Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZakuSage (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 24 January 2007 (→‎Zakusage has ownership issues.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Professor allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia

    Per this post a professor is allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia. They began with Northern Illinois University's article but according to the report they have expanded to other areas. Thanks for the semi-protection to that article and the other volunteers who reverted similar vandalism. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection a bit longer. --Dual Freq 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We had this happen at Owens Community College a few months ago (see its talk page, and history) and probably other schools as well. Do we know the IP ranges of NIU? Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it can be proven that the professor in question really did ask his students to vandalize Wikipedia, then I suggest that the evidence be posted here, along with contact address for the professor's faculty dean, the president of the university, and the university's office for handling academic misconduct. Concerned Wikipedians can then send an e-mail or letter to the authorities of their choice to complain about the conduct of the professor. As a (former) academic myself, I'm appalled that an educator would encourage or require his students to commit an antisocial and possibly illegal act as coursework, and I expect that this professor's colleagues and superiors would see it the same way. —Psychonaut 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, telling your students to go be annoying on the internet and report back on the results is probably not illegal. Inappropriate, yes. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second (as a current academic). See also similar case from Dec'05.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that the assertion and acusation that the instructor (who is not a professor) was behind this are unproven... I'm not going to post the proper contact info here to avoid a flood of abusive complaints, but it's all out there on the web, and I have sent the chair and assistant chair of the department and coordinator for the class series that this instructor is teaching a report and complaint, asking that they investigate and figure out if the instructor really did do that. If he did, then hopefully they can be convinced to take appropriate action. But he should be treated as innocent until there's some credible evidence. For all we know right now, it's a Joe-job, trying to get an innocent uninvolved person in trouble. If you feel the need to add additional complaints, please do so keeping in mind that the evidence is pretty weak (a single pseudonymous acusation). Georgewilliamherbert 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point - it may as well be a student prank. We will see what the accused replies; According to posts below, he admitted to this. One way or another I'd expect that the involved teachers should stress to students that 'vandalising Wikipedia is as bad as breaking a window in your local shop' and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, right. Now Wikipedia has been proven to be a reliable source, let's also prove that Wikipedia is reliable at filing abuse reports. Yuser31415 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has not been proven to be a reliable source because it is not a reliable source. Any student who relies entirely on a wikipedia article is a fool. Wikipedia is however a great starting place, and as our references continue to improve we will become greater and greater, but as we are a wiki we will never be, and never can be, a reliable source. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP range utilized by Northern Illinois University is 131.156.0.0/16, as seen by this representative IP, 131.156.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are also other IP ranges, such as the following:
      • 71.56.0.0 - 71.63.255.255
      • 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255
    • Both of which are utilized by the city of Dekalb, Illinois, home of NIU.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool--thanks. I think we should all examine any edits from these ranges in the next few days. This is where I wish we had a SQL facility, e.g. "select all recent changes from 'time period' where editor IP begins with 131.156"... Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We have one. He's called Brion Vibber. Titoxd(?!?) 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SQL access is not necessary. Checkuser can do it. Raul654 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I sent an email to the professor (it's spelled Pierce, by the way), who acknowledges that he did indeed make this assignment. I told him I would be forwarding the informaton to the president of the university. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify: he acknowledged this in an email reply to you? OOC, did he apologize or is he arguing he did the right thing? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He acknowledged this and tried to justify his actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have passed Professor's Pierce's reply on to the Northern Illinois University office of public relations, and have asked them to pass it on to the school's President. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's that uncommon task for university profs to set - I've seen it used a couple of times on courses (generally the prof will commit the vandalism and then revert). One use is to show why wikipedia should not be used as a source (Study skills context), the second is to show that wikipedia is to open to abuse (with an INFO-SEC context). --Fredrick day 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fredrick, if one wants to prove the violatile nature of Wiki's, that's what sandbox and one's userspace is. I teach, I talk about Wikis, I do use my userpage to demonstrate those issues - but I'd never thought to vandalize a real article even for a few seconds to prove to my students what can be proven as well on my userpage (as messing up real article's history and allowing a reader to find vandalised info during the few seconds it takes one to revert a change is simply bad). That said, I encourage examples of 'good editing' - I prefer to show my studnets how easy it is to add interlinks or copyedit articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great but you are coming from a perspective of domain expertise - many of the people doing this, don't understand wikipedia beyond a) "it's that free-speech website that anyone can edit and add anything about anyone" b) "this is the place that students cut and paste large sections of their assignments from". I'm not excusing anyone but that's just how it is. --Fredrick day 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - so it is our job to educate them. A very good way to to it in the academia is to ask them to read this article from Journal of American History (I do suggest sending it to the professors involved in this incident).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I finished checking the NIU class B.

    The other ranges are too large and dense to check easily. Raul654 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just plain undid the questionable edits that you listed (except for the Wheeling one, as you beat me to that). One was a fact changing thing, the MSU one could not be supported, and the Huntley one was not supported by the reference (there are five Pacific Islanders in all of Huntley, Illinois, which has a 0.00 percentage of the population, not 0.02).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    5/16,719 = 0.000299 or approximately 0.03%. That wasn't vandalism. Can an admin unrevert and de-warn the editor? Jd2718 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave all of the above {{Test4im}} warnings, and a {{SharedIPEDU}} with the link to Northwestern pointing to this discussion. I say we have an extremely short leash -- A minimum one month IP block (including user registration) on the next obvious case of vandalism. This cannot be allowed, IMO. -- Avi 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Professor Pierce's reply

    This was Professor Pierce's email reply to me:

    They needed to learn a lesson about how easy it is to find information and how open source information is not the best way to go. This was after I was getting a lot of Wikipedia cites last semester where students were citing really dubious information from there. One way for them to realize that using sources, such as Wikipedia, is to get them to see how simple it is to change the information that is there.

    I then replied to him that I would be passing his response on to the University President, and he relied:

    It's not that I'm advocating vandalism as I had them print the original page so that, even if it wasn't caught, I could go back and recreate the correct page. The bigger issue, though, is that anybody can do this and have information that is online on your servers until who knows when until the page is discovered and corrected.

    User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What on Earth is he talking about? I tell my students not to trust Wikipedia, and that if they do, they're likely to get things wrong, and get worse results; that's what most of my colleagues do (though most sensible undergraduates don't need to be told). Why does he have to tell them to vandalise Wikipedia in order to get them to work sensibly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tell my students Wiki is a great place to start their research - but a very bad place to finish it. We are moving towards a level of quality with every fact properly referenced, but of course we are just an encyclopedia. Undergrads (and grads, and even professors) may find reading a Wiki article on unknown subject useful to get a general gist of relevant info, but then they should have enough knowledge to go to academic databases. Although I think increasingly we will have high quality articles on obscure subjects that may not even be covered well in English academic works (I challenge anyone to find a better English biography of this person then we have :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did my undergraduate in history, and if I had ever used any tertiary source such as an encyclopedia, even Britannica, I would have been dragged through mud. Teke (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this is what I do too (good starting point). I also point them to the excellent resource here Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia. i can't imagine endorsing vandalism , they really need to actually do it to know it is possible? David D. (Talk) 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I smell WP:POINT violations. --210physicq (c) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a suggestion for Mr. Pierce. If you want your students to learn about the dangers of using wikipedia, have them search for five unreferenced figures in this encyclopedia. They can use the random article button on the left side of the screen. Have them verify those figures. Chances are that some of the figures will turn out to be wrong. You will get your message across to your students, they will hopefully learn from it and we will know which information is incorrect. AecisBravado 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have another suggestion. He could get his students to improve an article on Wikipedia, and verify it.

    As an aside, this professor has very little technical knowledge about Wikipedia, especially as we have the revert function and don't have to rely on printouts to restore the article to its previous state. Yuser31415 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Geez the same pointless experiment over and over. Don't these people realize they can just look into the history to see how we react to vandalism? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very few people who are not editors realize what Wikipedia really is. I am not suprised at that, this is only to be expected. I would however expect an academic to read up on what other academics have done with Wikipedia: WP:SUP and WP:ACST are the two links that Professor Pierce should look through as soon as possible and Rosenzweig's article in JoAH should be obligatory reading for anybody thinking about 'teaching' and 'Wikipedia' in the same sentence.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page break for readability

    I have no qualms with a prof making a real-time point by inserting erroneous info into an article while the class watches on a screen, and then reverting it right then and there. But asking the whole class apart from oversight of the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) needlessly takes the point too far.

    Like it or not, it is an entirely legitimate research project to study vandalism and reverts on WP by engaging in them. Such a research project could certainly pass IRB approval for a class research project. This has to be admitted and, yes, possibly expected. That said, this does not appear to be the case here.

    The response letter composed was probably hasty and not done in the most effective manner. All that needed doing was to remind the prof that, for class research projects, he must first get IRB approval - which he would certainly admit to - and if he does the project again, you would report it to the university's IRB. IRB approval of research projects is a time-consuming, tedious task. This would have probably been the end of the matter. If not, if it occurred again, then the letter should go to the IRB, indicating the prof's class is doing research not under their approval. That really would put a stop to it. CyberAnth 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that would assume that the professor was doing it as a research project. Professors and students also have to abide to a code of ethics (I know I have to in my university), and violations usually are taken seriously. Titoxd(?!?) 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the description, it certainly appears as though it were a research project - one NOT done under the IRB. The rest of what you said is exactly my point. If asked by several users, I would be happy to write a second letter to this prof along the lines of what I am speaking. CyberAnth 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to prove to your students that glass shatters, you buy a sheet of glass and a hammer. You don't ask them to throw rocks at the windscreens in the parking lot. yandman 09:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that analogy is seriously not correlative. CyberAnth 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Looks like a pretty good analogy to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have qualms with a professor illustrating a point by vandalising and immediately reverting an article. The same demonstration could easily be carried out by editing a sandbox or previewing the article without saving it. —David Levy 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, it is an entirely legitimate research project to study vandalism and reverts on WP by engaging in them. Such a research project could certainly pass IRB approval for a class research project. Not only I don't like it, I am sure vandalism violates research ethics and no IRB would allow such a study. It's as likely as the request to study of gangs by creating a gang and engaging in various illegal activities that gangs do, or a study where the researcher becomes an offender himself (for example go spray's graffiti, breaks windows and then writes about 'my experiences as a city vandal'. Personally I find that such an experiment is much more controversial then such ideas like Stanford prison experiment or Milgram experiment - since Wikipedia users and editors have quite obviously not agreed to participate in this experiment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had further discussion with Professor Pierce. I asked him if he felt that if a newspaper had false information, his students should steal all of the copies out of the vendor's box, and if he found something wrong in Encyclopaedia Brittanica, would he encourage them to rip the page out of the book, but he doesn't see the analogy. I also mentioned that we have seen an increase in vandalism from NIU IP addresses which, despite his claim, he had not reverted, and he apologized for the extra work entailed in fixing that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, isn't there an essay about this? Something like "Use Wikipedia as your first source, not your last source?" Because it does strike me as a very good topic for one, and something to hand to frustrated professors and the like while at the same time asking them not to vandalize to make a point. Heck, the suggestion of the alternative assignment of properly citing an uncited article and noting inaccuracies (instead of vandalizing) alone sounds like a very worthwhile thing to mention to people. Bitnine 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is legitimate research regardless of the approving body. Defacement of websites is illegal in the US, not that we ever take legal action, but that fact certainly invalidates the legitimacy of the experiment. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Defacement of websites related to hacking, yes, and that would apply to the WP main page which is closed to editing. A very public website that invites anyone to edit and that claims to be an encyclopedia and that has multiple published reports on its problem of vandalism is a very, very different matter. CyberAnth 09:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Academic use, WP:CW and Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Special:Cite actually links to the last one. —xyzzyn 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why these "look how bad Wikipedia can be" things are necessary. Are people really stupid enough to not realize that you should not be citing a wiki for scholarly information? -Amark moo! 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly enough, just Friday I was talking to a high school professor about Wikipedia, and I indicated to him that I would never cite it in my papers, and the only articles that I would even consider citing are those in which I had personally worked on and could vet on its content and accuracy. He wasn't surprised, even though I had told him that I was a Wikipedia administrator. Also, I told him how it is easy to permanently cite a revision using the "permanent link" link, so all amount of vandalism to "destroy" the information doesn't work, it just hides it and adds work to everyone involved. Titoxd(?!?) 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trouble on Uncyclopedia

    Pardon my inexperience, but I don't know where to put this. It's a little more controversial than your standard page protection issue, so I'm putting it here. Uncyclopedia just went through two AFDs in one day. Both were speedy kept, and several people ahve been advocating a re-write due to poor sourcing (very little third-party references) and such. So I get started on it, and pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverts me twice without so much as an edit summary. When I revert back and ask her about it on her talk page, she protects it, then reverts to her preferred version again. Now she's saying I'm "vandalizing" - yeah right. Can someone unprotect the page, due to her protecting it over a content dispute, so editing can resume? Milto LOL pia 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    pschemp made one error, that much is clear. Protecting the page is inappropriate when simply blocking you stops you. I can't comment on the rest. --Deskana (request backup) 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, removing tongue in cheek humor from an encyclopedia article is VANDALISM all right. It's definitely worth a mention that the site's potato mascot did not found the website. Milto LOL pia 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never made any comment on anything you did. I simply said that really, pschemp should have blocked you rather than protected the page. Whether that block/page protection is appropriate is something I didn't comment on. I'm not well versed enough in the situation to understand it. --Deskana (request backup) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Sorry. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    pschemp will also be a bit tiffed when she sees some of your commentary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, my bad. Milto LOL pia 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I believe she protected it because you added {{unreferenced}} repeatedly, when there are nearly 3 dozen in-line citations, and a citation referencing the "content free" portion (from what I can see).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but we're currently discussing the validity of those cites, such as citing Uncyclopedia's "content-free" article as evidence of it being such, when it clearly says so on the Main Page; a link to an unhelpful Uncyclopedia page is not a good cite. Many other cites are self-references to Wikimedia or not third-party sources. ANd she was revert warring over other stuff too, without so much as a glance at the talk page, where all this was being discussed. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, my sex is irrelevent. Repeat insertions of tag that is false = vandalsim. I did you a favor Miltopia, by not allowing you to get to 3RR. pschemp | talk 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're doing me a favor by hindering me from improving a poorly sourced page, revert warring me with no edit summaries, calling me a vandal, ignroing the talk page, and wildly assuming bad faith? No, you are protecting a page that you are in a content dispute with after boorish edit warring. Milto LOL pia 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism? O rly?

