Shabazz, SmackBot |
• | 12:24, 03 September 2007 | Honorary Whites | +sources, +original, -fix | No S/D | Noula69, SmackBot |
• | 02:26, 05 September 2007 | Talk:Middle Passage | D = -consensus, unsigned | - | Noula69, SineBot |
• | 02:25, 05 September 2007 | Middle Passage | -POV | D = -consensus | Noula69 |
• | 13:39, 03 September 2007 | Talk:African American | unsigned | - | SineBot |
• | 13:34, 03 September 2007 | Talk:African American | D = -civility, unsigned | - | SineBot |
• | 12:51/22:42, 03 September 2007 | African American | - | - | Sprotect2 status granted [31] |
• | 12:34, 02 September 2007 | Atisone Seiuli | +fact | No S/D | SmackBot |
• | 18:17, 01 September 2007 | Hypergamy | +sources | No S/D | SmackBot |
• | 16:32, 01 September 2007 | African American | major edit | No S/D | - |
• | 16:29, 01 September 2007 | African American | major edit | No S/D | - |
• | 16:09, 01 September 2007 | African American | major edit | No S/D | - |
• | 14:54, 01 September 2007 | Charles Hamilton Houston | ethnic disruption | No S/D | Noula69 |
• | 12:29, 01 September 2007 | 227 (TV series) | +fact | No S/D | SmackBot |

The first column gives the time-date, the 2nd the location of the incident, the 3rd the violation and/or editing error, the 4th whether the action was properly motivated (No S/D = no summary, no discussion on the talk page; D = -xxx = discussion lacks civility or consensus), the 5th if the action has been challenged or reported by another user, including my own actions in the matter.

Without being overly restrictive in the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guideline, it appears nevertheless that the editor Kemet ignores consistently common sense in resolving issues at hand. His editing behavior is intempestive, overly reckless, violating consensual practice, uncivil, pushing on tags, tendentious and disruptive especially when related to the subject of African American^† besides requiring frequent bot intervention to correct faulty editing. (^†Some of his hostile editing seems to be directed against Malik Shabazz.)

What is more, a cursory glance at his actions since November 2004 and at the phenomenal amount of complaints on his own user talk page convinces me that his violations of the last ten days might be only the tip of the iceberg and that we are confronted here with a professional sh*t disturber intent on stirring up controversies with an underlying ideological bias. In my opinion, there is good cause to investigate further and consider putting this editor on probation. In the meantime, I have reverted some of his unwarranted edits with the appriate reasons on the respective talk pages. Noula69 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot, at least, doesn't correct faulty editing, it just adds a date to various maintenance tags. That aside, what administrator intervention are you requesting? This sounds to me like something that would better benefit from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Natalie 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If Noula69 has looked at ALL of my activity, then he/she will have noticed that the "incident" with user Malik_Shabazz is a non-incident; whatever issues we might have had were resolved quite a while ago. If Noula69 looks closely at the African American content, he/she will notice the profusion of useful, substantiated contributions that I have made. I will certainly admit to having added tags to articles before explaining my reasoning in the discussion sections, and have already stated several times that I will stop that practice. As for having an ideological bias, that is not a sufficient reason to exclude users from Wikipedia, so the point is moot, and will say no more on that subject. If Noula69 (or whomever else he/she consults) makes thorough review of my contributions, (rather than a "cursory glance"), then he will notice that they are overwhelmingly conscientious and cogent, even if diplomacy isn't my strong suit. At the same time, again, with a THOROUGH look at the history of my "contraversies," they are overwhelmingly concentrated in PAST, not RECENT activity. As I communicated to Noula69 before, he/she is free to go over my tags, but one should remind him/her to fully review the activities of users before making accusations, and, indeed, soliciting the support of others in this premature endeavor (i.e. Malik Shabazz) or mudslinging (see: 00:37, 12 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Charles Hamilton Houston‎ (→Brown). Kemet 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been at this since November 2004 and I don't see any signs of him changing his ways or correcting anything in his editing behavor. Quite on the contrary, he's been reverting most of the changes I made in one single day. His "incidents" with Malik Shabazz I substantiated certainly don't belong to the past but occurred within the last ten days. His contributions to the content of African American are effectively substantial --- substantially controversal as it is as are his contributions to biographies of African Americans. As he has now written to me regarding the biography of African American lawyer Charles Hamilton Houston, we must empasize nationality over ethnicity, justifying thus his choice to represent Houston in Wikipedia as an American rather than an African American.[32] Will we let him convert all African Americans on Wikipedia into Americans? What else does he have in store for us? The more I look at this, the more I get convinced that we are dealing here with a dangerous fanatic who is here on some nutty mission.

I'd like to add some comments.

1. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Kemet's editing is "directed at me". Kemet is the ancient name for Egypt, and I'm named for Malcolm X, so it shouldn't be surprising that as editors we share some common interests.

2. I think Kemet's edits at African American generally have been constructive and included sources. An example I wish Kemet would leave edit summaries, but many editors omit them.

3. I left at messages at User talk:Kemet concerning banners at African American and Multiracial that expressed editorial concerns about those articles but were left without edit summaries or messages on the articles' respective Talk pages. In both instances, Kemet responded quickly.

I don't know anything about the other articles in question, but I wanted to make clear that there are no issues between Kemet and me, and I haven't seen any disruptive editing by Kemet in the articles we have both edited. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Domesticated hedgehog immenent edit war

An edit war is beginning in the article domesticated hedgehog. I believe that this is being fought by two people - both using multiple accounts. One person wants to add four or five links to the external links section. The other person doesn't want them there. I agree that they shouldn't be there, but I don't agree with the constant reverting back and forth. I've left multiple messages on the user's talk pages from very nice at first to very stern telling them to take it to Talk:Domesticated hedgehog. Hopefully I've preempted this edit war because I got one of the users to use the talk page. I just wanted to make note of it here in case it continues. -- kainaw™ 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected by User:JzG, which should calm things down a bit. At least temporarily - you know how worked up people get about domesticated hedgehogs. MastCell ^Talk 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dimsdale! -- But|seriously|folks  17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a new admin button to nail editors' heads to the floor. Raymond Arritt 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Support the new admin button. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dinsdale brother (I forget which one) was terrified of "Spiky Norman"...LessHeard vanU 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pneumatic or electric nail guns? ThuranX 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not both? Kwsn(Ni!) 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user name

Resolved

I believe there's some policy somewhere against offensive usernames, such as Gays are awfully disgusting. Does someone with admin superpowers wanna deal with it? Thanks. bobanny 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

07:38, 12 September 2007 Krimpet (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gays are awfully disgusting (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

Blocked about 9 hours ago by Krimpet. --Onorem♠Dil 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You people are good. bobanny 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We have Usernames for Administrator Attention for that sort of thing. Secretlondon 17:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, if friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, perhaps enemies of gays should be encouraged to contribute... Joe 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? WAVY 10 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a parody, but in poor taste. Georgewilliamherbert 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; I think it's a brilliant commentary on typical Wikipedia vandals. It made me laugh... color this gay girl not offended by it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor I. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG, that's the funniest thing I've seen on Wikipedia in a long while. I'm not gay and I have no friends, so I wouldn't know if it's offensive. Bad taste...uh...yeah. bobanny 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Marlon.sahetapy

Resolved

This confirmed sockpuppeteer is back, and is doing some odd things. Using User:Rolldadice he moved his original sockpuppet case page, and then edited the contents using a user name User:QuarIII imitating User:Quarl, one of the admins involved last time Marlon was active. The edit he made in this case was to change User:Marlon.sahetapy on the suspected sockpuppet case to User:Aalsanea, another sockpuppeteer. He also moved his user and talk page to User:QuirkieQuarkie. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 19:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked Quarlll and Roldadice as sockpuppets of Marlon.sahetapy. I'm new at this, so could someone else look after the page moves? I think it's ok now. If someone could just check that I didn't screw up, I'd appreciate it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I indef move protected User:Marlon.sahetapy, since this is the second time in two days the userpage was moved. I have blocked Marlon.sahetapy for 1 month, since the account has been blocked twice previously. If anyone feels that these actions are excessive or lenient, please adjust accordingly. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Flyguy. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tweety21's Userpage

There's something going on here, and I think it requires an admin to look at it. A user (User:Ward3001) is putting the "suckpuppet" template on the user page. I removed it a few times, until he pointed out there was a sock case against the user (it was started after I removed the template). He added it again, and now the owner of the page is removing it. This has gone on a couple of times. I think these users have a history. I'm sort of a third party that stumbled upon the dispute, for the record. --UsaSatsui 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety has been using IP socks to vote stack on Afd. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Tweety21 has some details, User:Ward3001 was the person who nominated some of her articles for afd. Secretlondon 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but he put the template up before the case was brought. In any event, that issue has been resolved, at least with regard to me and Ward3001. With an active case, the template doesn't bug me. The adding-and-removing does.--UsaSatsui 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Users have some control over their page. If they disagree with assertions of sock-puppetry, the tag can be removed until there is some actual decision made with respect to their case. --Haemo 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that's the case, then someone had better inform the person putting the template up. It appears the sitiuation is already ugly, continued reverting on the user's mainpage could make it more so. --UsaSatsui 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Check your Wikipedia email's working!

(also posted to AN)

This is particularly important if you ever block anyone ... Greg Maxwell ran the list and put it on wikien-l: [33] Many of those are inactive, but many aren't. "There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did." I note myself it's very easy to accidentally neglect this ... I certainly have. So go into your preferences and check. - David Gerard 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) moved Soviet occupation article to Allied occupation of Europe

Without any consensus what so ever. The decision was never discussed at talk page. Also he created Soviet occupation disambiguation page to prevent moving back.

