Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Sock policy and Good hand/bad hand accounts

(from User talk:Lar) I don't want to add to the AN/I thread because that will keep it out of the bot's hands for another 24 hours, which is not necessary, so I'm explaining here. Will Beback said: "WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here." To which I responded, that the prohibitions were involved, in that they seem to be relevant to the discussion, but as I discussed earlier in the thread, "Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their spotty record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here?" Which is why I said that PM's behaviour was not in breach of WP:SOCK. Hope that makes it clearer. Thanks! Relata refero 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above reasoning about policy (and also with wanting to have this thread archived when discussion isn't over yet). The sock policy is intended to protect longstanding editors (admins or no) that might have good reason to avoid being associated with certain very limited edits in controversial areas, (and I believe the original intent was to protect editors working in ARTICLE space, not policy space). It is NOT intended to give relatively new editors the ability to compartmentalize edits into benign and disruptive ones, or to shield scrutiny of one account. The sock in question here is not, in my view, a valid one, in that the primary editor is not that longstanding, and edits in the same spaces, and the sock is not editing difficult things where shielding from stalkers and exposers is needed. Ironically, it seems to be arguing in favour of exposing the very kinds of accounts it is using. The policy may need to be made more explicit to cut down on ruleslawyering, but I very much doubt it intended to be used this way. In fact, it may need changing completely to disallow socks that are not registered with ArbCom and strictly monitored... ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with your proposal, Lar, is that it's only enforcible against alternate accounts which candidly admit their nature. Here, the sock was only "caught" because he was forthcoming in private communication to the wrong people, a lapse of judgment easily remedied by the expedience of silence or a lie.168.103.150.1 07:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. There are other ways of detection. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, that's a massive change to WP:SOCK and one which I fancy you will have a hard time implementing as well as enforcing; and I want to add that it will not change WP for the better. As long as some editors persist in incivility to those who edit in their pet areas, I'm afraid people will want to have legitimate alternate accounts. Plus WP is not 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit as long as they haven't edited it before logged in differently.' Relata refero 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is underway, see WT:SOCK#Proposed_rewrite, and I'm not sure how it will come out yet but there does seem to be agreement among many that some aspects of current policy are problematic. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem to employ an alternate account to edit in contentious areas. I don't see why so many people seem to feel so strongly about it. I don't do this myself (Disclaimer: This is my main account, and I have several others, usually created on occasions where I forgot my password. I do not violate policy with them). No more bongos 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the goodhand/badhand problem, not the editing in contentious areas itself. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that some people believe that editing in contentious areas with alternate accounts is inherently "good hand/bad hand". —Random832 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not me. What is bad is using one account to shield the other where policy violations are being done. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are probably some good reasons to use alternate accounts in contentious issues, but there are so many bad reasons that the loophole should be tightened or even closed. If folks are held responsible for their comments and actions on contentious issues then they will tend to be less contentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem as I have said several times is that people are not held responsible, especially not those with highish edit counts and three good edits about eight months ago - and are obviously not socks. A bit of enforcement of civility, and the need for legitimate socking would go away, and be rarely used. Instead, whenever anyone is blocked in these areas, absurd little orgies of unblocking and recrimination happen here at AN/I. Consider the whole Irpen nonsense just a few days ago, to which I made this comment which was heartily ignored by all concerned. Of course, given your premise is so completely incorrect, the rest of your argument can be dismissed. Relata refero 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How does using sock puppets improve the problem? If Irpen had been hiding behind a sock puppet how would your complaint have gone? Prohibiting sock puppets won't solve every problem on Wikipedia but it will help solve some problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it will make them worse. If earlier I had wished, as a productive contributor, to edit in that area, X might have considered that he did not wish facing and responding to that sort of incivility to colour his entire time here, and chosen to edit under an alternate account. If your desired changes go through, X will not edit there at all. Second, if Irpen had been hiding behind a sockpuppet to make the incivil edits, that SP would have been blocked. It's because it of an "all the established contributors in that area do it" attitude that legitimate alternate accounts are required. Cut back on incivility, have ArbCom hand out bans instead of I-have-a-headache-can-this-just-finish-already amnesties, and the GHBH problem goes away. But that would involve actual action against 'established' accounts, rather than blaming alternates blindly. As if the disruption there is coming mainly from alternates! Simply, while I agree with you that "If folks are held responsible for their comments and actions on contentious issues then they will tend to be less contentious," it is plain that the folks who have to be held responsible are largely already there, and not being held responsible. Rewriting GHBH to rule out any legitimate socking will not address the problem, merely abandon the area to incivility and POV-pushing. Relata refero 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The (alleged) failure to deal with incivility by established accounts is not a justification for using sock puppets. They are two separate problems. To use a rough analogy, seeming corruption by rich people does not justify theft by poor people. Anyway, at the moment this appears to be a policy question and isn't germane to the AN/I. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree its not germane to AN/I, but they aren't two separate issues. Legitimate alternate accounts are a byproduct of incivility. Seeming corruption by rich people may justify redistributive taxation. Whatever. Come to WT:SOCK. Relata refero 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

