Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [1]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [2]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector^Talk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou ^banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back

DreamGuy seems to be back, and back at it. He didn't like what eight other editors did on Dissociative identity disorder while he was away, so he reverted to "last good version", meaning his last version before he left. This is how he interprets consensus? I have no opinion on that particular content dispute, but this mode of conduct is what makes him so hard to work with. Will some admin please advise him? Dicklyon 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy (again)

I had originally posted this as a separate ANI, but I think it might be better to bundle them together.

Since the previous ANI on this user [3] I have had the 'pleasure' of coming against more incivility by this user, and overwhelming evidence that s/he does not wish to work with other editors in order to improve the project. Please look at the history of Dissociative identity disorder ([4]) and DreamGuy's edit summaries, plus that article's talk page to see how he has dealt with the article (particularly with ideas of ownership over the article.) In that article, I undid a reversion that DreamGuy made, in what has become his MO of flicking off edits, comments, and sources without any discussion. In that edit (as you can see on the article's talk page, I chide both sides of the edit war for being unwilling to work with each other towards the betterment of the article. In this case, DreamGuy had reverted sourced statements from respected scholarly journals on the topic while claiming that such edits were 'POV'. Not seeing HOW this was a POV violation, I reverted back. Today, I found my edit and all following edits undone and posted this diff on my talk page.

Understandably, I took many of these things (being 'guilty of misconduct'?) as personal attacks. I left this on this talk page.

Less than one minute later, DreamGuy had reverted his talk page (which I had thought was a strong taboo). Please see the history: [5]. As you can see, I posted my comment again with the comment that he hadn't actually read my comment. But before that, he left this note.

Which I replied to.

DreamGuy then reverted his talk page again with the edit comment that I had posted 'harassment' and then went once again to my talk page.

I then took all of his edits off my talk page. It is clear who is doing the harassing here.

My complaint centers around DreamGuy's continual disregard for everybody but him and his editions to the project. He even popped up in a recent AfD again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermes_in_popular_culture (another article that he 'owns', by the way. He is the creator), and you can see his comments there. Like I mentioned in this discussion I had with him, I have no interest in DID and only a passing interest as an editor in the health of the article there. What concerns me the most in this AN/I is DeramGuy continues his incivility time and time again after many editors have expressed issues with how he addresses and deals with others. That and his issues with ownership must be addressed by an admin. CaveatLector^Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy --Ideogram 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you've had no recent (or ever) interaction or dispute with DreamGuy, and are the subject of intense complaint yourself. Why jump in here now and muddy the waters? Dicklyon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does happen that uninvolved editors decide a dispute is worth taking to ArbCom. In my opinion there is a great deal of evidence that DreamGuy is a problem editor. I didn't realize my intervention here would be unwelcome. --Ideogram 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to withdraw the filing? I'm not sure I can do that, but I can ask. --Ideogram 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If anyone else involved with DreamGuy brought this to ArbCom, he'd probably take that as a personal attack by "problem editors" (his favorite term for people who frequently disagree with him), which would lead to more bad blood. Having an uninvolved person step in should make it seem much less personal. --clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to have DreamGuy take it better, but this way makes it clear to ArbCom that the problem is focused on DreamGuy and not between him and a particular other editor. --Ideogram 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to withdraw the filing, the time to speak up is now. --Ideogram 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Ideogram 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the right thing to do is. It should would be nice to have some advice here from an uninvolved admin. Dicklyon 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no uninvolved parties here. DreamGuy has the protection of some powerful people. --Ideogram 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When uninvolved admins do respond you put abusive comments on their talk pages and accuse them of being in my pocket. It appears what you are really asking for is admins to come along and tell you that you aren't violating policies yourself and encourage you in your harassment campaign of good editors for your own petty purposes. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining who or what you are referring to, so can you be more explicit? Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... The accusation was that's it's uncivil of me to accuse people of sockpuppeting and so forth when a clear sockpuppet here filed a completely out of process and baseless report? Oh, and people claiming RFCs were filed and that I ignored the results when said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves and most of them later permanently banned? And now some highly uncivil people making edits that multpile admins have agreed were highly POV-pushing is in my face because I said they were POV-pushers? Bottomline here is we have a gang of malcontents working against the policies here, common sense and standard civility procedures wasting everyone's time with their constant whining. Instead of them saying smething needs to be done about me some admins should take the time to tell them that they are way out of line -- and, indeed, I thank those admins who have done just that, though these people simply ignored those helpful suggestions and warnings about following policy and continue to whine and complain because they don't want to admit that they are the problems. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does seem strange to assume sockpuppetry. He seemed to be just trying to help, and backed off when it was suggested that perhaps this wasn't the best way to do it. But maybe it was. Among the RfCs referred to that you ignored was the one on Talk:Photo editing. Who is being uncivil to you? Who is malcontent or out of line? What policy do you refer to? If you're going to make accusations, being clear would be useful. Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People are out of line on both sides here. DreamGuy, you aren't as innocent as you would like to think, but that's not to say that there aren't policy-breakers harassing you. It's just that not everyone who disagrees with you is one of those people. --clpo13_(talk) 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: further refusal to cooperate

On his talk page, in response to polite inquiry from the guy who has mediated the compromise on the content dispute on Photo editing, DreamGuy makes clear his position:

I've made comments on the talk page. The same people out to edit war to the bad version ignored them as usual. We had a consensus version, but most of the people who built that consensus gave up and were driven off by harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users who further went to receruit edtors to the article who never expressed interest in the topic previously but had lost conflicts with me in the past elsewhere. The article is simply a battleground and not a real discussion over actual Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

— DreamGuy

In fact, he has made no comments on the talk page since July 28, and has not responded at all to the proposed compromise. One can infer that he rejects the consensus and intends to go back to unilateral dismantling of the content section after it's unprotected, if that ever happens. His view of "harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users" seems delusional; is there a solution, or a proposed course of action, for such situations, or do all admins just want to continue to ignore it? Dicklyon 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I cooperated: I fully explained the reasons for the edits over and over and over and over again, for something like five or more months now, which you simply ignored. To try to portray my getting sick of it all as somehow proof of bad behavior is just ridiculous. But an editor did politely ask me to respond, so I found time out of my busy day of real work and undoing the vandalism and fullscale doctoring of the RFC page to remove any info that made your side look bad to also go in and, what else, re-explain the same things I've said over and over and over. It shouldn't be too difficult to pay attention instead of blind reverting to your version all the time. DreamGuy 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RfC

So it seems that in addition to the content RfC that he ignored, we need to do a user conduct RfC before arbitration makes sense. So I tried to open one, but the button to create it (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct) took me to an already existing page on a previous 2005 conduct RfC on him: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy. So that's probably what he was referring to above as "said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves." So what is the procedure for opening a new one when there is already one by the preferred name? Dicklyon 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create a new RfC about that user, create the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 with the content {{subst:RfC|DreamGuy}}. Then fill out the page as normal. WjBscribe 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can see from the link color, that worked. I haven't put any content in yet, but I got the page started. Dicklyon 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I filled in my part. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct for instructions on how to contribute. You'll find a link to the DreamGuy conduct RfC there. (and sorry about that last edit that got reverted; looks like I got out of sync somehow) Dicklyon 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proper procedure for letting interested parties (such as those commenting above) know that this RfC is open? Or would any such be considered improper recruiting or canvassing? Dicklyon 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking successful outcomes in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive before filing my part. «You Are Okay» 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy have you anything to say before I file my part? «You Are Okay» 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically canvassing is defined as spamming talk pages of users who are unlikely to be interested in the case. Posting notices on pages of involved users is borderline, and as noted above, you will need to be careful in your handling of this case. Posting in public places such as the Village Pump is probably okay. --Ideogram 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspected and Actual Sock Puppetry by the Accusers (not DreamGuy)

For the record, You Are Okay (talk · contribs) has very few edits and shows unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia processes. His first edit ever used {{cite}}. A savvy newcomer is okay, but when he or she aligns with a known sock puppeteer, that's suspicious. Ideogram has been caught operating at least two abusive sock puppets, one for block evasion on a block that was given for disrupting Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram for full details. Jehochman ^Talk 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: one can be a new user and still know the policies. I edited as an IP for a long time before getting an account. I'm not defending anyone, but it's not really that much of a point. --clpo13_(talk) 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A savvy newcomer can be explained away, but when that savvy newcomer helps build an RFC with a known sock puppeteer and block evader, he or she becomes a suspect. Jehochman ^Talk 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I can see your point there. I wasn't originally aware You Are Okay was a suspected sock of Ideogram. --clpo13_(talk) 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I refactored my initial comment to clarify the linkage. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just that Jehochman got carried away in collecting sock puppets for ideogram, who is clearly a multiple puppeteer. But User:You Are Okay is plainly just a newbie. He added three ext links, copying the "cite web" template from the line above in his first edit. When DreamGuy reverted them (properly), YouAreOkay went to his talk page, discovered this dispute, and piled on, here and at the RfC. Not a sock, just a newbie following his nose and his hurt feelings; but it would be better for all if he'd go away and leave this matter alone. Dicklyon 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted. On my first day of joining Wikipedia I tried to resolve a dispute with DreamGuy over a link to a blitz chess site. He couldn't even respond to, "Do you play blitz chess?" «You Are Okay» 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive

~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy (general incivility, biting newcomer)

~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2 - RfC closed following general agreement - WikiCivility generally improved allround.

At the moment no further censures are appropriate, but if the involved parties continue to engage in Personal Attacks additional measures may be required.

~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2

I did respond to "Do you play blitz chess?" -- I rightly responded that it was totally irrelevant for determining whether the link there should be there... and this newbie editor also edited to add similar improper links to other articles. So far all this person has done (on this account anyway) is spam some articles, complain when the spam was removed, ignore the policies explaining why it was removed, and jump into somehow digging up extremely old and unrelated RFCs to try to claim that some known problem editors who started them (all but a couple of the complainers in those early RFCs have since been permanently banned from Wikipedia for personal attacks, POV-pushing, vandalism, etc.). This complaint is similar to the other complainers: clear violators of WIkipedia policies trying to lash out at someone they perceive as an enemy instead of working to follow policies or try to resolve (or ignore) disputes. DreamGuy 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I realize the reason Wikipedia's chess pages are amateurish. DreamGuy writes the chess pages and doesn't play blitz chess. «You Are Okay» 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I wrote all the chess pages, that's it. :rolls eyes: And funny how the only thing you did to try to change the page was to add a spam link. The only reason I was even on that chess page was I saw you spamming other articles and went in to remove them and thought I'd check your edit history to see if you spammed anywhere else. My not playing blitz chess has nothing to do with you not following WP:COI and WP:EL, links to which I provided on your talk page immediately after removing your edits. DreamGuy 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not spam. UChess.com is a respected non-commercial chess site. Ask the opinion of any professional chess-player who plays 10 minute blitz chess. Chess is participation. Registration is unavoidable to calculate ratings and rank players. Akin to professional chess tournament leagues. «You Are Okay» 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, DreamGuy, WP:DNFTT. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for the comments. I will consider them. -Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not compulsory that evidence of disputed behavior involve the users certifying, see how previous RfCs have been run ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive «You Are Okay» 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~/WP:AN/I history shows more time wasted [6]

More time wasted at ~/WP:AN/I: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Are Okay (talk • contribs)

Who is wrote the above? El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the diffs you seek: [8] [9] You Are Okay (talk · contribs) has done nothing but spam and disrupt. There's not a single productive contribution. I suggest an indef block. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I warned this very new user to stay out of this dispute; s/he is only making things more complicated for naught. El_C 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It didn't work. 11 minutes after your warning, the trolling continued with this very unhelpful diff. [10] This is likely a sockpuppet of a long term disruptive editor. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; and we'll go from there. El_C 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser came back as "Unrelated" for Ideogram and You Are Okay. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ideogram. You Are Okay was blocked for disruption, not sock puppetry, so the block remains valid as I understand things. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Refractor madness

I've tried my best to handle the chaos that ensued on the RfC page during my absence. Conduct RfC rules must be enforced, from now on. El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that the topic of this discussion has gone from User:DreamGuy's incivility to suspected (though deemed unrelated) sockpuppetry? LOZ: OOT 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, has anybody noticed that this discussion has been going on for a good two weeks? What's so difficult about giving User:DreamGuy a warning, and if the incicility continues, a possible long-term block? I don't understand why there has to be so much argument and debate over something that is usually settled in under 24 hours. This user's incivility is not acceptable and he/she needs to understand that. And the issue that you are now discussing (which is already settled), with the exception of the filed (and then unfiled) arbitration case, is totally unrelated. LOZ: OOT 05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be unwelcoming, but it would be best if week-old accounts stay out of this dispute. El_C 06:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I just wanted to say that this debate is just overly complicated. LOZ: OOT 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) is continuing to use his userpage for personal attacks on another Wikipedia user by name. This is the 2nd such page created this week, the first of which was deleted for containing copyvio information. Current attack page is modified to be within that policy in an attempt to be within policy, plus to add a purported innocent motive in response to recent WP:COI concerns.

This user has been asked several times to initiate dispute resolution instead of making personal attacks. User's edit history is mostly personal attacks against the same Wikipedia editor, plus edit warring and outright vandalism on articles edited by the same editor.

Page can be reverted trivially to a non-attacking version. My concern is the persistent attacking behavior, which has continued for months now. User's edits are seldom if ever constructive, and this user has been warned many times. / edg ☺ ★ 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

With vandalism templates? if he has been systematically and properly warned for vandalism, then a report to WP:AIV could genuinely be made. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is easily reverted. My concern is for months now this user has been honing personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a previous WP:ANI report about User:RodentofDeath inappropriately soapboxing in the userspace? This seems to ring a bell...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, or it might have been about Susanbryce (talk · contribs)... both seem to have a penchant for userspace soapboxing in their ongoing dispute.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bryce has removed most soapboxing, and seems to make good faith attempts to comply with whatever she is warned about. / edg ☺ ★ 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Susanbryce's soapboxing has been on the topic of the Philippines sex industry, whereas RodentofDeath's soapboxing has been repetitive defamatory personal attacks on Susan Bryce, calling Bryce a liar, pedophile, prostitute, childnapper, and insane person. Rodent's userpage has been deleted twice now, once for defamatation and attempted outing, another time for using copyvio in a page that also happened to be defamation of Susanbryce.