    [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] I don't see any vandalism here. Just some cleaning up of highly unencyclopedic tongue-in-cheek humor and confusing templates, replacing them with links. Where is the vandalism? Milto LOL pia 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding {{unreferenced}} falsely = vandalsim (especially when previously asked to not do it by Sean Black). pschemp | talk 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, knock it off with the running around in circles. I've said several times that it was poorly sourced and that it was being discussed on the talk page, and every time you simply say "SORRY YOU WERE ASKED NOT TO ADD IT". There was a good deal of talk page discussion that you completely ignored. Clearly my edits were in good faith, and I don't need your or Sean Black's permission to point out that article's shortcomings. Milto LOL pia 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, that article does require a tag. It's not {{unreferenced}}, but it is either {{Self-published}} or {{Onesource}}. Titoxd(?!?) 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I found that out, but it ws already protected, so I added it to the talk page instead so the people who actually pay attention to that will see the problem. Milto LOL pia 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we agree to unprotect the article? I don't see it as a sin to have been using the wrong tag by mistake, and the diffs I've seen from Miltopia are well in keeping with policies like Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But I don't want anyone to spark a wheel war. Grandmasterka 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, users are requesting uprotection at Talk:Uncyclopedia already. I don't see the horrible harm that required protection to begin with either. Titoxd(?!?) 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his edits first (which other users didn't agree with) sure. But repeated insertions of something people in the page didn't agree with is not cool. pschemp | talk 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't think adding the wrong tag is vandalism. Should he have added the right tag to begin with? Sure. Does he have a point about the quality of the references? Yes. This isn't a content dispute either, so there isn't any point to the protection. Titoxd(?!?) 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence of Miltopia agreeing to work to get consensus for his changes. If he wants to change from vandalism to adding content, he needs to do that. pschemp | talk 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need consensus for initial edits in the least - if that's your only problem, you have nothing to worry about. Your accusations of "vandalism" are starting to sound hysterical - clearly we have a consensus that the article needs to be unprotected and tagged, but you refuse because you want me to do it on your terms. Let's just cut the crap and get to work on the article already instead of playing out this foolish battle of wills. Milto LOL pia 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You do need consensus after people repeated revert you. Which is what happened. pschemp | talk 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't comment on much that's going on here, but there's one point about which I have to say something. Acting against consensus is not, in itself, vandalism. Adding a tag that one believes to be appropriate is certainly not vandalism. That's true, even if the one adding the tag is completely misguided, or simply wrong.
    Vandalism means making edits in a deliberate effort to make Wikipedia worse. Doing something that you believe to be appropriate is not an attempt to make Wikipedia worse; it's a good faith edit. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll unprotect if Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his changes first. What you don't get is that I could care less about the content. I'm not involved in a content dispute, I reverted vandalism. pschemp | talk 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I had a number of good-faith, sensible edits that you were reverting without comment. Those were content edits. So far your only characterization of it as "vandalism" is because I was "asked not to add the tag". It's pretty obvious that you're the only one who thinks I was vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You made repeat insertions of something you didn't have consensus for. Get consensus first. I personally don't care what the content is, i care that you work with the other editors on the page. pschemp | talk 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing there was a disagreement on (as in, not blind "vandalism" reverts) is the tag. We now have a consensus for a different tag. There is no problem. Milto LOL pia 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where? pschemp | talk 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, right here. Milto LOL pia 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What, you and Tito? You need to discuss that on the talk page of the actual article. That's where we get consensus about articles. pschemp | talk 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "..I agree with your suggestion that any major changes can profitably be discussed here on the talkpage before being implemented unilaterally." - Newyorkbrad.[9] Sigh. Miltopia, don't do anything reckless, discuss changes beforehand. Pschemp, remove the protection, it is inappropriate. Titoxd(?!?) 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice. It wasn't a content dispute. pschemp | talk 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It might b e helpful if you could add something to the discussion other than "NO U". THe only people who "reverted me" used sysop tools to prevent my changes - Sean Blac via rollback, and you via protection. If it wasn't a content dispute, where's the "disagreement" coming from? No one else reverted me. Milto LOL pia 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflicts) We shouldn't need "consensus" to include something that two editors disagree with and which resulted in full protection by an involved admin during a content dispute. This is a wiki. Nevertheless, I've voiced my opinion on the talk page. Grandmasterka 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unprotected. Now, how hard is it to get consensus about contested edits? pschemp | talk 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Nothing to see here anymore, move on... Titoxd(?!?) 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! ^_^ Milto LOL pia 03:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    UTFP (Use the fine talk page) though, or else! :-P --Kim Bruning 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback/Popups/Whatever

    So, does the 3RR apply to blind reverts via popups or rollback? I just got another revert via popup with no edit summary. I think it's stupid that the only one of the four of us reverting who has managed to use the talk page and use edit summaries would be blocked for 3RR for re-reverting. Milto LOL pia 03:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR applies to everything but vandalism. Looks like someone else thinks your edits are controversial. Interesting. pschemp | talk 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they also weren't considerate enough to use an edit summary or the talk page, choosing instead to blindly edit war. Depressing. Milto LOL pia 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR does not apply to reverting policy violations. And even if it did, I would choose to Ignore All Rules in those cases. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Miltopia Gaming the system?

    I'd like some feedback on this as I feel this is a case of a user walking a very fine line. Here I warned Miltopia about 3RRing on Uncyclopedia. And, he responded so obviously read my warning. His first three reversions 1 2 and 3 were the addition of the {{unsourced}} tag (and all within the space of 20 minutes). One hour after my warning he went back and added the {{reliablesources}} tag 4. Does this seem like a blatant case of gaming the system to anyone else? No action has been taken at this time Glen 04:00, January 22, 2007 (UTC)

    You don't seem to be the only one to think so [10]. Editors on the page have expressed that the tag should remain deleted, so I wouldn't block this time, but if he does it again after all this mess...pschemp | talk 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I misunderstood the rule and have stopped editing. We're done here. Milto LOL pia 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wasn't the one to re-insert the tag. You have Tbeatty to thank for that. Milto LOL pia 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor update - pschemp is now continuing to revert on the page, despite "not caring about the content" and then refusing discussion on her talk page or the article's talk page. I wonder what else this could be than gaming the system to take advantage of my 3RR paralysis. Milto LOL pia 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll ping an uninvolved administrator or three to look into this. Administrative tools should not be used it a content dispute. period. It's damaging, and it's unwiki. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already gone over, and pschemp has already reverted me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    section header

    Why do we tolerate disruptive influences from Encyclopedia Dramatica like Badlydrawnjeff and Miltopia? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oops, neither of us are sysops. Milto LOL pia 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He can ban me as an "ED sysop troll" if that'll satisfy his appetite...-DESU 05:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. Why do we tolerate people randomly calling Badlydrawnjeff a disruptive influence? Maybe we should make everyone disclose their IP, and then infiltrate ED so we can checkuser the accounts there and then block everyone who also edits here. After all, being on ED automatically makes someone disruptive! -Amark moo! 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I'm no saint, but BDJ does more for Wikipedia than most of the people who harass him. Er, he also hasn't edited ED in almost a year.
    Oh look, ED is being brought up again by the same people who claim ED editors are all here to troll... Milto LOL pia 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At what point is someone going to step in here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When someone who can actually do something about it shows up. I'll continue making fun of the idea that all ED editors are trolls until that happens, if you don't mind me doing so.
      • Maybe we should trick people who we don't like into registering an ED account so that they automatically become a disruptive influence? -Amark moo! 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd rather not. I'm having a hard enough time distancing myself as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a much easier way to cause disruption. Just keep nagging the administrators to ban some people. Oops. --210physicq (c) 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As an uninvolved reader of these boards, I've rarely seen Hipocrite post something without bile in his throat. It's beginning to wear thin. - Merzbow 07:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, but are his main space edits constructive? BenBurch 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's starting to come to the point where it doesn't matter. Creating a negative atmosphere on any namespace in Wikipedia is a Bad ThingTM. We really shouldn't encourage it. Deny recognition and move on, I'd say. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Besides, are they? The vast majority of his edits are provoking fights and worsening disputes. Milto LOL pia 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hipocrite is a troll. We get it. Really, really. I don't care. Just ignore him, and he'll get bored or blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not helpful in the least.--MONGO 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And his statements are? I'm curious as to why you're defending him here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume bad faith on my part and all I am trying to do is put out a fire.--MONGO 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not assuming bad faith at all, I simply don't understand why you're defending him. You're not putting out a fire when you're merely starting another one in its place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, some fo the fervor has died down. If he's so eager to get away from me that he'll bar communication on his talk page, maybe this can just blow over. Which would be best for everyone involved. Milto LOL pia 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I was getting at. This is, however, apparently "unhelpful". I wonder who this must be "unhelpful" to, since it seems like it would be pretty damn helpful to the Wiki to block and ignore a disruptive editor. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so everyone is clear - if you had buttons, you would indef block me? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be at odds with your normal approach of asking us all to AGF with regard to editors like Ilena? Have you seen the attack page on ED? I'm not defending hipocrites actions, his blunt swearing is definitely a problem, he is too easily baited and i think he also admits this. Where i draw the line is your comment " it would be pretty damn helpful to the Wiki to block and ignore a disruptive editor" since he is a lot more produtive than other editors whom you give a long leash of good faith. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's funny you call him productive, since you're the first person I know that has used the words productive in the same sentence as his name. If we're dealing with attack blogs, it's worth mentioning that I have at least fifty attack blogs you there solely dedicated to attacking my person, and you don't see me getting angry about it (actually, I find how much of a limb these guys go out on most of the time quite funny). For a long time now Hipocrite's been testing the community's patience, much longer than Ilena, and my patience with him is simply worn threadbare. I think, given how I have been with Ilena and others in the past and currently, it would speak somewhat for how much of a problem this is, or at least how much of a problem I think it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have at least fifty attack blogs", not sure what you mean by this?
    I have had my fair share of disagreements with hipocrite but i defend that he is productive. If you really need diff's to back this up I'll start digging but i don't think it is necessary. Note, i'm not defending his behaviour, rather his productivity. Hopefully these issues will resolve themselves such that the antagonists here can avoid each other. I have also found myself supporting BDJ in the past, so i agree with Steve's summary below. David D. (Talk) 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You seemed to conjecture that a single attack page justified his behaviour. If that were the case, I have fifty odd attack blogs that I'm sure would amount to one heck of a justified rampage :) Really though, off-wiki stuff stays off-wiki. A fundamental lack of the ability to do this is exactly why Ilena has issues. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My only point was, yet you defend Ilena, it seems like a double standard. You are saying hipocrite should know better, why not Ilena too? I am not endorsing the behaviour.
    50 attacks blogs aimed at you? Are you sure, what on earth could anyone do to attract such attention? David D. (Talk) 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My ex has a lot of internet friends, it seems. I think I summed it up best with I think, given how I have been with Ilena and others in the past and currently, it would speak somewhat for how much of a problem this is, or at least how much of a problem I think it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to hear that. I guess that explains your "stick and stones etc." calm here in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always found Jeff and Hipocrite useful, thoughtful contributors who want the best for Wikipedia so I'm troubled by this thread. Both have a tendency to fight their corner a little over-zealously, both wear their hearts on their sleeves, but I'm not sure I'd like Wikipedia without either of them. But seriously, the lot of you, dispute resolution is over there. Hipocrite, do you want to tone the section header down? Steve block Talk 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, what is this crap? There are ED trolls, Jeff is not one of them. If you guys haven't realised yet that he is here to build a great encyclopaedia (for just one of the many, many possible values of "great" in the minds of the Wikipedia community) then I guess I'm not going to persuade you, but the "sport" of Jeff-bashing really really ought to stop. He has chosen between "them" and "us", and he chose us. Give the guy a break why don't you? Guy (Help!) 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent ill will should not be tolerated

    Please review the following, which is like Sidaway+1: flagrant trolling, "totally fucking wrong", more incivility, "fucking SPAs", "Don't piss on me and tell it's raining",

    Look beyond their regular contribs to filter by specific name space. Makes almost no positive contribution to the real encyclopedia, just tries to WP:OWN the Ref Desk and then trolls Wikipedia space and user talk pages incessently. Recommend community ban from Ref Desk which is what seems to work him into a lather all by itself to protect a once contributing editor who has devolved sadly :(. BobDjurdjevick 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, User:rootology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Sir Nick has already blocked BobDjurdjevick as a single-purpose account created to harass Hipocrite; otherwise I would have done so myself.
    That said, Hipocrite is frequently and gratuitously incivil in his interactions with other editors. This sort of comment about another good-faith contributor to Wikipedia is out of line. To be fair, Hipocrite has been less rude that usual recently, and he has also been the victim of persistent, obnoxious trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sort of the least of the verbal abuse he generally offers. He seems much more interested in just stirring up unpleasantry than really contributing. To be fair, I stir up a fair bit myself, but it's generally because of the controversial nature of my edits or people's unwillingness to put aside melodramatic prejudice, not because I hang around Wikipedia calling people names. Milto LOL pia 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked BobD-whateveritis. However, Hipocrite's comments have been incivil and disruptive. Be prepared for a block, if this kind of behaviour does not cease. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, maybe not. In this case it looks like a case of WP:SPADE. Cindery is vexatious in the extreme. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One wonderes what the purpose and goal of this emergent pile on is. If it was to tell me to me nicer to people, how does responding to a Rootology and Miltopia (Miltopia is the prime contributor to the Encyclopedia Dramatica attack page about me) generated hatefest in any way convince me that you have my best interests at heart? It dosen't. You haven't. Consider. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a free tip - stop including me in your little attacks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite, every time we've crossed paths, it's been you confronting/complaining me. This "emergent pile on" itself is a result of another such thread started by you. How can you label this as harassment? People are just replying to what you started. Milto LOL pia 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tu quoque, anyone? It's really a fallacy, you know. Not the best kind of argument to make. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Badlydrawn, it would realy help if you didn't follow Hipocrite to AFDs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't. When something on my watchlist is AfD'd, I thnk I'm within my rights to comment on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You had an article article on your watchlist 6 hours after it had been created and you didn't know enough about the subject to know it was a penname? I'll take your word for it. But, in the future, you might help us all rest easier if you would refrain from situations that might create the illusion of stalking & harassment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I tend to watchlist redlinks that I want to create. I have a number of Voice contributors that I'm waiting on. I don't think I need to hold abck my edits because someone wants to be disruptive toward me. You want to help us all rest easier? Do something about Hipocrite. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh. After seeing your performance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Dark, I'd say you need a reading of WP:KETTLE before demanding that admins "do something" to help "us all". --Calton | Talk 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part, exactly? Or is this just more of the same? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of us love Uncyclopedia, but we do need to apply encyclopedic standards to the uncyclopedia article in the end, I suppose. Can we stay cool too? :-) --Kim Bruning 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah. Some people seem to be taking Wikipedia a shade too seriously. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alkivar's unilateral deletion and salting of a draft article

    Wow, I am amazed. I am working on a draft in user space, mention it by link Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Rusty_trombone, and the next thing I know it is deleted and salted. This is completely uncalled for. Will someone kindly restore the page so I can continue my work on it, get it up to quality and policy, and post it? I'd appreciate it a lot. CyberAnth 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A full reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Muffins might be in order here. — coelacan talk — 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the fact that once its deleted, recreation of it is forbidden per CSD:G4, particularly when its word for word identical with the page that was deleted from article space. Not to mention making a copy of a page thats about to be deleted via AFD in your userspace is frowned upon. You created the article in userspace on the 7th during the AFD cycle, and made no changes whatsoever until today. You also stated quite clearly you were going against the rules on DRV "Prairie Muffins (preserved here)" ... you dont preserve AFD'd articles in userspace.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but I have a life outside of WP and cannot work on things full-time. Sure, I used "preserved" there, but in its AfD page I said I was going to be working on it and please not to salt it. The fact is that what was deleted was a draft. CyberAnth 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT#WEBSPACE has nothing to do with it. Does this mean all my drafts, e.g., User:CyberAnth/Drafts/Bonny_Hicks, and my own Sandbox is to be deleted as well? Everyone's drafts? CyberAnth 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A Sandbox is acceptable unless abused (hate speech, personal attacks, etc...) ... as for Bonny Hicks, she has a valid article in article space and has not faced a valid AFD and been deemed a delete. If she had failed an afd then no she wouldnt belong in your userspace, not until you'd gotten permission via WP:DRV to recreate it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... no. DRV doesn't give permission to recreate, it gives permission to undelete the prior version, or unsalt. If you're recreating a substantially different article, DRV is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but the reason Bonny Hicks is there is because I saved it from an AfD.[11] As for Prairie Muffins, you deleted my draft article I was in process of working on. I'd like the information back. This is ridiculous. I'd like to continue working on it to make it a much better article. Moreover, you salted this unilaterally. Do you come along after the fact and salt every AfD'ed article? If not, then why this one? Can you point me to the policy that gives you the authority to do what you have done? If not, admit the mistake, undelete it, and let's all move on to actually building an encyclopedia instead of this ridiculous stuff. CyberAnth 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this the recreation of a deleted article, or an entirely new article? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither, it was a userfied version of a deleted article, something often done to help bring articles that fail policy up to snuff for possible reintroduction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When the possibility of improving the article actually exists, yes. Cyberanth actually voted for the deletion of the article, admitting it could not be reliably sourced. The userfication was just sitting around on Wikipedia, picking up google pigeonrank. Cyberanth admitted WP:COI during the AFD, so it is probably impossible for this user to write this article. — coelacan talk — 05:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I voted it be deleted because it at the time did not meet WP policies but I did not say it could not be made meet them and I stated I was moving it to userspace where I could work on it. And - wow, oh, wow!! - when does writing a book on a subject, you know, expertise, equate to a conflict of interest??? Is that how WP really works? CyberAnth 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the AFD again. You said nothing about wanting to fix up the article. You just said you wanted it to be in userspace, and you did that marvelously well, having not touched it once yet. And yes, if you are writing a book on the subject, that's on a dangerous line with COI, and I'd watch out for WP:NOR too. — coelacan talk — 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the evidence suggest I have ever even once done that, Badlydrawnjeff, or are you assuming bad faith here? In point of fact, the evidence says I place articles on user space, (e.g., another example here), get them up to par, and place them into WP as an article, and then continue to work on changes in my userspace. This was an article, like Bonny Hicks, that was in the middle of an AfD that I KNEW could make a good article given work. Please undelete it so I can work on it. CyberAnth 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel this issue is not as cut and dry as either side would make it. Surely a version of an article userified by an admin so a user could improve it is a legitimate practice - many sysops do this as a compromise with CSDs. However, there are of course concerns that we are not a free webost. Some leniency can be given if the user is truly improving an article in such a way, however, I see no great reason for it not to be deleted. However, salting is completely unneccesary and should be undone. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any event, I'd like the information back. CyberAnth 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user intends to work on it and make a different version that meets the objections from the AfD I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Obviously, the user should be careful of COI and related concerns, but that shouldn't stop the user from working on a possible draft. JoshuaZ 05:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article Drafts do not equate with free web hosting. CyberAnth 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, if they're just sitting there, largely unedited, consensus is that they do consitute a violation of Wikipedia not being free webhosting, and should be deleted. If you are editing it, but have some reason why you're not going to be actively editing it (vacation, health, et cetera), it would be wise to note that on the talk page of the draft. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That I am busy with real life right now doing an extra big load has been noted since Jan. 13 right at the top of my userpage.[12] It was true even sooner, believe me. CyberAnth 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, this is just not worth my time. CyberAnth 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not believe the article will ever be notable or reliably sourced, and I do not believe it should be sitting around here on Wikipedia sponging up our PigeonRank. But as I told you before, CyberAnth, I have a copy of it on my hard drive, and if you request it, I will provide it to you in my userspace for whatever brief window of time it takes for you to copy it onto your hard drive. Then you can play with it all you like and if you ever think it's notable, make a request to an admin for the new version of the article to be created and listed at AFD to see if it survives. Let me know here if you want my copy, or on my talk page if I don't respond here promptly. — coelacan talk — 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, this is just not worth my time. That said, and with all due respect, if you ever wish to have a look at WP through the lens of people who wish it were a reliable source they could recommend but do not, have a look in the mirror.[13] CyberAnth 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An option that is sometimes useful is to copy what you wish to have a copy of onto a subpage in user space; then to blank the page so it is available via history when you want it, but is not subject to critisism such as "sponging up our PigeonRank". Copy then edit so the copy is in history is a general way of saving a copy without it being live. Sometimes useful in article space too. WAS 4.250 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Then again, the deleting admin, who is supposed to know more about such things, could just as easily have done that, don't you think? CyberAnth 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But that would be doing you a favor. If you act confrontationally, such as trying to get a bunch of articles deleted, you have to expect humans to act like humans in response. First Corinthians chapter 13 has some good advise. WAS 4.250 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFL. Pa-lease. I expect humans to act responsibly and not fall into this. I expect admins to not abuse their authority. I expect humans to act by law ("policy"), not mob rule, out of their own self interest, in realization that there can always be a bigger mob and the tides turn. I expect humans to act, uh, civilized, not like tribal monsters. CyberAnth 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, well that explains it. You expect humans to behave differently than they do. WAS 4.250 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which humans? CyberAnth 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rumpelstiltskin223

    User:Hkelkar was banned for one year by the ArbCom as part of the Hkelar ArbCom case. I believe that Hkelkar is evading his ban using the account User:Rumpelstiltskin223. As I was party to the case, I will not take unilateral action against the user. I would like other admins to look at the evidence I have collected.