User:Savignac‎

Savignac‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Has been making racist and anti-semitic personal attacks on my userpage, and the talk page of African_diaspora. I have tried to understand what this user wants to change, by he/she will not respond to my questions. It has been really disruptive to the talk pages of these and other articles. Please look at this users contribs to see what I mean. futurebird 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I expressed my concerns about the racism here. But, the user moved my comments to the talk page of the African Diaspora article and seems to be trying to draw editors from others articles in to some kind of flame war? I have no idea. futurebird 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a diff and one more where the user is linking to other talk pages that have nothing to do with the African Diaspora article. futurebird 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I cautioned Savignac several times [1] [2] that his personal attacks and disruptive editing were unacceptable. He ignored my warnings; in fact, his behavior has become much worse. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Savignac moved his edit-warring elsewhere and has violated 3RR. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Savignac reported by User:Yahel Guhan (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I get it. If I'm not colored, then I have no say, no right to put my two cents in. I have to be a committed anti-white devil fanatic and join their wikiproject. I complain about antisemitism and am labeled an antisemite, by futurebird's defamation. Malik is an antisemitic NoI/Black Panther fanatic. I'm his boogie man. The odds are not in my favor. Savignac 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you have to mantain WP:CIVIL in your comments, and discuss your concerns to try to acheive a consensus, something you haven't done. I should remove your last comment, because it is a personal attack, but I won't. Yahel Guhan 06:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, Yahel Guhan, let's give him enough rope to hang himself. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

'Yes, let's continue framing the situation to our benefit and to his ruin--aren't we consumate actors?' Savignac 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also hints that he is a sock, and we will keep coming back. [3] ~Jeeny ^(talk) 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock of a sock, of a sock. What came first, the left sock or the right sock? An egg is a chicken is an egg is a chicken. I have multiple personality disorder, whenever I want. Ask a defunct website for clues as to my REAL ego. They know much more than you ever will, but alas, I killed them, in my fits of enraged jealousy over corruption and kickbacks and totalitarianism to boot. I dislodged a hacker's malicious invasions of user accounts, simply by being persistent in my attempts to whack the Antichrist. WP:DENY Savignac 08:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your own words condemn you, this edit is quite unsavory, but I suppose you pride yourself on stuff like this. --arkalochori ^|talk| 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the irony is lost on you ironic people. I'm dispelling prejudice, by not acting or believing to the confines of your assorted bigotries. I'm at fault too, because I WAS looking for the attention and got it. WP:DENY. Savignac 08:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell are the admins? Wake up! Isn't there a 3rd shift here? My gawd. I don't understand this place at all. [4] ~Jeeny ^(talk) 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no "shift" here. We're not being paid and we're not scheduled. We're volunteers just like you are. If one of us happens to be around and notices something they act upon it. -- Gogo Dodo 09:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