I don't wish to defend every edit Susanbryce (talk · contribs) has made, but it is frustrating to me that every complaint about RodentofDeath is met with the defense that Susanbryce probably did something to deserve this abuse. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is easily reverted. Rodent is unlikely to be banned for vandalism because he presents plausible good-faith explanations for disruptive edits, which will either get him off the hook entirely, or negotiate any sanctions to very light. My concern is for months now this user has been honing personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor.

Tagging won't fix this. A dozen or so warning templates have been appended to User_talk:RodentofDeath, and he has been banned once. This editor has learned to stop short of behavior that would mandate a ban; however, RodentofDeath sticks to an agenda that is entirely disruptive and has the effect of deterring editors from contributing. / edg ☺ ★ 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Has any form of dispute resolution been attempted with this editor? Also, I've notified the editor of this discussion--Isotope23 ^talk 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested a few times.[11] I've not seen much interest. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

the only "agenda" i have is to get rid of the lies posted on wikipedia about the city i live in. it seems that other editors are having a problem with the truth being posted and when the lies are taken out. when the truth is posted it gets labeled as an "Attack" for some odd reason. meanwhile, attacks and unfounded accusations are made not only on my city but now on me personally. my personal page has a press release from the Philippine Senate that comments on a smear campaign against my city. please comment on the posts and not the poster. thanks. RodentofDeath 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath was certainly given a chance here. Nothing came of it. However, since then Rodent has certainly been able to focus on personal attacks against Susanbryce. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

seems to me that the disagreement was between you and me and that a compromise was reached. it now seems that i am being accused of things i'm not doing, such as ip farming (still dont know what that is) and death threats. perhaps you need to go after the actual perpetrators of this instead of blaming it on me. RodentofDeath 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

im not too sure if im allowed to join in here, but if i am, id like to put forward what has happened as best as i can. i joined Wikipedia several months ago looking to be an active part of the community. Since then i have started several articles here on various subjects right across the board on the Philippines. ive also participated in other other articles. Im not an educated person, I never went to school, and english is my second language. i made some mistakes when i first joined due to harrasement by RodentofDeath. I didnt understand the way thinfs worked here and i was not getting an early support or advice, so some mistakes were made on my part, I admit it and I apoligize. But i sort out help from more experienced Editors I think starting with Phadeus86, from there numerous other Editors have been kind enough to guide me including Adhoc, Devalover and Edgarde. Ive always been giuded ny what they advised and followed that advice. I think I can safely say i have built a good working relationship with them all. Many of the subjects I touch on are difficult, but on advice from more experienced Editors im trying to contribute as best as I can. Over time I feel I have become a good Editor here on Wikipedia, im learning more all the time and im growing here and I hope to have a long future of many more articles on a wide range of topics. Almost from the beginning RodentofDeath set out with vile and degrading attacks against me. His postings on wikipedia have only been to hound me and nothing else, he has not contributed anything to wikipedia except attacking me. These attacks amount to the hndreds and hundreds over several months and still continue. Attacks against me include continuely calling me a prostitute, ifiot, lunitic, pedophile, etc. They are an attack against me as a human being and a woman and are set out to degrade, threaten, abuse , humiliate me, and i feel contain serious underlying threats to my life. i believe RodentofDeath has used multiple ip farming to attack me. its interesting that these same ip addresses are the ones that are sending death threats to my email including threats to rape and kill my daughter. Despite numerous pleas for help, i find these attacks against me in wikipedia are continuing. I contacted edgarde on this and asked if he could kindly refer this matter further. kind regards.Susanbryce 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I again ask if dispute resolution has been pursued by anyone in regards to the conflict between RodentofDeath & Susanbryce? If not it is time to start; the current status quo of editing between these two editors is not helpful to the Encyclopedia.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

she has a conflict of interest on the articles i am editing and shouldnt be editing them to begin with. RodentofDeath 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has been suggested a couple of times. I'd like to see a mediation between Susanbryce and RodentofDeath, but no one else seems keen on the idea. Since both parties seem to be reading this, I here endorse the idea again. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm nearly insistent that some form of dispute resolution happen here if both of these editors wish to continue editing here. I'm not particularly interested how this dispute even started but it needs to stop before one or both of you are blocked from editing here. dispute resolution is your best path to avoid this happening and I urge you both to agree to mediation. Continuing down the current path of incivility/personal attacks is not going to end well.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Im 100% happy for this to go to dispute resolution and fully support this resolution as I always have. I also gaureentee to abide by the outcome of the resolution.Susanbryce 14:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm a bit confused as to what exactly there is a dispute about that needs resolution. i posted a press release issued by the Senate of the Philippines that directly pertains to articles i am editing. in it it basically calls for the author of an internet petition to put up or shut up and disclose where atrocities in Angeles are actually happening or she will be considered to be running a smear campaign. press release has since been removed not because of content but because, unknowing to me previously, the "fair use" policy applies to articles only and not user pages. so where is the dispute now? RodentofDeath 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters, beyond simple fair use, you posted a press release in your userspace in regards to an ongoing series of article disputes you've had with another editor. That is soapboxing; besides, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not be an an aggregator of press releases.

From a very precursory look at the edit histories here I see quite a bit of incivility between you two though and I don't think removing that press release solves the root problem of the two of you constantly bickering over edits or accusing each other of malfeasance. This goes beyond simple article content dispute and seems to involve a fair bit of failure to assume good faith as well as bringing off-wiki disputes here and incivility towards specific editors. I urge dispute resolution because as I said above, if this behavior continues and escalates there is a very good chance that one or both of you will end up blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and if you two are unable to collaborate, come to some sort of civil agreement, or leave each other alone, then someone else will likely need to step in here.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to STOP once and for all these continuing verbal, vile and degrding attacks that RodentofDeath continues to post all over Wikipedia and till this point still continues? He seems to operate with total immunity and can post the vile and threatening attacks against me. Also, can we please have all these vile attacks he has posted removed? My daughter has read these, her school friends have read these. He continues to post over and over and over again in almost every post im a prostitiute, pedophile, etc. What have I ever done here on wikipedia to ever deserve this? PLEASE! im begging someone here to please stop this.Susanbryce 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? The response below is fairly incivil and unhelpful... but I'm not finding any evidence of "vile attacks"... if you can post page diffs here or at my talkpage I will look at them.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some things here bother me. User:RodentofDeaths posts to talk-pages, which are mainly, utterly Un-Civil in all manner of ways. They go beyond that, in their almost complete focus on attacking, personally, another editor. Yet RD's edit summaries are informative and civil. [This one] is an exception - 09:42, 4 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Human trafficking in Angeles City (if you take the time to actually read the discussion yourself instead of telling me to do it you will see that the majority think Susan Bryce is nut.)

This attack occurred on the article page. It is right to insist that both editors either co-operate appropriately on particular articles, or else face being banned. More importantly, continuing personal attacks ought not to be tolerated. If RD has any factual material to contribute, which appears to be possible, this can in no way assist wikipedia if personal attacks by RD continue. RD, though a new contributor, has done much to generate ill-will, and been reproached on the user's talk-page by a number of concerned wikipedians.

Please note, this editor has no personal affiliation or acquaintence with either editor, or any party, nor the Philipines, nor editted any of the articles in question. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the edit summary is not an attack. i am not accusing her of being a nut. if someone were to actually were to do as i asked in the summary and go back over the histories of the article and talk pages of susan's personal page, the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and the Angeles City article you will see that there are many, many editors that say either the things she is putting in the articles are completely nuts or they comment on the editor herself. i would guess that a very large number of them consist of people that are not native english speakers.

looking up the city you live in and seeing lies posted about it by someone that is running a smear campaign against your city is no way to welcome new users. no doubt they don't stick around very long and dont wish to argue the point in english. however, that does not make their opinions any less valid. RodentofDeath 08:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

response from rodentofdeath

ok, lets set the record straight here since we seem to be getting more lies and distortions already. When i started editing the article on the city i live in and subsequently the human trafficking article on the city i live in it was a complete mess. i politely went about trying to remove obvious lies such as 150,000 of Angeles's 280,000 residents are prostitutes. to save everyone the few seconds of brain power it would require to process that figure i can tell you that yes, that means more than half or all the residents (grandmas, grandpas, babies, girls, boys, teachers, police, etc) of the city are prostitutes. even when faced with obvious errors such as this it still became impossible to delete the error without a battle. the list of errors inserted into the articles is very long and wide-ranging. everything from lies saying the Angeles has the highest AIDS rate in the Philippines (it doesnt) to insisting this first class city be called a slum has been inserted into the article at every opportunity. even when presented with well documented facts from reliable sources the editor refused to face reality and instead resorted to accusing me of attacking her.

by far the largest lie inserted seems to be this ongoing obsession that angeles is filled with pedophiles, foreign gangs and rapists. of course angeles isnt actually filled with any of that so in order for her delusions to actually work there must also be a huge government conspiracy involving local, national and international governments and organizations. now when faced with the facts that there is either very little records of their being crimes of this type or the fact that there are no crimes of this type reported it simply becomes an unsubstantiated government conspiracy to cover it up. it also seems that a few other editors have an unusual reluctance to believe that angeles is NOT filled with pedophiles when faced with the facts, such as crime statistics or arrest records and now even senate inquiries that come up empty handed.

susan also at one time put a fictional story on her page. it was a rather absurd fictional story about a woman that heard a kid screaming as they were being put in a car and how she ran to pull this child away from the person putting them in the car. in the process of trying to kidnap the child she was stabbed multiple times. i later put a rather similar version of the same fictional story on my page with a slightly different view. it was of a woman that runs up to a car and tries to kidnap a child from the child's step-father resulting in the step-father defending his child from being kidnapped. this is what is apparently being considered an "attack" and it was deleted from my page. (its ok, i'm not fond of fiction anyway).

now let's get down to specifics of what i have said about susan. she claims i have continually called her:

a prostitute. the truth is i only called her a former prostitute. i only say this because it is true. it was her occupation at one time according to information she posted. she was born and raised in a brothel in a town filled with pedophiles and child prostitutes. it may even be her occupation now but i have no information about her current occupation so i will not venture a guess.

an ifiot. sorry, i dont ever recall calling you an ifiot. i'm dont even know what an ifiot is. for someone that claims to be a journalist i have noticed quite a few spelling errors on your part. in case you meant idiot instead of ifiot i also dont recall calling you that either. i may have said some of things you say are idiotic and i stand by that statement. if you can find where i called you an ifiot or an idiot please post a link so i can refresh my memory on what was being discussed.

a lunitic. dont recall calling you that either but i did call you a lunatic. i'm not sure what other word would be better to describe someone that thinks there are many people out to kill them, there are various government conspiracies, the media is trying to kill them, the philippine senate is against them and there are pedophiles gangs and rapists everywhere killing everyone in the city they come from. they are the only person that knows where everyone is being killed and so now everyone is out to get them. perhaps delusional would have been a better word. i actually stand by my assessment of your mental condition and i am sure others will agree (but perhaps only secretly!!). however, i do apologize not for my assessment of your mental state but for sharing my assessment of it with others.

a pedophile. sorry, i dont recall ever calling you a pedophile either. i do recall calling the priest you associate with a pedophile. you know which priest i mean, right? the one that was arrested for molesting the 9 year old girl and went into hiding rather than face charges?? its a good thing he didnt have to go to trial but instead got a pardon (from a secratary of the president while he was in the process being ousted in a coup). he was then able to come out of hiding. its all very well documented somewhere but not here on wikipedia. it got deleted, oddly enough.

i dont see how any of this equates to threatening you life as you claim it does. i also dont see how these four incidents could add up to hundreds and hundreds of threatening and humiliating posts. even if you math was bad i dont believe it could be that bad.

about this "multiple ip farming" thing.... i dont really understand that. Edg and now you have used this term and i honestly dont know what an ip farm is. perhaps i dont need to know the specifics seems it seems logical enough that you are accusing me of something else that i didnt do. again. i dont threaten people. thats silly as far as i am concerned. for what it worth i feel sorry for you if you are indeed getting death threats, although i have serious doubts that you are. i suggest you contact the authorities if you have not already. contact the ones that arent part of the conspiracy please.

i really dont care about your personal life, susan. all i know is what you post on the internet. things like you were born and raised in a brothel on fields that is still there, apparently. i dont care about you family life. i dont care what country you are in. i dont have nor do i want your email address. i simply dont care that much. my concern is correcting the lies you are posting on the internet about my city.

on a side note, wouldn't it be easier to tell everyone where the atrocities you post about are actually happening?? there are authorities that are trying to find and help the victims you post about but are unable to locate any signs of victims or illegal activities. please don't continue to delay in doing so.

sorry this is long winded but i feel its necessary to respond to these accusations. i wonder if it would be possible to keep these accusations all in one place so it does not continue to be spread out to other pages where it doesnt belong. RodentofDeath 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, but do you not understand how incivil much of what you've written above is? I mean you are deriding someone else over their spelling... it's wholly unnecessary, doesn't contribute to a collaborative effort, and frankly is juvenile. As I've stated above, you both need to enter into dispute resolution--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I misreported something. Apparently, Susanbryce has agreed to mediation several times, most recently on my Talk page.[12]

Would RodentofDeath agree to mediation? Most observers consider this a good idea. / edg ☺ ★ 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SURE!! what exactly are we mediating? RodentofDeath 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the content of Human trafficking in Angeles City would be a good idea.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ok. susan has a direct conflict of interest and should not be editing that article. anything else? RodentofDeath 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

well let's see how good this mediation process really is. susan has an obvious conflict of interest on the Human Trafficking in Angeles page. she should not be editing it. please see Talk:Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City#Campaigning. she has now reverted the page for no apparent reason other than it was last edited by me. so before this becomes a revert war i wish to know the outcome of the mediation and why she is able to revert to a biased version without discussion or consensus. RodentofDeath 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

no comments on her revert war? nobody wants to intervene? RodentofDeath 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

susan is now inserting lovely phrases such as this (referring to sexually transmitted disease and women and children) "Some men said that it served them right to be infected by men."

i'm all for assuming good faith but at what point do we call a spade a spade? is anybody going to stop this non-sense? RodentofDeath 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i just noticed susan is also pushing her attack of Angeles on the Angeles City article itself. The Senate of the Philippines has accused her of running a smear campaign here. i think her bias and personal agenda against the Philippines has now been well documented. RodentofDeath 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

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

Closed per request -- Avi 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CLOSE AND DELETE (OR AT LEAST ARCHIVE) THIS SECTION? SOMEONE HAS FOUND AN OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE UK STATEMENT WITH THE DISPUTED SECTION INCLUDED. SO I WANT TO WITHDRAW THE ACCUSATION.--Peter cohen 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Most readers here will be aware that there is an ongoing POV dispute about the categorisation of Jerusalem and Category:Jerusalem as part of a much bigger dispute on Wikipedia about Israeli-Palestinian issues in general.