    • If you look at the user creation log, the account was created on 15 November, around the time when the case was going on. The user started to edit on the same day with the first edit being a revert with the edit summary "rv".
    • After some edits here and there, Rumpelstiltskin223 became completely active from 10th December (the day Hkelkar got banned).
    • Since then, Rumpelstiltskin223 has made close to 1400 edits in the mainspace. He has already shown the same pro-hindu and anti-muslim bias that hkelkar had and has already been blocked 4 times for edit-warring. [14]
    • Most of the articles edited by Rumpel were frequented by Hkelkar too.:
      1. 2002 Gujarat violence - This was Hkelkar's 2nd most edited article. Rumpel has 24 edits to it already. [15]
      2. Dalit Buddhist movement - Another article frequented by Hkelkar, and now frequented by Rumpel.
      3. Dalit - [16]
      4. Islam in India - [17]
      5. Hindutva - [18] (This one edited by Hkelkar in both his avatars - Shiva's trident and Hkelkar)
      6. Lashkar-e-Toiba - [19]
    • Though Rumpelstiltskin223 hasn't uploaded many images yet, he shows the same style there too by uploading images from websites having a cc-by-sa license. His last upload is from flickr, from which Hkelkar used to upload a lot of pics. See [20] and [21]
    • Also see [22] where it is said that Rumpelstiltskin223 is pursuing a PhD in physics. Hkelkar/Shiva's trident was also pursuing a PhD in physics.

    Thus I feel that Rumpelstiltskin223 is no one but Hkelkar using a new name and probably editing from a different geographical location and I seek an indef-block on Rumpelstiltskin223 and a reset on Hkelkar's ban. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes you think this user is necessarily editing from a new location? Would a checkuser help? Grandmasterka 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We knew all the IPs that Hkelkar edited from and the college he went too. He is too clever to use an IP from the same town. I have a feeling that a checkuser on Rumpel will not prove (or disprove) anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. does that discount the use of proxies? ITAQALLAH 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The checkusers will note the use of proxies if they identify them as such at the time. Also, the checkuser was run over winter break, making it possible that Hkelkar was editing from another location but is now back at uni. Asking for a recheck couldn't hurt. Finally, checkuser can be defeated by a number of technical means both simple and complex, so sockpuppetry is always determined primarily by contributions and behavior. Thatcher131 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite unlikely. If the only source you have for "physics" is some hallucination DaGizza experienced then that's hardly proof. Hkelkar's blocks were mainly for incivility not WP:3RR. Since when does a user go from careful on wp:3RR to getting blocked for it frequently? The "facts" dont add up. If you didnt know aksi, there are way more users than rumpel that hold pro-Hindu biases (anti-Muslim is incorrect). Oh no a user of "rv", something every user uses as an edit summary, and anyone that has even viewed a page history on wiki has seen.Bakaman 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this accusation being bandied around on wikipedia before and sockpuppetry accusations abused and misused.I am not anybody's sockpuppet, and please feel free to do any checkuser that is needed. This accusation is largely based on the rants of an anonymous ip, who has been evading blocks using multiple ips from the same domain, making insults and slurs in my user page, and trying to recruit people against me. See [23] [24]Rumpelstiltskin223 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been accused of "anti-muslim" bias, an accusation I find highly offensive and insulting, particularly in the light of my edits [25],[26]. I am not against any religion. In addition, if you will notice the 6 articles itemized by aksi_great, you will see that my edits have primarily been of a technical nature and maintainance-type edits. I expanded the article on Dalit considerably with information that was lacking [27] and I consider myself to have done the article a service. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is quite irrelevant if Rumpelstiltskin223 is or is not a sockpuppet. Also, I advice everybody to ignore his/her complaints about other editors. Fact is, this user is disruptive to Wikipedia and shows absolutely no desire to improve him/herself. When he/she was blocked and asked how to avoid such situations, I sympathized with him/her and took his/her question for real. I offered some advice, but he consistently refused to even look at it. Even his "thank you" was mostly a complaint about other users. When I finally announced that I was giving up AGF on him/her, he/she deleted our last conversation. It seems to me that this user is intent on having problems with other editors. Much as I believe in the good in people, I'm at the end of my wisdom with that user. I am really no fan of punitive measures, but I don't see any use for Wikipedia in further allowing this user to edit. — Sebastian 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, so he's here as well, protesting my protestations of an anonymous user calling me a "Madarchod" (that's Indian slang for "low-caste motherfucker") and declaring that I am "disruptive" and should have "punitive measures" imposed on me, for reverting vandalisms by anon ips to dozens of articles [28][29][30][31][32][33] today itself,starting several articles on Hindi films,

    [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] and dispelling the ongoing wikipedia-myth that Indians constitute some sort of "race" (the ignorance here boggles my mind)[39][40][41] Given your indefensible behaviour against the verifiable truth on Decline of Buddhism in India, your consistent support for a User:Iwazaki, who has said that he intends to undo the "rape of his country on wikipedia"[42] together with increasing incivility and ethnic attacks on Tamil people from this guy with no protestations of neutrality and tendentiousness from you, and your sudden declaration of hostility against me, one wonders what your intentions here really are.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is this "sebastian" person? He seems like a sock/meat of someone. Also sebastian's treatment of RaveenS (talk · contribs) and Rajsingam (talk · contribs) leave me to wonder whether he is a sinhala nationalist.Bakaman 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unlikely that someone who has been around since January 2003 is someone's sock/meatpuppet. Grandmasterka 08:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rumpey, the evidence that you are Hkelar is pretty strong. What do you have to say to all of Aksi's other points? Coincidence? Khoikhoi 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What points? I edit whatever coincides with my interests. I am interested in Indian history, Indian politics, Religion and Politics in South Asia, Hindi Films and Star Trek. My edits show that I am neither pro-Hindu nor anti-Muslim, just interested in unbiased articles, many of which have biases against Hindus, others which have biases against Muslims and Christians that I am working on. If you see my edits to Christianity in India[43], I have edited a very neutral section depicting the Hindu-Christian conflict, and talked about syncretic Indianization of several Christians, like St. Thomas Christians and other sects who have blended Indian culture with Christian theology. I also plan to add that Christians in South India re-enact Biblical parables using Indian dances like Kathakali. Still, I was accused of being an "anti-Christian" by that Bdebbarma user [44] because of my edits to Tripura Baptist Christian Union[45] and their involvement in Christian extremist terrorism in Tripura. I do not take such accusations seriously as they seem to be the product of a narrow mind.
    I am presently engaged in re-writing Mukti Bahini, a predominantly Muslim outfit. I am also getting material on historical attitudes on Islamophobia and anti-Arabism,articles to which I have already added information if you look at the history page. Where is this "pro-Hindu" and "anti-Muslim"/"anti-Christian" bias of which you people speak please answer me?
    Whenever my edits seem to portray other religions in a negative light, well, it is not my fault that (according to Muslim editors) "partisan hacks" like Amnesty International and BBC [46] showcase the Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh at the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists. It is not my fault that scholars and academics have written lengthy articles and books criticizing the Fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami[47]. If you don't like it then go contact the academics who wrote those articles. Attacking me on some cooked-up sockpuppetry charge will not be productive to wikipedia thaa.
    I do not know how I can prove to you of my identity, since you do not know who I am and I am under no obligation to give you my personal information. I have edited many articles across many topics, and this aksi_great has conveniently cherry-picked a few that I have edited and then yell "Aha! Sockpuppet". I can do that to any two users. If you give me some time, I can manufacture such a case against other users too. If you want to do a checkuser to settle your doubts, please do so. However, do not keep bothering me with such spurious charges simply because you people want to keep your unacademic biased articles biased forever, since that will not happen, irrespective of what you do to me or anyone else. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    There are many more articles where there is similarity between their edits:
    • Goa Inquisition was one of the last articles edited by Hkelkar [48]. For example, Hkelkar made 10 consecutive edits to the article on 7th December. Rumpel's first block was on 16th December for edit-warring on Goa Inquisition.
    • Rumpel's 2nd block was for edit-warring on History of India with User:Siddiqui. Hkelkar also had a history of editing that article, and reverting Siddiqui using popups. See [49], [50].
    • Rumpel's 4th block was for edit-warring on Anti-Brahmanism. This article was also heavily edited by Hkelkar and Hkelkar's previous avatar - Shiva's Trident. Hkelkar had edit warred with other users like Ikonoblast on the article. Rumpel is currently on a reverting spree on the article.
    I could go and investigate each article that Rumpel has edited. Almost every article that Rumpel has edited has been previously edited by Hkelkar/Shiva's trident. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, see above. Second of all. I hardly doubt that your statement above has any merit at all, given the articles that I have edited (and only I) and, so far nobody else has (almost). least of all this user of which you speak. I will compile a list for you in a few minutes below: Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the articles that I have edited that almost nobody else has:

    and, finally,

    Do you want more? How about all the articles that were being vandalized by anons that I sniffed out and fixed? Just look at my contributions page and see. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding History of India, aksi_great says that this other user hkelkar has "also revert-warred against User:Siddiqui on that article using popups". Here is the history page of that article [74]. I see no such popups by this hkelkar so that statement is a falsehood
    I am not on a "reverting spree" on Anti-Brahmanism. I have removed edits that carried racist propaganda, and ,in fact, haven't edited the articele in quite some time.Henceforth, kindly stop making up edits and conjuring up false scenarios, then relying on your colleagues to bolster your bogus arguments by saying "Oh, that is soo convincing".Right, that's subtle! Rumpelstiltskin223 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I say that the articles that I have mentioned were the only articles you have edited? Hkelkar has been banned by the ArbCom, and it is my duty to not allow Hkelkar in any form to edit wikipedia for 1 year. I have tracked Hkelkar's edits for a very long time leading up to the ArbCom case. I feel that I have gathered enough proof that you are indeed Hkelkar. The similarities are too close to be co-incidences. If the administrators want I can produce more similarities. If they are not able to decide about ban-evasion, I am prepared to ask the ArbCom for intervention. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you are doing absolutely nothing. O and aksi just above " Almost every article that Rumpel has edited has been previously edited by Hkelkar/Shiva's trident". Your argument is flimsy and self contradictory. Do you not know that the BJP won a majority not too long ago in India? There are over 400 million people that subscribe to the brand of politics I assume rumpel belongs to.Bakaman 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    HKelkar's biggest defender ( and a part of the arbcom on Hkelkar) comes and defends this user ? All this just deepens the suspicion about Rumpelstiltskin223. Of those 400 million supporters only one has so far used 3 sockpuppets to edit only these articles, and has got into repeated civility and revert brawls and blocks. A point to remember is that Hkelkar/Shiva's Trident/Pusyamitra Sunga was known to use technology to dodge checkuser in the past. Being a University student doing a Physics doctorate should enable him to get the resources required to do so Haphar 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Still pissed Blnguyen (talk · contribs) got elected to arbcom despite megabytes of troll-speak on his candidacy talk page? Bakaman 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a lot of these so-called "incriminating edits" are routine vandalism patrols by me. I have been tracking anonymous edits for a while now, as they seem to be the most vandalistic statistically. It is not my fault that certain articles are troll-attractors and so will be edited contentiously by anons. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These patrols started immediately after claiming that "How about all the articles that were being vandalized by anons that I sniffed out and fixed? Just look at my contributions page and see"and in an insensible way, and obviously removing other comments from his talk page [75] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mustafa Bhai (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    No. Vandalism reverts have been done by me for many weeks now. See these [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]

    [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98] made over the course of long time, just a small sample.

    Here are some more "pro-Hindu anti-Muslim" edits of mine:
    Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia[99]
    Darwaaza Bandh Rakho[100]
    Sto-Vo-Kor [101] - very pro-Hindu anti-Muslim, if Muslims are Klingons, hee.
    [[ ]]
    Want more?Rumpelstiltskin223 13:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to judge consensus

    I have submitted my evidence and I conclude that Rumpel is indeed Hkelkar. I would like to know if there is consensus among admins of the same so that Rumpel can be blocked from wikipedia. Please review the evidence and put your support or oppose below. Please feel free to ask me any questions regarding the evidence that I have provided. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded I would further like to add 1:His first 5 edits were reverts and out of his first 50 over 70% are reverts which [102] which I find strange.I checked over 75 others over and none of them had reverts at the start .This shows that Rumpelstiltskin223 is experienced in using Wikipedia before he started using this user name.new users take time to learn even computer experts.

    2:Being an Indian he choice the name Rumpelstiltskin223 as it would avoid suspician of him being Hkelkar.It is not usual nickname or chat name used anywhere in India or by Indians .First time seeing an Indian use since I started using the net over 10 years ago.If I had not seen his edits I would never guessed he was an Indian,it is totally alien to an Indian.Hence difficult to find he is Hkelkar

    3:His comments are fantical and he cannot stand other views broke the 3RR rule 6 times and 5 times this month and was blocked 5 times and page protected in Vaikom Satyagraha.Look his fantical talk in various talk pages.While I respect his views.

    4:[103] Please check this another user Harper gives some evidence to be being being Hkelkar


    Adyarboy 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Lol the users that perpetuate this myths are generally those that hate Hindus in general. Adyarboy is involved in trying to suppress the racist aims of a fanatical anti-Hindu and has gone to mouthing off to get atttention. Haphar (talk · contribs) is well known as a Hindu hater as well. O and guess what? Bakaman is not an Indian name either. Am I an alien? How about Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), Nobleeagle (talk · contribs), Lostintherush (talk · contribs), etc. All of us are Indian (or of Indian dewcent) and none of us use Indian names.Bakaman 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block-evading sockpuppet?

    I think HalfOfElement29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may be the indefinitely blocked user GoodCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

    After I reverted some of his edits to Atlantis, HalfOfElement29 accused me of incivility in a rather bizarre thread on User:Dbachmann's talk page (see also User talk:HalfOfElement29). Despite several requests HOE29 hasn't explained why he thinks I've been uncivil, and has accused me of being part of "a deliberate attack campaign" against him.

    At the risk of justifying HOE29's feelings of persecution, I looked at his user contribs. In GoodCop's third edit, he adds what could be called an "enemies list" to his user page, naming User:ScienceApologist as the leader of a "religious pseudoscience cult" that includes several editors/admins. In the next edit, he blanks his user page, with the summary "protection from the cultists". These edits occur on 31 May 2006; the account then remains inactive until 2 December 2006, after which it's in regular use. Anyone who puts up a list of allegedly-misbehaving editors on their third edit has probably edited under another account. In this case, I think it's the indefinitely blocked user GoodCop.