He has been stalking me and making malicious comments about me, including that I am a nazi. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] I suspect this user is a sockpuppet of User:Fourdee because his arguing style is similar (arguing against the editor and "science" etc.) and his racialist opinions are the same.[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] He also claims to be a newbie in one of the links above, but then claims to have been editing Wikipedia since 2003 a bit later.[23] Alun 09:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Savignac for 24 hours due to personal attacks against other editors. Any other administrator who is more familiar with the situation and feels that the block should be indefinite is welcome to reset the length of the block. -- Gogo Dodo 09:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

24 hours? He's done more than personal attacks! He's broken 3RR, stalking, Harass, WP:POINT, etc, etc. Sheesh. I get a block for a freakin week for saying f*ck you on my user talk page? ~Jeeny ^(talk) 09:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with the past history. I was only acting upon the last immediate edits, of which I put to an immediate stop to with the block. It was only after I issued the block that I discovered this thread. As I noted, another administrator who is more familiar with the situation (and happens to be more awake than I am at the moment) is welcome to reset the block for a longer length. -- Gogo Dodo 09:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding about the 3rd shift. I was being sarcastic. I really don't care about personal attacks, (even though I know that's policy, but I can take it), but the disruption. I understand you don't know the past history. At least he's off for now. 24 hrs at least is good enough so I can go to bed now. Thank you for being awake. :) ~Jeeny ^(talk) 09:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone through every single diff presented, but I did go through about half. This comment is particularly disturbing to me, and warrants a more hefty ban because of the magnitude of the flaming/trolling spewing forth from that one comment. This guy doesn't appear to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia - rather it seems he want to cause as much trouble as possible. We don't need users like this, they do nothing to promote cooperation for building the encyclopedia. Period. I'm going to extend his block substantially. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 09:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 800 hours.[24] Don't ask me why 800 hours it just popped in my head. I felt it was more deserving than 24. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 09:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I won't ask why 800 hrs, even though it looks so weird... in a funny way. But this is a weird case...in a not so funny way. Thanks! Oh, it equals 33^{3/10 days. lol ~Jeeny (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)}

This guy doesn't appear to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia - rather it seems he want to cause as much trouble as possible. I agree. Thank you so much for your help! futurebird 12:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Block of 209.175.168.14 (talk · contribs)

This ip has repeatedly and blatantly vandalized random subjects. Please investigate and impose a block.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater

I would like somebody to please review ^demon's closing of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats as "delete". This discussion involves nearly 700 categories, and as they haven't yet been deleted, I do not believe deletion review is the proper venue. If I'm wrong, please say so, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone could read this discussion (4 delete/2 rename/25 keep) as a consensus for deletion. I've left a note for ^demon, but he seems to be out for the night, so I'm asking for a review here. Note that I strongly supported keeping these categories during the discussion, so if I'm simply blinded by my own bias, feel free to point that out as well. The main reasons I do not believe ^demon's close to be appropriate is that 1) the discussion in no way favored deletion, and 2) ^demon nominated all of these categories for deletion just 5 months ago (COI, anyone?)- auburnpilot talk 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn't have closed it given that he himself previously nominated them and there are quite a number of these so it's not a simple close but reading through the keeps there are an awful lot of WP:USEFUL arguments backed up by "Keep per some other WP:USEFUL !vote". If he shouldn't have closed it to begin with then his talk page and ultimately DRV is a better venue for this. EconomicsGuy 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that nobody tries to go through and delete/depopulate 700 categories before this is straightened out. As far as WP:USEFUL arguments go, the only purpose of a category is to be useful...WP:USEFUL even says so. - auburnpilot talk 07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but it depends on the nature of the WP:USEFUL argument. The closer is right that the concerns regarding the nature of the usefulness of these categories were not properly adressed. In that sense the WP:USEFUL arguments are just as invalid as they would otherwise be. EconomicsGuy 07:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, several editors noted that the categories had been appropriately useful in the past, and that's just of the handful that chose to comment. No one provided detailed, comprehensive evidence to back up the usefulness claims, but it doesn't make sense to give one side of the debate an arbitrary burden of digging up a thousand old diffs and emails. The "concern" was "these categories are probably not very useful"; the response was "these categories have been and are useful." In these cases where there is no binary correctness on either side, the issue degenerates into varying standards and speculations of similar quality. There's really nothing particular about demon's standards and expectations to set his opinion apart from those of the other **bignumber** of editors who disagreed, apart from the fact that the former are notoriously outlandish. To argue that deletion might be justified by consensus would really be ludicrous. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record he didn't argue that consensus was in favor of deletion so your last point is moot. He closed it based on policy which is also what the closer is supposed to do. Also, who asked for "a thousand old diffs and emails"? EconomicsGuy 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, demon's close was mostly predicated on insufficiency of evidence -- I'm just questioning the fairness and sensicality of such a demanding, partial burden of proof. "He closed it based on policy" degenerates into the oh-so-fun-to-revisit "policy says what I say it says and I'm going to draw some really outlandish interpretations and extrapolations despite virtually everyone else finding them absurd" brouhaha. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the many reasons why WP:UCFD is so badly broken. It's frequented only by a small core group of—dare I say it—deletionists, and once they kill off a small category nobody cares about, it is used as precedent to delete plenty of other ones with colloborative potential. I have seen lots of strife caused, damage done, and at least one excellent contributor driven away. Perhaps a centralized deletion discussion is in order? east.718 at 07:23, 11/7/2007

All three of your assumptions are unfounded. First, the controverisal action of one editor does not imply anything about the state of the process on the whole. Second, UCFD is not a breeding ground for members of the deletionist cabal. For instance, the editor responsible for most nominations in recent weeks self-identifies as an inclusionist. I comment on most UCFD discussions and I am not a deletionist (I didn't even suggest deletion in this case). Third, what happened to WP:AGF? The argument of precedent is generally applied only in cases of clear similarity. I personally am not convinced that this was one of those cases, but that's no reason to paint the closer, and UCFD participants more generally, with that brush. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think any neutral and moderate editor (not that I am one) would consider jc37 an inclusionist, at least based on his activities in recent months (maybe it's simply outdated -- I wouldn't know). Perhaps the philosophy is "I am an inclusionist until I find a problem with an article, and I do that quite often" -- but to think that way is to confuse the exception with the rule. I was thinking of politely requesting that he remove the box to avoid misleading others, but I suppose it's not anyone's business. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything about you, jc37 or ^demon? I was just making an observation about the process as a whole. east.718 at 16:21, 11/7/2007

I was commenting response to your "one of the many reasons why WP:UCFD is so badly broken" and "frequented only by a small core group of ... deletionists" comments. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One of these days, we'll find someone who actually does research to back up their accusations. (Actually I did, and gave the user a Barnstar for it.) My edit history is there for the world to see, and yet I get accused of being a deletionist for "pruning the bushes". One thing that's great about it though, is that it gives me a tool with which to immediately identify the "IWANTIT" commenters. I would presume that those who would use user categories for collaboration are also those who would do something as simple as check recent edit history before making blanket accusations. - jc37 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What in your recent editing history (which I have looked into multiple times, though admittedly I didn't feel compelled to spend hours analyzing it in detail) suggests anything contrary to what I said? — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jc, I was confusing you and User:Nv8200p, mistakenly treating both accounts as the same person. Turns out I know considerably less about your editing history than I thought I did, so I apologize if I was too quick in jumping to conclusions. — xDanielx ^T/_C 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is not the proper venue at this time because there hasn't been opportunity to discuss the matter with the closer. While I understand the desire to avoid having all of these categories emptied, I think this AN/I thread is premature:

• The categories have not been listed at WP:CFD/WU;
• The bot operator who usually handles the emptying, renaming, and merging of user categories is aware of the controversy;
• The closer has been notified that his decision is being challenged on his talk page and is unlikely to use his bot (User:^demonBot2) to empty the category until (or unless) a resolution is reached.