Today Amoruso made this change [13]. I at first took this to be just a selective quatation from the British government's Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) website [14]. The relevant section appears under the heading "THE UK POSITION ON JERUSALEM" in the second half of the page.

User:Timeshifter has now compared the two texts and has posted this [15]. If you look at the phrase Timeshifter has emboldened "but considers that the city should not again be divided", it appears in the quotation posted in the change by User:Amoruso but not on the FCO website.

When faced with a dispute, editors rely on their peers posting accurate information from external sources. Amoruso has not posted accurate information. Instead he has posted a quotation from a document which appears to official but is actually a doctored version of the official document intended to advance a point of view.

The posting of such Disinformation is unacceptable and a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia and the editorial discussions that taken place in it. Please could an uninvolved administrator take appropriate action?

Obviously the first stage is to assume good faith and see whether Amuroso picked the disinformation up from a third party source. However, the use of such material to undermine the normal process of editorial discussion must be addressed urgently.--Peter cohen

Have you already talked to the editor? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in this context, but I have previously directed him to that very FCO page. Se my post at [16]. I'm afraid that I find it hard to believe that he could accidentally post the misquotation having been given a direct link to the officaial statement only a couple of days earlier. I'm sorry if it might seem a breach of Wikiquette, but my judgment is influenced by the following factors.

Earlier today I saw this post drawing attention to a campaign from outside to influence the content of Wikipedia [17]

Comments by Amoruso above in #Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem make me feel that he is not interested in honest debate. For example, "It's not difficult to see that Peter Cohen is talking about something completely different which is whether Jerusalem is recognised as Israel's capital or not." is a similar distortion of what I was saying as the distortion of the FCO comment. I had stated there that the status of Jerusalem as in Israel was disputed by the UK as a simple check back will prove.

Then, "I'll WP:AGF and remember the rule that this is not malice, but simply lack of knowledge on his part on the issue" hints at my being malicious and then says my views should simply be dismissed because I'm ignorant. "Wikipedia is not a place for such propaganda of Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi websites." suggests that Timeshifter, is a neo-Nazi supporter and perhaps I am too.

Then reverts such as this [18] accuse editors of having made "offensive" contributions.

As I said before, this needs an uninvolved and impartial administrator involved. --Peter cohen 19

20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really rise to the level of needing ANI intervention. However, you've raised a valid question about the quote, and I asked him on his talk page to explain the source and why the versions differ.

Please keep in mind that ANI is not a user conduct complaints board except for extreme situations; someone merely having misrepresented or misquoted a source on a talk page, even on purpose, isn't really all that extreme of a problem. Georgewilliamherbert 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no misquotation. I have to say it's hard to WP:AGF since the person went here and not to my talk page (which George was kind enough to do). It's therefore a lie and the person raising this issue in a slanderous way should be reprimanded, hopefully with a ban for wasting ANI's time. See the proof here: [19] or read the source directly word by word: [20] Amoruso 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:I now noticed peter Cohen's comment on the top of the section. But I'm afraid it's not enough. Peter cohen should be banned for taking it here in the first place and not even apologizing. Amoruso 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By pure coincidence, knowing nothing about this AN/I, I had some concerns about edits by User:Amoruso at Patria. As a result of which I took "Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor?" to RfC. PalestineRemembered 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered was previosuly banned for indefinite time "(Fraudulent citations and repeats of other past misbehavior, user has had plenty of chances.)" and then "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Based on discussion at WP:AN/I and WP:CN)" and "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Reblocking per breach of his unblocking terms)"... Amoruso 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I apologise for the slur on Amoruso's character and for leaping to conclusions and making 2+2=4. (I think the links given in the original complaint show why I thought 2+2=5.) My request for the deletion was because I didn't want the title of this thread to continue to be visible. Because this is an administrative conference and the thread already had comments by third parties I was wary of deleting it myself. I thought that putting a request in capital letters at the top of the thread was best for drawing attention to is. But the thread is still here. Now it contains a complaint against me, I'm even more wary of doing so. If complainants are allowed to delete or doctor the text of the complaint as part of withdrawl of the complaint in a more substantial, then please let me know on my talk page.--Peter cohen 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenian Genocide being removed

I'd appreciate it if someone would look over this. User:Atabek has been removing every reference to the Armenian genocide in many articles or putting words such as "alleged" in front, all today: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

Thanks.Hajji Piruz 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree block him immediately! this is not necessary!!! --85.18.242.26 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see [40] he is removing Armenian Genocide everywhere! --85.18.242.26 22:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't see how the term "Armenian Genocide" is supposed to be a fact, rather allegations of it are. Can you point me to Wikipedia rule that says that allegations of "Armenian Genocide" cannot be questioned? I did not remove the reference, but only replaced it with Armenian Massacres, which is more correct definition and points to the same page. According to the UN convention, genocide is a crime, for any crime there must be a court which identifies the content and victim of the crime and charges those responsible. Otherwise, it remains an allegation. I would also like to highlight that the person reporting me is a party to current ArbCom [41], charged with assumptions of bad faith, battling along ethnic and national lines, wikistalking and other forms of disruptive editing. His listing of my contributions above is another fine example of his Wikistalking documented here [42]. Thanks. Atabek 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are canvassing with irrelevant information. Are you not also in an arbcom? Yes you are, and this is in no way anything what you call it to be. This is the removal of the term Armenian genocide on mass on many articles based on your own interpretation and on what you would like it to be. The term Armenian Genocide is widely used and accepted.Hajji Piruz 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"for any crime there must be a court which identifies..." Uh, no. Murder is murder, even if the murderer is never convicted (we just need really really good sources to say that he is, the BLP thing and all). Same with genocide when there is insurmountable evidence, no matter how many people claim it is merely "alleged" (even if it's the government of Turkey!). The use of the word is in complete violation of WP:NPOV. Someguy1221 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The allegation here is the term not the fact. And that's why I replaced it with Massacres in most cases, because that's what they were. Genocide is legal definition which was never attributed on legal basis, in fact the very term of "genocide" per UN Convention was defined in 1940s. So using "genocide" word as a fact is an utter violation of NPOV as it only represents the position of a single side in this dispute and obviously attributes a certain non-neutral political stance to Wikipedia as a source. Atabek 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Genocide definitions? Anyway, Wikipedia is not bound to UN decisions. If many independent, reliable sources call it a genocide, so can we. Someguy1221 00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Wikipedia bound to take POV of a single side in a rather controversial issue. So the usage of the word "alleged" was definitely NOT a vandalism. And I am not even mentioning the fact that scores of non-Armenian people also perished in the region during the same time. Per comment below, this will be my last on the topic on this page. You can post your opinions on the subject on relevant content pages. Thanks. Atabek 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: Do not export your content disputes to this page. —Kurykh 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IP complaining about an established user's POV? That's new. Will ^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Two points. The IP backup, i agree, is odd, but probably a different issue. As to this being a content dispute, I find it difficult to write things off as content disputes when they spread to multiple pages and involve unusual POVs being pushed. Calling the events 'alleged acts of Armenian Genocide' is about as neutral as 'the supposed Holocaust'. It's a ridiculous whitewashing and revisionist action. There are numerous sources to cite for the term. Further, Atabek's wiki-lawyering above, about how crimes need to be tried in court and proven guilty, etc., etc., isn't a good faith discussion point, but a 'gotcha' attempt.

To get back on the major point, though. I find it troubling that editors, often newer ones but not always (the Indian/Pakistani editors and the Palestinian/Israeli editors, for example), bring major efforts to push POV across entire subjects here, encompassing numerous articles, and though regular AN/I editors KNOW it will be back as soon as some rule is violated, we throw it back, saying 'content dispute, try WP:3O or WP:DR or WP:RfC', instead of addressing the offending editor's obvious POV pushing, what ever that Agenda may be. We know it'll kick back to us when somene breaks Godwin's Law, or 3RR, or some other mess. Why do we delay? On a single article, kicking it for 3O or DR makes a lot of sense, but project wide revisionisms could be headed off here more easily than on 15 different article pages, which smacks of forum shopping, because you can probably find the two ends of the spectrum on any topic here, and have two relatively unique groups of regular editors. Convince one that your way is right, then bring it to the other group as consensus for your edit, and it gets messy. Further, doing this on 10 to 15 pages means you get a lot of chances to 'get your way', giving you a toehold to push some agenda, especially if you push it on a quiet page, then claim that no one reverted, therefore consensus. Stepping in at this point is treacherous and muddy water. Instead, why can't we step in now, asking the involved parties to create a single user talk or wikiproject subpage for such discussion, and holding it all in one place, notify all relevant pages, and let them work it out centrally, but with our awareness? I really am serious, and really would like an answer as to why there's no attempt at proactivity with such editors. The sooner they're talked to, the less 'dug in' their heels are, and the more we can reach them, to help them out, or stop them. ThuranX 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it could be argued that Atabek's behavior violates the spirit, if not the letter, of his 1RR parole. It certainly would be actionable under this proposal currently under consideration by ArbCom. Thatcher131 12:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, could you explain under this proposal, which you mentioned above, how does the statement: "should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise." apply in this case? Did I not maintain a reasonable degree of civility in my interactions with another user in the given set of edits? If so, can you please, outline the facts of incivility, so I can perhaps, review my behavior. Thanks. Atabek 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I can tell there is no real dispute that the Armenian Genocide occured. Adding alleged before it is whitewashing and extremely disruptive. The Arbcom thing just settles it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

VOicing some editor (non-admin) support for both Thatcher131 and Jester's comments. ThuranX 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again as I explained, "alleged" in my edits applied to the term "genocide" not to the fact of massacre. I believe Wikipedia often prohibits the frivolous use of WP:WTA words, like terrorist, etc. without source, even in cases when the organization is established as terrorist. In this case, "genocide" word is being applied to the "massacre" without any legal basis, but simply based on political and not legal definitions, and is being used as a political tool rather than an impartial attempt to identify the events. Going even further, the user is being blamed for merely bringing up the opposition to non-neutral POV with threats of being blocked? Atabek 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Atabek is wiki-retaliating[43] there is no doubt that this was an answer to Azizbekov's recent edits on Azeri related articles[44]. Azizbekov seems to be an Azeri who's interested in Azeri involvment in Nazi Germany. Most of Azizbekov's edits were on the Azerbaijani legion, Atabek edit on Armenian Legion was simply a retaliation. I just wonder, given that Atabek has probably broken most of Wikipedia's policies, is there anything left to convince you that he should at least be blocked for 24 hours? VartanM 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be relevant to analyze user:VartanM removal of referenced info without discussion on this page [45] about Armenian Nazi Legion--Dacy69 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That was good one Dacy69, perhaps you should look at the talkpage of the article before claiming such ridiculous claims. This was posted in the talkpage 10 minutes after [46]

Thuranx, I never denied Holocaust, the fact of which was established by Nuremberg trials, a legal process, which identified the victims and punished those responsible for this crime against humanity. So I don't see the point for your comparison. And in Armenian case, I added alleged to the claim of political and legal term "genocide" NOT to the fact of "massacre". In fact, most of my edits on those pages replaced genocide with massacre, thus claiming that I deny it as a fact do not have a basis. This has to do with legal definitions, and in situation when the other side of the dispute is rejecting the term "genocide", the usage of this term is not neutral and is simply an imposition of a viewpoint in Wikipedia as a fact. Using it against me in ArbCom case is even more ridiculous, provided that numerous cases of major removal of sourced material [47], [48] with reinsertion of OR instead here [49] are simply being overlooked and I am being blamed for simply opposing a non-neutral point. If this will be used against me in ArbCom, I reserve the right to further pursue the case with Wikipedia until proven NPOV. I believe this project is supposed to be impartial not pushing POV of single national group against another nation and country. Atabek 14:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Voicing support for Jester and Thatcher - the genocide is only in dispute in Turkey; not even so, since nobody is allowed to talk about it there. It would be more POV to not call it a genocide. I also note I studied this genocide in my human rights law class in law school. --David Shankbone 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this breaches out of the realm on content dispute and into the realm of boldfaced trolling. Anyone putting "alledged" in front of the Holocaust of the Armenian Genocide (or other confirmed genocides) as well as a host of other "probably citable but blatantly inappropriate" substitutions isn't acceptable, and is a "blocking" offense. I could probably dig up some old dictionary that'd justify changing black people to niggers whereever the phrase occured, but if I did this, I should be blocked without hesitation. WilyD 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this is rollback-able per WP:SNOW. If Atabek really thinks he can get consensus for his approach, let him seek it first, by debating on talkpages. If he doesn't, his edits are trolling, and he should be warned, and blocked if he persists. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just present this wealth of sources that every third person studied in college that states "genocide" as opposed to massacre. The issue as presented has nothing to do with if many people died, it has to do with sourcing the term genocide it seems to appropriate people. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide has 84 references, Recognition of the Armenian Genocide has another 30 - that the Armenian Genocide happened, that it was a genocide is not seriously disputed. It's disputed roughly on the same level that the Holocaust happened, and that the Holocaust was a genocide is disputed. WilyD 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this isn't the place to discuss this. The upshot is: present your case at Talk:Armenian genocide first, achieve consensus, and then start changing terminology all over Wikipedia. This noticeboard is not the place to discuss sources, it is the place to report editors who disruptively fail to discuss sources. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Adding "alledged" in front of stuff like that is not a content dispute - it's unmitigated vandalism. And this is a place to complain about it. WilyD 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Holocaust has nothing to do with this case, as indicated above, the fact of it was established by Nuremberg trials. In any case, if that's the conclusion, then I would kindly suggest for all those justifying the "genocide" definition in this case, to create a separate page or issue a Wikipedia rule/injunction, which says "Armenian Genocide" is recognized in Wikipedia community and denial of the term "genocide" in application to these massacres is punishable by restriction or blockage. And I think all those opposing such claim (possibly counting in millions) must be made aware of this rule ahead of time as well, as such restriction is clearly new to me. Otherwise, haunting contributors, without rule, and based merely on their opinion and position over a controversial issue, does not seem to be very productive or educational.