    This Statement by GoodCop in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience asserts the existence of a "wikiclique" that includes several of the users on HOE29's "enemies list", with ScienceApologist as their leader. The similarity of these two lists is pretty conclusive, in my opinion, but it's also worth noting that several of GoodCop's edits exhibit what could be labeled paranoia--this oppose vote on Saxifrage's RFA, for example (and be sure to look at the discussion that kicks off), and two posts to WP:ANI (here and here). The misguided accusations of incivility in those posts seem similar to HOE29's present accusations of incivility (though at least in his ANI posts GoodCop was specific about what he thought the offenders had done wrong). In addition, GoodCop and HOE29 edit similar articles--they have a common interest in genetics and race, editing Haplogroup and related articles, and both have edited Iraq War.

    By the way, if I have been uncivil during this incident, I will certainly apologize; but I would appreciate being told how I have been uncivil. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin discussin

    • To the evidence can be added an odd edit summary "tick". Both GoodCop and HalfOfElement29 typically add material with the phrase "added fact/ " (with a detail to follow after the space). That is unlikely to be coincidental. Bucketsofg 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both edit the article Haplogroup and Iraq War . Bucketsofg 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit of GoodCop should be compared to this one of HalfOfElement29 from six weeks later. Note the lack of capitalization and spelling of "aboriginies". Bucketsofg 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm convinced that HalfOfElement29 is a sock of GoodCop. Anyone think otherwise? Bucketsofg 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactored. Some comments have been moved into the next section to facilitate admin discussion Bucketsofg 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that HalfOfElement29 is a sock of GoodCop. Similar styles, similar interest in fringe archeology topics and the article haplogroup. BTW, element 29 is copper. Element's edit of June 1 to his talk page against ScienceApologist was made the same day GoodCop was calling ScienceApologist names at Static universe. However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which he was indef-blocked in the first place. The edit cited in his block log [104] is acting out by someone who was blocked a day earlier for personal attacks, but not as bad as some others have made. Four edits later the thread was removed [105] and there seems to have been no further discussion. The first comment to Element's talk page was pretty hostile too, "I don't know who you think you are, but you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page on Wikipedia." Perhaps Element would like to revise his answer above, accept some responsibilty for incivility, and consider changing his approach to other editors in return for a one-time-only get out of jail free card. Thatcher131 04:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offering him some kind of reprieve might be a good idea. Before doing so, I'd like to invite comment from the blocking admin, which I've done. Bucketsofg 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied from blocking admin's talk-page: :The indefinite block I issued to GoodCop was for legal threats he made against users. He also tried to show authority as a cop and using "investigations" and demanding this and that to be done. I do not have checkuser and I think the evidence for checkuser is way too old. I will not reconsider my block for GoodCop. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • In light of this, and HalfofElement's aggressive and inappropriate response, I don't see any recourse than to perma-block User:HalfofElement29. I'll leave this message here for a few hours in case some admin thinks otherwise. Bucketsofg 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further discussion

    I know the person who editted as GoodCop. He was the person that introduced me to editting wikipedia. I am not him, however.

    You who are reading this board should know that the reason that Akhilleus is making this attack is because he deleted some very informative additions that I made to the article Atlantis, under false pretenses. [106] [107] [108] Later, I notified User:Dbachmann that Akhilleus was removing large amounts of information from the article Atlantis, often under false pretenses. Unfortunately I did not know at the time that Dbachmann and Akhilleus were associates, though Dbachmann, unlike Akhilleus, has not yet made any clear and significant policy violations. Akhilleus was evidently inflamed by the fact that I had exposed his actions (especially his use of false pretenses when editting), albeit to a person that would not stop them. He then initiated this revenge attack campaign against me. I saw through his deceptions, and did so in a fully civil and non-personal manner (at User talk:Dbachmann and then later at User talk:HalfOfElement29), which made him even madder, such that he escalated his attack by searching through my edit history for 'dirt' that he could get on me. [109] I pointed out his attack campaign on User talk:Dbachmann, and continued to point out his persistent deceptions, which made him escalate his attacks further (i.e. making this WP:ANI post, an underhanded attempt to get me banned indefinitely because I had exposed his deceptive tactics). Said attack campaign is an extreme violation of Wikipedia:Civility, not to mention WP:NPA, and is worthy of whatever administrative measures are used in response to such offenses. Well, now you know what's going on.

    As long as Akhilleus has drawn attention to this matter, I ask that all of you look at his edits to the article Atlantis, and especially those in which he deletes the content that I added. Since Akhilleus is evidently not confident that the community will support his edits, I also do not think that it will. HalfOfElement29 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to complain, but I do not find this RfC placed by HalfOfElement29 to be neutrally worded; nor do I find the discussion at Talk:Atlantis#Request_for_comment:_Content_deleted_by_Akhilleus to be entirely fair. To be honest, I feel that Element is being somewhat uncivil. If I'm being oversensitive, please say so; otherwise, I think the RfC ought to be reworded. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI everyone,

    Thatcher131 was a hand-picked commentator by Bucketsofg. [110] [111] -If you know what articles that blocked user editted, and who his editting rivals were, you'll see the significance of this diff.

    Oh, and [112]

    Now, look at my third and fourth edits in early June 2006. Now any neutral third parties can see what is happening.

    "Perhaps Element would like to revise his answer above, accept some responsibilty for incivility, and consider changing his approach to other editors in return for a one-time-only get out of jail free card."

    -Extortion to make false admissions is highly uncivil. I also find your extortion humorous, since getting blocked from editting wikipedia isn't exactly a great tragedy to me. Rather than indulge your sense of dominance with extortion, I'd prefer that you flat-out block me by comparison. HalfOfElement29 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an additional diff that is related to the second diff in my last reply: [113] Look at the notice that was deleted in the edit display, and who it was signed by. Also look at the notice at the top of the then-current version of the article. Notice who it is signed by. HalfOfElement29 07:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New socks?

    Now that HalfOfElement29 has been blocked as a sock of GoodCop, I'd appreciate it if someone could look at Snowpapa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Rwqf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), both of whom have posted to Talk:Atlantis#Request_for_comment:_Content_deleted_by_User:Akhilleus.7CAkhilleus, an RfC that HalfOfElement29 started. This post by Rwqf seems like obvious sockery to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frank Lofaro Jr.

    I have issued a test4 warning to Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk • contribs) for having created, just a few minutes apart, Talk Page censorship of Encyclopedia Dramatica is wrong and Wikipedia is so worried about spammers it will hurt Google and legitimate sites it links to by using nofollow to prevent sites from gaining Page Rank. A sudden burst of trolling from what appears to be a good user. User:Zoe|(talk)

    User:Crustaceanguy

    I have indef. blocked Crustaceanguy (talk · contribs) for a sudden burst of vandalism, consisting of making nonsense redirects over and over again. The redirects are all removed from his contributions, so you can't see what he was doing, but there were about eight of them that I deleted. Another compromised account? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, this guy's only been here a week, few actual article edits. Name is just similar. Fan-1967 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, now that I look more closely, he has zero edits to article space. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it back. one. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Crustaceanguy has promised to stop making disruptive edits, so I have unblocked him. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahhh! I just read on Crustaceanguy's User page that he's 12 years old. Now I feel bad.  :( User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption with fanfic fodder

    Due to my watchlisting of several pages (and the WikiProject I started), I have been persistantly dealing with the edits of Prmax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There has not been a single verifiable addition to the encyclopedia by this user, and he has solely contributed to other articles by adding his fan-made stuff to lists on pre-existing pages ([114]) or overwriting pre-existing pages with his false information.

    In addition to this, he has repeatedly created his fan fic pages in the main space. This list includes Power Rangers Rescue Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AFD'd, WP:SALTed), Dairyuu Sentai Acceleranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and just today Power Rangers Relic Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I also have a strong feeling that this user is the same as Solarmax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also performed similar edits with Power Rangers Delta Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and was the first to create the Rescue Hunters article, and has been blocked. I have assumed good faith with this user (Prmax), but he has worn my patience thin with his creation of another hoax article and has ignored any and all contact with him on his talk page due to the intermittent contributions by the user (he does not seem to know what he doing is wrong, as he created a new account to do the same things with it after the first was blocked).

    There is nothing that we have done that has stopped him. Under a week after the four day block on Prmax expired, he continued to work on the fanfics, and I only managed to find it today because of the edits he introduced into established series' articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would really like assistance here. He editted this anonymously; it's hard not to tell his style.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NuclearUmpf posting identifying information

    Somehow he has obtained my name. He has posted it numerous times[115][116] and I've asked him to stop. I believe this is a blatant policy violation and he is using it as a form of intimidation. Please delete the post (not revert it). Tbeatty 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pages Deleted and restored w/o personal information. Request for Oversight sent. Good Luck! -- Avi 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, the full first name John when the user's ID is JSmith may not seem like a big secret; yet, he has the right to keep it to himself, and there's really no excuse. It looks like Nuclear is trying to make a point in relation to a previous allegation which I have asked him to drop. I will not be a happy admin if this comes up again. Thatcher131 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I misread those diffs, there was more than that, including a location of residence. Won't say much more for privacy reasons, but admins can still see it until it's oversighted if they are curious. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I only saw a first name, unless there was more that was oversighted before I got there. Regardless, Zer0 tolerance for a repeat performance. Thatcher131 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the first name. TBeatty (see no first name), would email me and its included in their email (see didnt post that either), which is how I got it, not that its rocket science, there is really only 5 common T names for someone who would stereotypically have the last name Beatty (assumption as above with Smith). TBeatty refuses to let me post the emails they sent me unfortuantly, so this game of "I dont know how he got my name" continues. --NuclearZer0 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said, I have no recollection of emailing you or any record of it. And as I have also said, you have my permission to post the emails to your hearts content, just not any personal information like email address and name. --Tbeatty 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Point is, without Tbeatty's permission to post his real name, doing so is completely unacceptable and is definitely tenacious editing. Since NuclearUmph was perviously known as the user ZeroFaults, the ArbCom remedy here needs to be applied in this situation if no formal apology and promise to not do this again is not forthcoming.--MONGO 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dont see a remedy about this. Also try reading edit summaries, or my talk page ... geez do you follow conversations before commenting? --NuclearZer0 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting user Pesmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I was looking at a notorious copyright violator's upload log yesterday and tagged some of his earliest uploads as no source, no fair use rationale, etc. Lo and behold a new user Pesmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pops up right after I tag these images and his only edits are to install popups, create his user and user talk pages, then revert my taggings. Anybody smell a reincarnation here? Flyingtoaster1337 10:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks suspicious to me. I think this should be repoted at WP:CHECK, given that Primetime is a major sock-puppet master. Eli Falk 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has made a minor study of this vandal, that account has all the hallmarks of a 'T attack/reputation defender sock pupet: The nonsensical name that is just normal enough to not get UNBd, the 1st-edit-to-js-second-to-userpage-with-basic-line-of-text, and ofcourse the classic sockpuppet characteristic of immediately starting in on an obscure part of this site that no first time user would normally see and the displaying of large amounts of site knowledge. I would almost unhesitatingly block that account and I'm only slightly less then the difference sure that CheckUzer would show it to be an open proxy. 68.39.174.238 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone conclude this case?

    The evidence gatherer has admitted that he tagged 2 legitimate users so can someone conclude the case? Bowsy 11:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think WP:AN would be a more appropriate place for this. –Llama man 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin rollback war btwn two admins regarding controversial MFD

    There's a rollback war between Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it seems, on user talk pages regarding the MFD for Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. It is absolutely unacceptable, but I think TBSDY's messages in the first place are a cause for concern; "As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again?" – Chacor 11:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I rollbacked Ta bu's edits which constituted a violation of WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS; it is obvious he doesn't understand my reasoning. I left him a note on his talk page as well – User talk:Ta bu shi da yu#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. My actions were endorsed by another administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, TBSDY's recent edits are quite questionable. Might have been better to ask for opinions before rolling back, although it's understandable why you did so. His rollback of your revert would then constitute revert- (or rollback-) warring, though. – Chacor 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I request another administrator to further rollback his edits. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What, and further disrupt the talk pages of people who most likely wanted to be told that someone had put the article in question back for deletion? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This kind of votestacking is unacceptable. There are rules against this sort of thing. To see it in action on such a large scale is deeply perturbing. Moreschi Deletion! 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As you are part of Wikiproject deletionism, I'm wondering what your take on the following situation might be: 1. List an article of AFD, appropriately. 2. Have community consensus by move to the Wikipedia namespace. 3. Have someone relist it on MFD. Sound fair to you? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    From User talk:Ta bu shi da yu

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

    From various talk pages of Wikipedia Revelvant diffs –

    It looks like the deletion police are trying to circumvent a previous AFD again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Um, could you explain your rationale for soliciting keep votes for this MfD? Aren't you aware that this is not acceptable? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I care very little. After the whole GNAA debacle, I see how very easy it is to bypass AFD. All you need to do is say: move this to another article name. Once this is achieved, resubmit to AFD. I figured that all those who voted in support of the keeping the article should be made aware that there is was some campaigning going on to remove the article, for no good reason in particular. Are you saying that the editors should not have been told what is going on? Hmmm... hardly seems very fair now, does it? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick is right, this kind of one-sided votestacking is unacceptable. Please stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    (edit conflict) I've asked TBSDY to stop the vote-stacking. On the other hand, for Nick to continue reverting it wouldn't make very much sense either, because the users in question will get the message anyway, it can't be undone (they'll all get the "you have new messages" and will find the message in the history, no matter whether it's been deleted from the page). Insisting on deleting such messages has in the past not helped such situations very much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you would like, I can also alert the others who voted delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fut. Perf: I have never intended in any of my statements that I wish to rollback Ta bu's edits further, after he has resorted to wheel-war. I seek intervention of those not-involved. Ta bu: I can see there was only one user who "voted" (sic), delete in the AfD. You do not point out discussions to users, if they are interested, they chime in themselves. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, yeah, I know it's not voting, that just slipped out. I might note that if they aren't aware of the MFD, then they can't exactly chime in. Not everyone has the article on their watchlist, and not everyone montiors MFD or AFD. Who has the time? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are administrators and experts who willfully keep a watch on WP:MFD and would make better statements than – Keep per consensus on the previous AfD (sic); which is ludicrous. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it ludicrous? The community decided to do a particular thing, then someone else decided to get it reversed (inadvertently, this is true). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from TBSDY