The page was under active editing, in the scope of several wikiprojects working towards GA status, and this kind of hijacking to totally different topic without any consensus or even mention on talk page is the rudest thing I have ever seen on wikipedia. Suva 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This section was deleted by Ghirlandajo and replaced with the below topic about Piotrus [34]. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's really a nice attempt to deflect a 3RR block - not the first time I have seen this done by involved users. I am glad to see that this time it didnt' work well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

After your latest outburst of admin abuse, I'm on no speaking terms with you. The IRC incident was Suva's retaliation for my remarks here and here. It's a pity that you could not resist joining the crowd. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack. I just saw Allied Occupation of Europe in my watchlist again, and my bullshit detector went off. If it were someone else who would have done something like that, I would have acted exactly the same. No need to get personal here. Suva 04:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Suva, you are not an editor in good standing to expect replies from me every time you come up with a slur. This has become pretty routine, and I wonder where our civility police is lurking these days. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And why, exactly, is Suva not in good standing? Is there a community sanction against him or was he blocked recently for edit warring? Are complaints about him usual in AN/I? Is he pointlessly pushing personal pro-Sovet POV? Sander Säde 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus abusing admin tools (again)

The point of Soviet occupation is obviously to "prove" that, at the end of World War II, Eastern Europe was "occupied" while Western Europe was "liberated", although there was no material difference between the two. The page is a farrago of tenuously related or totally disconnected events, such as the Soviet liberation of Bornholm and Soviet war in Afghanistan. I removed irrelevant passages about Mongolia and Afghanistan, started passages about Greece, Italy, and France, and moved the page to the more appropriate title Allied occupation of Europe (since we have Category:Allied occupation of Europe, there should be some article about the phenomenon). I was rudely reverted by User:Piotrus who on T:TDYK proclaimed the page a good and neutral article and arbitrarily deleted the disambiguation page to make his point. Against the background of never-ending concerns about his misuse of admin tools for POV-pushing, Piotrus stoops to out-of-process deletion of a disambiguation page. Hilarious. Do we need deletion process for Eastern Europe-related page, when Piotrus is always here to judge what is to be deleted and what is to be kept? --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo opposed the current article and without any discussion changed its title, while creating a stub that made it impossible to change it back to the previous name. Then he started to change and delete content of the article, justifyng it by the new title saying "its not about Soviets anymore". --Molobo 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What you call "stub" was a full-fledged disambiguation page which referred our readers to such disparate pages as Allied occupation of Europe and Soviet war in Afghanistan which you, Piotrus, and Digwuren preferred to bundle together, for reasons unknown to me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla has been blocked for a 3RR violation on the page in question. --Golbez 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Allied occupation of Europe" is a fiction invented by Petri Krohn and previously deleted. "Soviet occupation" is a common name for, well, Soviet occupations. Ghirlandajo's actions were most disruptive. Digwuren 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

can somebody restore the original name to the article ?--Molobo 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the process for that is WP:RM. I'm trying to figure out how it works. If you know, you're welcome to go ahead and not wait for me. Digwuren 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've achieved filing a WP:RM request. Digwuren 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) also removed my complaint about him [35] and replaced it with this one. This kind of article hijacking is not of good taste. And removing complaints about himself on AN/I is not one either. Suva 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, we are starting to understand what happened as known IRCers who chose to block shop at IRC are starting to pop up here at last. --Irpen 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait what? The only "IRCer" here is Golbez (until now, zomg). From what I've read just now (on this page), Ghirlandajo was editting tedentiously and unilaterally moved a page without any discussion on its talk page. In addition to that, Ghirla replaced Suva's thread concerning his actions at Soviet occupation with this thread to complain about Piotrus fixing Ghirla's purposeful disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Make that "moved the article three separate times"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You are being mistaken, Ryulong. Golbez was not the only party who discussed this over IRC. Someone brought it up to IRC while this board is available. And there is a 3RR board, rather than an IRC channel, designated for 3RR allegations. --Irpen 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been at wiki IRC half a year ago maybe two times, Irpen, didn't use IRC since then. What happened here was Ghirlandajo forcefully naming article to change its content, and blocking restoration of its original name. He was blocked just for 3RR as result. Not even disruption --Molobo 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, take your anti-IRC crusade elsewhere. The facts are clear. Ghirlandajo broke policy. He got blocked. That's what happens. Stop bringing your anti-IRC crusade into this and fogging up things. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, please stay on topic. My "crusade" has nothing to do with this. Violation is unclear. If allegation was brought in plain view, we could have discussed it and see its merit. This is exactly why it was snitched at IRC, to achieve the block rather than give the matter a due consideration. --Irpen 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on subject, I do believe Piotrus' deletion of the page in question to engage in moving the page again may have indeed been inappropriate, as he was using admin tools to make way for the move to his preferred version of the article, then followed by a revert of Ghirla's edits. But yes, Ghirla also should not have moved the article more than once after it was undone, as the very fact that someone disagreed with his edits meant that he should take it to discussion. I don't really think the 24 hour block of Ghirla is called for though. It isn't really doing anything preventing him from editing from 24 hours when more productive editing could be taking place. Cowman109^Talk 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Few points. The related page, after Ghirla POINTed move and move war it caused, was a mess with triple redirects, talk page separated from article page, and other issues. In fact what I moved was no longer the article but - as far as I can tell - a redirect (it seems I moved a redirect, and deleted a redirect...), as the article was at that point being moved around by at least one more admin; we were all trying to clean up the mess, and eventually, after Circus protected the article from moves (thanks!), we were able to do so. My primary concern here was not moving the article into any name that I thought was better, but to fix the n-th redirects and other navigational problems created by the move war. Considering the disruption caused by his actions - not for the first time - I see no reason why Ghirla shouldn't be treated as any other user who is responsible for a 3RR violation and a move war. He is an experienced editor and should now much better then to carry out an obviously controversial move without discussion and then on top of everything engage in a move war. Last but not least, trying to deflect the criticism of his person by turning on another editor, removing other editor's post in its entirety ([36] - what Suva well described as 'trying to hijack an ANI discussion') is certainly not what we expect from our editors. PS. I have no idea how IRC is related to this discussion, I was certainly not using it today - why do I feel it's another attempt to turn this 'off topic'? PPS. I find the title Piotrus abusing admin tools (again) to be quite offensive and untrue - I have never been found guilty of admin tools abuse, and such slander should not appear on ANI. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This screed is bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself, Piotrus. There are still people who remember how you wheel warred to unblock Molobo which - amid your protestations - was eventually banned from Wikipedia for a year. After His year-long block expired in June, the guy instantly resumed his disruptive activities in the project, with your full encouragement and support. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently bullshit is not as offensive as schmutz. I have not seen anything disruptive from Molobo. Actually, with the ban of Vlad Fedorov, our side (if there is such a thing, really, just editors who prefer to cite sources, not opinions as fact) would appear to be up by two.

   So sad that editors toil at their editor-denouncing-and-accusing cottage industry instead of making any positive contributions. I thought we were here to help edit an encyclopedia.

   To Irpen, I am sorry to see you have utterly descended into the trenches. You threaten me, creating an entire article talk page section over "schmutz" [37] yet let slide Ghirla's "bullshit" and unsourced allegations of editor misconduct and collusion with not a peep. And don't you and Ghirla tire of your permanent campaign against Piotrus? Really, he's not going to roll over and play dead for you. And he manages to be productive despite your best efforts to bog him down. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you did abuse the admin tools in the past. Unblocking your friends rightfully blocked for disruption is one of ways. Polish names issues is another one. But I agree that those happened in relatively remote past. This incident refreshed those old memories.

I appreciate your concern about the title. You were sadly silent when Digwuren started a thread titled "Irpen persisting in using a deletion board for personal attacks" at this very board recently (must have moved to the archives now.) True enough he was quickly shown the door here at that time. Next time you ask him for his "valuable input" in the articles on which you edit war, please mention that the issue of ANI thread names. --Irpen 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, if I had abused my admin powers in the past, I'd have lost the admin status. That never happened. Yes, some people - yourself included - were unhappy about my actions. But the community saw no need to take any action - so please stop slandering me with your accusations that I abused my admin powers.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping requires severe and systematic abuse, Piotrus. You know that perfectly. Your rarely use your admin tools as unlike some admins, you write a lot. That itself is a good thing. I view your editing habits, while in part problematic, separately from your admin habits. They have some common issues that have to do with your concept of ethical conduct but, unlike your editing, your admin activity is generally not my major concern. --Irpen 06:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't have any right to hijack and retask the page without consensus or any discussion in first place. I reverted him once, and as he ignored my revert, I reported him. Suva 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your general point: Wikipedia's policy of blocking may be quite disruptive. Unfortunately, MediaWiki doesn't have anything better. :-( Digwuren 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me who brought it up. It's standard procedure when you see significant disruption. I didn't ask any blocks, 3RR or otherwise, I just asked for administrative advice. User:Golbez found the 3RR violation. Ghiralandajos actions of retasking the article without even slightest hint of discussion anywhere were clearly against the principles of wikipedia. Suva 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo was doing more then moving the article :he was changing the content so that it was completely different from the previous article with his stated justification being the new title, while making it impossible to restore original title by creatng a disamb page with the same name. This blocks any attempt to resotre previous tittle. Such action seems disruptive-I would like to know how to clean this mess ?--Molobo 22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who "hijacked" the page is a separate issue, Suva, and it's not Ghirla who "hijacks" and "owns" not just this page but a set of them created in a rabid spree. There was no 3RR either. Your choice to act through IRC is deplorable. There is an AN3 for a good reason where the accused may face the allegations and respond. --Irpen 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I DID report it to AN/I, but it apparently got deleted. I didn't count the reverts, as I only reverted him once. And yes, discussion is important. You just don't retask actively edited page which is in the scope of several wikiprojects and being worked towards GA without discussion first. Suva 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares how the issue is brought to an administrators' attention? Just because it's IRC which you obviously have something against does not make the later block completely invalid. Like I stated at Ghirla's talk page, there's no difference if this was brought up towards an administrator at AN3, ANI, AIV, VP, IRC, AIM, SL, ICQ, MSN, etc.