Also, the comment: "the genocide is only in dispute in Turkey; not even so, since nobody is allowed to talk about it there. It would be more POV to not call it a genocide" - do you call something white because someone else calls it black or because you are provided with sufficient basis to believe it should be called white?

I will post on this subject no more. Thanks. Atabek 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, had you ever participated in the talkpage of that articles you would see that the usage of Armenian Genocide was shown to be appropriate and even Turkish veteran users don't revert or remove them. The fact of the Armenian genocide was established by a Turkish martial court who sentenced the Ittihadist leaders to death, the same leaders who were too coward to attend their own trials but left their lawyers to defend them. Insteed they moved to Germany seeking asylum. The International Association of Genocide Scholars which includes all major historians studying war crimes and genocides unanimously recognize it as a genocide. The only report by the UN including cases and examples of genocides included the Armenian case before Turkey threatened and messed the whole thing. The UN as a consequence has no official document voted which specifically includes the examples of genocide. See you in the talk page of Armenian Genocide VartanM 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Deleting My comments and Lying About It

An editor, Gtadoc, is behaving unethicallly, in extreme bad faith, and probably vandalizing a Talk page. The following events have taken place in Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki:
1) I left a comment calling him dishonest (also giving the reasons, and restating the reasons for my version of the edit).
2) He deleted the entire comment (not merely the accusation of dishonesty).
3) I restored the comment, and told him not to delete editor comments on Talk pages.
...a few days passed...
4) He deleted the entire comment again (not merely the accusation of dishonesty)
5) He added a comment that I am the one who deleted my own post, in order to remove my "personal attacks" from the record. He followed this with an accusation of dishonesty.

The utterly unaceptable, unethical act is the attempt to attribute his deletion of my comment to me, as a way of propping up an accusation of dishonesty. All ability to assume goood faith ends at that point. It is a deliberate attempt to tear down my reputation. I believe the deletions are also vandalism, as I doubt a claim of dishonesty meets the standard of personal attack that justifies deleting another editor's comments. And in any case, he should not be deleting all the other parts of my comment.

Here is the diff that shows the edit deleting my comment and the addition of his suggestion that I deleted my own comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=149994708&oldid=149990048 Bsharvy 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you called him dishonest. The definition of "dishonest" is, according to dictionary.com, "not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief". Calling someone dishonest is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. You may believe he or she is dishonest, but this is a collaborative project; to work in a collaborative atmosphere, sometimes you simply have mince your words. You could have said, "You are misrepresenting my actions. (1) The changes I made were precededed ...." Phrasing your statement like that at least makes it appear that you are at issue with his or her actions, as opposed to his or her person (by saying he or she is dishonest). I agree that you should be able to restore your comment, but perhaps you can rephrase it? --Iamunknown 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That kinda doesn't make any sense. If I think someone lied, I should instead say, I think they misunderstood me? So they can say, yeah thats what it was, and get off about lying? This idea of lying to everyone, so you do not seem like you are violating WP:AGF defeats the point. You should AGF until the point where you obviously no longer, then you call it, calling a spade a spade. WP:SPADE --SevenOfDiamonds 23:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling calling somebody dishonest "the ultimate assumption of bad faith" seems odd. But the Iamunknown dude has a point. Simply, yes, even if you're pretty sure somebody is dishonest, try to avoid calling him dishonest. Whatever the rights and wrongs of calling him dishonest, it's unlikely to advance your aims. Avoid accusations of dishonesty, however blazingly obvious the dishonesty may be, unless/until matters reach this stage.

I haven't yet looked at the talk page in question. The "real world" calls; I hope others will take a look. -- Hoary 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I probably shouldn't have been so hyperbolic. I am sure there are other worse assumptions of bad faith. But it is true, nonetheless, that calling someone "dishonest" is an assumption of bad faith, because you are stating that they neither can nor should be trusted. --Iamunknown 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds, what has "calling a spade a spade" in this case done other than to inflame the situation? Why is it appropriate? Is it ever appropriate? There are more collegial and collaborative ways to say, "You're a liar", than to say, "You're a liar". Like, for example, "You are misrepresenting the situation." Semantics, yes, but it does wonders when you are trying to work in a collaborative environment. --Iamunknown 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If everyone in the environment is aware that "You are misrepresenting the situation." is equal to "You're a liar", then it kind of defeats the point of pleasantries. I do see your point, please do not think I do not. But telling someone here, to lie to everyone when they are trying to have admins look at a situation, is pointless. If someone comes and says "John seems to not understand what I am saying", then admins will tell them to explain differently. If you however are honest, to yourself, and to those you are attempting to seek help from, it helps them to get at what point the situation is. I see on this page often, admins calling people trolls and vandals, and other terms, it is odd to see people now saying "liar" is bad, when they are comparing people to mystical ugly beasts that live under bridges. But as I said, in other areas where the point of collaboration is still active, I get it, however when that collaboration has ceased due to AGF being lost, which is different then never having been assumed in the first place, then it is time to seek help by stating everything honestly. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect it's obvious that announcing his dishonesty didn't help (even though it was accurate). But that is really not the point. I am not asking for administrative action because he deleted my comment. Much, much more serious is his (dishonest) assertion that I am the one who deleted my own comment, so that he can then make false accusations against me (I am trying to hide my "personal attack"...am being dishonest myself, etc.). That is not merely aggressive words where softer words would be better: that is an absolute end to good faith. In any case, I am becoming obsessed with this, so I am going to take a 24 hour break from Wikipedia. But the level here has escalated beyond what a mere undo by me can fix.Bsharvy 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, To start, I think it says a lot that this complaint was posted w/o the complaining editor notifying me of it. As I've been told of it by another editor I'll post here briefly. I've deleted numerous posts by Bsharvy after he created what appears to be a single purpose account in order to disrupt the page on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Random personal attacks were inserted all over the place so I deleted any of them I found, what he posted here was probably one of the more mild ones, I tried not to delete anything that was an actual comment that was just written in an imflamatory way. After Bsharvy was blocked for 3RR and disruption he then also went back and cleaned up after himself (which is fine, as I prefer the page w/o the vandalism but wasn't going to spend each day looking for it and deleting it) and at one point requested for his usertalkpage to be protected to keep admins and editors from leaving warnings and block messages about his edits. At first several editors tried to hold discussions with him but its become clear to the editors that have been putting effort into the page for a while now that Bsharvy's edits are the classic "refusal to get to the point" edits and several of us have simply grown tired of repeating ourselves. In any event, I have very little time to work with WP as it is, much less deal with disruptive editors, which probably accounts for why I didn't get an admin involved with that page earlier. Gtadoc 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well, most of that is...a lie. All one has to do is look at the diff to see that Gtadoc deleted my comments, not me; this is stated by the admin who restored my comments. I posted a notice of this complaint on his Talk page the same time as I made this complaint...I won't bother to continue.Bsharvy 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous use of real name.

I humbly request that this sort of gratuitous personal attack not be permitted. I've repeatedly requested the editor not to use my real name when it is unnecessary, and he is now adding it in gratuitously. I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that your username is "TedFrank" you may find it hard to keep people from calling you that. Have you considered a username change? Friday (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's bizarre that User:TedFrank, who used his real name as his User name, has a problem with editors (I am not the only one) when they use his user name, which happens to be his real name. People consistently use "David Shankbone" when writing to me. Ted Frank said there is a WP:Policy against "gratuitous use of name" and then began editing talk page comments. So, Ted wants to have a user name that nobody uses. Regardless, Ted has never, ever made such a request to me, he just began editing my Talk page comments. --David Shankbone 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit unreasonable to request that users not refer to you by your username. There is no such policy for this. If your real name was not disclosed, it would be harassment to continue to use it, but your name has been provided willingly. Granted, users who don't want the hassle can use THF in the future, but it's unreasonable to ask others not to call you by your username. Leebo ^T/C 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for my username to be changed to THF. I was naive and didn't realize that people were going to engage in wild and untrue personal attacks against me, perhaps because I mistakenly thought that Wikipedia WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA rules would be enforced. THF 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

David, please be a good sport & use "THF". Ted, please realize that your current username is a perfectly valid way to address you on Wikipedia. I know of no policy that's being violated, but a little less hostility and a little more common sense could end this little dispute now. — Scientizzle 17:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You would not wear a name tag, say to a convention, with a name other than what you wanted to be called. Likewise if you did, you cant get mad at people for calling you the name on your name tag. In short change your nametag, dont try to change everybody reading it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm totally willing to be a good sport; but may I suggest to Ted that he pop by my Talk page and make future requests, instead of making the unilateral decision to edit my Talk page comments, especially since we are engaged in a very contentious issue on several pages? That seems reasonable and sportsman-like. --David Shankbone 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — Scientizzle 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note I also want to note that the issue "THF", David Shankbone ("DS") and others are having with THF is over an article he specifically wrote under his real name and is trying to inject on multiple articles, so use of that real name is not particularly unseemly in the context of these discussions. --David Shankbone 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a related thread concerning THF on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard. I've commented, per a request on my talk, but would welcome some input from others as well. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations against THF

This is the thread Brad is talking about. The problem stems from an ambiguity in the WP:COI guidelines. WP:COI simultaneously refers to two things:

• The existence of a conflict of interest; and
• The conflict of interest guideline

This leads to unnecessary confusion: WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to certain procedural limitations, but other editors misread that to believe that the existence of a conflict of interest violates WP:COI, leading to a lot of time wasted on the COI noticeboard. The report on me (which two administrators have commented on already) is a good example: WP:COI compliance requires editors with a conflict of interest to discuss edits on the talk page. DSB left a lengthy report accusing me of violating WP:COI because I was discussing edits on the talk page after I disclosed a conflict of interest, when in fact, that is exactly what WP:COI says I should do. Someone can be subject to WP:COI and comply with WP:COI: it's a two-part inquiry, and some sort of disambiguation is necessary to distinguish the two to avoid these problems. Per a suggestion by an administrator, I've made some edits to WP:COI that do not change the meaning, but resolve the ambiguity. They are discussed here. THF 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more than a couple of us who find THF's behavior disingenuous, and WP:GAME-y. It's at best extraordinary poor form to edit the Conflict of Interest guidelines when he himself is (and has been) up for a Conflict of Interest incident (so he disagrees with the merits - what subject of a COI doesn't?); he writes and sells an article on Michael Moore that includes his own version of highest grossing documentaries, used by nobody, has it posted on his employer's website (for which he is paid) and then strenuously argues for its inclusion on multiple pages, raising the argument that if we don't include it then it's POV (while nobody else in the Mainstream Media uses it). It's a bit difficult to assume good faith through much of this, when almost universally everyone acknowledges he is on Wikipedia with an agenda. I think wider comment on the totality of your edits would be merited, and how you go about them. Gaming the rules and guidelines is disdained as much as flatly violating them. I would venture a guess that, excepting the situation with THF, 98% of my edits are uncontroversial, where has less than third of THF's edits are the same. He is involved in many Talk page disputes and edit wars, which has been pointed out on several boards. --David Shankbone 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DSB is disruptively forum-shopping after having his false allegations rejected on WP:COI/N. Can an administrator please confirm that this set of edits to WP:COI is consistent with COI guidelines? THF 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How is David forum-shopping? You're the one that started this topic, not him.--Atlan (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He's raising a false allegation of Wikipedia guidelines violations that has been rejected over and over and over. At what point does this become tendentious? Or can he raise the same rejected allegation on every page that I edit and force me to waste time defending myself instead of editing Wikipedia? THF 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, but a bit more discretion on your own part would also be helpful. A wise person recognizes that even if certain things are permissible, sometimes it is better to refrain from doing them. Raymond Arritt 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The solution is obvious. THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance - and abide by their decision. The complaint about using his name looks very much like an attempt to distract attention from this blindingly obvious fact. If THF refuses to take a step back from promoting his own work, then the next step is RfC and ArbCom. This is not, I think the first time he has been in difficulties of this nature. I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance. This is exactly what I did: I disclosed a COI, made my case in an RFC at 19:01 on a talk page yesterday 17 hours ago, and made no further arguments, not even responding when DSB made additional false personal attacks on me on that talk page and misrepresented facts in his argument against inclusion. Neutral editors are evaluating the proposed edit. It won't be in the mainspace unless they agree. My role in that dispute is entirely over. Not once did I edit mainspace to promote my article. This is exactly what WP:COI compliance says I should do, and exactly what I did do. In terms of whether my edits have been disruptive, I note that this is the fifth time I have had to request an RFC for Sicko, and the first four times, the RFC agreed that I was correct, and that changes to the article were required; this time, a respected administrator has agreed that my proposed edit merits some change to the article. Consensus may not agree with him at the end of the day, but my request wasn't frivolous, and, at least some of my proposed edit may be adopted, though perhaps without the cite to me.