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being unable to reply last night. After closing that UCFD, I had every intention of coming to ANI myself and putting up a notice, as I was sure it was going to be controversial. However, I stepped out for a cigarette, one thing led to another, and I found myself waking up and rushing out the door to class. And such, here I am.

I closed the UCFD this way for several reasons, that I detailed in my closing rationale (which I won't reproduce here, but here's a diff). First and foremost is the issues of usefulness. It has been a long-established precedent on UCFD that user categories need to have a least some modicum of collaborative nature. As a closer, I don't ask for proof of much, just a little bit to say "This is being used for collaboration." Sadly, no evidence was forthcoming. This group of categories repeatedly has not been able to produce any evidence that these categories are being used for anything above and beyond identification. Show me a few diffs (where members are collaborating because they found each other through the category), and I'll be convinced. Secondly, I saw a great number of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ILIKEITTOO votes, which did not play into my rationale to close as such. I read the arguments for renaming, and I declined to close it that way because of active resistance to the idea with relevant arguments (it's true, being a member of a university does not imply interest, I don't want to collaborate on my university's article for sure...). Finally, the high school decision played into my closing rationale to some extent, as I felt the arguments played out there were particularly relevant, as the scope of categories is almost identical (the difference being a few years' age). I was well aware that I closed against consensus, but I felt I was acting in Wikipedia's best interest, trying to uphold policy and tradition, and try to move us close to the goal of improving the encyclopedia, rather than becoming a social networking website. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was well aware that I closed against consensus..." Then you shouldn't have closed the discussion, especially since you clearly cannot be considered a neutral admin on this issue. It is not the job of the closing admin to interject their own opinion, effectively overriding the community's. Several users have stated they have used these categories, myself included, but I have never gone to a user's talk page and said "Hey, I found you in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: XYZ". There is no way to substantiate the claim. Likewise, there is no evidence these categories are not used collaboratively, this closure was against consensus, and based on policy that was specifically refuted in the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was well aware that I closed against consensus..." Then you did the wrong thing, admins are not empowered to do whatever they like. See you at DRV :) User:Veesicle 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is totally untrue. It is the responsibility of a closing admin to close based on policy, not consensus. If consensus conflicts with policy, policy should be enforced until such a time as the policy is changed. Corvus cornix 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is against policy then the policy needs to change or WP:IAR. KnightLago 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin who closes any xfD discussion in violation of policy should expect to see the article taken to WP:DRV and have him/herself slapped with a trout. Corvus cornix 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was not against policy. ^demon may believe that these categories related somehow to a social network, but his opinion should not cloud his judgment when so many users have stated they believe these are for a collaborative function, not social networking. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't investigated this particular case, I'm merely trying to point out to Veesicle that it's policy that comes first, not consensus. Corvus cornix 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Veesicle (talk · contribs) has listed this at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7. - auburnpilot talk 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of you seem to have not actually read WP:USEFUL in awhile. (I'll put the important part in bold.) "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion." User categories fall within this. To say that USEFUL is not a valid argument at UCFD when USEFUL itself contradicts you (!) is absolutely Orwellian. So there was, in fact, a crystal clear consensus grounded in policy. Because this out-of-policy, anti-consensus, anti-collaboration action will also anger many of the thousands of users in these categories (I'm not one of them, incidentally) this is one of the worst examples of abusive use of administrator tools that I've ever seen. --JayHenry 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg

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

I have indefinitely blocked this SPA because the disruption that they bring does now outweighs their limited contributions. They have a history of revert warring, assuming bad faith and appear incapable of working in a colaborative way. They have ignored an RFC and a RFAR [25] and the latter makes good reading to understand the basic problems with this editor. Perusal of the history of Talk:Least-squares_spectral_analysis would also prove instructive. Last night Mikegodwin removed a bunch of stuff from this talk page at Geoeg's request (no problems with that. Geoeg then took this as carte blanch to remove the RFAR from the page (despite it being open) and several archives from the COI noticeboard. Clearly, if Mikegoodwin had intended this he would have done it himself. I'm tired of this user's disruption and its time to put an end to it. Like all of my admin actions, please feel free to disagree, overturn and comment as you wish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Geoeg is a disruptive SPA who cannot work with other users. Sam Blacketer 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse While Geoeg does have some contributions, the disruption caused by a pattern of tendencious editing seems to outweigh those contribs. (Given that Geoeg hasn't modified his behavior after any of his previous 6 blocks). --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note that there is a malformed unblock request ob Geoeg's talk page if anyone feels like dealing with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• endorse block. Sadly this individual is not able to "play nice". Guy (Help!) 08:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing other users on one's own user page

A while ago, I started a thread here with the same title (see the archive here) regarding User:GHcool using his user page as a WP:SOAPBOX and to call out other users, quoting them out of context and without a chance for rebuttal, effectively making them look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid.

Despite User:GHcool constantly changing the heading to make the incident seem more innocuous (see here, here, here and here), several administrators called on User:GHcool to remove the offending parts of his user page, which resulted in User:GHcool making a single edit, leaving the rest of the page as it was.

The page has since been extended by a few quotes (here, here and here).

Can any administrator have a word with User:GHcool and make sure he revises his user page?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:30

I've taken the liberty to change the title of this debate because I feel that it misrepresents the issue and begs the question. Furthermore, since I am unaware of any guidelines against changing the heading of a section in a non-talk page, I trust that nobody will criticize this action.

Its a shame that Pedro Gonnet feels the need to harass me like this. I could understand if he were one of the users I criticize on my page, but he isn't. Most of Pedro Gonnet's edits are perfectly acceptable to me. We have disagreed on talk pages in the past, but in general, I find that Pedro Gonnet is not a problem editor or a liar. I try to limit my criticisms to statements that are demonstrably false. I do not assume bad faith, nor do personally attack users. I feel that this does not solve any problems and would probably create more problems. I prefer instead to criticizing users' fallacious statements, since, in my opinion, the responsiblity of Wikipedia editors is to correct falsehoods, demanding proof, and noting a biased point of view. This is the third time somebody has tried to stop me from using my user page to explain my views and I expect and hope that it will be the third time the charges will be exonerated. Thank you. --GHcool 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of the new quotes mentioned above do, indeed, misrepresent the users by being taken out of context. I suggest you remove them from your userpage, or the end result is going to be the entire page being deleted. ELIMINATORJR 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminatorjr, you'll find that I'm a pretty reasonable person. Perhaps if you gave me feedback on the specific instance when you feel I misrepresented someone, I could review it and see if I could correct it. I think that course of action would be more productive and more cooperative than idle threats. --GHcool 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, this probably isn't the place. ELIMINATORJR 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! I recommend that anybody else who wants to discuss this matter talk directly to me on my user page like Eliminatorjr has done. There's no need to take time away from the busy administrators on this issue. --GHcool 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, since I am unaware of any guidelines against changing the heading of a section in a non-talk page, I trust that nobody will criticize this action." That is somewhat disingenuous, since I explicitly pointed you to the relevant guidelines on your talk page. Let me quote the relevant part for you:

“ Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. ”

The italics are in the original. Or are you trying to imply that these rules don't apply to this page since it is not strictly in the talk-namespace? That would be even more disingenuous.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 08.11.2007 08:57

I've taken the liberty of moving Pedro Gonnet's complaint to the bottom of the section, where it is more chronologically relevant. I've also taken the liberty of changing the title of this section to a more neutral phrase.