Ghirla moved the page 3 times today in the span of less than an hour without making any mention of it on the article's talk page. This is what prompted Suva to contact an administrator through IRC (how is there anything wrong with that?) and Golbez just happened to be the one to look into the issue, find what he saw as a 3RR violation, and block Ghirlandajo. Suva also brought this up here, but Ghirlandajo removed it claiming a "massive edit conflict" which occurred twenty minutes after Suva made his/her post to ANI, and was well before Ghirlandajo was blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time that you defend "cool-down" blocks of established contributors made without prior conversation or warning on IRC advice, with a taunting block summary like "you aren't getting that courtesy, etc." If you search for "tendentious and unilateral" editing, you are welcome to check the entire edit history of Digwuren and Suva, from their first edit in the project. In the first months, you will hardly find anything but reverts. Nobody seems to care about the amount of disruption they bring to the Eastern Europe-segment of the project but, when I make two page moves and two reverts, they are somehow joined together and declared in violation of 3RR. Since such a report has no chance of being taken seriously on WP:AN3, it is submitted on IRC (where most administrative decision-making has been done of late). This is a sign of the times and where Wikipedia is heading. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my thoughts, folks were editing disruptively, nobody can deny that. Moving a page 3 times (and presumably having someone else or another group moving it back at least 2 times) is disruptive. Folks, we all know the English language, we all know how to talk to each other using the English language, so use the discussion pages rather then mindlessly undoing each other. Please note that being disruptive is being blockable, 3RR is an upper limit on disruption, if you read it closely it will note exactly that, you are not entitled to 3 reverts. Now my suggestion here is the lot of you go and discuss whatever issue set this off on the talk pages, and remember we are all trying to write a good encyclopaedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All this is true, and I was the only one who attempted to start discussion. There was no response whatsoever, only reverts and IRC complaints. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with everything Eagle said, including that 3RR is not an entitlement. One can be blocked for under 3RR revert warring in general? Is this what happened? Because it was said that it was a 3RR violation block. Next, we are not discussing the "whatever issues" that belong to talk here. We are discussing the block. --Irpen 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think move wars are regarded as more disruptive then normal revert wars.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For the record, Piotrus, you moved warred as well, and used the amdin button to enable yourself to do it. And, the main issue. Are there 4 reverts here? Is the 24-hr block justified? --Irpen 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not move war. I tried to move the article once, to fix the broken links, and ended up moving a redirect anycase. I find your attempts to portay me as a villain here quite unconstructive. It was Ghirla who move warred against comments and moves of several (4? more?) editors; it is quite clear who is the disruptive party here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several disruptive parties here, Piotrus. And some of those parties act sneaky and play dirty. --Irpen 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly agree with the last part of your comment - although I am afraid we would disagree on who those parties would be.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is blocking any attempt to restore original title and original content by creating a disamb page that makes it impossible to change the title "sneaky and dirty"?--Molobo 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why admin intervention was needed, indeed. Sigh.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh indeed. What kind of intimate connection do you see between the Soviet liberation of Bornholm in 1945 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 that justifies your insistance on their coverage in the same article? --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• For the love of Jimbo, can't Piotrus and Ghirla leave each other alone? Neither of you ever comes out of your fights looking good. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • JzG, this is not a Piotrus - Ghirla conflict. I did not block him, I did not report him... I was just dragged into it by Ghirla complaining about me being in the neighborhood :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• From what I've seen, the block is definitely justified. Move wars are far more disruptive than edit wars. From what I can tell by looking through the splintered move history, Ghirla moved the page multiple times and was reverted by multiple editors. When you get reverted multiple times by multiple people, that should usually raise a red flag that should warn you to stop as you may be doing something against consensus. From WP:3RR: "If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be." Piotrus happened to be one of the reverters. Admin tools are usually required to clean up page move issues; that's what WP:CSD#G6 is for (among other things). If it was any other admin, would they be accused of abuse? Mr.Z-man 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  It never hurts to have a word with another wikipedian before rushing to press the button, especially when he has never been blocked for 3RR before. There was neither warning nor 3RR report. I will question the wisdom of anyone who approves IRC-prompted blocks of established contributors. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  You've been blocked for 3RR twice before, one time it was undone. And the word was sought, and many admins agreed with my decision; in the end, I decided there were too many extenuating factors to continue having my name on the block. That does not mean you get to either resume being disruptive, or to misrepresent the situation. --Golbez 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  I assure you that I was never blocked for 3RR, I generally pursue the policy of 1RR, and I could never imagine that two page moves could be bundled together with two ordinary edits to represent it as a 3RR violation. I still don't understand how one could count a page move as identical to a "classical" revert. But let us not go into these technicalities. If you find it helpful to survey two-year-old block-logs, you will certainly notice that the first block was for "inciting a 3RR violation by another user" (and was lifted with an apology from the blocking admin on my talk page), and another was a result of Bonaparte's sock-farm antics. So your reading of my block log is disconnected from reality. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed you have. The block log does not lie. It does not matter who is "at fault" when you are blocked for 3RR. If you are blocked, that means that an administrator has reviewed the case and determined that you have violated the policy. It has nothing to do with who was right, who was wrong, and who used sockpuppets. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, lot's of things matter and block log cannot tell the full story. The unfair or abusive block that brought an apology or a desysopping equally stay in the log forever. Just an additional reason to not use blocks on the whim AND to check the wider context than the block log. --Irpen 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't think you are well-served to argue the concept of "blocks in perpetuity" (debunked by ArbCom on many an occasion) with a user specializing in "Pokémon species". I'm not a Pokémon species, thankfully. There are about 2000 administrators, the vast majority of which are clueless, to put it mildly, but only one Ghirla so far. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How is attacking 856 people indiscriminately helping anything? You're unblocked now, and there's nothing wrong done by anyone else here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Three out-of-process deletions of pages are "nothing wrong", while "cool-down" blocks of established contributors made without prior conversation or warning on IRC advice, with a taunting block summary like "you aren't getting that courtesy, etc." are perfectly consistent with our blocking policy, eh? Sorry, our attitudes seem to be too different to be reconciled. Everyone is entitled to his delusions, I guess. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, I apologize if my comment seemed insulting. I meant what I said in the most literal sense: that you had been blocked before; I did not mean to imply whether you deserved it or not, just that it happened. This was due partially to my partial misreading of your previous statement, and I admit that I did come in with a bias due to the first few posts.

With that out of the way, I do not see how my preference in editing Pokemon species articles has anything to do at all with my ability to comprehend an explanation, nor what it has to do with my standing as a Wikipedian editor at all. I can't blame you for losing your cool like that, given the circumstances, but I would appreciate it if you would not demean me or any other user because of the subject matter that we choose to edit. Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More out-of-process deletions

Despite my complaint about Piotr's escapade above, some folks (who apparently read IRC more often than ANI) persist in deleting the redirect which has never been nominated for deletion (neither was the article it linked to). It is disturbing how widespread and facile abuse of admin privileges has grown. --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe they were refering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe (2nd nomination), which choose to delete the article (instead now it's a redirect). — Moe ε 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I infer as much, but I can't find where the redirect was nominated for deletion. I am told that Digwuren replaced the redirect with {{db|recreation of deleted article}}, in an effort to mislead the administrators. It's a pity that they did not care to check the veracity of his assertions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with an admin doesn't mean their abusing their tools. If I looked from your point of view, you're abusing your edit rights and should be banned off the project. So think twice before throwing allegations of admin abuse. Maxim_(talk) 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome to demonstrate that I was "abusing my edit rights and should be banned off the project".[38] I, for my own part, will appreciate if you refer me to the process by which you have received the tools. I see that you have been editing for several months already but I can see your name neither in the user rights log or user rename log. It is annoying to see so many sysops whose qualifications for adminship are difficult of impossible to ascertain. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from veiled threats and address the issue at hand. Was the deleted page's content reasonably close by content to the originally deleted page to justify the speedy deletion? --Irpen 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically no, it was just a redirect. I've undeleted it and nominated it for deletion at RFD. I think saying "disturbing how widespread and facile abuse of admin privileges has grown." - is a bit of an exaggeration. Its a redirect, nobody was deleting real content. Should we start an RFAR to get some people desysopped over this? I think not, just let the RFD run its course and stop screaming "Admin Abuse!" whenever an admin does something you disagree with. The proper venue for this should have been WP:DRV to complain about the deletion, not ANI to complain about the admins. Mr.Z-man 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The matter is not so trivial as you try to represent it here. The page was protected from recreation, although nobody tried to recreate it, as far as I know. Furthermore, it was deleted rather controversially, from the second attempt, when the main contributor was away from the project. I don't believe it's a solid reason to protect the page from recreation. Please point to the community consensus that there should never be an article about Allied occupation of Europe, and that any attempts at starting one are patently disruptive. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please refrain from attacking editors who actually try to enforce some civility here. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply asked above to refrain from from threats. In what way is this an attack? Please stick to the issues at hand and do not switch the subject to the civility. ---Irpen 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotr's attempt to derail discussion of his out-of-process deletions to his favourite subject of civility is pathetic. There's no denying that he deleted a valid page to make a point. Abuse is abuse, and he should face the consequences. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to settle down. All parties have lost our cool here. Let's calm down, take a breather, and return as ice cubes. This debate won't get anywhere should everyone stray into the realm of personal attacks :). You Can't Review Me!!! 06:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your conduct reminds me of User:Ideogram. I'd like to inform you that, in Wikipedia, we discuss issues robustly and openly, and there is no way we'll stop doing that until some sort of conclusion is reached. The matter at hand is frivolous deletion of three pages. I don't see how it qualifies as a "realm of personal attacks", sorry. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask how my behavior is similar to Ideogram's? I'm not asking that you stop debating. I've just noticed that the users involved have become increasingly hostile, and suggested that all parties involved should take a quick break to regain composure so that intelligent debate may resume. Perhaps "personal attacks" is not the right phrase, but this is getting nowhere if Piotr suddenly takes everything offensively and you shoot every messenger that does not particularly support your stance. This has nothing at all to do with the deleted pages at this point. You Can't Review Me!!! 06:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The underlying problem is the failure of folks to take lessons from what's going on this noticeboard. Each month we have longish threads revolving around drama blocks made purposefully to inflame a situation rather than defuse it. Each time it turns out that they serve no useful purpose, and each time the same guys say the same things about cool-down blocks, the superiority of IRC communications over such outdated noticeboards as AN3, etc. This is really boring. (Shrug). --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not requesting that anyone get blocked in order to cool down. I was suggesting that people take the time to cool down on their own accord. If you feel that my posts were useless, however, than I shall simply refrain from continuing in this discussion. That's all you really needed to say. Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, folks, arguing (read: pointing fingers at who is in the wrong) is not going to solve the underlying issues. If one feels that things are being deleted out of process, please see deletion review and argue the case there. Feel free to argue about the underlaying issue, but no need to point fingers, instead argue over why whatever it is should not be deleted, or how whatever it is, is being deleted out of process, such as: CSD "A7 does not apply here!" (I don't know what CSD criteria was used, nor if its even an argument over a speedy deletion, nor do I really care). All I do know is continued revertwarring here is going to lead to blocks, so discuss the issue, take it to the relevant forums (read: not here), and discuss! Thank you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans

Resolved

An editor has just nominated about 45 "List of XXXXX Americans" for all American ethnic groups. You can see a list which (I think) is comprehensive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups. I don't have any reason whatever to doubt the good intentions or sincerity of the nominator, and I'm absolutely sure the nominator is acting within policies and guidelines, but this massive set of nominations is problematic (combining them all into one nomination is also problematic, for different reasons).