But DSB is continuing to harass me: we now have four administrators who have participated in the COI/N thread, and all four have rejected the complaint that I violated the COI guideline. DSB re-raised the allegations here and a fifth administrator, Raymond Arritt, rejected them. Not satisfied, DSB posts again at 12:12 today on AN/I repeating the same allegations that are about to be closed at COI/N without identifying a single new fact, instead raising a content dispute that I am not even currently participating in.

Wow, you say you made your case to include your own work and then made no further comment, but then why do you have reams and reams of paper making the argument on the Talk:Sicko page that if we don't use your article, we will be violating WP:NPOV. Again, this is disingenuous, Ted. One of the last steps you took was the RfC, after strenuously arguing for inclusion of your hit piece on Talk:Sicko, WikiProject:Films, Talk:The Dream is Alive and Talk:Jackass Number Two. --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I remind Guy that the last time I was "in difficulties of this issue" in February, the other editor was indef-blocked for particularly nasty harassment and legal threats. I don't know why he thinks it is a damning fact that I was a victim of harassment, and it is unfair of him to insinuate that that was somehow my fault. THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think THF has a point at all, and he's the one who tried to get the his article on multiple pages, and lodged an accusation against me as on the name change page as his reason. WP:KETTLE. The COI board had quite a few users that felt THF's strenuous, constant efforts to have his paid work ranking documentaries by his own criteria posted on his employer's website violated COI. Had he started on the barely-trafficed The Dream is Alive page (as he did eventually) and nobody noticed an answered, and he made the edit, would that not have been a COI violation? He would have been in the letter, but not the spirit, of the policy. This is all too WP:GAME-y and disingenuous. There were serious problems with WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and WP:NPOV with including his article. Ted spammed his story on the conservative blogosphere, and then said "Blogs are starting to pick this up" to defend that nobody uses this list. It was pointed out to him that even when he spammed his story on conservative blogs, right-wingers themselves questioned why he included Jackass Number Two and Eddie Murphy Raw on a list of documentaries. I stand by my actions, and I still find it a COI issue, as do many other people. The name issue was really the ultimate: I am the author, who wrote this piece, and who has now tried to have it put on as many film articles as possible, and yet -- don't you dare use my name when discussing it! Get real! Two days ago I told Ted I actually respect his edits; I have absolutely no respect, and assume no good faith, where his edits are concerned. I think he has completely ruined any good faith assumptions this week. And yes, this is the second time he has been brought before COI. --David Shankbone 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The record will reflect that the first time I was brought up before COI, it was by an editor in a content dispute who was upset that he had lost an RFC: two administrators evaluated the allegation and found no COI, much less a violation of the COI guideline. DSB knows this, yet repeats a false allegation. DSB issued the second COI complaint, and four administrators have unanimously rejected it on COI/N. Yet he raises it again here, ten hours after an administrator on the COI/N board asked to close the earlier complaint. Again: how many times must identical attacks on me be rejected before someone asks DSB to stop attacking me? THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous COI, and the last one, all point to your editing articles that deal directly with your employer, that you do during your work day, and trying to have your own unnotable (paid) work for that employer put on multiple pages, and then saying we are violating policy if we don't put it on. Not only do I find this COI, I (and at least six other editors) find the totality of your edits to be agenda-driven, in violation of WP:NPOV. That you misrepresent your edits here is par for the course. --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, DavidShankbone is a highly respected editor on wikipedia with many valued contributions on a variety of topics, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with you. He certainly has better things to do than forum shop just to harass you, and accusations of such are quite laughable. You might want to question whether it is your own behavior at fault here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward, as Guy mentioned. THF did the right thing by proposing his piece on the talk page. But he's gone overboard by vociferously arguing for its inclusion and trying to shout down people who object to it. It's permissible to introduce a source you've authored for consideration on the talk page, but then you have to let it stand or fail on the judgement of other, uninvolved editors. Expending this amount of energy arguing in favor of his source indicates, to me, that it lacks the approval of such uninvolved editors. The rest is just yelling. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

allegations by 74.86.28.230 against THF

• Gosh. Why am I not surprised there is a section on here regarding THF?

I have contributed countless man-days to Wikipedia, without credit, and have always found contributors and admins to be more than reasonable, and flexible. Suddenly I encountered THF a few weeks ago, delving into a topic I know rather a lot about, but which he demonstrably only has superfical knowledge. I countered his extreme edits on the talk page: only to be met with a wall of 'adminspiel': reference to WP:EL as though it was not subject to interpretation (except for HIS interpretation of course).

Common sense, history, and IMPORTANTLY, the value of the article to the PUBLIC are out of the window. The blunt instrument of his, and only his, interpretation is applied. From the above, he has obviously been busy causing issues with others, but sadly today he is back with hos over-the-top, over-zealous, wielding of the edit-axe.

Is there no way of getting control of this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

74.86.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a WP:SPA, objects to my objection to his repeated insertion of WP:SPAM to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act article, which includes advertisements for SOX-related firms. I encourage administrators to evaluate the dispute, since the page is poorly policed, permitting the anon's edit-warring. I should have escalated it sooner. THF 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What I object to is the overbearing ill-considered edit attempts by this individual. He applies his interpretations of the guidelines as though no other interpretation was possible. He chops all those links en masse, yet he clearly has almost no knowledge of Sarbanes Oxley, the history of those links, or the article on Wikipedia.

It is so easy to chop any article to pieces on the basis of one stilted interpretation of WP:EL. So easy to go into robotic mode, and ignore the effect on the value of the article, or indeed, how silly it will look when certain references are chopped.

WP:EL is essential, but it is equally essential that it is applied with commpon sense, and neutral interpretation. THF fails to do this. This was crystal celar when I saw his edits. Finding this page, and seeing what others thought of his approach simply confirmed that he makes a habit of this.

The pattern is clear from above. Really, someone should address this matter and deal with the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

The links are a mixed bag. I see one that's apparently an academic study, and some others that are dodgy. Suggest both parties trim the list judiciously instead of inserting and reverting in toto. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many many academic studies. These two are from for-profit groups, and can be included in the main text to the extent they are notable. If we include every academic study in the EL, there's going to be a WP:NOT problem, and if we don't, there's a WP:WEIGHT problem. The decision to trim eight of the eleven links was judicious, and, in any event, the anon editor (who has made four reverts of two editors so far today) explicitly rejects the deletion of the plain spam link, and has rejected the consensus calling for the deletion after an RFC. THF 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is a typical example of distortion to support some other unknown agenda.

I tried the link by link approach. I selected the Sarbanes-Oxley-Forum in particular to debate simply because that has a particularly strong case and is so central to the compliance efforts of so many. So motivated was THF to chop everything, that he cited a 'typo' as evidence that it didn't belong! That level of desperation to get one's way suggests some other mission is at play with respect to him.

It is pointless debating with THF, but that particular source is extensive, and the forum section doesn't operate as standard forum, but largely as a Q&A ref some of the biggest names in the SOA arena, thus having become the biggest reference source for information on the topic!

As for academic sources, the line that 'none should appear because there are many', is like slamming a door on knowledge. Why not research and list the most useful? Or if too lazy, leave what is there?

Indeed. There is no good answer. Hence back to us questionning his REAL motives here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

First of all, external links are not references. They should be material which extends the article but cannot, for a variety of reasons, be included in the article. On a given academic topic, there will be thousands of different articles related to it; not all should be included -- only those which are directly pertinent to the article, and are probably discussed in the articles. In addition, please remember to assume good faith all around, and to sign your posts. --Haemo 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry by spammer

• Sarbanes-Oxley Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.86.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A WP:SPA who admits to "using several accounts to contribute" is repeatedly inserting links to an obscure talk-forum that consists mostly of spam in violation of WP:3RR, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and the consensus of an RFC. He rejects the talk-page consensus because the anon considers himself more of an "expert" than the three editors who removed the link. (This is irrelevant--WP:OWN--but the only stated evidence for the expertise is the anon's recognition of the alleged value of the spam-link.) Some real WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TALK violations also on the talk-page and edit summaries. Intervention needed from an administrator, as the user is ignoring dispute-resolution procedures and just about every Wikipedia policy and guideline and the page is little-trafficked. THF 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User Scipio3000

Concerns about his previous actions have not been addressed. [50] . Fresh off his second block, he has made blanket attacks on Wikipedia [51], and appears to be claiming ownership of one of the contested articles [52] where he has a heading titled ‘On my article, Sicily'. Also, since the end of his block, Scipio3000 has accused User El C, the one who blocked him, of vandalism, threatened to report him, and said he had ‘no right to butt in’. [53] Edward321 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For now I have issued another 48 hour block after he violated the 3rr rule on the Sicily article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about unblocking him to try dispute resolution? We could always request that he does not edit the Sicily article for 48 hours or until the dispute has been settled. The 48 hour block, though not improper, may not be the best solution. Pascal.Tesson 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was considering this since El C's post on Scipio's talk page regarding the request not to issue a 3rr block. But today I was convinced that this block should still stand. What convinced me was this post by JodyB that provided a diff link showing that Scipio had not been truthful in saying that he had not removed talk page sections from the Talk:Sicily page. But I am still open to any other admin willing to grant the unblock.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose El C should probably make the call then since he will probably be the admin most involved in future dispute resolution with Scipio3000. By the way, I have declined his latest unblock request since this is essentially what this thread is supposed to do. Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Scipio always comes up with these heartfelt pleas each time he's warned or blocked. The first time, I bought it and thought it was genuine. Then, when he was no longer being observed, he returned to deleting parts of pages and making very strong personal insults. He is frequently lying to put himself in a more positive light. Edward321 reported a few days ago that Scipio had changed the names in a report that Edward had made to make it appear as if Edward had commited the offences Scipio had done. He claimed that his fight with me was about me claiming stuff about the Holy Roman Empire, a subject of which I have never written a word. Yesterday he was asked by a moderator if he had erased comments from the talk page on Sicily and replied no. The moderator found out that he had been lying, and that's part of the reason he became blocked again. During the last week, Scipio has deleted large parts of articles without given any explanations, violated 3RR, lied about his actions, lied about others, falsified reports and attacked other contributors over their race and religion. See the reports by Edward [54] and myself [55], [56] as well as all the information he has removed from his talk page. During my time at Wikipedia, I've come across very few users that are this disruptive and violates so many Wikipedia policies. It's a bit strange that we're discussing if the short block of two days should be lifted, I find it to be very short given his behaviour during the last few days. JdeJ 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The block was in place before I had the exchange with him about deleting sections from Talk:Sicily. I am happy to continue watching him very closely but I support the block and would not remove it. I think he could be a useful editor as he is obviously enthused and passionate about the subject. Of course he must learn to work well with others. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I thought that was the reason. It's possible that he could become a constructive editor, but I admit to being sceptical. Being hot tempered is one thing, all of us can get upset at times. That he is frequently lying about his actions and about what others have done is more serious. I'm also concerned over his edits to Sicily. It's not just that he deletes large parts of the page, what he deletes is references to Arab, African and Jewish cultures being present in Sicily. That worries me. I've recently had some harsh words thrown at me by another contributor, but I don't doubt that that user is a valuable contributor. We have different opinions in an academic question and he's hot-tempered and not very polite, but he's not delibarately lying and his edits are about an academic matter. I'm sure he will turn out to be a great contributor. As for Scipio, even trying to take WP:FAITH into consideration, I'm doubtful, but let's hope for the best. JdeJ 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Scipio3000 is still claiming ownership of Sicily on his talk page - 'On my article, Sicily'. (Difference is listed above, it was still there as of his most recent revision of his page. [57] ) Could someone please explain this policy to him, I doubt he would take it well from me. Edward321 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked JodyB to take over the case for me; he has my complete confidence and I'll back him up in whichever way he decides to proceed. El_C 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks by an IP editor

 Done

After earlier being blocked for harassment on User talk:Vintagekits, an IP editor has made a series of disgusting attacks on editors who he believes to be Irish republicans.