    The reason this whole situation has come about is because the previous AFD, which was to keep and move to the Wikipedia namespace, was not honoured. I realise this was done in good faith, but do you know how completely annoying and upsetting it is to have a clear consensus, with many many editors wanting to keep the article, then have someone else come in and try to get the blasted article deleted again? Really, this is deletion through attrition. Surely that's not fair to those who supported keeping the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It may or may not be fair. But that is no excuse to canvass for votes, and then revert-war when told that such canvassing was not acceptable. The correct thing would have been to leave your keep vote on the voting page and let others discover the page for themselves. When you say "Actually, I care very little. After the whole GNAA debacle, I see how very easy it is to bypass AFD", it makes it difficult to AGF. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I'll stop the rollback. However, if any admin feels the urge to block me, or anyone wants to desysop me, feel free. Heck, you can even take me to ArbCom if you want! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry this had to happen, Ta bu. I always look at you in respect, and would ever will. Could you kindly revert yourself? Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I won't. Like I say, please take me to ArbCom. At least one other editor is upset with the fact that the deletion camp decided not to listen to them and is trying to make this deletion through attrition. This MFD should never have occured, as I quite appropriately and properly put it to AFD at least once, and since then nothing has changed. The whole debacle disgusts me, and just highlights the fact that you can bypass AFD discussions more than easily if you really want to. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold with the partisan rhetoric please! 'Deletion camp' 'decided' - that's the language of conspiracy. I'm interested in discussion, logic and debating what's best - not rhetoric and camps. I don't recall participating in any AfD - I saw the Mfd and expressed my opinions. You then took it on yourself to badger me, accuse me of 'bandying around' policy, and then spilled it onto my talk page when you didn't like my views. Can't we just debate the issues and cut out the paranoia. There is no deletionist cabal!!!--Docg 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes? And if I had not been monitoring the article, then I would not have been made aware that it was up for deletion again. Sound fair to you? Then I would also not have participated, and possibly it might have been deleted. I'll tell you what, let's hypothetically say that there is an article I don't like (let's say Christian views of women). Why don't I try to get it to AFD every 6 months or so. Eventually, I may just get it deleted. Sound like a fair thing to you? Heck, we did it with the GNAA article, why not other articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think a deletion nomination is inopportune, then you call for a 'speedy close' - if others agree with you, then that's generally what happens. That's happens, and I'm not sure that there's any other way. If you want to propose a hard and fast policy against second nominations, then do so.--Docg 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidently, as for badgering you, sorry if you took it that way. My question on your talk page was genuine one - after all, you take one position, but Wikipedia has many areas that are in opposition to this. I should also note that you wish to make a policy that was rejected an actual policy! Good lord! Is it any wonder I feel the way I do? (for those who don't believe me, please see the following "Sure, many people here, on this page, have concerns (some legitimate). Others have opposed it outright. Perhaps we can't generate a consensus here to tag this as policy. I don't actually care. However countless times MfD DRV etc. have in fact accepted the arguments and deleted stuff. So, that's very generally Wikipedia practice, and if it remains so we can maybe write up the policy at a future date when it is less contentious (or again, maybe not)." WP:DENY). Sheesh. I find the whole idea of pushing policy through via attrition (as this is what it seems to me that you are trying to do) to be a less than honourable thing to do. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Attrition? No. Wikipedian policy is formed by practice and consensus not be legislation. Just as making WP:DENY a guideline wouldn't force anyone to feel bound by it in their contributions to deletion discussions, so tagging it as rejected, doesn't mean people can't take the view that it is good practice. We settle that in debates. The fact is that in many deletion debates (involving far more people than those arguing on the WP:DENY talk page) the community has bought the arguments rehearsed on that page. We have reached various deletion consensuses on that basis. We've also not deleted other stuff where the 'hey this is actually useful for fighting vandalism' case has been made and accepted. We will continue to have these debates, and we will continue to reach a mind on a case-by-case basis. Maybe the consenses will go one way, maybe over time you'll be able to convince people otherwise. That's really th onyl way of doing it. Unless we start saying "hey you can't vote that way, that is/isn't an accepted/rejected guideline.--Docg 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so we are clear, do you accept that the other AFD should have been taken into account? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is quite legitimate to point out to those participating in the debate that an AfD has occurred. It is even legitimate to suggest that the current debate should be speedy closed on that basis. But is is up to others what weight they will choose to give that.--Docg 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, there was once a cabal, but it got deleted... Andjam 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TINDC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is one. It consists of a few people in the UK, and a few people in the U.S. Yeah, yeah, conspiracy theory, I know. However, try asking for checkuser rights. Maybe they've dealt with it now, but they tend to ignore people. However, to be honest, I really don't care what people think of me for saying it. I've been round long enough to know how things work around here. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Errrm, you may have misread my acronym. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Could you clarify? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using administrative tools in a content dispute is simply unacceptable. A rare lapse can be forgiven. Further abuses may result in desysopping. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, who are you talking to? - Ta bu shi da yu 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you. If you have just kept cool heads and talked about it, this whole problem likely could have been avoided. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Andjam

    I don't like canvassing, but I was glad to be notified in this case. I put time and thought into arguing keep last time, and I don't want those thoughts casually ignored. Andjam 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely what made me so mad. I mean, that seems to be the standard these days. If you don't like the article, keep on adding it to AFD until the original people who opposed discussion don't notice, then get it deleted. Heck, you might even get an admin to speedy delete it for you! It's happened before, no doubt it will happen again. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further wheel-war

    Administrator bainer closed the MfD debate, and has been reverted by User:Ta bu shi da yu. I pray an uninvolved party look into the matter. – [149]. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And rightly so. 5 people wanted it merged, yet there are at least 30-50 people participated in the MFD! Lest any damage be done to the article due to this, I reverted. I do urge an admin to have another look at the AFD and close it. It's certainly not a merge though. Anyone can see this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The page says do not modify it. You can always go for an appeal. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And in the meantime have the page entirely screwed up and redirected? I don't think so! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. I just got a message on my talk page that Bainer doesn't care about the debate, and so imposed his own view on things. Why have an AFD if we are going to ignore the results?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Beacause it is a discussion, not a vote. It is perfectly acceptable to point out that a good proposal has been made. Personally, I feel that once my proposal had been made, the best thing to do was to relist it and start the debate again. Explicitly reframe the debate to find out who supports the idea of a merge. Put a merge tag on the article, get people talking about that. Then carry out whatever consensus emerges. Incidentially, you do realise that the result of merge means that it is effectively kept until the merge is performed. In this case, if you keep quiet, it is entirely possible that nothing will get done. But I think I'll go and replace the MfD tag with a merge tag. Possibly the material is not even wanted over at the other pages, so an exact merge location still needs to be sorted out. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You must be joking. So what you are saying, is that we must sneak around behind people's backs and pretend that we should merge the page, but in all likelihood we won't. Riiiiight. Seems disingenious to me! Then, on top of this, the other articles might not even want the merged material, so they won't accept it. They revert out the material, and then we have now changed this from a merge to a delete. Sounds great! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was suggesting you might have chosen that course of action. I'm impressed you didn't, but are still fighting your corner. I've lost count of the number of times, after a merge result, people drifted away from an XfD and lost interest. Let's just have the merge discussion and see what happens. The MfD closure is at the moment too vague to actually do anything just yet. Carcharoth 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm putting it through DRV, and have swapped the merge tag with {{delrev}}. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please not use the term "Wheel War" when no actual admin actions (delete, protect, block) are involved. This is an edit war at most. NoSeptember 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    I'm afraid to say that we both used the rollback function, however it hasn't proceded any further. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that was interesting. Ta bu shi da yu is pretty much one of the sanest people on wikipedia. For him to get bitten by "the process" is pretty much indicative of something amiss there. (As if we didn't know deletion was broken, but still, nice to have it confirmed yet again by an independant observer.) --Kim Bruning 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a theory that mature wikis are in a permanent state of brokeness for a large proportion of their users. Pretty much like any society. But things still muddle along anyway. Carcharoth 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DRV

    Starts anew – Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 23. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Side Commentary

    This seems to be more about fixing all policies in general rather than just deletion. If there can be this much ambiguity into what a "consensus" is by people who are apparently "trusted" by the community(it's funny how that is always seen as a one way street), perhaps its time to better define what consensus truly "is" and what the roles of administrators and participants are. Just H 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What did they say? Carcharoth 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a request for clarification currently open about it on WP:RFAR. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zsero

    User:Zsero is repeatedly adding a link to a website whose historical accuracy and integrity is in dispute, isurvived.org, to Hiram Bingham IV. This issue came up before, and User:Webville was blocked for repeatedly spamming the site (see Talk:Hiram Bingham IV, User talk:Webville, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive129#User:Webville_2). Zsero has shown no interest in actually discussing the issue, opting instead to ignore consensus and Wikipedia procedure and repeatedly add the link unilaterally. I suspect that he may be Webville; either way, his conduct on this matter has been inappropriate and discussion does not seem to be leading anywhere. -Elmer Clark 12:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This "consensus" seems to consist of nothing but Elmer Clark's diktat. He has decided that one version of events will be published on WP, and all reference to any other view, even merely as an external link, will be suppressed. It seems to me that he is the one on the soapbox here. The fact that he would suspect me of being a sock puppet for another user, and would articulate such a suspicion without providing any basis for it, speaks volumes. I continue to maintain that the view expressed at the referenced web site is interesting and relevant, and for all either I or Elmer Clark know it may be true. AFAIK neither of us has any particular expertise in the matter, but he has chosen to champion one view to the utter exclusion of all others, and doesn't see the need to provide any basis for this choice. I will not submit blindly to his orders. He doesn't own WP or the page in question, and my right to edit it in good faith is the same as his. So unless and until I am convinced that the links don't belong on the page, I will continue to keep them there. Zsero 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried dispute resolution? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter has already been disputed and decided upon; see the links I provided. And Zsero, have you noticed the many other editors reverting your change? And the fact that Webville was banned for this same issue, obviously not by me, as I'm not an administrator? Consensus clearly opposes the link. User:Fredrick day, User:63.162.143.21, User:130.39.232.221, and User:Shimgray have all either reverted the addition of this reference or made comments opposing it on the talk page, while no one except Zsero and User:Webville - who was banned for spamming links to this site, which have been removed - have supported it. I think consensus is already clear and dispute resolution is not necessary. However, if other users feel it is, I shall initiate the process. -Elmer Clark 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a gross misrepresentation. The matter hasn't even been discussed, let alone decided on. The debate on the talk page was about Webville's long, rambling, and nearly incomprehensible additions about the Yad Vashem letter. Most of the (alleged) facts he wanted brought out were already in the article, and the text he kept posting added almost nothing of substance; it consisted mainly of argument and opinion rather than factual claims, and in any case devoted far too much space to a relatively minor episode. I had no particular dog in that fight, so I stayed out of it and let Elmer Clark argue with him. But somewhere in there, the external link to his site, which he did not add, disappeared, without any discussion whatsoever. I recently noticed that it was gone, and from way too much of Webville's position we had gone to no mention of it at all. So I added it back in, together with another link to the Yale Daily News that had also disappeared.
    I repeat, there was no discussion of suppressing all mention of an alternative point of view. The article as it stands now reads like a hagiography to St Hiram, with plenty of unsourced facts, and Elmer Clark seems to think that that's how it ought to be, because there's supposedly some sort of "historical consensus" (among whom?) that that's how it was. Well, I disagree. Isurvived.org presents a different version of the facts, one that as far as I know has not been addressed, let alone refuted. I'd be justified in adding a short summary of that version to the article itself, since the site is not really that much less reliable than the sources for the version that's in the article. But rather than do that, I merely posted an external link, which the reader can follow and decide for herself how much credence to give it.
    Elmer Clark wants the reader not to even know that another view exists, but he has not advanced any arguments why that should be so. His argument against Isurvived.com is entirely ad hominem. And that's not acceptable on WP.
    When you add in his entirely unjustified leap to the conclusion that I am the same person as Webville, and the fact that he jumped straight from a post on my talk page to bringing the matter here, a picture begins to emerge that should shed some light on the dispute.
    Sorry for the inordinate length of this response. Zsero 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think I understand your argument better now, and I suppose I was a little "trigger-happy" here. The debacle with User:Webville has left me rather suspicious of the "anti-Bingham" camp and I think it may have biased my actions somewhat. I believe your point is reasonable, and I apologize for not assuming good faith to the extent I should have. However, I still feel the link should not be present in the article, and I think I'll open up a request for comment later tonight or tomorrow. -Elmer Clark 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    soliticiting admin feedback on proposed perma-block

    Hello fellow admins. I'd ask for you to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block-evading_sockpuppet.3F, where I've come to the conclusion that HalfOfElement29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sock of GoodCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked last November. An indefinite block is in order, I suggest, but solicit your feedback one way or the other. Bucketsofg 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bosniak again?

    I have recently blocked User:Legal Provider of Bosnian picture for having an inappropriate username. After checking the contribution history, I realise the views expressed are relatively similar to block User:Bosniak, who was blocked for reasons explained here. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether I should request a checkuser. I reckon User:Bosniak may have used sockpuppets in the past (i.e. User:Bosniakk, with two "k"), but editing while blocked may deemed reason enough to request a community ban as discussed before. Regards, Asteriontalk 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I would say inconclusive, but very possible. The username and timing are interesting. This edit is in line with Bosniak's interests, and these confrontational edit summaries are in character. On the other hand, this edit seems somewhat more grammatical than Bosniak's typical contributions. On balance, I would think a checkuser is justified based on the evidence. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm skeptical. In my opinion, I don't think Bosniak would have been that subtle, and I think he would have headed straight for the Srebrenica article. There's just not enough evidence to make me suspect that it is Bosniak, just some circumstantial bits. -- Merope 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this one is borderline; there's some circumstantial evidence, but it's far from clear-cut. I went looking for a policy statement that draws a clear line between circumstantial evidence and outright fishing, but I couldn't find anything on WP:RFCU or m:CheckUser policy. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this account at its first contribution. I think it's unlikely that it's operated by the same person as User:Bosniak. In recent months we've had (and in some cases blocked) a large number of accounts belonging to (distinct) Bosniak nationalist POV-pushers. For some reason they seem to gravitate to Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am not completely convinced either. Nor I am very familiar with his edit style and patterns. In any case, I thought it was better to clear this matter. Hence I requested a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bosniak. Feel free to add to the report. Asteriontalk 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to comment. The edits of User:Legal Provider of Bosnian picture and User:Provider of Bosnian picture show familiarity with Wikipedia, so they're probably sockpuppets of somebody. The timing is coincidental: The latter account was created 13 hours after User:Bosniak was blocked. On the other hand, looking at the edits they don't strike me as very similar to those by User:Bosniak, so on balance I think it's probably somebody else. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate blocks

    A checkuser on Bosniak has vindicated him. However, as a result, for some reason the following sockpuppets of an entirely different user (User:Bosna) were blocked:

    There was no reason to have blocked these accounts. WP:SOCK states that sockpuppets are permitted (albeit discouraged), provided they're not used to circumvent other policies. User:Bosna is not and has never been under a block or a ban, so he is perfectly entitled to create and use sockpuppets. —Psychonaut 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Sleeper accounts are often blocked as a preventative measure. If they are legitimate alternate accounts, the main account can request an unblock of any or all of them, but the onus is placed on the user by WP:BLOCK to provide that the accounts are used for legitimate purposes. On the behalf of Requests for CheckUser, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community feels the blocks I set are inappropriate, I have no issue with lifting them (or allowing someone else to do the same), but I will point out that (a) all of those accounts are apparently the same person, and have edited heavily at Bosniaks, and (b) I didn't block the "main" account. Use of several accounts to edit the same article, especially in a content dispute, constitutes a WP:SOCK violation, in my view. Feel free to disagree. Luna Santin 06:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Psychonaut is misinterpreting what "unrelated" means. It does not mean that there is no sockpuppetry going on; it merely means that checkuser could not confirm that there is. For a hypothetical example, a puppetmaster might have his main account in Nevada, but run his sockpuppets through a friendly ISP in Bolivia. There'd be no way to detect that other than going by the contents of the edits, and that's not checkuser's job, of course. Also, I erred about Bosna, for whom we lack new enough information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been suggested that in the future I simply use "inconclusive" rather than "unrelated", since it's impossible to prove absence of sockpuppethood. I shall do so, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of Unre4L

    I request the input of administrators (and others) regarding a 1-week block given by me to Unre4L as a result of his recent behavior on Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:History of India. I am of the opinion that such behavior is a legitimate reason to view this editor as a repeatedly uncivil editor who does not respect NPOV (by having an agenda to avenge the "ripping off" of Pakistani history - see his userpage statement and other comments) and playing a disruptive role on Wikipedia. I feel sure that he has repeated his violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:DE.

    Some specific examples of this include
    Other relevant links

    [153]

    Relevant policies
    • WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
    • [154]
    • [155]: I think that his behavior does construe disruptive editing, as his comments on Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:History of India are characterized by obstinacy, unwillingness to respect other opinions, a rejection of community input and more clearly WP:TE. In numerous comments, he seems insistent on taking the view that nobody else but him is making a serious effort at dispute resolution.
    • WP:BP: A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

    In his favor are two points - (1) he actually started RfCs on Talk:Doosra, Talk:History of Pakistan, Talk:History of India and (2) at Talk:Doosra, he seems to have conducted a proper discussion. When I unblocked him, I did it after he supposedly committed to seek mediation, but it seems my original blocking rationale is still applicable as all his latest behavior fits those criteria. Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a Bangladeshi, I'm generally not too sympathetic towards Pakistan and people with strong emotional/nationalistic ties to that country. However even I can see this editor had a genuine point which isn't irrational, that being that the histories of Pakistan shouldn't be categorized under "History of India" simply because the British called the land mass that is now Pakistan "India". I wouldn't have enjoyed seeing anyone take bits and pieces of ancient Bangladeshi history and assign it to India either. Whether other editors, including this administrator, agrees or disagrees with that point, the alleged violator's view isn't devoid of merit, and therefore his emphasis on that argument cannot be labeled 'disruption'. His tone has been less than optimal in his responses to fellow editors, but nothing that exceeds the limits of civil discourse. MinaretDk 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His POV and involvement in some content disputes are not the reason why he's blocked - everyone, including me have their strong/weak POVs and nobody is blocked for that. It is also not for me to judge if his POVs are "devoid of merit" or not. It is his personal conduct, which is the reason for the block. Our respective nationalities, religions, etc. are also not the topic of this debate (nor should they ever be). Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet your list of content justifying your 1 week block includes his arguments grounded in content disagreement and not much else. Take his "160 million people denied their history" statement. You listed that here. That statement is his POV on an issue. There is no violation of civility or personal attack in that statement, only his POV, which I'd say is a pretty well-reasoned one. Why is it here? You listed WP:NPA as a policy relevant here, yet I've seen no statement from him saying in effect "you are Indian and so your point is invalid", which is the line of argument WP:NPA was referring to. He was alleging that pro-Indian groups have been trolling on some page, and we all know such organized groups, aside from his Indians, pushing a POV happens all the time. Pointing that out can't be an offense. There's a difference between making the allegation that a line of behavior is driven by national identity, and presuming that because one is of a nationality that their contributions should be ignored. Should nationalism ever be brought into a discussion? Some Pakistani editors push pro-pakistani POV, Indians push pro-Indians, Bangladeshis push pro Bangladeshi and so on, sometimes without regard for accuracy or factuality. When bias is evident, should we pretend not to see it? I think WP:NPA is being misunderstood in this regard. MinaretDk 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unre4L's statement against the block on his talkpage (requested to be posted on ANI)

    *Your references are misleading. You made it look like I was referring to people on Wiki. I was referring to "Indian Trolls" on PakHub.