There are both arguments that apply across the board for all of these types of articles and there are specific arguments that can be applied to individual articles. Some editors will participate in one discussion, some in multiple discussions where they'll have to make the same argument over and over again, likely by cutting and pasting it over and over again (that's already started). Some editors, like me, will get tired of the whole thing and post on some discussions and ignore others. Then closing administrators will have to consider each one of the discussions separately but consider many of the same exact arguments and issues. Different closing admins, using their best judgment, will likely decide the worthiness of particular arguments in different ways. One closing admin going through the whole list would probably not do a good job of considering individual circumstances.

Is this any way to run a wiki?

Is this disruptive? Possibly. It may or may not produce a lot of ill-feeling if one ethnic group's list is deleted while another one is not. That's happened already and the world hasn't come to an end, but it seems to me that admins might want to think about whether it hurts Wikipedia to be deleting some lists of ethnic group members and not others at the same exact time.

Should the lists be combined into one deletion discussion for ethnic group people lists? I've been told that the nominating editor was told to do it individually. Should Wikipedia admins temporarily halt the discussions just started and direct editors to a forum such as WP:NOT where Wikipedia can come up with a policy on these lists, just as we have for other types of articles?

Maybe it's best that the discussions go on just the way they are. I really don't know. Please advise. Noroton 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for listing each article as an individual nomination, however that was what was required by an administrator. [39] I agree that policies and arguments should be applied evenly to all articles, and they should either all be kept or all be deleted. Deleting the articles of some ethnic groups based on WP:NOT, while keeping identical articles on other ethnic groups (which has already happened) is not a fair application of pertinent WP policies and consensus. I would support a centralized discussion of whether any list of this type is appropriate for WP or not. Leuko 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to know we're all on the page. It's a mess right now, and someone should figure out how to close down the individual discussions and move anyone who is interested towards a policy discussion about these articles. The discussion so far is useful but it's fragmented across several dozen articles, none of which give a good overall perspective. Depending on the outcome of the discussion, if we decide these are okay they should all be kept and any already deleted should be restored; if we decide such articles are inappropriate then they should all be speedied; and if we decide it's a case by case matter then we should review them individually, but please, a few at a time. I have no opinion at all right now on the underlying quesiton of whether these lists are a good thing or not. If they are a bad thing, we will probably have to impose this on people who are editing each individual article, most of whom are obviously in favor of them. Wikidemo 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree that we should come to some sort of consensus on whether these articles are appropriate for WP or not, and then take action (restore/delete) to carry out that consensus. Leuko 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was recommended that they be nominated individually. That doesn't mean that they should all be nominated at the same time. A little common sense indicates why. -Chunky Rice 02:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if two (or possibly more) identical lists in a series are deemed inappropriate for WP via WP:AFD and WP:DRV, I think it would be common sense that they all should be deleted, and see no problem with listing them at the same time. I don't think that listing and keeping/deleting these identical lists haphazardly is common sense per the comments made above. Leuko 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the point of this, then? If there's only one fundamental issue, they should have been listed as one nomination. The only reason to list them separately is to make individual determinations for each one because of substantiative differences. If you don't think that there are such differences, then why did you do it? -Chunky Rice 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because a previous mass AfD was closed by an admin requesting that each list be nominated separately, as indicated above. I didn't think it was such a smart idea, but what do I know? Leuko 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said. Separately. Not all at once. It would have been more appropriate to do 1 or 2 a day, tops, instead of flooding AfD. There's no rush. -Chunky Rice 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominating in such a sporadic fashion would lead to inconsistencies in how the articles are handled (i.e. deleted vs. kept). I was hoping for a more unified consensus on the entire series of lists. Leuko 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out, again, that there's no point in nominating separately, other than to obtain separate results. So again, I don't see the point. -Chunky Rice 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have to point out, again, that I would have gladly nominated the lists into one AfD for en-masse consensus, however, that was discouraged by an admin. Leuko 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking in circles. If you were going to nominate them all at once, with the object of obtain the same result for each, it should have been done as one nomination. If you were going to follow the recommendation of recommending them separately (with the purpose of obtaining different results for each) they should have been spread out. That's all I'm saying. I don't understand why you did it this way. -Chunky Rice 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I would have preferred one listing, but there was resistance to multiple article AfD's on the previous nomination. Leuko 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The massive disruption your actions of September 12, 2007 have caused speaks for itself, and imbues your protests with a hollow ring. Badagnani 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Recommend immediate, indefinite block on this editor, who is apparently using a bot to nominate what appears to be over 100 articles for deletion. It is humanly impossible to carefully respond to so many of these, which is probably his/her hope. Please take immediate and decisive action on this; not to do so undermines the good faith of our entire project. Badagnani 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. It was nowhere near 100, I wasn't using a bot, and please see WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith. Leuko 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The number is 48. The nominator is following what he perceives as a request by an admin. Remember to assume good faith. Smashville 01:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, you should remeber to be WP:CIVIL as well. Carlossuarez46 06:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question - Does this conensus you were hoping for have anything to do with the fact that you failed to place notices at List of composers of African descent and six other African American-related lists, fully 1 day after your nomination? That in itself is a serious "Incident." Badagnani 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I will add them now. Completely forgot that Twinkle wouldn't add them. Leuko 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I favor making a decision on these pages in one group. I believe they should be deleted as a matter of policy, so its a pain to have to post in each AfD. My reason is always the same - Wikipedia lists require explicit definitions, and none of these pages have one. Editing to clean them up would just turn into an edit war, becuase membership in the group is subjective - I've seen one great-grandfather listed as making someone German-American. Lists like "Mayors of New York" are self-defining. These lists would require a subjective decision that later editors could reject at any time. Therefore, these lists can never be good pages. MarkBul 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

hi all - as you probably are aware, there is now a note on this page asking participants to come here and comment. Is this noticeboard really the best spot for this discussion? I'll keep if brief just in case, and say that they should all be deleted per MarkBul. I'm happy to elaborate and discuss further, but i think we should find a better location, i just dunno where! - Purples 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I guess this has become quite controversial. I voted delete for a few believing these subjects are better served as categories. However, the amount of afd's based on one issue is a lot to deal with. This may have not been the best way to go but I do not see why there should be any blocking of any editors. Just one question: Is there a tag for recommending an article to be turned into a category? MrMurph101 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't what I meant when I said what I said during the List of Portuguese Americans AFD. What I said only applied to the AFDs that were bundled in that nomination, not all lists that shared its basic characteristics or problems. Flooding AFD with every single one of these lists in a single day is, needless to say, very bad. --Coredesat 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "very bad?" Are the nominations not valid? And why did your comments only apply to the articles listed in that AfD? Surely if the consensus is to delete the lists on the basis of WP:NOT, then all lists in the series are in violation of this policy, and not just the ones listed in that one AfD. Leuko 03:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing CORESDAT's closure, I see nothing that says 'go relist all of these today at once, but in separate, consensus ruining ways'. A deletion at this level should have been researched first, a methodology arrived at, possibly a bot used to tag ALL such categories, and so on. Instead, this entire situation comes of as either vindictive, or excessive stubborn-ness. SHould these ever come up for deletion discussion again, they should be listed as list of people in any groups, then follow with a complete list of all cateogries based on grouping people, from jewish americans to gay eskimos to members of US Senate, and on and on. I'd move for an immediate early close with links to a centrallized discussion somewhere for this issue. Otherwise, we're going to get a patch-work of results, each Keep result becoming 'precedent' for re-creating the survivors, or Deletes being precendent for reliasting survivors, and on, and on, and on. THis needs to either be dismissed (the ideal), or centralized. ThuranX 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is how I interpreted the closure. I agree that the nominations could have been better executed, but I don't know of any other place to discuss these issues other than WP:AfD. In order to obtain a uniform consensus for all the lists in the series, I would support an early closure of the individual AfD's in favor of a centralized discussion. I don't think dismissing these issues is ideal. Leuko 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's "very bad" because a mass-nomination of all these lists on the same day within minutes of one another makes it difficult for people to assume good faith, and results in undue accusations of bad faith on the part of the nominator. I understand this wasn't an intentional disruptive action, but it was probably not a good idea to do it this way. --Coredesat 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The histrionic reactions some people have had to this good faith action are really distressing. While it may not have been the best idea to do it like this, it's certainly not an intentional attempt to disrupt the project. --Haemo 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation: if you nominate some but not others, does that show bias? does it promote inconsistent results? If you nominate all of them, you get accused of disruption or worse - but you're at least likely to get more consistent results. I agree with Haemo, the reaction has been over the top, and each article evaluated on its merits. Carlossuarez46 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - To the best of my knowledge, there isn't any policy against nominating so many similar articles for deletion individually, all at the same time. But surely it would have made for less of a mess if a few of them were nominated individually, then we wait for their closure, and we nominate a few more. The problem I really have with these nominations is that they seemed to be indiscriminant. The whole point to nominating them individually, as suggested in the mass deletion AfDs that the articles already went through, was that some of them should be kept while others should be deleted - they need to be evaluated at a case-by-case basis. But I can't see any apparent effort or attempt by the nominating editor to determine if some of these lists really ought to be kept instead. Granted maybe he feels they all should be deleted, but some of these lists have only recently survived AfDs, and at the very least, I think those lists should not have been nominated at all. It's borderline disruptive. How many times are editors who dislike these lists going to keep nominating them for deletion? Those lists that have survived recent AfDs should be speedily kept in my opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The nomination of all these lists is more than likely not going to achieve the nominator's objective, a few are recent re-noms which should have awaited a further clarification of consensus. Many are first time nom's but some people are Immediatists and others are Eventualists so I cannot call what was done so far afield to say it was evidence of bad faith. I think what Cordesat is saying (correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth) is that the mass nominations make it plausible or more easy for someone to come to a bad faith conclusion. In any event, the apparent objective won't be achieved in this manner - so we'll be at this at some later time. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Just as a general 'rule of thumb'... almost anything which creates a massive amount of work or significant changes across hundreds of pages all at once is going to be controversial / potentially disruptive. Think userboxes, road names, spoiler warnings, et cetera. We've seen anger and controversy from this kind of mass action over and over again. It is almost always a better approach to set up some area for discussion of the issue (see WP:RFC), link to it from various relevant pages, wait a while to see what consensus (if any) develops, take the proposed action on a representative handful of pages, direct everyone who comments on these actions to the existing discussion page, get more feedback, et cetera. Ease into it so that interested parties have time to become aware of the issue and comment. This limits the scope of initial changes, so any problems with the idea can be cleaned up quickly, and avoids drawing in a huge crowd of angry responders all at once. Not following such a course isn't necessarily 'bad faith', but it is almost always a mistake that leads to disruption. --CBD 10:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• To all editors who are interested in continuing this discussion, a new discussion has been started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Leuko has closed all or nearly all the deletion discussions at issue (for confirmation, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups). All of my concerns have been met, and I think everybody's concerns have been met. There appears to be no longer any issue for this board to consider (although the discussion here was useful). Noroton 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing to edit war through other Web sites