• why are these insurgents allowed to get away with all this
• all I ask is that you retired insurgents play nice and according to the rules
• but it seems you are determined to protect these terrorists

I was told by User:Mackensen to bring the matter here, please advise. Brixton Busters 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Neil ム 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could use a hand, and/or a second opinion

User:RonCram has a long history of making charges against a certain climate scientist, charges that I consider clear violations of WP:BLP -- stating that he is unethical, that he knowingly published false results, and the like. I've had to revert two of his edits today (here and here). Now he's done it again on the very same talk page as earlier today.[58] I'd block the guy as a last-ditch attempt to let him know that we take WP:BLP seriously. But I'm heavily involved in editing articles on the same topic as him and don't want to give the appearance that I'm trying to gain an advantage. Would anyone like to step in and (a) issue a block, (b) make one last attempt to get through to him, or (c) tell me that I'm off base? Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any administrative action either, since I occasionally edit those pages, but User:RonCram is an inveterate abuser of article talk pages and violator of the talk page guidelines (e.g. this recent comment). His months-long crusade to introduce defamatory, poorly sourced material about a specific climatologist into Wikipedia is problematic. MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral party who doesn't edit that subject, here's how it looks: this is on the borderline since it refers to an op-ed piece. The style is close to a blog and the editor keeps reopening the topic over objections, so WP:NOT and WP:POINT are arguable. Yet it's also framed in the context of a legitimate WP:RS question. Is the editor gaming that guideline to soapbox? Possibly. I suppose it seems that way to someone who disagrees with that editor's POV. So a block would be a hard call based upon this evidence. If it fits with a larger pattern of borderline behavior, suggest user conduct WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned with the op-ed piece; disputes over things like that come with the territory. But User:RonCram's persistent comments that a certain scientist is "unethical" and has knowingly published false results are a serious problem. Raymond Arritt 05:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks like heavy POV pushing. If he's already been warned, and it looks like he has, via edit summaries, if not talk page notes, then perhaps a 24 hour breather is in order? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 06:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As Raymond said, the issue of how to handle the op-ed piece in and of itself is a content dispute. The larger problem is a pattern of attacking a living person, in article space and talk space, in a way that likely violates WP:BLP. Since the issue is really a pattern of behavior rather than one specific incident, Durova's suggestion of a user-conduct RfC may be the most appropriate way of handling it. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Slovak speaking (reading) admin in the house

St. Urban's Church (Bystré) is tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of a Slovak website. Any help would be appreciated. I have lots of babelboxes, but Slovak and related languages are not among them. :-(.... Carlossuarez46 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Check Category:User sk for users who speak Slovakian. Miranda 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch844 (talk · contribs)

I've had it with this fellow. All he does is edit war and disrupt Out of India theory, against clear consensus, with his brand of fringecruft cranknutcasery. Somebody uninvolved please block him indef. Moreschi ^Talk 10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I went for a one week block. The guy really needs to stop his incivility and edit warring... He starts edit warring again after the block, and it'll be indef. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and the subsequent unblock request. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

you may want to compare WIN (talk · contribs), who has a similar strategy of reverts-only contributions (but this one doesn't even pretend to have a case). dab (𒁳) 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A warning should suffice for the moment... --DarkFalls ^talk 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe in blocks without warning. The ideal outcome is that an editor actually reforms once they realize people are serious about enforcing policy. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi returns

I had thought things were a bit too quiet on the Conradi front, and I just figured out part of why. He's been editing quietly under the id User:Tobias Conradi2. Since he is a banned user, I have blocked this account. I wanted to give everyone a heads-up, since 1) he is likely to unleash another wave of personal attacks once he discovers his new account is blocked, and 2) he's evidently not accepting the idea that he is banned and unwelcome here. So I suspect more new accounts will follow. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned out all the edits from this account since the date the ban was made official. The account has been active since a few days before the ban was finalized. The edits from before the ban, while technically block-evasion edits, and not ban-evasion edits, and thus are not as automatically reverable. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do people do such sloppy jobs? [59] This is why that tool should be used only if they are destroying things. Unless I am reading that wrong, it doesn't seem like mass removal had much of a point. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is enforcement of the ban, as laid out here. Conradi is banned. He is not welcome to edit on the project any longer. All his edits are subject to removal/reversal. That's part of how bans are enforced. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would also be hypocritical of us to say "you are not welcome here, but we're going to keep a few of your good edits". - Crockspot 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't wanna be welcome. I just want to improve the encyclopedia. For me this is not for nice socialising in the first place. May be different for all the clique admins that support corruption and think 10 users are "the" community. -- Tobias Conradi 84.190.45.233 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what happens. Articles created by banned users I am sure are not then deleted. Removing wiki linking seems pointless. Also all information submitted falls under free use. Perhaps what should be considered is more if they user just wants to edit now and avoid whatever got them banned. Exposing quiet editors who were once banned, that are editing articles in a positive way, seems counter productive to the goals here. P.S. If I have a slab of meat in my pocket, please let me know Crockspot. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles created by banned users can and are deleted. There is a specific Speedy Deletion criteria (G5) for exactly this case. I speedied a number of articles written by Conradi on his new account just this morning. In Conradi's case, yeah, he does good edits. But the general opinion at the ban discussion was that the good was not worth the bad that always seems to come with it. Many who endorsed the ban did so reluctantly, but they endorsed it none-the-less. I'll include the summary of the ban message from the ban list page below these comments.

But there is a psychological component to the systematic removal of edits by banned users. They are not welcome, and their contributions, good or bad, are no longer welcome. And by systematically removing their contributions, they will hopefully get the idea before too long that continuing to try to edit in a place that they are not welcome is simply a waste of their time. Their edits will not remain, so why make them in the first place? Will Conradi get the point? Who knows. But I at least intend to continue to make the point. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · block log), July 28 2007

Banned for continued incivility and personal attacks. Multiple second chances were given, but eventually the patience of the community regarding his tendentious editing was exhausted and, following a discussion at the community sanction noticeboard, a site ban was enacted. Additionally, he engaged in IP hopping block evasion in order to continue the attacks and incivility once blocked. (Copied ban summary)

---

No offense to you, since you did not make it up, but that is a foolish system. People wish to edit, and are creating articles, are being chased off by those who probably do not, and instead correct the work of those who actually take time to research. The silly politics on Wikipedia seems to outweigh the notion of a collection of information for the public. Not wanted? The community said so? The idea that 20 ppl who frequent this board are "the community" is further absurd. But the 20 people who make up the general posters here are probably pretty sure they represent the community well enough. If only this was really a collaborative project. I could only imagine the total rewrite I did of Cali cartel and the 11 articles I created being removed because I said something flagrant, talk about depriving others of information and to spite only yourself and the community you are trying to help prosper. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what else to say. The policy is the policy, and until/unless it is changed, it is what it is. And this is far from the right place to debate whether it should change. So, I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but... <shrug>. - TexasAndroid 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

... Yeah ... It doesnt matter I re added much of the work, thanks for giving other people work you did not feel like checking. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy is not a noose with which to hang ourselves. Removing perfectly good edits that someone is going to have to replace is biting off your nose to spite your face, and as such is a complete waste of time. Deletion for the sake of deletion is incredibly stupid. Kamryn · Talk 10:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry, unobvious puppeteer

Sjones23 recently filed a report at WP:BLP, regarding the changing of information at the Toru Ohira article. I responded, changed the information back (Ohira was born in 1929, the false claims have been in the 1940's) and provided sources. Today Sjones23 reverted another such edit. The problem here is that all these edits are definitely coming from the same place, smacking of sockpuppetry. User:210.213.240.27, User:210.213.240.28, User:210.213.241.7 and User:210.213.243.198 and, now, User:210.213.241.86. I've given one of the above users a final warning. However, it's unclear as to whether or not these are sockpuppets, and who is the sockpuppeteer. Otherwise, I would have taken this to WP:SSP.--Sethacus 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are normal IPs from an ISP in the Phillipines. Greg Jones II 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As what Ryulong pointed out to me above, there have been intermittent issues with good faith (yet unconstructive) edits to these kinds of articles from someone in the Philippines for some time, but to prevent that would either require semiprotecting all articles they editted or blocking a major island in the chain from editing. Greg Jones II 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just recently warned User:210.213.241.86 on his/her talk page. Greg Jones II 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Greg, stop being so gung ho about this. I'll semiprotect that article if it is truly an issue (I had to do the same with Akira Kushida because of similar edits, although from I believe someone in Brazil).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not being so gung ho about this. I apologize for my angry replies regarding this situation. The birth date and credits are truly serious problems as with some of the credits, just to clarify, because there is no such thing as Tokei Keiji Spildan (also added in the Akira Kushida article before it was removed) and also 1940 is a false claim for a birth date. Adding in things like those I have described are clearly not acceptable. By the way, Ryulong, thanks for your comments. Greg Jones II 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, thanks for protecting this page. I appreciate it. All the best Greg Jones II 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

There's an ongoing edit war over this page, with which I have been peripherally involved. I replaced a section that seems like a quote-farm by summary text, but Jaakobou keeps reverting this change, claiming there's a POV problem. An edit war then developed, chiefly between Jaakobou and CJCurrie. There are also several anonymous edits that may also be Jaakobou. Jaakobou seems to me to be acting against consensus (his claims otherwise notwithstanding) and keeps backing away from discussion on the Talk page. I'm not certain what to do next: the style manual seems pretty clear that a quote-farm is inappropriate. So I've come here -- I hope this was the right thing to do. Bondegezou 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

#User:76.167.86.63. I reported problems with this article yesterday, it needs to be addressed. Corvus cornix 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kafziel abuses protection on User:Kafziel/gallery

I was recently removing fair use images from userspaces and when I came to User:Kafziel/gallery which contains fair use images, specifically I was triggered by Image:Algerianfranc.jpg being used in the userspace. When I looked at the history of User:Kafziel/gallery, I discovered

1. Fair use images were being used on the userspace, and per WP:NFCC this is a violation of policy
2. A bot attempted to remove non-free media before on July 3.
3. User:Kafziel, an administrator, reinserted the fair use images by reverting the bot and then protected the page so they couldn't be removed by non-administrators.

Will someone please remove the fair use images from User:Kafziel/gallery and discuss with User:Kafziel why this was inappropriate? — Moe ε 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The images being removed are all pictures of money, and it's not at all clear that the bills pictured are under copyright, because as the template says, some aren't. Even if it does turn out to be a violation, it's not his fault for not knowing. It was reasonable for him to assume that pictures he took wouldn't be under copyright. -Amarkov moo! 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check to see if these are violations then? — Moe ε 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's very clear that images of money aren't the only issue: Image:Trix box 2006.jpg, is cleary presumed fair use. — Moe ε 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd presume the pictures of products (the closeups) might have some issues but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV -- Tawker 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but it looks like it's just a misunderstanding of copyright, since he did previously claim the images as GFDL. Anyway, the only thing I found about the money is that the algerian franc isn't used anymore. -Amarkov moo! 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If he did claim them as GFDL and it isn't, why does this make it less of a violation? — Moe ε 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

←Have you pesronally addressed this with him yourself before you came running here crying abuse? I personally get tired of the 10+ posts a day accusing admins of abuse when the accuser has not even asked the admin about it? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah apparently no one ever mentioned this to Kafziel or informed him about this AN/I thread. That's pretty poor behavior if you ask me. --W.marsh 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• No one notifies me of discussions about myself, why should I take the time and do things no one else does? — Moe ε 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• In the spirit of making Wikipedia a less nasty place to be? --W.marsh 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• So now I was nasty? Could you focus on why this thread was started? — Moe ε 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am focusing on why this thread was started. --W.marsh 20:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Then your not aware of why it was started then. — Moe ε 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• What is "the your"? Please take a deep breath and calm down before commenting. --W.marsh 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why should you take the time and do things no one else does? 1 because respect and courtesy are Good Things. And 2 because those who care about image policy will win more people over to their side if they don't annoy people when annoying them is avoidable. ElinorD (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• And now I'm annoying? What do you call the cabal of defenders here shouting attacks at me, while not addressing the issue at all? — Moe ε 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please. Nobody has called you annoying. I spoke about the importance of trying not to annoy people unnecessarily. That's not at all the same thing as calling you annoying. Just consider — is it possible that Kafziel might be annoyed at the fact that you came here and started a thread with "abuse" in the title, rather than assuming that he made an honest error and raising it on his talk page? If you think he might be (even if you think that he'd be wrong to be annoyed), then just ask yourself would it be possible to get those non-free images removed without annoying him? That's all. As for the "cabal of defenders . . . not addressing the issue", well, I did address it. I said that you were right. I asked Durin to have a look, and he retagged some of the images that had been incorrectly tagged, and left a message for Kafziel. (Durin knows a lot more about copyright than I do.) And then I removed the non-free images from the page, and left a message myself for Kafziel, trying, as far as possible, to respect his dignity. If the purpose of this thread was to get a copyright violation cleared up, then the purpose has been achieved. You're absolutely 100% right that those images shouldn't have been on that page. ElinorD (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't talking about you -_- — Moe ε 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe is perfectly right that some of those images absolutely have to be removed from user space. Even the ones tagged with a free licence may not be indisputably free — for example, I'm wondering is Image:Dairymilk creme egg.jpg a derivative work. But I suggest that someone raise the issue with Kafziel courteously on his talk page. I'd do it, except that I'm busy. Sometimes people who might be well inclined to respect our policy on non-free content may just dig their heels in because they're approached in the wrong way (or because they're not approached at all — just reported). And the image copyright policy is so important — so fundamental to our whole Project — that it's really, really important that those who are interested in it make a special effort to be tactful and sensitive, and respectful of the dignity of those who may not understand it or agree with it. ElinorD (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Posting a thread at ANI claiming abuse could probably be considered one of the least likley ways to get people to comply nicely. Just to reitterate to the complaintant. Please attempt to address issues with the admin in question first before claiming they are "abusing" something! Thanks. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you try... TALKING to him? Politely explaining your concerns? So far as I can see, you took it to ANI with no attempt at less "dramatic" resolution. Eleland 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I didn't immediatly go to this editor is because he's semi-active for the most part. Whenever I dispute an editor, I don't run to AN/I first, but the actions I was requesting needed admin assitance, or at least opinion, so it was at least proper to post it here. Ad hominem much? — Moe ε 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with an ad hominem, it has to do with a very frequent problem here at ANI where every 5 minutes somebody is accusing an admin of abusing the tools. If you had titled it under "fair use concerns on protected page" or "question regarding protection and fair use" or anything of the sort that did not claim abuse it might not have been a big issue. Your response above concerns me too, the "nobody else does it why should I" does not seem like a rationale you would use? You do alot of work with fair use. A majority of editors here dont even understand it or do stuff with it so according to your rationale with this situation you should just not work with fair use? In short, I dont care that you brought up the concern and in fact it is valid, I just ask that you use tact and a personal touch by addressing the editor in question first and then, come here without the word abuse. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody else does it why should I" is a reference to notfiying the uploader, not working with fair use. And excuse me of actually starting a topic on abuse when it was accurate for a change. You haven't even bothered to address what you think on what I said but instead focused the discussion on me by stating that I was acting improperly. And again you divert the conversation by focusing on other posts on An/I that have stated abuse incorrectly. When do you plan on commenting on what Kafziel did and how the images should be dealt with, or do you plan to furthur comment on something irrelevant? — Moe ε 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe kafiziel did anything wrong. He was probably ill informed. I have subpages that i protect (archives and the such). If i had a fair use image that happened to be there that I was unaware of i sure hope someone would addrss me where I would kindly fix it instead of running to ANI claiming abuse. You are the one who found the issue, you address it with kafiziel. I strongly believe it is improper to run to ani without first addressing the person in question so yes, I also do happen to believe your actions are ill advised. All I ask is that you refrain from running to ani claiming abuse and make an effort to resolve this issue with the editor in question before running here. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't do anything wrong? Really? Because from my stance, and from other editors who actually commented on the issue, fair use images, even disputable fair use images, are not to be placed on the userspace. Kafiziel reverted a bot that was not malfunctioning and performing correctly, then reverted. Disputable, yes. Thats why I brought it here. — Moe ε 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Image:Dairymilk creme egg.jpg, images containing copyrighted logos are a derivative work of the logo depicted, so, yeah, that's not a free image. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've left a message with User:Kafziel regarding this issue, and have retagged a number of the images on the gallery page as being non-free works. --Durin 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all the non-free images from that page, but have left it protected, and have left a note for Kafziel. Frankly, I'd rather have left them for him to remove, himself, as it will probably be a bit galling next time he logs on to find this discussion and to find that another administrator has stepped in and removed those images. But I don't know when he's likely to log on again, and our image policy is important, and, quite simply, non-free images may not be used outside of mainspace. ElinorD (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Resolved

A cut-and-paste move occured at Alexa Fluor. The previous title was Alexa (fluor). Cool Blue^{talk to me} 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Repaired. — Moe ε 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Advice Me

Can I use photos with the tag - {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}for my magazine.Kaystar 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, yes, and you don't need to ask our permission. It would be worthwhile to check with the relevant branch(es) of the US Military to make sure you're not going to fall foul of any specific laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, for instance. Additionally, there is normally a request for credit to the photographer and source when you use any of the US military images. Nick 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaystar 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know what's going on here?