    • And please also mention how other users were disruptive and refused to comment on my argument but started changing the subject by falsely accusing me for having #Jihaddist# views, which were in fact posted on my site by "Indian Trolls".
    • This is so misleading. My replies shouldnt be posted without the comments of people who I was replying to.
    • The comments used against me were Facts Quoted From This WIKIPEDIA. I dont even see how you can quote them in order to ban me.}}
    • Your references are misleading. You made it look like I was referring to people on Wiki. I was referring to "Indian Trolls" on PakHub.
    • And please also mention how other users were disruptive and refused to comment on my argument but started changing the subject by falsely accusing me for having Jihaddist views, which were in fact posted on my site by "Indian Trolls".
    • This is so misleading. My replies shouldnt be posted without the comments of people who I was replying to.
    • The comments used against me were Facts Quoted From This WIKIPEDIA. I dont even see how you can quote them in order to ban me.

    Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be true that you were commenting in context of your activities on PakHub.info, but the problem is that your comments regarding whatever is going on on PakHub are strikingly similar to your statements regarding Indians ripping off Pakistani history here. You have made these kind of comments on multiple occasions at different talkpages. Rama's arrow (3:16) 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, this correlation opens the question if you realize that Wikipedia is purely an encyclopedia and that you cannot carry your agenda/activity going on at PakHub into Wikipedia. I'm concerned that your purpose and work with PakHub is coloring your edits to Wikipedia. Rama's arrow (3:16) 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its pretty clear now that Arrow is addressing his disagreement over content/view with a block. Too many of the diffs cited are not issues of civility or rule breaking, but opinion on the topic. All Wikipedians bring in their experiences from outside while editing, be it from professional lives, personal interests, etc. None of this warrants a block, much less one as long as a week. MinaretDk 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unre4l has merely been repeating the same "hijacking Pakistan's history", "Indians vandalize pages","ancient India coined by British" stuff for so long its now my policy to do justice by being as terse as possible.Bakaman 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having taken a brief look at Unre4L's contributions, I think a block may serve as a cooling off period. He seems to feel quite strongly about the issues, and perhaps that has gone into his comments. Of course, I don't have a good idea about the disputed points, but perhaps an RFC can be started if the dispute is a long-running one. Thanks. --Ragib 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeffpw

    Jeffpw (talk • contribs) had a large photo of Hillary Clinton on his User page, with the caption "Hillary for President". I have removed it, and he reverted. I have reverted again. This is inappropriate content for a User page, and would request review of my actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoe has either (WP:AGF here) acted a bit too hastily, or (not WP:AGF) is on some sort of power trip, because while it did have Hillary for President (paraphrasing) the first time, the second time she reverted, it was just a picture with her name underneath. The picture is from commons, so is not a violation of WP:FU. If Zoe doesn't like Mrs. Clinton, that'sa her business. I don't appreciate her making it mine. The first reversion I can understand, the second (and who knows? maybe the third, as I haven't checked it again) I don't. I am puzzled, confused, and more than a little irritated atwhat I see as an abuse of administrative power
    Well, according to WP:USER we're not supposed to campaign on our userpages...but did you ask Jeffpw to remove it before removing it yourself? Syrthiss 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no I didn't, and that was a failing on my part. But I did explain immediately afterwards why I felt it should not be there, and got nasty comments made against me when I made none against anyone else. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One photograph hardly seems to amount to extensive personal opinions on matters outside of Wikipedia - the reason for Zoe claims for deletion on Jeffpw's talkpage. No violation of WP:USER is obvious here. In any event by convention editor's userpages should not be edited unilaterally and the correct thing for Zoe to do was surely to raise her concerns on Jeffpw's talkpage. To do otherwise is extremely heavy handed and disrespectful to an established contributor. I am sure Jeffpw would have removed the image himself if it had been shown to him to be in violation of policy. WJBscribe 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that he has reverted the picture back after I pointed out the policy to him, it seems unlikely. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe, you seem to have missed the fact that Jeffpw's reversions and reaction to you are a consequence of the manner in which you set about deleting content from his userpage twice. Had you started a discussion with him on his TalkPage, as common courtesy required, you would have found him more helpful! WJBscribe 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The image now has no caption except "Hillary Clinton", which seems pretty accurate, and indeed had no caption when Zoe deleted it the second time.[156] [157] — coelacan talk — 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you check the diffs, I removed the caption after Zoe reverted me. She reverted again after it was just a simple picture (and I also reinstated a post I made that got lost during an edit conflict above) Jeffpw 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflictx6)There is nothing in the policy that says Jeff cannot have a large picture of Hilary Clinton on his userpage with a small caption underneath saying vote for her - it is not polemical, nor is it excessive personal opinion. There's no justification here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTSOAPBOX says articles may not include advocacy, self-promotion, or advertising. The issue is about Jeff's userpage, not any articles to which he has contributed, and thus that policy does not apply, WP:USER does, and Jeff's picture and caption does not violate it! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Policies apply all the time, not just when agree with them. The image was clearly advocating a political position. This is not neccessary on Wikipedia, leads to assumptions, divisiveness, and generally creates Bad ThingsTM. In a more general context, it is unwiki. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Userpages themselves are not necessary on Wikipedia, but we give good users more leeway. Jeff is a good user, and it's not like he's going around inserting POV into political articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with Zoe - a brief statement by Jeff of his views would be enough, but this large-scale photo, with an obvious intent of promotion, campaigning on issues unrelated to Wikipedia is not acceptable. I feel Jeff does owe an apology to Zoe for incivility. Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So a large scale photo of Thomas Jefferson would be unacceptable on a user page? — coelacan talk — 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It will snow in hell before I apologize to anybody for my actions in this incident. Jeffpw 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And does Zoe not owe Jeffpw an apology for unilaterally removing material from his userpage without discussing it on his talkpage first? That is after all what caused any incivility on Jeff's part... WJBscribe 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is obvious promoting. A picture of Thomas Jefferson doesn't have any political implications. Yes, Zoe was too quick, but WP:USERPAGE clearly states that if someone asks you to remove something, you should. The large scale image is pretty obvious promotion. From the page, one cannot have:
    Polemical statements:

    I'm quite close to removing it myself, or asking him to do so. In fact, I'm asking right now, please remove the image, Jeff. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

              • I would like somebody to point me to my incivility here. The first message I sent Zoe was perfectly polite. After she reverted my page again, when there was no caption on it at all, except the name, I left a blunt message. check her page and see for yourself. If any apology is owed, it is her to me. Jeffpw 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a quick note, it is without a doubt not a polemical statement. Go look up polemical in the dictionary (or here, for that matter). The only portion it could possibly violate is the quote from Jimbo, which, in my opinion, is overly broad and does not reflect policy. Jimbo != consensus. Zoe quoted another section of WP:USER after a couple reverts and after being asked a couple times to cite policy, but I don't see how it applies at all (it was the "extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" bit). —bbatsell ¿? 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and just for the record, I think it was slightly misguided, and if still kept, should be very much reduced in size and prominence. I think Zoe behaved incredibly badly in not simply explaining her concern first and asking Jeff to modify it (not to mention using administrative rollback on non-vandalism and all that jazz). To my knowledge, Jeff is a solid editor and that courtesy should have been given (as outlined in WP:USER). —bbatsell ¿? 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the page specifically says, comments from Jimbo aside, that polemical statements can not be on the userpage. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as I said, it was not polemical. I don't think the word means what you think it means. —bbatsell ¿? 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a giant picture of Hillary Clinton, with the words "Hillary for President" (simply toned down to "Hillary") anything but polemic? Polemic: Polemic is the art or practice of disputation or controversy, as in religious, philosophical, or political matters. Polemic. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that picture "disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters" or "written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a 'sacred cow' or beyond reproach"? My opinion on something is not a polemical statement unless my opinion is extraordinarily divisive. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is starting to turn into a semantic discussion. The picture probably is a bit on the border of the spirit of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and it could probably stand to be sized down a bit; but unless someone is so utterly and completely offended by it I would probably just let it go. Really it's not all that much different than that political/religious userboxes (of which I'm not a huge fan either but they seem to have garnered some general level of acceptance). Any further discussion really needs to be about WP:USER and if this sort of thing is acceptable or if WP:USER needs to be modified; but that is another whole can of worms...--Isotope23 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Images of politicians

    Two separate issues here, images and civility. Let's keep them separate and talk about the former. I am currently displaying a large scale image of a radical political extremist on my user page. Should I be reverted? — coelacan talk — 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And I certainly beg to differ that "A picture of Thomas Jefferson doesn't have any political implications." He was a radical extremist by his own and today's standards, and he founded the Democratic Party. I think there's a pretty clear message behind my image. — coelacan talk — 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone believes it's polemic, absolutely. This is silly, Coelacan. You're not campainging to put Jefferson for the presidency. There's a difference, and I think you understand that. Now, back to my quote: what about the fact that, per WP:USER, and per Jimbo, polemic statements can not be on the userpage? I cannot think of a single example of how this could violate that principal any more. Saying, "but we allow this other example" is non-sequitur. Please address this argument. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, isn't this all a bit WP:POINT?--Isotope23 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Patstuart, the tag on your userpage that says you are a Christian looks pretty polemic. Will you be removing it? Edison 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, except your request was clearly a WP:POINT request. Now, would you address my arguments instead of making statements about me? Patstuarttalk|edits 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not POINT, because I am not disrupting anything. I just put up one picture on my user page to talk about it. We can hardly talk about it without a specific example. Now then, Jeffpw has removed the polemical statement. All he is doing is displaying an image. It doesn't say anything, and it's her Senate photograph, not even a campaign photograph. — coelacan talk — 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And how is displaying an image of one Democrat not allowed and yet the photo of the party's founder is? I understand the difference of living people, but there is a modern political statement behind my image. I'm not advocating for Jefferson for President. I'm advocating for any and all Jeffersonian politicians for any and all offices, and Jeffersonian policies implemented worldwide. — coelacan talk — 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you were disrupting anything... but it does seem to go against "state your point; don't prove it experimentally". It's just an observation though... personally I think you are comparing apples to oranges here with posting a picture of a dead politician who is widely considered a "founding father" of the U.S. and trying to compare it to posting a picture of a current politician who has just declared her presidential candidacy. It's just not a good comparison... and I think your "Jeffersonian adovcacy" rings a bit hollow here since you seem to have embraced it after this issue with Jeff's page arose.--Isotope23 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care if you think it's hollow and I think you really ought to consider the implications of my actions on their face. If you don't think Jefferson's politics are controversial today, you don't follow politics. The man is almost single-handedly responsible for church/state separation, and thousands of pages of pages of analysis are written every year on his opinions of precisely what that separation should entail. As for polemic, well, I'm not quoting him on my user page at this time, but in Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites". Father of the United States or not, he's not merely an uncontroversial footnote, and to openly support his politics was considered treasonous in America in the 1950s, and today is a guarantee of unelectability. A recent Supreme Court case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance hinged on his (and others') opinions. You can't box him away safely in the past. — coelacan talk — 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with Jefferson and his writings, but again, comparing Jefferson to Clinton is a bad comparison. Comparing these actions "on their face" completely ignores the context; no matter how controversial Jefferson was in his day or how controversial his writings still are he simply is not a controversial figure in this day and age any more so than Voltaire or Dante. Besides, what you have on your userpage really has no bearing on this discussion; nobody has complained about it or tried to remove the picture have they?--Isotope23 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Patstuart has just told me that I should take it down if anyone asks me to. And are you seriously saying that "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" is no longer a controversial statement? — coelacan talk — 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And if someone comes along and asks you to remove that picture because they disagree with Jeffersonian politics, you ought to do it. And, yet once again, I will say, the argument "because we allow A, we should allow B" doesn't work, if policy clearly shows that "B" is illegal. And you have openly admitted that the picture is polemic, so it should be removed. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I ought to do it if asked? You are absolutely and unequivocably wrong. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and there never was consensus for this, as you can see by the overflow of Category:Anti T2 Wikipedians. This policy was forced down users' throats, and while I never recreated my political userboxes, with blatantly worded statements, an image alone is way too borderline for you to assert any established consensus. — coelacan talk — 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:USER says that we need to have consensus to put somethere there at all, not vice versa. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ORLY? Where does it say that? — coelacan talk — 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USER#Removal: If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus was established years ago by default, and last spring when political statements started being deleted, that ground to a halt because an alternative consensus was never formed. The userbox migration resulted as a compromise, and that was as far as it went. So as far as I'm concerned, consensus has always been that non-abusive political statements were allowed, with the caveat that political user categories were to be deleted because they were used for votestacking. In any case, "the community" is rather a lot more people than the one hypothetical "someone" you speak of. If someone asked me to take down Jefferson, I would come here and ask for a larger discussion before I made any move. — coelacan talk — 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous

    WP:USER clearly states that something should be removed if someone objects to it (in good faith, as was done here by Zoe). It also specifically says polemic statements are not allowed, and a giant picture of Hillary with "Hillary for president", slightly toned down to "Hillary": how can it be anything but polemic? I am incredulous that anyone is opposing this. The policy states it directly, and even Jimbo Wales had given his opinion on this matter. While I'm constrained to assume good faith, I will admit this stretches my ability when it comes to people's political affiliations and reasons for opposing. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth pointing out that "if the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so" isn't quite the same thing as "remove anything somebody finds objectionable". ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe did not merely object; she reverted it without any discussion, and left quite a rude message oin my page. Had she discussed the situation with me before hand, we wouldn't be in the sad situation where we now find ourselves:-( Jeffpw 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you're correct. She shouldn't have done that. So, I ask you, in good faith, so that we can avoid any more silliness, could you please remove the image as it appears to be campaign material? Patstuarttalk|edits 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I admitted above that my deletion without discussing it with you first was wrong, but please explain how I have deleted the campaign poster you had on your User page. Please don't campaign for candidates on Wikipedia's dime. This is not a political point from me, as I have not made up my mind yet as to whom I will support, it might be Hillary, but that has no bearing on my deletion is rude? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to remove the image, just as soon as the Wiki vigilante squad pores over the tens of thousands of userpages here and removes each and every image I find offensive. That would include (but not be limited to) images of Mohammad, Jesus, Angelina Jolie and Kermit the Frog (who, I have it on good authority, is about to announce his own candidacy for president). When this is done, I will hapily remove Mrs. Clinton's picture. Until such time, you will have to content yourself with a reduction in size. Jeffpw 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now let's not get WP:POINTy, Jeff. I myself would greatly appreciate a reduction in size and prominence and would take that as an expression of good faith. —bbatsell ¿? 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, since you asked politely. Jeffpw 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, I was trying to be polite, if you see my statement above: So, I ask you, in good faith... could you please remove the image. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were trying to be polite, Pat, it certainly didn't scan that way to me. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand how supporting a presidential candidate is "polemic". The American Heritage Dictionary defines "polemic" as "a controversy or argument, esp. one that is a refutation of or an attack upon a specified opinion or doctrine." Implying support for Sen. Clinton doesn't seem to be a controversy or an argument, or any worse than many of the things Wikipedians express through userboxes. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. For some Userboxes designating one as a Christian or an Atheist could be polemic. Heck, even the users boxes about American English vs British English could cause strife. The targeting of political images and allowing these other even more polemic sentiments to stay, seems a bit off kilter. Agne 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the length of this thread and the speed at which it's growing shows the matter clearly is controversial. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Which demonstrates that there is no consensus for such implementation of the policy. — coelacan talk — 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the removal was far more controversial than the image could ever be. the wub "?!" 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does show controversy but it is over a span of topics. For some, the singular image itself is controversial. For others, the actual deletion process and admin conduct was controversial. For others, (like myself) it is the concept of even mundane political images being considered polemic while other obviously more polemic images and userboxes are left untouched. Agne 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We've already agreed the removal was done badly. But we should not allow an injustice or violation of policy simply because arguing about it is lengthy and controversial. The image should not be there as it is now. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (struck slightly over the top language, Patstuarttalk|edits 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    But many other users, including other admins, have already argued that it is not "polemic" so you have no clearcut case that this is any violation of policy. And the "injustice"? What on earth? — coelacan talk — 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I see stirring controversy is an administrator abusing her power to make a user conform to her beliefs about how Wikipedia should be run. I was asked politely to reduce the size of the image, and have complied immediately. All I ever wanted was discussion with Zoe before she crossed the line from WP:BOLD to WP:VAND. Jeffpw 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But now that she's admitted she did it wrong, will you discuss it? If someone says "oops", and the action is undone, that doesn't mean all conversation has to end. And please WP:AGF and don't accuse people of vandalism just because you're in a content dispute. I also see you've made the image smaller, but not by much. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it just images of Hillary Clinton that are not allowed? How about a userpage with a picture of John McCain and the statement "This user thinks John McCain should run for POTUS?" at User:Jesus Geek? How about User:BigGuy219 who just has a picture of John McCain with his name under it? Are those OK, or should we ask the users to remove them? How about the 18 user pages with the image Rudy-Giuliana-face.jpg? Is it ok because some ot them are userboxes that say they do not approve of vandalism? What about the hundreds of userpages with dozens of little boxes saying they support this and oppose that? Aren't there better ways for admins to spend their time than selective deleting images of politicians from userpages? Can't we just all get along? Edison 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see a small, innocuous picture of the man on the page. If jeff would do that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And, yes, if there was a huge picture of McCain on someone's page that looked exactly the same, my reaction would be equivalent. This reaction has nothing to do with politics: it's about what I see as a violation of policy. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point it is probably best just to let this go, as there clearly is no consensus on how to proceed here, and continue a relevant discussion of what is acceptable on userpages at WP:USER talk.--Isotope23 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Step two of dispute resolution. I think it's time we took it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Play nice, please!