Canvassing on Wikipedia talk pages to edit war articles is a bad thing. Likewise, I would assume canvassing on other Web sites to edit war on Wikipedia articles would also be a bad thing. If I am right, are there ramifications for those who do? To be more specific, I've removed original research material from Man vs. Wild that violated inappropriate synthesis policies. Rei and someone who he canvassed (Tasco 0)[40][41] have since been arguing with me and others on the talk page (see e.g. talk:Man vs. Wild#Criticism.2C_fakeness_and_what_they_don.27t_tell_you). So far though, edit wars have been avoided. ~ UBeR 00:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is inappropriate regardless of where it's done, on or off-wiki. The same is true of harassment and personal attacks. I don't know about consequences — since there doesn't seem to be any substantive harm now, but a polite reminder would probably be a good idea. --Haemo 01:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be also noted that Rei has consistently needed to be put in check due to some strange personal vendetta that she has against Man vs. Wild, and has attempted to put in OR numerous times in an attempt to prove that the show is "fake," going so far as to start her own wiki in an attempt to accomplish that goal. It is obvious that she will go to extraordinary means to accomplish this goal. --Tao of tyler 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with Rei briefly in late '05 to early '06 and her MO was to edit war while referring to (but never actually citing) a few marginal sources. The POV she advocated had been originally proposed by a nonspecialist three quarters of a century earlier and thoroughly rejected by the academic mainstream. In six weeks she failed to contribute even one reference other than OR musings upon previously cited primary source material and her talk posts were in consistent violation of WP:CIVIL (if unfounded accusations of homophobia count as WP:NPA then she crossed that line also). She finally left the topic after two editors pointed out to her how thoroughly unacceptable these methods were: among other things she had misidentified the author of her leading source. I find it disappointing, but certainly not surprising, that her conduct appears to have deteriorated since then. Of course I recuse myself from direct intervention, but I urge other sysops to bear in mind that this offsite canvassing occurs within the context of longstanding disruptive behavior. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Being belligerent enough to drive editors off of articles is nothing to be proud of, Durova. And concerning an editor who had just gone through a painful affair in her life at the time, not that difficult, to be quite honest. As an addendum, anyone who checks the history of the article can see that I was adding cites all over the place, and Durova was reverting my edits almost every time, half of the time without any explanation and while leaving the sections on the talk page that I started asking why dangling -- the whole time defending their actions (when defended at all) by claiming an academic concensus which was never referenced, despite repeated requests. -- Rei 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to is welcome to read the article talk archives. Rei's attempts to WP:OWN the article led to page protection and delayed progress toward WP:FA for Joan of Arc by six weeks. All of Rei's citations had to be reverted as violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#Not a soapbox. I opened two content WP:RFCs and an Wikipedia:Article review to bring impartial opinions to the article, then brought the page through WP:GAC and WP:FAC. Rei's approach was to raise a variety of different points simultaneously and repeat them in various combinations, disregarding feedback. I tried addressing those points in a variety of ways, I requested prioritization and focus, but this individual would not engage in encyclopedic collaboration. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add this article to my watch list. I could have sworn there was an OTRS ticket about this article somewhere but I can't find it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Me "planing" and edit/revert war. You are making false accusations. As you can read in Rei's talk page here you will clearly see how I was trying to do this the correct way. Anyhow, if you think Rei is talking about an edit war, don't put my name into this. It's clear enough to see that I created the discussion to prevent any conflicts when editing the article. You're assuming bad faith on me, when I did not have any intention to create an edit war. I suggest to the administrator to read the source of this problem here. Any person with a brain can read that I am not part of Rei's idea of a "possible" edit war.--Tasco 0 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can read for themselves what they're calling "Canvassing" and "meatpuppets" and see for themself that their description of what happened is a complete fabrication. Tasco O came to me wanting to get information into Wikipedia that happened to be something I had already been defending on the article (but had stopped while awaiting outside comments). I told Tasco O that I had been avoiding putting that sort of stuff in because I didn't want an edit war and I knew that UBeR and Fredrick Day would start one if I put it back. This all comes right on the heels of Frederick Day lying about me trying to reference BearWiki on the article. -- Rei 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, let it be known that UBeR tried to avoid dispute resolution[42], while I tried to solve the problem peaceably by starting a request for comment[43] and dropping the addition of the section I was defending[44] in order to avoid the aforementioned prospective edit war. I'll repeat: I let them have their way, and and tried to get a outside opinions. In the process, I've been repeatedly slandered (at one point, someone even started a thread with the specific purpose of bashing me[45]), and just today have discovered that one of them seems to be daily tailing me to other websites to try and dig up dirt on me.

I've wanted to solve this peacefully and get the dispute over whether the edit in question is SYN resolved through getting outside input. And all I've gotten in return is personal attacks. -- Rei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rei (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs, personal attacks, and incivility by User:Mandsford in afd discussions

I was reading through yesterday's afd discussions and noticed this user often makes abusive or insulting comments. He calls a nominator an "asshole" here. He calls the same editor an "asshole" again in another afd here, and uses that insult yet again here, then calls the nominator "Jerko" here. He implies that editors using a common argument in some afds are "morons" here.

He makes anti-Semitic remarks by referring to refugees who fled from Hitler as "running away from your problems" here. He makes another ethnic slur here by saying List of Polish Americans should be renamed List of Polacks (which is also a disruptive suggestion, although User:Mandsford may be so ignorant that he believes it is reasonable). He uses another afd comment to make a joke about POWs here.

This isn't the first time I have noticed User:Mandsford, I look at the afd list occasionally, and the examles I have cited are not isolated cases. I'm sure people who follow afd more than I do will be even more aware of this user's behavior.

The main afd page says "AfDs are public, and are sometimes quoted in the popular press. Please keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia. Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language", but User:Mandsford totally disregards this in most of his comments.

I won't be returning to this post, since I have no interest in reading any potential personal attacks made by this user, and I'm on a dynamic IP, so any messages that are left on this IP address will not be read. (I have never been involved in any afd discussions with this user, but their conduct needs to be closely watched by those with more authority than an unregistered user like me). 172.141.128.108 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I left a warning on his talk page. I have seen him at Afd a lot. He is usually very civil - although we disagree most of the time. I will chalk it up to having a bad day, for which a warning should suffice. We all have bad days. While calling another editor an "asshole" is not to be condoned, it is a severe view that the comment about people fleeing Hitler and/or Stalin (as both were mentioned in tandem) was a singling out of Jews to make the comment anti-semitic, but I'm not Jewish and Jewish people may view it differently but we should WP:AGF on motives. Also the comment about Polacks and Japanese internees (who were civilians not POWs), I would assume wer poor attempts at sarcasm or humor unless the editor indicates otherwise. Needless to say, they fell flat - like a certain well-known celebrity's blackface incident that really had no racist intent. Carlossuarez46 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Update: he's left an apology: User_talk:Carlossuarez46#You.27re_right. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed Mandsford's poor AFD conduct.

During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranian sentiment (3rd nomination), he started with poisoning the well and assuming bad faith, then moved to taunting me for defending my nomination. He continued trolling along this line, taunting me for making another response. At this point, User:The Evil Spartan actually had to remove Mandsford's comment as trolling.

I can understand that someone may slip up and lose their cool every once in awhile, but taunting is unacceptable, and if this is a regular problem with Mandsford (as this section suggests), we may have to take action to prevent further disruption. Perhaps this matter should be investigated further? The Behnam 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John and User:Skyring deleting references from John Howard article

User:Prester John and User:Skyring have been repeatedly deleting references from the John Howard article.

The two editors apparently have a sensitivity to news reports that the parents of Australian Prime Minister John Howard once owned Copra plantations in New Guinea. However, User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) have been deleting references about other aspects of the Australian Prime Minister's life, because somewhere in those newspaper articles is a mention of the Howard's copra plantations. The deleted references were all from major Australian newspapers.

Finding references for each sentence in a Wikipedia article can be an extremely time consuming task. For someone to just remove the references from a biography, just because they didn't like the way a news report treated some other subject, is to me an act of vandalism.

Most recent deletions of User:Skyring(Pete)

Skyring(Pete) has been the most prolific deleter of references:

• 01:37, 13 September 2007 Skyring(Pete) changed some article information, but also deleted a reference called <"Age_Copra">. Notice at the bottom of the diff page, 'Reference #5' is missing. At first you could think the breaking of this reference could have been by accident, but then half an hour later he comes back to do it again...
• 02:05, 13 September 2007 we see User:Grahamec had kindly repaired the broken anchor reference, but a few minutes later User:Skyring(Pete) strikes again, and deletes the same reference further down the article, even though the text has a different subject matter and is nothing to do with "copra".
  

Earlier in the same day he was at it yet again...

• 03:31, 12 September 2007. This edit serves no other purpose but to delete the existing reference. Again, the subject of the text is not "copra".

Most recent deletions of User:Prester John

Prester John has, to a lesser extent, also been deleting references:

• 15:39, 12 September 2007 we see User:Prester John change some article text, but scroll to the bottom of the page and you'll again find missing references.
• 19:32, 11 September 2007 here we see Prester John perform an edit which leaves the online text unchanged, but just deletes the reference that User:Grahamec had added a few minutes before. The subject of the text has nothing to do with "copra". Some time later, after my complaints, he returned to the article and added a different reference, though the replacement didn't adequately cover all the subject matter.

Earlier deletion of the same reference by User:Skyring(Pete):

(Scroll to reference section at bottom of page to see what references are missing) 05:37, 6 September 2007,05:07, 6 September 2007, 04:44, 6 September 2007, 01:39, 3 September 2007, 16:28, 2 September 2007

Earlier deletion of the same reference by User:Prester John:

(Scroll to reference section at bottom of page to see what references are missing) 00:16, 6 September 2007, 22:38, 5 September 2007, 15:39, 4 September 2007, 06:21, 2 September 2007, 17:58, 1 September 2007

Both editors go up to 3 deletions per day, which is not enough for 3RR. I have warned both editors, in the edit summary window, as well as on their talk pages, but the reference deleting continues. I request administrator assistance for 2 reasons: To revert the current edit by User:Skyring (as I want to stay out of this edit war); and to help stop this deletion of references (maybe a user block would allow those editors to cool off, and give the other editors a break from having to continually repair broken or deleted references).