See this edit [60]. The latest episode in the Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett user page saga. Mabbett's user page has been reverted to a controversial version by a new account with the name "Andy Mabett" (one "b"). Now, I'm not Mr. Mabbett's biggest fan but before we jump to conclusions, I suspect he may be being trolled. Please investigate the new user account before this turns into another rumpus. --Folantin 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. If it's an impersonating troll, as seems likely, then that's the proper action. If on the off-chance it actually does belong to Pigsonthewing, and is an anti-impersonation account, then it also really has no need for further editing. - TexasAndroid 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks. --Folantin 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody delete User talk:Andy Mabett, it's redirecting to User talk:Pigsonthewing. Corvus cornix 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the user Andy Mabbett also exists now as well [61]. I have no idea if it's User:Pigsonthewing or an impersonator. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as well, for the same reasons as above. If it's a impersonator, it has no reason to be allowed to edit. If it's Pigsonthewing creating anti-impersonation accounts, then it serves it's purpose just as well by existing, blocked. Either way, the account cannot now be used to impersonate Pigsonthewing. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Advise please

This account User:90.240.74.203 seems to have been setup solely to revert my edits, see [62] I suspect this is another established editor and may be being used to avoid 3RR.--padraig 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. He's only got three edits so far. 'Tis true that two of them are reverts but that could be a coincidence. Of course if he goes on to revert you further, then that is a different matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time this method has been used to revert my edits, usualy when I post a warning on the IP talk page they cease to use that IP.--padraig 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts immediately after another editor was getting close to 3RR - then a IP steps in! come on!--Vintagekits 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice 90.240.74.203 (talk · contribs) jumps in as Astrotrain (talk · contribs) nears 3RR at {{World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom}}. Not a slam dunk case, but worth keeping an eye on, perhaps. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well He has just reverted me again [63].--padraig 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a warning on hir talk page, so we'll see what happens. I agree with Luna in that it looks like someone is evading 3RR - Alison ☺ 21:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it wasn't me as Luna Santin implies- I have better things to do on a Friday night! Do a usercheck if you don't believe me rather than make false accussations. Astrotrain 13:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edward McSweegan, again

Freyfaxi (talk · contribs)'s original version of the Edward McSweegan article was heavily plagiarized, and was also a blatant WP:BLP violation that led the subject of the article (Emcsweegan (talk · contribs)) to create an account to register his objections. It survived an AfD as a result of a heavy rewrite by myself and several others, and the original version was oversighted.

Now Freyfaxi's back again, attempting to add some of the same information from his previous version. He contends that it is public domain information--but last time I checked, you can't just add information from a source verbatim, no matter how reliable it may be. He's also added information that borders on libel as well.

And to take it up another notch, just minutes after I reverted one of his more problematic edits, 69.120.212.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added in some of the very same information here. A duck test confirmed that this was Freyfaxi, and he had the decency to admit it on the talk page.

Something needs to be done here before it gets out of hand again. Blueboy96 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To the benefit of Wiklipedia?

edits by banned user removed by Theresa Knott | The otter sank

what's your point? I think it's clear here that Texas android was undoing the actions of a banned user. big deal. Please be clear about the problem, otherwise, nothing to see here. ThuranX 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is based on what I was saying above, that deleting additions made by banned users, is in the end not beneficial to the community this project is suppose to serve. Collection of information is the priority, not sticking it to banned users. None of the removals were of any benefit to the project, and many will have to be redone. But apparently (g5) says its ok to remove content as long as it is from a banned editor as was pointed out above, no matter how much it spites the Wiki community. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to anyone if it's not already clear. The initial list/accusations in this thread are from an IP in the exact same range as all the other shifting IPs that Conradi uses, and is in line with his normal MO, and is thus unquestionably Conradi himself back with more attacks just as I expected would happen. - TexasAndroid 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'll remove the edit aboveTheresa Knott | The otter sank 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. As for the possibility that some contributions were valid, if you aren't Conradi, get an account, and get to work. But if you are Conradi, expect to go through ths whole mess again. I do note that there appears to be a more current citation on the ISO639 page, which might bear reinsertion by someone familiar with the topic. Perhaps a talk page note about it? ThuranX 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of interest is this edit by another IP of Conradi's. He seems to be under the understanding somehow that only his original account was banned, not him the person. That he's free to continue editing under other accounts. Not sure how he thinks such a ban policy could actually work, but that's what he appears to think. - TexasAndroid 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire thread. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't somebody spell it out to him explicitly, that he cannot edit under any id? Corvus cornix 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa has, but I suspect if he was the type of chap who'd listen to that kind of thing then he'd be the type of chap who wouldn't have gotten himself banned in the first place. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, edits by banned users are properly removed. On the other hand, if a banned user (e.g.) fixes a typo, it hardly makes sense for a conscientious editor to redress the situation by reinstating the typo. Whether any of the edits in question fall into the "typo" category (which I will define as undisputed ministerial edits that any editor reading the passage would have made), I have not checked. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Expired Bans

Do admins have to go through arbcom to unban a user when their ban has expired, or do they just unblock them and resume editing? There are two bans which are about to be expired (see below), and I am wondering what will happen.

1. Saladin1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) August 10, 2006, one year - see WP:RFAR/Saladin1970 appeal
2. Minun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) August 13, 2006, one year - see WP:RFAR/Iloveminum

Thanks. Miranda 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As both accounts were blocked for a finite time, the software will just (silently) unblock them when that time expires. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let the software/system give them their papers and items back and free them. They have already served their terms at the Wikipedia correctional facility. No need for them to sign as it is automated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.)When the bans expire, do we remove them from WP:BAN or let them stay when they expire. Thanks. Miranda 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Wikipedia:List of banned users then they have to be manually removed by a human. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question of whether they should be removed, though, I think they should be, no use cluttering up the list with bans that are no longer applicable. It might also cause confusion if an editor is on the ban list but is again editing. The original ArbCom case or block log will still have a record that they were banned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, anybody interested in writing a bot to check block expirations and automatically remove names from the list? Corvus cornix 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Expired entry for Saladin1970 on WP:LBU removed. —Kurykh 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A bot could go through that list and draw attention to ones that are no longer blocked. Until(1 == 2) 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea Until(1 == 2). We should attempt to make sure such logs do not become inaccurate, and bots are usually the best option for making sure of this. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a bot doing that sort of work. However, given the rarity of the need to do such an action, we can create a bot that can do something else more...eh...worthwhile at the same time, like tagging month-long indefblocked user pages for speedy deletion or something. Essentially, a two-function bot. Alternatively, we can just append this job on an existing bot. —Kurykh 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several existing bots that perform small functions like this, I am sure one of them could accommodate it. Until(1 == 2) 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You got two options. Try to find someone interested at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. If that doesn't work try informing active bot owners about the proposal and see if they are interested. I just couldn't find a place where this proposal can be communicated. Maybe here? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Journalism Scandals

Will you please look at Journalism scandals and my adding of Matt Sanchez Link as a scandal. Please read my notes in talk too. The article is not balanced. I do not want to get in trouble for 'warring' again. Thank you Bmedley Sutler 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve aka User:Orangemike

This user has been reverting the Fanboy Arcticle and now is doing the same to the Rich Apuzzo page. I've asked both to stop, and it's ironic that "Steve" reverts my undo(from Mike) in less than 5 minutes. I posted this incident earlier, but it didn't seem to go through. I'd appreciate a speedy response on this trolling issue. Thanks Hdayejr 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good God! Now's he slandering me on User:Angelika_23 her page too! Please stop him quick! Hdayejr 00:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A look at the Rich Apuzzo history shows uncivil edits like these, as well as edit-warring by Hdayejr against multiple editors. The sockpuppet allegation is absurd on its face. THF 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Hdayejr for 3RR on Rich Apuzzo. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A possible SPA is reflected in the history of Rich Apuzzo. Anyone want to take a look at that? Seems a bit fishy. Edit: Theresa Knott just blocked.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit very early in his Wikipedia career may be instructive - note the edit summary and the lack of his username in the discussion he's deleting. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the edit warring happened to be at an article which i'd not consider notable enough to merit inclusion. A real fan site indeed. Smelling like some SOCK out there as well. Try AfD if this mess resumes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I invite anybody to examine my edit history, my LiveJournal, and everything else publicly available about me, to see that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. Don't know who this Steve is, don't know who Mr. Accusatory is; just trying to make Wikipedia better. --Orange Mike 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I understand that some have a problem with my article, and I respect that. However, I have asked for the editors to give me some feedback on how I can make it better and they are not responding. I am not opposed to fixing it if it is warranted, but people just keep tagging it and giving me no explanations. I am sorry that some feel my article drags down Wikipedia's reputation. I am new at this and would appreciate any help. - Angelika 23 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa is trying to help out there. Please be aware of the implications of sockpuppetry. There were 2 or 3 single purpose accounts which were created on July 28 and 29. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I am the person making those accounts??? - Angelika 23 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I just think they are worth mentioning due to the mess which was going on at the article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I resent that. Check my IP. I only have one account. My husband has an account (dmwcincy), but he has not touched, or even viewed, to my knowledge, the Apuzzo article. The mess with the article is because hdayejr apparently has people who follow him around. I daresay if he hadn't edited on it, we wouldn't be in this mess now. Also, I have tried to talk to OrangeMike and he has decided to start replying, but he is being very condescending and rude. It seems like he just wants the article gone. I simply do not understand the hostility I am encountering on this site tonight. - Angelika 23 02:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate but try to calm down. I suggested that the article goes through WP:AfD so there would be no mess or at least little after the outcome of the AfD. Participants at that would-be debate would surely bring ideas on how to deal w/ the article in case the article is kept. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay persistent personal attacks

Resolved

PeeJay, who has a history of personal attacks as seen here [64] and here [65]. Posted the following vile and disgusting remarks on my talk page in retaliation for losing a consensus discussion. [66] and [67]. Obviously, saying I must have been abused as a child, then calling me a "bitter cunt" is unacceptable. Yes, I told PeeJay to "fuck off" which any self respecting man would do after insinuations are made that you were abused. If I made these comments about another editor I would be blocked. PeeJay clearly has a history of personal attacks, he's received his warning, it's obvious that it's time for a block. Batman2005 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, when you state That's fucking bullshit and i don't give a flying fuck about WP:CIV...fucking admins don't give a shit about that, all they care is blocking people for no fucking reason. it become obvious that you are both guilty of personal attacks and incivility. Not to mention the tirade you left on my talk page. Read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK and abide by it before you go accusing others of violating them. IrishGuy ^talk 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, when one person doesn't get punished for a breach of policy, yet another does, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the system. Like I said, i'll be civil when, and ONLY when, PeeJay is ALSO punished for his violations of policy. Until EVERY person who violates policy in such a vile and disgusting way is punished, then wikipedia is a joke. PeeJay should be blocked, plain and simple, instead you're choosing to cower behind "read WP:CIV" and claiming that I personally attacked somebody with that post...which is flat out untrue. Instead of falling back on that, why don't you give me a reason why PeeJay is allowed to call me a "bitter cunt" and escape with no punishment whatsoever? Can you give me a good reason as to why this blatant violation of policy is going unpunished? I didn't think so. Batman2005 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

At no point did I say that others were allowed to attack you...I simply warned you that the actions of others don't justify your own wanton disregard for policy. Clearly you are simply spoiling for a fight. Find something else to do with your time. IrishGuy ^talk 00:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No no no, if I was spoiling for a fight i'd choose a better opponent that PeeJay, Adambro or you. You STILL can't give me a reason as to why I get blocked for violating one policy...yet PeeJay doesn't get blocked for violating one...which is in fact WORSE and MORE disruptive than the one I got blocked for. What's the reason? Is there a good one? Batman2005 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

48h for Peejay and 36h for Batman. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully they will leave each other alone upon their returns. IrishGuy ^talk 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's up to them. The bottom line is that CIVIL keeps running. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo

Resolved

Hi, I requested that the article British Student Television be moved on its talk page. So far Sherzo has been the only objector. He is reverting the main page as if he owns it and is also being very uncivil about the 'discussion' about the renaming - eg. you thought it meant northern ireland despite saying Dublin? don't they teach geography in the UK anymore? outside of fringe of vocal lunatics on the internet the british isles is an oft use term in the rest of the world. Please can someone drop into the talk page and make a definate decision and/or can Sherzo be sanctioned? On another note he's also been edit warring on List of United States Presidents by military service against Bluecord. CR7 (message me) 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No wonder that discussion is sitting on WP:RM's backlog. Obviously not the best model chosen for discussing a move proposal. I'm closing it as inconclusive.--Húsönd 01:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo refuses to accept that Ireland is not part of Britain. The name of the article is geographically and politically incorrect and is as such unneutral. CR7 (message me) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo continues to vandalize List of United States Presidents by military service. His vandalism is biased and politically motivated. Ronald Regan served in the U.S. Army Reserve and on active duty during WWII. George W. Bush served in the U.S. Air National Guard during Vietnam. He continually deletes Reagan's service because it offends him that Reagan served in Hollywood making propoganda and training films for the Army. Reagan is not the only WWII veteran that recieved stateside service. He can not help that he was ordered there by the Army. He continues to revert Bush's status as AWOL even though that is still under dispute. My contention is, being a History teacher and a veteran myself, that you can not take service away from someone and both of these men served no matter what your personal feelings are of that service. There are clearly questions in relation to the service of some democrats, most notably Clinton and his deferment, however, Sherzo does not even want to admit that. This is what makes this a political point of view on his part. He is basically revising history to meet his own personal beliefs. He also leaves pretty nasty messages on other peoples talk pages.Bluecord

That's pretty ridiculous; especially the Reagan part. I've watchlisted the article. --Haemo 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also watchlisted it, and since he's changing it from the original content without a concencus, his edits in question will be considered vandalism by me. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Help on User Talk:THF

A few days ago in relation to Reality film I told this editor that I respected his edits, but he has been involved in multiple imbroglios and not only is the comment not true, but I also don't want my name seen as supporting his edits. I have tried twice to remove my comment from his Talk page and he removed it twice calling it vandalism. Could I have an admin remove my comment and let User:THF know that I am well within my right to remove such comment from his Talk page? Thanks for the help, and sorry it's such a small matter - it shouldn't be such a big deal but this editor apparently wants to keep stoking the fire. --David Shankbone 01:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WjBscribe has already informed them that its usually a good idea to make compromises to maintain a positive aspect of community. So it is up to THF especially that there is no policy which states that "he is not free to take full control his userpage" except in cases where behavior is unacceptable. Don't forget the fact that "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". This is your --> solution. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

David, please do not do it again. Thank you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All

Resolved

On the 24th of July the administrator User:Voice of All unilaterally, and with no discussion whatsoever, unprotected the highly contentious article of Australian Prime Minister John Howard with this edit. He included his reason in the edit summary of "protection is no longer necessary."

This article has been under a constant barage of vandalism ever since, including blankings and redirects. User:Voice of All, who has not been back to the article or it's talkpage since, has ignored all attempts to hail his attention to his mistake. See here,and here

His failure to even acknowledge these requests either one way or another, represents a gross dereliction of duty, and IMO, is grounds for the removal of his admin privileges. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't grounds for removal of admin privileges. Voice of All unprotected the article because he assumed good faith, and felt the protection was long enough (about 6 months...) Taking a look at his recent contribs, he has not been active lately, explaining why he didn't reply. Last time I checked, making a small mistake or being inactive does not represent a "gross dereliction of duty". --DarkFalls ^talk 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Making a (small) mistake is not reason to desysop. Sean William @ 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that any admin can reprotect, so it's not necessary for the original admin who removed protection to stick around. Orderinchaos 02:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, opening up an article on "Wikipedia - The encyclopedia anyone can edit" for, umm, anybody to edit, rather than just autoconfirmed users, is grounds for desysopping ? Nick 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. This doesn't even come close. he might have actually done a good thing by unprotecting it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that's not what Prester John wrote. He was complaining about the fact that VoA hadn't acknowledged or responded to his requests (yet). That being said, the consensus seems to be pretty clear here. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And orderinchaos addressed that already... --DarkFalls ^talk 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Voice of All unprotected an article that had been protected for a number of months. It is standard practice to lift protection occasionally to ensure that they are necessary - protection is a last resort to cope with serious vandalism. That does not mean that any editor cannot request that the page be protected again at WP:RFPP should high levels of vandalism resume. I see no misconduct on Voice of All's part here, only a stunning failure to assume good faith by Prester John. WjBscribe 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, being unprotected is the natural state of an article and protection should be temporary. If an article has been protected for too long then it needs to be unprotected. Good call Voice. Until(1 == 2) 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

<after ecs>Prester, CJ has re-protected the article. Please assume good faith of Voice of All. He is American and probably isn't aware of the Australian political situation which makes the PM's article troll-bait. Talk of "gross dereliction of duty," and "grounds for the removal of his admin privileges" for failing to respond to your message is ridiculous and unnecessarily dramatic. All you needed to do was ask another admin to reprotect the article, either here, on WP:RFPP or by asking any admin directly. There is no need to escalate this into a drama. I am sure that VOA was acting in good faith and did not realise the article will be troll-bait, at least until after the election. Also, when you start a thread about someone, it is customary to advise the admin on their talk page so they can contribute to the discussion and explain their side of the story, particularly when you are calling for him to be desysopped. Sarah 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems here. Voice tends to caution on the side of unprotecting pages because of our anyone can edit philosophy. If that's grounds for desysopping, I think that we should just shut the project down. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Haven't seen you around here lately. Reminds me, I need to unprotect more pages actually. Voice-of-All 10:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I haven't seen any response from Prester John regarding the responses. Perhaps he should be indef blocked is too busy editing Pot calling the kettle black? LessHeard vanU 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible harassment

Can I ask if the behaviour of User:Lonewolf BC towards me can be deemed to be harassment, as per WP:HAR? It seems to me that his actions fall into this category as he has a) followed me to other articles - from British monarchy to Rideau Hall, Monarchy in Ontario, Official residence, Royal tours of Canada, Canada Day, Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II, and now Passport - to engage in an edit war with me, which would appear to be a mild form of wikistalking, or "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target." However, more distressing is b) he has made no less that three attempts to have me blocked in the past month:

• 10 August 2007
• 7 August 2007
• 15 July 2007

This to me fits into the last part of the Wikistalking description: "...with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." The fact that we have butted heads previously (articles on Prime Ministers of Canada), along with the following:

• he spends what must be a significant amount of time digging out months or years old records to try and construct a 3RR breach on my part,
• tries to smear my character so as to influence whatever admin reads his reports,
• made a "prediction" of my breaching 3RR in fututre ("I foresee more "playing chicken" with, and violations 3RR by G2bambino, before long" 1), and then himself filed the next report against me,
• he has himself recently engeged in edit wars and skirted 3RR breaches (List of palaces, Official residence, British monarchy, John Thompson (politician))
• flat out recommends I be blocked for what he personally, and hypocritically deems offensive ("I recommend blocking him for a while, though, to deter his future edit-warring over this (or other things)" 2).
• he invests his time communicating, much more collegially, with other users about me, rather than speaking to me,
• attempts on my part to communicate with him personally were ignored, with the either no reason at all or the excuse that my words weren't composed in a manner paletable to him, or in the correct location, (3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

all says to me that his intent is not to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia, but instead to target me and have me blocked so as to eliminate me as an opponent to him. I've made one request here previously that someone look into Lonewolf and his interactions with me, but nothing really came of it. I don't know how else to handle someone like this, and I'm really becoming quite disturbed by the whole affair. I'd appreciate some attention and input. Cheers. --G2bambino 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:Lonewolf BC if they would review and comment on the above here, at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandilism

Special:Contributions/24.117.147.70, this user has been vandilizing the page for Down III: Over the Under by pasting a link to YouTube for a singer completly unrelated to the album or the band, he is persisting on keeping it and something must be done about it, he also vandilized User:Corrupt toolbox (but he took it as a joke.) Skeeker _[Talk] 04:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No steps have been taken to warn this IP, I will do it now. remember that warning a user is a necessary step to take before reporting the vandal, to ensure they cannot say they were not aware they violated policy. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

::After reviewing contributions, the IP has violated the 3RR, but he is adding content that is not necessarily vandalism, but that probably shouldnt be in the article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - he almost violated the 3RR rule. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Assistance

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

Resolved

I am not aware of the situation going on between these two users, but User:Calton posted on his talk page emails from User:StraferOfTruths complete with email address. Within moments he removed this post from his talk page saying "On second thought, I'll save this for later". Regardless of the situation between these two, an editor like Calton should know better than to post someone's email address on his own talk page.

If I am not mistaken, this is violation of WP:HAR, per "Posting of personal information", ie: "email address". I think an admin needs to have a word with User:Calton. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What for? That email is hardly personally indentifying and it's probably a throwaway account anyway.--MONGO 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Still...it is personal information, regardless if it is a hotmail account or whitehouse.gov, it is still personal information and an experienced editor like him should know better. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a throwaway email account. This is definitely much to do about zero.--MONGO 05:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares....the rule is you don't post email addresses. It isn't, "you don't post email addresses you think aren't throw away accounts" or "you don't post email addresses that look to be from a throw away account", it is "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment".

That is not much to do about zero, it is textbook (and quoted from the rule itself) harrassment. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, textbook harrassment, and the offender cannot have done it unawares. PalestineRemembered 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean sending someone an email with the message YOU ARE THE TROLL copied 60 times? Or Calton? El_C 07:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Before this becomes a shouting fest, Neutralhomer, try looking at WP:RFO. —Kurykh 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The e-mail address is almost definitely throwaway, but to prevent a fuss I've done a delete/restore. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 05:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is probably best...the real harasser is blocked indef now anyway.--MONGO 06:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I don't want to see you mentioning Calton anymore. Would you mind, actually, removing his talk page from your watchlist? TIA. El_C 06:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the main point, the email address, was taken care of by Riana (thanks again), if no one minds, I am going to archive this discussion. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:65.15.77.18

I have just had to decimate subprime mortgage financial crisis after discovering that 65.15.77.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wrote most of it by copying large chunks of text from newspapers.

For example, he wrote [68]:

"On July 12, 2007, the top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan."

which apparently came from a Reuters article:

"The top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry, the lawmaker said in a statement. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan. ... "

This is just one among many examples in that single article. I have listed a number of additional uncited sources identified by Googling on Talk:Subprime mortgage financial crisis. However as 65.15.77.18 wrote most of the article, it basically needs to be restarted.

However, my additional concern is that 65.15.77.18 seems to contributed substantially to a number of other articles, and I would appreciate some help investigating these for copyvios and repairing as necessary. Dragons flight 07:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you know that its a copyright violation and you seem to know where it came from, could you not add the citation? --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't become less of a copyright violation if we say where the article came from. Using a newspaper article as a source is perfectly fine, as is quoting from an article in another work, but just copying the article with no additional commentary or analysis would be violated the terms of use. Natalie 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiikipedian

Resolved

• Wiikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Elisha Cuthbert; vandalism after final warning. There has been a problem finding a suitable free picture for the Elisha Cuthbert article. This got to the point where an editor put in a "No free image!" image, and a comment to editors to only add a free image. He keep blanking this information. Looking at his contributions, he seems to have a habit of making odd edits, and ignoring the warnings placed on his talk page, and simply blanking it. His contributions and talk page history make interesting reading. I'm trying really hard to believe he's making the edits in Good Faith, but it's getting frustrating!— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wiikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On {{Infobox actor}}. Keeps making unannounced edits to the template that will damage articles using it, e.g. renaming parameters arbitrarily. Warned and reverted many times. I also directed him to read Help:Templates after which the struck again. Currently given his final warning on vandalizing {{Infobox actor}}. --Kudret abi 09:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: He reverted again after his final warning. --Kudret abi 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. LessHeard vanU 11:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk

• Temoni prince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alameer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are both sockpuppets of:

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

— EliasAlucard|Talk 12:07 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Railpage Australia

Railpage Australia has been the subject of an intensive edit war due to a split in the management of their web site. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (8th nomination) is the 4th afd nomination inside 10 days with and additional WP:CSD tags thrown in for good measure. Additionally I have blocked the nominator for being a sockpuppet though its just as likely its a meatpuppet given the intensity of this edit war. Due to this edit war I have protected the article without an expiry time.

As I had previously closed a valid afd as keep, and also closed afd #4 as a bad faith nomination due to edit warring. I have listed it here for review, with the approval for any of my actions to be reverse if necessary. Gnangarra 11:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Six noms for AfD since 23 July 2007? It appears these are bad faith nominations, and are clearly in breach of consensus, and I think your actions are entirely appropriate. LessHeard vanU 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A question raised at another forum: "Apart from continually speedy closing the debate, is there something that can be done to stop the multiple AfDs?" Orderinchaos 12:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there could be an attempt to see if the various SPA's trace back to a single IP range, and then see if there is anything that could be done to block it, or report it to the ISP. Otherwise it is a matter of watching the AfD pages and having a form response to any further nomination. LessHeard vanU 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As the article is currently protect only an admin can post the afd notice so I'd assume that they'd look at why its protected before posting a notice. As for the IP range it'd be a big field as theres an extremely heated dispute in that community between railpage and aus.rail which has spilled over to here. Gnangarra 12:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The inability to post notice of an AfD to the article doesn't stop it being nominated (does it?), and may serve the purpose of a bad faith nomination better. While there may be large bodies of opinion on the subject it may be that there is only one or two individuals who are trying to remove the article via AfD/CSD. If there is several editors trying to "game the system" then it serves no purpose, but if it is one underlying ip addy then that route can be blocked. LessHeard vanU 13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)