    And here we go again...

    If there's anything the various incidents over the course of the last year have taught us, it's that selective attempts at enforcing userpage rules simply don't work as intended, and usually result in little beyond getting many people quite upset. This goes double for attempts that dispense with the usual discussion and move straight to the ham-fisted removal.

    There is very, very little that an established, good-faith contributor could place on their userpage which would truly need to be removed right now. Everything else doesn't warrant immediate, undiscussed removal; and most likely doesn't really need to be removed at all, unless we're going to make a habit of actually patrolling userpages for "inappropriate" content. A picture of Hillary isn't particularly important, in the grand scheme of things; it's rather unlikely to be worth provoking the sort of big, nasty, utterly pointless fight that is certain to result when you try to remove it by force. Kirill Lokshin 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I whole-heartedly support Barack Obama, but I certainly don't object to Jeff's picture of Hilary: when he first put it up I thought nothing more than "Thank God he's taken down that dreadful joke message bar". Personally, I am FAR more offended by users who have "His user believes marriage is between a man and a woman only" userboxes on their page. I suggest you start a discussion to remove them, rather than harrass a hard-working user whose only crime is to be an enthusiastic Democrat. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest no such action be pursued against "onemanandonewoman" users. I still oppose T2, and everything that smells like its rancid ghost. — coelacan talk — 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, personally, I think if someone's userpage has to be targeted, it would be better if it were a chap's like Boris Johnson VC rather than Jeff's. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! That's some userpage, Dev! And people tried to claim displaying Hillary was polemical?!? Jeffpw 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally concur with the above. Political advocacy is inappropriate here, but this was a case for asking nicely, not forcing the issue. Friday (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Like many things on Wikipedia, political advocacy on a user page isn't expressly forbidden. So, unless the advocacy is racist, vulgar, commercial advertising, or advocating criminal behavior, (insert any other expressly forbidden items here that I may have forgotten) there isn't much of a case for removing it, especially as Kirill points out, by force. Please spend your energies fighting vandals, incivility, disruptive editors/sockpuppets, and spamming. Cla68 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Lord, this has gotten to a point in which we parody ourselves. Honestly, I think I might start make jokes about Wikipedians screwing in light bulbs. We are here to make a better encyclopedia, not bicker and fight over trivial things like what our "god given" policy instructs us to do. Granted, we have some rules to follow, but it's not as if this in the article space. We are being far too anal about something that shouldn't be an issue. Yanksox 01:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any image of a politician is likely to be used under fair use guidelines here. Fair use specifically disallows use outside the relevant encyclopedic article(s). This is no question of what people want, it's a copyright violation. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair use is not required for public domain photos, and that one's a federal photo. Seraphimblade 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. As a work of the US government, it's public domain. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On the plus side, I do kinda like my new userpage. So I guess there's that, anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Not polemic, but polarizing, perhaps? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been stated more than once in this discussion, Zoe, your actions in this matter seem to have been more polarizing than the picture on my page. I doubt many would have even noticed it had you not made such a big issue out of it. Jeffpw 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please explain to me why people have to wander around policing people's user pages? Seriously. You are wasting time on this issue. The people that seem more concerned about what Jeffpw has on his user page are basically saying "it's against policy!!!" (yawn) I can sit here and find lots of things on people's user pages that are against policy. The whole thing is basically WP:POINT , whether it was intended that way or not. The more heated this gets, the more I begin to wonder if there is any sanity here left at all. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're only beginning to wonder ....? :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Inflammatory statements on Oden (talk · contribs)s userpage

    Recently, Oden (talk · contribs) decided to quit Wikipedia after being accused of (and blocked for) wikistalking [158]. As you can see, Oden was blocked for 48 hours on January 15 for using copyright issues as a weapon [159]. His response was, first, to quit Wikipedia. Later, he added a laundry list of grievances about the "incivility" of other editors (including the editor he was blocked for stalking) to his user page [160]. Given Oden's block for stalking and using copyright issues as a weapon against people who he has disagreements with [161], I'm requesting that this section "Incivility on the part of others" with the direct quotes be DELETED, as it strikes me very much as some kind of "parting shot". This fight has apparently died down and comments like these only serve to throw more gas on the fire. I don't want to delete it myself, as I'm not a neutral party here. TheQuandry 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, I meant they should just be deleted from his userpage. I don't think it's necessary to go as far as to wipe the diffs from the logs. Thanks! TheQuandry 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFI 'kangaroo court' accusation

    After I posted an investigation request of Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:RFI (which so far resulted in User:Durova blocking Dr. Dan for 1 day for Persistent violations of WP:CIVIL), User:Irpen criticized my request and Durova's handling of it. Instead of addressing the issues of Dr. Dan behaviour that were raised, he started accusing me of WP:TE, pushing the Polish nationalist POV, using reprehensible tactics...trying to win such content disputes through expulsion of his opponents through blocks, and arguing that 'Piotrus'-like abuse of WP:PAIN and WP:RFI' (sic!) required deletion of PAIN and now requires deletion of WP:RFI, in effect trying to turn my RFI of Dr. Dan actions into another RfC against me (please note that 1) the user who filed this RfC against me has now apologized for his accusations and agreed to a civility parole and 2) most of his accusatons have no diffs, and the few that do were mentioned in my RfC, reviewed and judged irrelevant by the community). The attmept to revive already discarded accusations against me, in itself, is not what prompted me to post here (particularly as most of the users who posted there agreed with me, although I believe repeatedly making such accusations and trying to turn RFI against one user into RFC against another should be criticized), but later Irpen made several remarks that I believe would be of interest to WP:ANI readers. First, he stated that such reports as mine against Dr. Dan should be reported on WP:ANI ('ANI is attended by enough editors to make whimsical verdicts less likely'). Therefore I'd like to know if you agree with him - do you think that I should have posted this report here instead on WP:RFI? And what do you think should be the appopriate course of action to take when dealing with user such as Dr. Dan? Second, and more worryingly, he described WP:RFI as a 'kangaroo court' and argued that WP:RFI is as pointless as WP:PAIN supposedly was and promised to nominate WP:RFI for deletion shortly. As a consequence of his reasoning would be the closure of WP:RFI and increasing of the workload of WP:ANI (as well as mediators and ArbComers), I believe this issue should is of interest to users not interested in the relativly minor 'Piotrus-Irpen-Dr. Dan' case. My personal take on this is that WP:RFI only problem is a slight backlog, and a board where WP:CIV and related policies violations can be reported and quickly dealt with is quite useful, and I believe it is Irpen's behaviour that is disrupting this forum (by overbloating the relativly simple RFI case by trying to turn it into an RFC against another user). But perhaps I am in error here? Your comments - on Dr. Dan behaviour and Irpen arguments against me and WP:RFI - would be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Right. I archived it, since the chances of being able to pick anything substantive out of the mess were negligible compared with the likelihood of yet more lunacy. If Irpen and Piotrus start the sniping again, so help me I will block the both of them under the All New "drag them apart and don't care who started it" Policy. Both of them should know better. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piotrus, it wasn't a threat. It was a promise. I think we need {{For Jimbo's sake just stop it, the pair of you!}} for this kind of situation. I could hear the Wikipedia groan as I opened the page with that RFI debate. Ask yourself this: has that kind of fight ever solved anything in the past? My experience has been: no. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha! I knew I'd seen something like that about the place :o) Guy (Help!) 23:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With due respect, the sniping between both of you is simply and completely unacceptable. It is why I more than happily recused myself from the RFI case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is hard to follow all the places where Piotrus is listing his endless complaints, so I missed this one to reply on time. Anyway, the issue is now moot. JzG deleted that strange RFI request and chastised Piotrus for the very thing I was talking about all along: "Piotrus' habit to attempt winning all sorts of editing disputes with the content opponents through running to various boards to achieve their blocks." If someone is so bored as to study the matter, here is the historic link to the WP:RFI page with all the discussion and diffs. And there is more at JzG's talk.
    As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed with the deletion of the bizarre thread from WP:RFI and I am willing to put it to rest unless Piotrus does not turn to another board trying to seek the blocks of his content opponents.
    And, yes, WP:RFI should be deleted for the very reason WP:PAIN was deleted. We do not need Wikipedia:Request to block that is in every respect but the name. WP:AIV together with WP:ANI is enough with the WP:RfArb for the especially complex cases that need a thorough study. --Irpen 00:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said above, with Dr. Dan's being shown that continued violations of WP:CIV will lead to blocking, him recognizing his mistakes and promising to behave better, the Dr. Dan RFI report is, indeed, closed. I however resent Irpen's accusations that I try to get my opponent's blocked in content disputes. In Dr. Dan case it's pretty apparent as I don't recall we had a content dispute - I encourage his copyediting of content, but I discourage his flaming on talk. I am, however, still offended by Irpen's accusation "Piotrus [has a] habit to attempt winning all sorts of editing disputes with the content opponents through running to various boards to achieve their blocks". To put it simply: as an admin I should not (obviously) block people I find disruptive in articles I edit. That, however, does not mean that I have no right to ask others to review actions of such users. Therefore I believe I have full right to ask others to look at their actions by posting the description of the case on relevant page (which may vary depending on the case and time). Sometimes I may use WP:DR, in some cases where I believe the user has obviously violated one of our policies whose violations may result in a block, I ask admins on a public forum to consider the case. This is however a last resort, as I try to pursue discussions and reach a compromise on relevant talk pages and usually suceed, however every few months I stumble upon an exceptionaly stubborn user who refuses to stop behaviour I find disruptive; I see no reason why I as an admin should be unable to do what any other user can do (ask admins to investigate the issue). Summarizing, I see nothing wrong with my actions, and I again ask Irpen to apologize for his bad faithed accusations against me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not going to continue this endless bickering. I provided diffs that prove that Piotrus turns to seeking blocks of his opponents and they are avalable in the RFI history. Facts speak louder than words no matter how many times one repeats the same denial.
    I am to withdraw from this thread and do some article writing for a change, which I recommend to Piotrus as well. If anyone is interested, check the link in the RFI's history before that bizarre thread was rightfully deleted. Amen!--Irpen 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advice that friend Piotrus would do well to accept in good spirit. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said all that I wanted here, and the rest is up to community - whether to take any action or shelve this and do nothing. So yes, I am taking this advice in good spirit, friend JzG.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-semitic edit staying on Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron since 6 weeks

    On Dec 9th[162] (currently blocked) IP-vandal 168.243.59.119 left anti-semitic comments on Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron including XXX are racists (XXX replaced by me) and ... bunch of motherfucking racists that remained there since then. As I'm not a regular editor on Y-chromosomal Aaron, I didn't want to simply delete that by myself, though on :de such words would remain no longer than an hour. So, is there any reason not to delete such comments? --Túrelio 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Please please feel free to remove that kind of thing (occasionally, talk pages on controversial subjects can attract that kind of comment and go a while without anyone noticing). Patstuarttalk|edits 21:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL explicitly allows removing uncivil comments or personal attacks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Túrelio 08:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange user: possible bot or secondary account?

    I really don't know if this is the proper avenue to report this, but here we go. Ciphershort's account came into existence on Dec. 29, 2006. Since then, almost all his/her edits have been pasting welcome and warning templates on other people's talk pages. This may just be nothing more than a case of a rather odd editor, but I don't know what to make of it. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing weird here. The user seems to collaborate in a way befitting of a human, and they're helping us. Possibly odd, but nothing unusual. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are going to see more and more new accounts like this, and it's not a bad thing--it's just a stage in the evolution of the project. Several years ago, a newcomer found 1) there were lots of articles still needing to be written, and 2) there was much less vandalism overall. Now a newcomer arrives and wonders what to do to help out the project, and finds that all the sexy articles are written, and improvements to existing articles require sources and citations and often involve collisions with entrenched editors ... but look at all the vandalism to fix, trolls to warn, newcomers to welcome, and look at all the cool tools we now have to do it! I think this accounts for a lot of the change we have been seeing in new account behavior. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Antandrus hits the nail on the head. I have been active for about 8 months now, but almost all my edits are rv's of vandalism, warnings and minor wikilinking. And I'm not a malfunctioning bot (I think) Pedro1999a |  Talk  16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shweeeps only contributing vandalisms

    Just cleaned up half a dozen youthful hi-jinx type vandalisms by this totally new editor. Warns
    Shweeeps (talk · contribs)
    Doesn't seem ready for AIV yet. Best regards // FrankB 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock vandalism of User talk:Flyingtoaster1337

    at least six socks, with dynamic IP vandalized the page, it might be more socks out there. →AzaToth 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is problably the work of Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was angered by Flyingtoaster1337's attempt to delete some images. -Will Beback · † · 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second. Block the pupets, take them to RFCU, block the proxies he's using. 68.39.174.238 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    History linkspam

    On Number of the Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a very persistent spammer has done a series of edits amounting to a null edit, but leaving behind the URL in the edit summaries. This probably doesn’t require actual fixing, but I’d like to ask for the account, CotKlrk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to be indefblocked for this and for impersonating CptKirk (talk · contribs), who also edits the article and for the article to be semi-protected (again). —xyzzyn 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked CotKlrk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Username. Jkelly 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest have the relevant edits deleted by an administrator, just to remove the spam from the edit summary. It's the sort of loophole concerning spam that needs to be closed quickly. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead. I'm sure nobody will mind. Jkelly 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I announced I'd do the same with Category:Board games yesterday, and I received no objections. I went ahead and cleared the history today. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for this article. AecisBravado 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    done. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to everybody for the fast response! —xyzzyn 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if this is common practice, but I believe it should be. I think it could be very useful in our fight against spam to clear article histories of spam edits every now and then. AecisBravado 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very difficult on articles with very long histories, but not impossible. That is the main reason it is not done more often. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on how many edits have been made to the article, how many of those have been spam, and how they are divided through the history. In the case of Cat:Board games, 56 of about 110 edits were spam or reverts of spam, but they were easily grouped. I think there were only three or four normal contributions in the last 50 edits. And it's easy to select a large number of edits at once using ctrl+shift+click. AecisBravado 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a compelling-enough reason that external links should be allowed in edit summaries? I can see why someone might place one there sometimes, but, the potential for heavy spamming through this loophole is, I believe, a serious threat that could require a lot of administrator time that could be better spent on other things. Cla68 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldDragon and Joe Volpe

    User:GoldDragon has been revert-warring to restore his preferred version of the Joe Volpe page.

    Background: I've had several dealings with GoldDragon in the last year or so, all on pages having to do with Canadian politics. These encounters have tried my patience to the limit, and beyond. GoldDragon's general approach to Wikipedia is to make the same edits over and over again, even if several other posters have expressed opposition. He has also violated the 3RR several times, and I've frequently had to tell him to revert himself if he wants to avoid being blocked. I've tried arguing, making friendly outreaches, seeking outside opinions -- none of it seems to make any difference on his behaviour for long. There have also been times when I've completely lost patience with him, and participated in open edit-wars. I recognize that this was improper behaviour, and I've taken steps to avoid getting caught in such situations again. He has not reciprocated.

    Concerning the present dispute: GoldDragon and I disagreed on the content of the Joe Volpe page in December. Two outside contributors weighed in, private negotiations took place, and GoldDragon stopped reverting the page for a while. Unfortunately, he soon began to restore his preferred version in small increments. I summarized the current situation on the talk page yesterday, and restored the previously accepted wording. GoldDragon declined to accept my changes, posted this, and blanket-reverted my changes. My response on the talk page can be found here, here, and here. In an effort to avoid an edit war, I posted an NPOV notice on the article page. GoldDragon removed it a few hours later. An outside contributor made his views known here, in a statement that leaves very little room for ambiguity. Based on this statement, I concluded that I would be justified in restoring my version again (I apologize for the grammatical error). GoldDragon's response can be found here and here.