The "copra plantation" info is currently the subject of an RfC. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the RfC or "copra plantation" info, the deletion of other references on other subject matter is a separate matter, and a wilful act of vandalism. --Lester2 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you summarize this in 30 words or less?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I can summarize it in two: "content dispute". --Carnildo 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaming I believe is also valid. Shot info 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary: It's not a dispute about the content of the article text. It's about repeated deleting of references. References are being deleted from paragraphs in the article that are not in dispute, just because the reference newspaper story also mentions the disputed subject (Copra plantations). So we're getting deleted references all over the place Lester2 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you just want to source the statement, "leaving his mother to take care of John (or "Jack" as he was known in the family)," then why don't you use a different article which most people do not consider to be an attack piece on a living person? If Prester and Pete are reverting up to six times a day combined, who are they reverting against?? Why aren't their opposition reported here? Sarah 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That goes both ways. If an article is beign used as a reference for material that belongs in the article, it should only be removed if it is replaced by another reference. JPD (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it does go both ways. However, Lester knows full well that a lot of people consider that article an attack article. Two weeks ago I emailed him a whole lot of articles he could use instead to reference that statement but instead he insists on using the one article that is most contentious. I've told him before that it would be better to use a different article as the source but he apparently feels using the Marr article for a benign tidbit (that JH's family call him Jack and that his mother raised him) is critical. If he was serious about this, instead of just forum shopping and desperately trying to include a link to that particular article in the main bio, he'd simply use another source. Sarah 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it myself to a non-copra source and now I wait with bated breath...Sarah 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

...And the old source was restored three minutes later. Sarah 10:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by me, because you deleted the content to which it refers in spite of talkpage consensus for its inclusion. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What?? There is no consensus to include that material; that's why I deleted it. All I removed was the twaddle about Howard's father. There is absolutely no consensus to include that material, I don't understand how you can even claim that. The fact that it is removed multiple times a day is proof of this. Sarah 10:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This article came off protection fairly recently, I think it may have to go back on it :/ Orderinchaos 08:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A comment was posted about 9 hours ago that indicated that some editors were of a similar opinion, there is no suggested wording. Given this there isnt any consensus on wording to claim that there is erroneous. Gnangarra 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Skyring comments: Lester2's contributions since his recent appearance in Wikipedia is focussed on inserting negative material into the John Howard article - a glance at his contribution history shows an impressive dedication to this task. This most recent effort has been discussed at great length and no concensus for insertion found. Lester's complaints that references are being removed revolves around his replacement of a good source for non-contentious material - the childhood nickname of John Howard etc. - with a source that also includes contentious material, namely the business dealings of Howard's father, Lyall Howard. As Sarah points out above, replacing the contentious source with one that is not disputed solves the problem. Lester's complaint here is contrived. --Pete 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Response from User:Lester2:We need to separate issues here. The issue of contentious text in the article ("copra") has nothing to do with the deletion of references for non-contentious text. We are talking about references being deleted for non-disputed text. I, more than anyone else, over the past few months have called for other Wikipedians to find references for the John Howard article, but few people responded to that request. A reasonable proportion of the article's references were found by myself.
Now, after that hard work, imagine how I feel when some people take it upon themselves to start deleting those references. The deleted references are not from some flat-earth quackery website. The deleted references were all from major Australian newspapers, such as The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Melbourne).
Recently published articles about John Howard's early life often contain a references to the "copra" issue. The most recent best-selling biography of Howard mentions the copra issue. Are the people above suggesting that it's OK to delete any references about any subject matter sourced from that biography, just because it also mentions "copra" somewhere else in the book?
Skyring(Pete) is suggesting that it's OK to delete references because he didn't like the newspaper article that was used for the reference, and he suggests I should have found a different one. Let me turn that around. Why didn't Skyring put some effort into finding a reference himself? That's the difference between sincerely working to improve Wikipedia and vandalism. The act of repeatedly deleting existing article references is vandalism, Wikipedia breaks down if it is allowed to continue, and it should be stopped. --Lester2 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article lists a number of biographies of John Howard. Has done for a long time. Page 9 of the Barnett/Goward book includes the material about John Howard and his mother that you are getting upset about. Kindly stop wasting everyone's time with contrived wikilawyering. You have shown yourself capable of good wikiwork and excellent research. There are a tonne of non-controversial articles that cry out for attention. I've praised you for excellent work on the Lyall Howard article, for instance. Can we please see more solid additions to our encyclopaedia and less epic discussions? --Pete 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as know people have only been removing one source and that is the Marr article which (as I've been telling you for weeks now) many people consider to be an attack article. If people have been removing other sources, which is what you seem to be claiming, please cite diffs. Please stop flinging around accusations of vandalism. By definition, editing in good faith is never vandalism. Sarah 01:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply from User:Lester2: I'm happy that User:Sarah has swapped one of my original references for a different one that suitably covers the topic. I've got no complaint about that. My complaint was about the other examples where references were just deleted.

All of the diffs I cited (above) resulted in broken and missing references, which were showing up as missing holes in the Reference section. Sometimes there were holes resulting from more than one reference missing, but they were all either from The Sydney Morning Herald or The Age (Melbourne), and they all made some reference to "copra". The broken/missing references were making the Wiki article look bad. Sometimes the anchor reference would be deleted, leaving all the downstream ones broken. It probably happened 20-30 times or more.

The purpose of an inline reference is to verify a single fact from a reliable source. The reason I used the The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Melbourne) for citation is because I thought they were reliable, and easily accessed. For example, I Googled the terms Howard Dulwich Hill house, and the SMH / Age article came up at the top of the list. Skyring(Pete) suggests (above) that a better reference would have been Page 9 of an offline book written by Barnett/Goward (author 'Goward' is a member of John Howard's staff).

The end result here, and this is what the complaint is about, is that breaking references makes the online Wikipedia article look bad. Look at all the broken and missing references linked above. Is this good? No. This is why I referred the issue for Administrator intervention.Lester2 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. If I somehow broke a reference, then I didn't do it intentionally. As noted in my edit summaries, I was cleaning out the copra, which you keep on inserting without consensus. Look, here's some advice which took me a lot of pain to find out for myself. Administrators are just regular people. The Arbitration Committee aren't gods. Jimbo has a lot of important stuff to do. Taking up the time of these people with long, obsessive, self-indulgent tirades against wicked users, editors and wikibureaucrats isn't going to earn you any bonus points. It might be a lot of trollish fun, but it gets you nowhere except to the land of high blood pressure. --Pete 03:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

IP Address: 216.159.104.201

I think that 216.159.104.201 should be blocked after getting a ton of last warning messages. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually a recent final warning and vandalism after that final warning are required before someone will be blocked. WODUP 06:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really with those two templates on the top of his talk page, in addition to a block log like this. Further warnings are a courtesy at this point. But anyway, blocks for vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV, where they are generally handled faster. He hasn't edited for 15 hours though, so a block right now would possibly be unnecessary. Someguy1221 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't assume that's the same person every time though, so all those last warnings are functionally meaningless. Even static IP addresses are sometimes reassigned. Natalie 13:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a shared IP...at a school. Thus we can treat it differently. Someguy1221 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Some schools really send nothing but vandalism our way, for long periods -- at that point, it seems worth preventing a further expenditure of resources to clean up after them. But this school has helpful edits (even looks to have cleaned up some vandalism) in the past few days. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:VartanM

I would like to ask the admins to review the situation with recent paroles and warnings. Me and User:Baku87 were yesterday placed on parole by the admins: [46] [47], while another 2 editors received only a warning for the same violation: [48] [49] This is a second warning for VartanM, the first one is here: [50] It is strange that I was placed on parole without any warning, while VartanM receives 2 warnings from the admins. Why users are not treated the same? --Aynabend 05:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I discuss and explain myself in the talkpage while you and Baku87 were merely reverting to Grandmaster and Atabek. VartanM 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To this point, I have not seen VartanM to be editing in an "aggressive POV manner". I have left some notes about talk page comments, but I consider those issues resolved (in one case, he redacted a comment at my request).--Chaser - T 06:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Two bans for review

I have recently felt the need to declare two users "banned", on my own initiative, and have so far not got around to submitting these for review. Sorry for the delay in doing so. The one is standard, the other a little less so.

Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs)

aka Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) aka many other previous names. Long history of blocks for 3RR, sockpuppeting and generally aggressive editing, including a previous indef ban that was then, sort of, silently rescinded. Blocked him for another routine 3RR case the other day; he reacted (as he's done previously) with a massive sockpuppeting spree. Undisguised, just in order to spite the process (as if he wanted to say: "You can't block me, I'll just go on sockpuppeting until you tire of it.") This has happened before, at that time with literally dozens of socks. This time, I've so far caught:

• Şehitler Ölmez Vatan Bölünmez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Her Türk Asker Doğar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ahmet Hasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 151.37.177.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.37.185.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I suggest to upgrade to an indef community ban (again), and to liberally apply repeated range blocks on 151.37.0.0/16 and 151.44.0.0/16 when he strikes again (yeah, I know, it's a big range, but it's the only thing that stops him.)

Anon user "Dodona"

This user was previously reported on the CSN, where people closed the case as inconclusive due to lack of participation, and also here ([51]) before that. This anon user, who posts from a small range of mostly stative IPs and signs his posts as "Dodona", has been plaguing a set of talk pages for almost a year, with an incessant, extremely repetitive stream of soapboxing about some nationalist crackpot pseudo-history ideas relating to the descent of Albanians from Pelasgians. He's unable to stay on topic, to conduct a reasoned debate, to write understandable English, or to get a basic grasp of WP:V. I blocked him a couple of times for disruption, after which he always immediately returned with more of the same. After his latest blocks, he started sockpuppeting, using named accounts for the first time. For months now, people have mostly just rolled back all his contributions. As far as I remember he's never made a single article edit in this domain that wasn't reverted as nonsensical OR.

I'm aware my "banning" him is a bit borderline, because I'm myself a long-time participant involved in one of the articles in question. It's just that his activities are so narrowly confined to this relatively dark and out-of-the-way corner of Wikipedia that few other admins are ever likely to notice him.

Here's his contributions (i.e. some of his most frequently used IPs):

• 80.78.74.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.90.82.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.78.70.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.90.85.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Ban was discussed at Talk:Arvanites#Dodona banned.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dodona has been known as a troublemaker, so I can't help endorsing the ban. We need more prompt actions along these lines. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the ban. Incidentally the very first nick on the first one, seems to be Turkish, with the words meaning in order "martyr, immortal, native country, divided/separated" (very close to the word for "separatist") and the second "each/every Turk soldier/military natural" - I don't speak the language but have a good dictionary. The nicks if in English would probably be a violation of our username policy. Orderinchaos 08:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, those are well-known patriotic slogans. "The martyrs are immortal, the nation is indivisable", and "Every Turk is born a soldier". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So my suspicions weren't too far off the mark, thanks for that :) (I really need to learn a language someday) Orderinchaos 10:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:YAM

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

This user has inserted his favorite spam link into Web 2.0 and Search engine optimization (one of our best spam honeypots). [52][53] [54] ([55] and while not logged in: [56], maybe to avoid scrutiny) I've explained the situation patiently and kindly.[57] [58] The user has responded with incivility, and is becoming increasingly disruptive, continuing to post to my talk page after I asked him to stop. I need some admin help, because I'm not going to edit war with this fellow, but I'm also not going to let him get away with damaging the encyclopedia. It might be sufficient for an admin to delete the spam and leave him a warning. I don't want to do that because I've already reverted and I really want to keep my membership in the Wikipedia:Harmonious Editing Club. While I think this is a clearcut case of spam, I don't want to push it. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block. Durova^Charge! 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

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

This user has attempted to delete high quality content from the Web 2.0 article. He obviously agrees that it is relevant material, but curiously continues to label it as "spam" merely because it also references to another article on what he perceives to be a "commercial website". I demand that quality material be treated as such.

He is clearly damaging the encyclopedia by removing mention of an excellent idea that lies at the very definition of Web 2.0.

I have also initiated a discussion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YAM (talk • contribs)

Uh huh - David Gerard 10:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for fixing the heading.

I don't agree that this is "high quality content," YAM, so please don't put words in my mouth. It's actually just run of the mill spam for an SEO firm called Copywriting Experts UK. Unfortunately, YAM won't listen to reason and I'm not going to put my reputation on the line by revert warring with him. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree that this is generic spam masquerading as a source. Adds nothing to the article, appears to serve mainly to promote the site. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The source fails WP:RS. Orderinchaos 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. The link has now been removed by a third party. Sarah 10:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so Web 2.0 is a very important article, especially since Wikipedia is one of the top Web 2.0 sites. The article still needs a lot of help. How about we all try to get it up to good, if not featured status? Maybe some of you can add Web 2.0 your watchlists. You too, YAM. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Adds nothing to the article? It is the only webpage on the Internet that actually attempts to define a very important feature of Web 2.0 by highlighting the modular systems that make development easier. It is the only page that actually addresses the "divide between functionality and technique", what is actually used on the Web 2.0 article. It thus hits upon a very fundamental aspect of the whole Web 2.0 idea, and ignoring it means ignoring significant research into Web 2.0. I think you guys haven't made the effort to read through it. YAM 11:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

YAM, this isn't the way to operate at Wikipedia. And it doesn't go over well to be this aggressive about it. Have a look at our guidelines and policies, in particular WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 14:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read the material at copywritingexperts.co.uk, and I agree with everyone else above.

To qualify as a reliable source, a website must be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Clearly, this source fails that standard.

You have now been told by four different administrators that the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please respect our guidelines on this issue. -- Satori Son 12:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For "only site on the internet" substitute "sole proponent of a novel or idiosyncratic theory". Enough said. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Kayyuen Lo article and related AfD

The Edmund Kayyuen Lo article has previously attracted some BLP violation editing and is currently up for deletion. Now the AfD and the article are both attracting disruptive editing and my attempts to revert these edits appear to be leading to escalation and spill over into other articles. I believe some sockpuppetry may be going on and think snowing the AfD and closing down the disruptive editors before this gets out of hand may be the best route. Though if there's another effective way to handle this sort of thing, or if I could have prevented it getting to this stage I'd love to learn about it. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD closed. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been recreated by the subject. Does g4 apply to snowed AfDs? --Onorem♠Dil 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

G4 applies to all xfd deletions - rain, shine, and SNOW. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned user is still editing under another name

BLueRibbon (talk · contribs) was banned along with several other users in March and April for self-identifying as a pedophile. Two months ago, he responded on a blog post I did about the incident with a statement that he was still editing on Wikipedia under another username.

I alerted Mackensen about this via the email function, but in case BLueRibbon's sock hasn't been unraveled yet I thought I'd post here to get some more eyes on it. Blueboy96 12:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If the new Username is not disruptive, then what's the purpose of trying to ferret it out? Corvus cornix 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement, "If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these may be blocked." so if another account is proven as an alternate account of this banned user regardless if its disruptive or not it should be blocked as a ban evading sock puppet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the user banned as well as blocked? There is a very distinct difference between the two and it doesn't appear that he was banned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears he is only indef blocked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, he's evading his block, and can be dealt with per WP:EVADE. Unfortunately, he left his message on a mirror of my blog at Multiply, and not my main one at LiveJournal--otherwise, I'd be able to provide an IP to check. Blueboy96 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense: self-described pedophile evades indef block - yes of course I'll sleuth this. Send me the information you have so far and I'm right on it. Durova^Charge! 01:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If he was blocked for disruption/"bringing the project into disrepute", and his new account isn't, where's the grounds for blocking? --tjstrf talk 01:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN. How is this even a discussion? Durova^Charge! 02:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the cause for discussion would be that "If he was blocked for disruption/'bringing the project into disrepute', and his new account isn't, where's the grounds for blocking?" --tjstrf talk 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In short it's against the rules to create another account while blocked or banned. Doing so is avoiding said block or ban. Anynobody 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it's a bad policy. I agree with tjstrf. If someone is blocked for something as unspecific as "bringing the project into disrepute", and for behavior that the community had no firm policy on back then, I see no reason why we should not let the user in again as long as his behavior stays inoffensive. It is another situation if a user consciously disrupts the project. --Stephan Schulz 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The user is a self-described pedophile, indefinitely blocked from the site. You ask me to abandon the investigation because you suppose - lacking any exonerating evidence at all - that this person is behaving responsibly on whatever sockpuppets might surface. Consider the potential real world consequences of such an assumption. It would display an astonishing lapse of judgement to carve an exception to longstanding policy for this of all possible cases. No, I will not do so, and I am rapidly losing respect for those who suggest otherwise. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Either he is behaving himself, in which case there is no reason to act, or he is not, in which case he can be dealt with as any other disruptive user. While paedophilia is used as a scareword nowadays, paedophilic desires, if not acted upon, are no more problematic than many other kinds of sexual fantasy. And as for the act, very much depends on details and the reactions of society. I don't think Achilles or Patroclus [*] felt particularly hurt by their reciprocal attention. So we should not stamp this with the "absolute evil" seal, and there is no reason for panic. ([*] Yes, I know that the view of their relationship may be tainted trough the classical age spectacles, and that one was physically older while the other played the dominant role normally reserved for the older partner, and so on, but you get my point) --Stephan Schulz 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Indefinitely blocked users do not get a pass because we assume they're behaving nicely. Having known, banned, and identified pedophiles editing this site brings it into disrepute regardless of what username they use. --Haemo 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am flabbergasted by your outright panicky reaction here, Durova. He wasn't blocked for cyberstalking children. --tjstrf talk 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Panicky? Certainly not. Responsible. I investigate things where there are grounds for investigation. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with tjstrf here. He was blocked (not banned) for disruption. The block of his account is no different than the block of any other vandal's username. Someguy1221 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruption blocks are different from username blocks: the latter are welcome to return under an appropriate name. Not so for the former, and those who disagree are posting to the wrong venue. Go to policy and seek consensus for a change. Durova^Charge! 04:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're hardly the voice of all Wikipedia here, Durova. And you've been here more than long enough to know the rules aren't binding. --tjstrf talk 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I was referring to the blocking of a username for disruption, not the blocking of a username for being a bad username. This is exactly the case in which I think we should ignore all rules. Enforcing a policy for the sole purpose of enforcing a policy is plain silly, even if he is a self-proclaimed pedophile (blocking people for being subjectively disgusting IRL is also silly, even when everyone agrees with you). Further, the block was the unilateral decission of one admin, not a community concensus that he should never ever be allowed to edit ever again. I'm not seeking policy change here, I'm just asking you to not treat this as anything more than someone coming back months after being blocked for vandalism. Someguy1221 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism and section in The Matrix (series)‎

Some uninvolved admin attention, please? Following an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism), the article Matrixism was deleted. Xoloz put a copy in his userspace, at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. It was worked on by a number of editors, and got to a fairly decent standard. It was restored into articlespace, and deleted in a 3rd AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (3rd nomination)) in May, stating it needed to go via AFD. Eventually, a compromise seemed to be arrived at that a section in The Matrix (series) might be appropriate, as there wasn't enough for an article of its own, but the paragraph that did exist was well-referenced, and added a great deal of value to the article (it's at The Matrix (series) if Phil Welch hasn't removed it again). There seems to be a fairly strong agreement to keep the content there, apart from Phil Welch (who actually initiated the initial deletion discussion way back in 2005). Now, keeping it there or not would ordinarily be a content dispute, and no admin attention would be needed, but consensus is to keep the information, Phil keeps removing it (usually with edit summaries of "bullshit" or "linkspam"), and then tagging the Matrixism redirect for speedy deletion. If the information is there, the redirect needs to stay to preserve GFDL. As consensus is to keep the information in the The Matrix (series) article, the redirect also needs to remain. As I'm involved in the content disagreement, it's not proper for me to protect it. Could someone else look into this? Ideally, I'd like to see some kind of discussion on the talk page of the article, but Phil is edit-warring to keep it gone - and it needs to be there to discuss its merits. Neil ム 12:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that we deleted the article because of a complete lack of reliable sources, so instead it's now a section in the Matrix article with the same unreliable sources that got it deleted, and that you think Phil is a Bad Man because he's removing the vapid self-promotion of the handful of loons who promote this non-religion, yes? Chunks of it were sourced from blogs and other ephemera, I think Phil will have less of a problem with my revised version which is less about trying to pretend it's a real religion (which it clearly isn't) and more about documenting it as a spoof religion that a couple of people have mentioned in passing (which it is). Also, I notice that although you assert that you want to take this to the talk page, you haven't. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Guy, for utterly failing to understand my point, and for insultingly describing myself and Xoloz, among others, as a "handful of loons". Also, your description of the article as having a "complete lack of reliable sources" is flat-out dishonest (I count 9). Neil ム 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• You mention "Phil is edit-warring to keep it gone" -- he must be warring with someone, yes? It takes two to tango. As a group, people should be able to discuss the content just fine if you provide an oldid permalink including it in the page. Talk pages are great for talking -- edit wars not so much. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Luna Santin, for what I think is a very good observation. If you insist on edit warring, you only get to argue your case three times a day before you risk being blocked... and maybe not even that. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't misunderstand you at all. You want other people to tell the nasty man to go away on the basis that your version of events is The Truth™. I am far form being the only admin who is inclined to scepticism in such cases. The sources are not reliable because they all trace back to the same Geocities page. I suggest you engage your critical faculties a little more. The only thing we know for sure about Matrixism the "religion" is that it is vanishingly small and of pretty much zero measurable significance - that was established a long time ago and in the intervening period nothing has changed except the number of claimed adherents on said Geocities website. It's a fans' joke, and should be treated as such. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Back to the point: I came across this last night while whittling down the speedy list - it helps me sleep (;-P) and noticed the whole history including Xoloz's userfication and subsequent build up and redirection. AfD's address content not title. The same content under a different title is G4 bait. Different content at the same place is not. Placing a redirect where the deleted article was is proper. The rest is just a content discussion of whether it ought to be or not be in the Matrix articles, and that should be solved on the talk page and other ways in which content disputes are handled. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat to blame for this current stramash. Here is what happened. There has been occasional questions at WP:RD about Matrixism, most recently Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 August 23#Matrixism. A self proclaimed anti-deletionist StuRat (talk · contribs) took exception to the fact the article had been deleted and not merged per the original AfD and moved the previously userfied content to form a section in the main article. He asked me to redirect the WP:SALTed Matrixism article there. I declined to do so immediately, per its deletion review and history of admin action. However, I noted that an AfD had closed as a merge and direct, and the material seemed appropriate as a subsection. So I told him that, if the material is accepted there for a week or two without significant challenge, then I will unsalt and redirect to there. There was no protest about the content seven days later, so I unsalted and redirected. I hold no opinion on whether the material should stay or not, I simply acted out of process on the request of an editor. Rockpocket 01:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of translation links