    Apparently, I'm not the only editor who's had these problems with GoldDragon: [163], [164], [165]. I hope that readers will recognize how frustrating this situation has been. CJCurrie 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't figure out heads or tails in this one - is SlimVirgin part of this debate? Are you sure it's not just an edit war? Patstuarttalk|edits 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This controversy has nothing to do with SlimVirgin, and I'm not certain why you'd mention her in this context.
    For readers who want the short version, GoldDragon is acting unreasonably: [166], [167]. CJCurrie 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moderated disputes between CJCurrie and GoldDragon twice before, both times, both parties had made reasonable contributions and had legit arguments, though both times CJ ended up being more in line with policy. This time, GD seems to want nothing more than to make a point and push his PoV. His edits are totally not constructive and he refuses to listen to reason -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't the procedure for a content dispute supposed to follow the dispute resolution chain: talk, RfC, RfA? If you are past the "talk" stage on this matter, then wouldn't RfC be the next step? Cla68 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • GoldDragon's actions struck me as sufficiently unreasonable to raise here, but I'd agree that an RfC would be a proper step as well. CJCurrie 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been involved in content disputes with CJCurrie before. He is quick to revert submissions, even when they are properly cited. We are currently at a truce over a content dispute awaiting input from other editors. However, CJCurrie would receive much less friction if he wasn't so diligent about reverting other people's contributions and compromises. Alan.ca 14:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zs9000 block evasion

    I strongly suspect Zs9000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user as 69.248.252.203, who was temporarily blocked. Immediately after that block began, Zs9000 recreated the Muvy article that 69.248. was working on before speedy deletion and began inserting the same spam link to Crepe with the same rhetoric about "censorship" of Wikipedia. -SpuriousQ 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While the evidence is almost 100% conclusive here, I'd recommend filing a WP:RFCU code letter "A" to find any other sockpuppets the IP might be using. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the tip Yuser. In any case, the user appears to be inactive now, so I'll just keep an eye out for the being. -SpuriousQ 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maleabroad

    User:Maleabroad has recently been pov-pushing at many Hindu related articles and has been reverted by several editors. Despite several warnings Maleabroad continues to revert to the information which he has added and is in danger of violating the 3RR rule (see the Hindu edit history). The edit summaries he leaves are breaching WP:CIVIL by accusing editors of reverting his edits as racists. His actions are somewhat of a concern at this point.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: According to this the user has violated the 3RR rule and is being reported at WP:AN/3RR.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for one week, in light of 3RR violations across several pages, the rather harsh language being used, and the prior blocks for similar behavior this user seems to have accrued. Anticipating that we may need to deal with some IPs. Luna Santin 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the IPs have been dealt with already, from the previous edit warring. A few were missed though, and occasionally he wins the DHCP lottery and gets to edit a page. I suspect that the previous blocks and the sprotect on Hindu were the reason for him using his account after several weeks of editing anonymously. Orpheus 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    which makes this effectively a vandal account, and we should consider an indefblock if we don't want to come back to blocking it every week. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    back as 136.159.32.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). this guy is a riot, even the allcaps-shouted mantra in his edit-summaries is misspelled. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I would have expected from Maleabroad, basing myself on my previous experience of him. I had noted that after having completed his block, he had restarted editing, this time anonymously. As his ways have in no way bettered, and refuses to be civil or abstain from editing till the week passes, I propose to follow dab and give him an indef. block. Also, I advise to keep an eye on his favourite articles, and be ready to semi-protect them if necessary. Personally, this is what I had to do to contain his flood of block evasions after my first 31h block.--Aldux 18:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's back again now as 136.159.32.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 136.159.32.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Imc 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shadowbot

    This bot is malfunctioning. It just reverted an edit I did, when I reverted an article back to a version with the speedy tag, and which happened to contain a blacklisted external link. Dumb that it didn't pick up the link's initial insertion, then to compound the error by reverting my edit? Not a good thing. Please shut this thing off. exolon 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Saying "this is broken, fix it" does not help the matter much. Please provide diffs.
    Try [168] and [169]. Please sign your edits. exolon 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit did include an attempted link to an off-site image. It had been previously removed and you restored it, triggering the bot's action. —bbatsell ¿? 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the bot's bugged. My edit was a single reversion back to restore the speedy tag. This happened to include the external link in question. Why didn't the bot pick up the initial insertion of the link? Damned if I know. Any bot that actually helps rubbish stay on the site needs to be looked at. exolon 03:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, dude. The bot didn't kill your wife and children. The state of Wikipedia is strong. —bbatsell ¿? 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot looks fine - I just deleted the article, but you did indeed include the imageshack external link in your re-insertion of the speedy delete request, somehow. Having that link in your edit caused the problem. Cowman109Talk 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, that link would be on shadowbots blacklist. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You readded a spamlink. This was probably an honest mistake, but that is nonetheless the reason it triggered. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry. The bot's just doing its (rather essential) job, and occasionally bots make mistakes. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Not true. It is impossible for a bot to make a mistake. Proto::► 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. Only editors make misteaks. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Papad Entertainment

    Can someone speedy delete this? It's a blatant advert for a nn dj group, but the speedy tags keep getting removed. I first tagged it at 2.45, it's now 3.45! exolon 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted courtesy of Danny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Sweller impersonation

    This user has created an account name that impersonates John Sweller and has repeatedly vandalized the article on Sweller. Should be immediately blocked. Nesbit 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef; next time, report to WP:AIV for quicker action. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warmbat

    Could some third party look at the history of Warmbat, and the editing pattern (and lack of interest in dialogue) of this editor? I'm sure that he's wrong and I'm right, but then of course I would, wouldn't I? And I don't want to breach 3RR. Thank you. -- Hoary 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is you who is right. The IP's edits constitute blanking, which is disruptive; I issued a "blanking4" warning and left it at that. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reassurance. -- Hoary 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS but what he did is only "blanking" in a special sense. I hesitate before adding a gloss to your template (in which there's no link to WP:BLANK, but I think it's likely that he'll glance at it and decide that it's nonsensical, unwarranted or both. Could you perhaps add a personalized comment to it? -- Hoary 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it would help much; you have already tried twice to start a discussion, and have been ignored. I'm not actually sure the editor is acting in good faith, judging from his or her previous contributions (which have all been reverted, I might add). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, however, add a stern message to clarify the situation. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New problematic edits / More block evasion by Grazon

    For background, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive151#Problematics edits / Block evasion by Grazon.

    Grazon has been indefinitively blocked qua Grazon (11 November 2006), qua Devilmaycares (11 November 2006), and apparently qua Doolittl (19 October 2006).

    On 2 December 2006, 132.241.246.111 was blocked for 1 month because of block evasion by Grazon. During this block, Grazon edited innocuously as 132.241.246.63.

    After the expiration of the block, Grazon began again editing as 132.241.246.111, and as 132.241.245.245; unfortunately, not all of the editing is innocuous.

    New problematic editing by Grazon qua 132.241.246.111 or qua 132.241.245.245:

    —12.72.70.212 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked 132.241.246.111. -Will Beback · † · 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting opinions

    Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · count) has a signature with links to his talk and contributions...except it doesn't actually link to his talk and contributions. It links to Ryoung (talk · contribs · count), who has no contributions (but is at least a real account). I don't believe there's anything malicious going on here, but I can envision situations where someone wants to communicate to Ryoung122 and not looking dumps their message on Ryoung. I asked him if he could correct it on Jan 19th, and got no response even though he has edited since then and as per this edit today he hasn't fixed it.

    This isn't a request for someone to go in guns blazing. What I'm asking is does anyone have an opinion on alternative solutions or if this is not confusing enough in general to take any further steps? It occurred to me that one could place a redirect on Ryoung to Ryoung122, but if Ryoung isn't actually connected to Ryoung122 I don't want to do that.

    Thoughts? Syrthiss 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a shot in the dark, but is he maybe an admin from one of those other Wikipedias that I remember reading about a few weeks ago on WP:U, setting up a local account here to keep messages from different Wikipedias separate? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I don't think so. There's a talk comment on Ryoung's talk from Xoloz back in November of last year. That would have been before anyone knew about the wiki spanning, I believe. Syrthiss 15:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno. From his contribution list, it looks like he went to the current sig more than a year ago. Could just be an error on his part, I guess, though it seems unlikely that it'd go undetected for so long. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Loop Quantum Gravity article vandalism report

    You may want to compare loop quantum gravity article revised on 15:34 Sept 27 2006 [170] and 17:35 Sept 27 2006 [171] You can compare them here. [172] User Sdedeo deleted half of the article. If you carefully look at the discussion, you will see that many people saying that the old article was much better. And if you know some loop quantum gravity, you will know that the deleted part was a very important content. Without it, one doesn't get a complete picture of what loop quantum gravity is all about. What can you do about Sdedeo? or Can you undelete the half of the deleted article? I can't do it, because I don't know how to upload pictures. 124.54.118.8 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell (it's been awhile), the material I deleted was a confused original presentation. I'm no longer deeply involved in editing the article, and I think 124.54.118.8 is a bit hasty to call good faith edits vandalism. In any case, I'll take a look again and see what I think. Sdedeo (tips) 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Group of vandals

    I need to step away for a bit, but there was a rash of vandalism to Centerville, Utah from 5 accounts all created at nearly the same time:

    They also took turns messing with User:Jakemarshall (which was created in articlespace before being userfied). If anyone wants to check in on the contribs from these accounts for a bit to see if they start back up again, please feel free. Thanks. ju66l3r 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like they may all be at school together right now. As soon as the school's single IP: 163.6.121.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours, it got suddenly quiet. ju66l3r 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PassianCappucino, Shaericell

    PassianCappucino (talk · contribs) claims to be the sister of Shaericell (talk · contribs). This user uploaded Image:BrendaT.jpg and Image:BrendaT1.jpg claiming these were images of her. This was clearly false and the user has been notified of this and warned not to do it again. Does anyone recognise the image, Image:Shaericell.jpg, uploaded by Shaericell? What about Image:Momispregnant.jpg? I suspect these, too, may also be a fraudulent image. If so, I'm tempted to block both accounts. Comments? --Yamla 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not just delete the images and give them a final warning first?--Rudjek 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably a better option, yes. I'm frustrated by all the fraudulent profiles but I agree, an instablock is probably not appropriate here. --Yamla 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the Image:Momispregnant.jpg should certainly be deleted (I think that WP:CSD#Images/Media would cover all of this). We don't know that "mom" consents to having her picture all over the internet.--Rudjek 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fanboys II: Electric Boogaloo

    I just deleted a nice troll from User:StealthTomato about how we deleted their page and are evil or something, including a gigantic image. Be on the lookout for more pages of the type. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And after more looking, apparantly the comic's creator has given the OK to post that image everywhere? Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If by 'ok', you mean 'encouragement'. You'd hope these people had better things to do with their time. --InShaneee 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over List of anime conventions and Anime South with Animesouth

    Animesouth (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a content dispute over List of anime conventions and Anime South for almost a month. He has been relentless in not acknowledging consensus nor is willing to properly communicating, citing that people should go to the convention's websites for more information. He recently submitted the list for an AfD to which it was kept. What I am asking is for some suggestions on what to do with this individual. I feel that there is a lack of good faith in this contributor and a possible WP:COI violation. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Add WP:3RR to the list of violations as well. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Animesouth has also been engaged in persistently libeling Muhammad Ali, and I suspect this user has using an IP address to do this as well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On the Muhammad Ali page, user:Uucp has engaged in the same content additions as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The users user:Animesouth, user:Uucp and Special:Contributions/143.88.201.123 have all committed the same edits, violating WP:SOCK to evade the three-revert rule. The users have also violated biographies of living persons, introducing libel without citations or without verifiability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now there is an edit pinwheel. The proposed changes need to be taken to discussion first, as stated on their respective talk pages, to prevent further messes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User removing 3RR warning

    LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) received a 3RR warning for edit warring on the article Patrecia Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He had, between December 29 and January 6 made six reverts to remove the same single sentence (most of them in one day), which has since been returned and sourced in the article. Clearly a tendentious editor on Ayn Rand/Objectivism-related articles, he has now deleted the warning multiple times, as well as the explanation for why warnings are intended to improve Wikipedia editing -- claiming, among other things it was given in"bad faith". I would prefer not to deal with such determined incivility, and would ask for an admin to review this matter. Thanks, --LeflymanTalk 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you have also restored the warning multiple times. Please read the "User space harassment" section of Wikipedia:Harassment and desist immediately. The user can remove what he likes from his page. All you have to do is please be sure to use an informative edit summary when you place a warning, and admins will easily be able to find it from the History. Note that his removal of the warning shows he has read it. What more do you want? Bishonen | talk 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    For reasons I cannot fathom, it is not against the rules for users to remove legitimate warnings. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, you might all care to calm down your tone? You can all make your points without arguing who's been here longest. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one's arguing; I pointed out that it's rather condescending to aggressively quote policy after I clearly said I was not going to deal with it further. Thanks for your input.--LeflymanTalk 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting block

    Apparently administrator intervention against vandalism only deals with simple vandalism, so I'll report this here (I was never told where to report it). DCarltonsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier 71.247.255.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) continues to add unsourced but possibly-true material and pure speculation (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180#What to do about repeated addition of unsourced and speculative information? for details). Can someone take care of this? Thank you. --NE2 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just thought I'd point out that Mr. Darcy has warned the user here. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already warned him several times on User talk:71.247.255.190, including once with the "approved warning template". --NE2 13:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He did it again (on R68 (New York City Subway car)). What am I to do? --NE2 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved this down since no one seems to have seen my recent posts. --NE2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have issued a final warning so that he cannot deny knowing that it will result in a block. Next instance will result in a block. I think we should assume good faith here, so it should be a 24h-ish block. —bbatsell ¿? 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He did it again this morning with the same edit. --NE2 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked him for 24 hours and left him a warning not to do it again. I also gave him links to WP:V and WP:RS so hopefully he gets the message.--Isotope23 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. --NE2 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zakusage has ownership issues.

    Despite wikipedia having policy to the contrary, ZakuSage seems to think he owns PSP-related articles.

    He defaced my user page yesterday as well as removing someone else's comments regarding his behavior from the page Talk:PlayStation_Portable.

    I think this is wrong behavior and am serving him formal warning to stop it. This note on the admin noticeboard is my following up to serve public notice as well. RunedChozo 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I also request deletion of my user page as well. I intended not to have one and I wish that to be respected.

    I had a quick glance at User:ZakuSage's recent contributions but don't see any evidence of edit warring or other disruptive behaviour. Can you be more specific as to what you are complaining about, and provide diffs? —Psychonaut 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychonaut, I'll try. It appears worse than I thought, he has maliciously claimed that another user is me with no evidence and had them banned for no good reason.

    The other use in question is User:NotAWeasel.

    Diffs emblematic of his behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102729058&oldid=102686610 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101828003&oldid=101825050 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101618470&oldid=101618369

    He seems obsessed with removing any mention of the different Playstation Portable firmware editions from the page, as well as generally being disrespectful. He is also obsessed with misspelling the word "Color." RunedChozo 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am updating, he has just vandalized my user page again. RunedChozo 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102987910&oldid=102981599 He has now after re-vandalizing my user page gone on to revert yet again to remove perfectly valid content as he is obsessed with doing. This is wrong behavior. RunedChozo 21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits to PlayStation Portable seem fine to me; he seems to be calmly arguing that dwelling on firmware-related minutiae clutters the article. If this is "emblematic" of his behaviour, then he has probably done nothing wrong. With regards to "colour", it is the proper spelling of the word in British English; WP:MOS states that either British or American spelling is acceptable so long as it is applied consistently within an article.
    The accusations of sockpuppetry are a different matter entirely. I agree that he should present his evidence that you also operate the User:NotAWeasel, or else withdraw the claim. However, perhaps he has already done so somewhere I haven't looked yet. —Psychonaut 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll create an evidence page in a moment. - ZakuSage 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous. I have for a long period been working to keep the article PlayStation Portable not as my own personal plaything, but to the upmost quality of wikipedia standards. This user simply has a grudge against me for a past dispute. He's also been actively engaging the the act of sockpuppetry (currently with the recently blocked indefinitely User:NotAWeasel, created the day of one of RunedChozo's blockings) not only on the PSP article but also on his other grudge match the article for the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, as well as using his sockpuppet to vandalise my userpage. He has removed the template I placed on his user-page to let other users know of his activity as a sock-puppeteer. - ZakuSage 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Jimbo's comment on libel on userpages
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=102990343"