Resolved

This morning I have noticed that Alro has removed the Hebrew tranlsation link from dozens (if not hundreds) of wikipedia articles (here is one example [59]) without giving any kind of reason for this in the edit summary. I thought that this situation should be brought to the attention of an admin to double check. If it is legit than that is okay, but, if not I know that it will be much easier for you to make the corrections than it will be for me. Thanks in advance for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 13:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked them all, and my Hebrew is non-existent, but the ones I did go back and look at seemed to lead to pages which didn't exist, so I guess the editor is removing dead links to Hebrew Wikipedia. Edit summary could be better but I don't believe it to be vandalism. The Rambling Man 13:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, the guy is a known Wikipedian in the Hebrew project. He's removing links that go nowhere, usually because the article was deleted for various reasons. Don't worry. okedem 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to you both for checking on this. It is good to know that this editor is cleaning things up for the project. As a wikignome myself this kind of thing is always appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pinging admins

If there's an IRC-enabled admin around who is familiar with rangeblocks, could you hop on #wikipedia-en-admins for a minute? I could use a bit of technical advice. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No IRC access here, but you will find some technical guidance at mw:Help:Range blocks 207.45.248.18 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting some help on IRC too. Raymond Arritt 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pollysuzy

Resolved

Single use, disruption only account has started a moving war. [60] --VartanM 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef, obvious troublemaking sockpuppet. Someone else needs to clear up the moves, though, I'm walking out the door to the opera. Moreschi ^Talk 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. --VartanM 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all the moves are reverted, redirects deleted. If they come back around, WP:AIV is also pretty good for a fast response. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Desinotes

Resolved

User has an account primarily to promote and advertise his 'blog'. Has only made one edit, [61] - and that was to paste entry's from his web site onto his talk page. Scarian^Talk 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted his talk page and blocked the user. Cowman109^Talk 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Scarian^Talk 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Intentional misinformation after warnings.

User:Arawiki has consistently been adding misinformation to the Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz after being warned. He is making an insertion into the article cited by an Arabic-language source which does not confirm what his edit says, and has repeatedly been warned.
The insertions may be seen here:

• 12:47, 13 September 2007
• 18:05, 4 September 2007
• 21:41, 3 September 2007
• 17:09, 3 September 2007
• 15:09, 3 September 2007
• 17:18, 31 August 2007
• 12:04, 31 August 2007
• 07:06, 31 August 2007

I warned him directly on his talk page at 10:51, 31 August 2007; however, since he responded in a very negative manner at 12:05, 31 August 2007. In addition to that, I also explained to him that the source did not confirm what his edit claims here:

• 17:45, 3 September 2007
• 17:47, 3 September 2007
• 14:07, 4 September 2007
• 22:29, 4 September 2007

Also, this user has already had to be warned about a three revert rule violation at 11:44, 5 September 2007.
Normally I would attempt to warn him specifically on his talk page again about posting such misinformation myself, but considering the way he responded on my talk page last time I am worried that it may inflame the situation. He is also engaging in somewhat disruptive behavior on the articles for Qutbism, Salafism, and Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He has stopped responding to my comments on the talk pages of all the above named articles. While this would normally fall under content disputes, it has moved over into what seems like intentional misinformation which I think may constitute sneaky vandalism; however, I am not quite sure to i'm bringing it here first. MezzoMezzo 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wacky bot

While not an emergency, User:OsamaKBOT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is marking fair use logos as unsourced and up for deletion. Logos are inherently fair use, and there really aren't valid sources that I can think of for logos anyway. Several editors have notified the owner of this behavior (see USER TALK:OsamaKBOT), but the owner doesn't think there is a problem. Not sure what else should be done, if anything. /Blaxthos 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't a logo be given a source? Seems easy enough. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Logos are not inherently fair use. They only satisfy our non-free content criteria if they are used in conformity therewith. And all images have a source. -- But|seriously|folks  19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No valid sources? Unless it was uploaded by someone from the company's ad department, the image had to come from somewhere, most likely from the intenet. The company website perhaps? Sources should be easy to find. Mr.Z-man 20:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Endless vandalism at Advanced Micro Devices

It looks like this article needs at least a semi-block to stop the the vandalizing IP User:74.215.126.32. --Denniss 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 48 hours. Mr.Z-man 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated nusiance edits

Would it be possible to block User talk:86.54.215.50 who has persistantly be making silly edits to village in Surrey. Thanks SuzanneKn 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't been given a final warning, and appears to have stopped, so I don't think it would really accomplish anything. Also, in future, please report vandalism to WP:AIV. --Haemo 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Long term vandalism by 201.9.xxx.xxx IP range (again)

Someone has been vandalizing The Fairly OddParents and related articles for some time now. The vandal will make a few to several dozen edits every week or so under a different IP starting with 201.9. The edit is subtle, almost always changing a date to be one year earlier, such as this recent series of edits. This has been happening at least since March 2007, earliest edit I found was this one.

This is the second time I am reporting this, the first time the range was blocked, but undone shortly after. Since the vandal has persisted for a rather long time, I doubt a block would be of much help anyway.

Most recent IP was 201.9.190.232, making 4 edits.

Is it possible for someone to contact the ISP and report the abuse? CoJaBo 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack allegation

Folken de Fanel reported by Cman7792 for personally attacking

Folken De Fanel continues to perosnally attack me. if u dont believe me now, chec the dragonball z adf page. once again, he has a record for doing these sorts of things. this must not continue. --Cman7792 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of what is supposed to be a personal attack?--Chaser - T 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Having watched this trainwreck of an AfD as a bemused outsider, I think this is the diff in question, as it's the only thing on the AfD I can see that could possibly be taken as a personal attack from Folken de Fanel. The only thing on that AfD that I'd view as a genuine personal attack is this from Cman7792 — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw what iridescent saw, though Iridescent said it better and faster. Thanks, for providing diffs, I should've done that too, LOL. ThuranX 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest giving them both a time out. I was here when that happened; the article ended up becoming a huge edit-warry mess. HalfShadow 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Archival of young thread apparently for POV reasons

Over at Talk:Battle of Jenin, user Jaakobou has been archiving old talk page threads. Perfectly normal, necessary, and helpful. Except that recently he has taken to archiving young talk page threads which he feels are "nothing more than an intrusion to the talk page"; see [62]. The last comment there came at 00:47, 8 September 2007; he archived it at 16:00, 12 September 2007 four-and-a-half days later. He did not archive a thread which saw its last comment (by Jaakobou) on 22 August 2007, or even a thread which was just one post, by him, from 6 June 2007.

I perceive this action as part of a longer pattern of talk page disruption. At one point Jaakobou added "closed discussion" headers to a 4-hour-old thread based on his belief that "this issue has been fairly well explained" which was not the general consensus. He has also been moving comments fairly aggressively to conform to his preferred scheme of organization ([63], [64], [65] among many others). I issued warnings [66], [67] which he rejected, so I feel I have to escalate this. Eleland 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

i believe i replied to all the concerns,^{[68] * , [69]} and also that my statement regarding the archiving is misrepresented. i note to whoever might notice this thread that my comment on the archiving was: "stopping the fude here"^[70] and not "this issue has been fairly well explained"

* please disregard inaccurate/false accusation by User:PalestineRemembered who has yet to find a mentor since his CSN case.^[71] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Rookie Digimon (Part 2)

We've been having a few problems down at List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1), and List of Rookie Digimon (Part 2). This is an example of what one of the pages was like before I removed all the fair use from it. I counted over 30 non free images on the page and unfortunately now both pages keep getting reverted, but quite frankly, all those pics can't stay on there. Can someone take a look at it protection for the pages? Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, waht a mess. What I don't understnd is, how are all of those even truly 'notable'? ThuranX 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

i took a peek and i have to support ThuranX's comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For a list, the individual entries don't need to be independently notable, they only need to be notable as a group. -Chunky Rice 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

point taken. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Ryan removed the images from part 1, myself from part 2. I'm not particularly concerned with notability issues as its a list and not individual articles, and, frankly, thats not the issue anyway. The images cannot stay, as we all know (but neither Ryan nor I can protect the pages as we've been the ones removing the images). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to steer the report to a notability thread, just wondering what the policy justification was. As it's a series of interlinked lists, I suppose that it's not too bad, though I also noticed that some seem to link to fairly blank individual entries consisting of powers and 'genetics'. ThuranX 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar

I have blocked all accounts here, may I have a second look? Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 03:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quack! Quack! - Dean Wormer 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)