As Pedro Gonnet predicted, I interpret the guidelines listed on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to refer only to talk pages. This is the most logical interpretation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I'm surprised that Pedro Gonnet interprets such a clearly named guideline article to refer to anything other than talk pages. However, editing other users' comments violates the spirit of the guideline, so I will not do that and don't expect others to do that to me.

I don't interpret Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to mean that headings fall under the category of "Others' comments" or "editing comments." Headings are everybody's responsiblity, not just the person who posts it. By analogy, if I wrote a heading, "Pedro Gonnet keeps harassing me for no good reason," and then proceeded to discuss a specific problem I had with Pedro Gonnet on the administrators' noticeboard, I would hope that somebody would change this heading to reflect what is actually being discussed and something that would not beg the question. Thank you. --GHcool 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines to seek a wider consensus on this issue. —Random832 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

Ok, let's leave the WP:Wikilawyering to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Can we now get back to the subject of User:GHcool is using his user page as a WP:SOAPBOX and to call out other users and quote them out of context without giving them a chance of rebuttal? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 10:32

User:Abhih

I don't know where else to put this, but can someone help this guy out? I'm trying to give him some advice on his talk page about appropriate and inappropriate uses of CSD templates, but instead...he reported me to WP:AIV for removing CSD templates whose claim was essentially that the article was not encyclopedic (which is not a valid CSD reason)...can an admin please explain to him why excessive use of inappropriate CSD templates is disruptive? The guy obviously wants to help Wikipedia, but I think he's having trouble understanding that there are already policies and consensuses in place...and you can't just speedy an article because you don't like it (note that some of the speedies have been perfectly legit)...he seems to have fairly good intentions and could probably be a good SPAM warrior...just a wee misguided. - Smashville 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - he's very enthusiastic about his hunting down of potential COI and advertising, but he obviously doesn't quite grasp the concept of an article expressing notability. Judging from the way he shrugged off Smashville's comments, pointing out that he's not an admin, someone with the bit would probably do well to give him a careful explanation of the speedy deletion rules and some of the other options... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Now he's accused me of stalking him because I sent him a note telling him to listen to the other editors...since I noticed he started the wikidrama at the bottom of this noticeboard. --Smashville^BONK! 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot running riot

Hello I would like to alert the wikipedia community that BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) appears to have gone on a mess campaign to get every image licensed under the template {{logo}} deleted reguardless if they have a proper rationale or not. All the images are being tagged for deletion and when this happens the bot posts on the talkpages of articles in an intimidating matter saying in other words "The image will be deleted" basically, claiming that all Rationale's I think we can improve this bot because it just seems to be a nuisance. The sunder king 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of edits you think it's making incorrectly? --bainer (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging images which have fair rationales as having no or incorrect rationales. The sunder king 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what we are looking for is a specific example or two. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit concerns me. The image is the standard resolution with a rationale and proper license, and the bot has threatened deletion on it. The sunder king 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the template, they fail WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's tagging images correctly to me. Image:Borough of Sunderland COA.png, Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, and Image:Nwlogo.gif...which you've recently removed the tag from...all have information lacking from their rationales. You've failed to include a link to the article it's being used in. --Onorem♠Dil 15:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

They are being used in articles, but please read Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, it has a strong rationale. The sunder king 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From the tag, "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed."

I didn't say that they aren't being used in articles. A link to the article the image is being used in must be included in the fair use rationale. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read and done that on the description pages. The sunder king 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If Betacommand would be more communicative (your reverts could have had something in the summary) this could have been resolved much sooner. —Random832 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest when you see the amount of complaints/requests on his talk page from people who haven't read the linked pages, you understand why he is now less communicative than before. We all have only 24 hours in our days. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Random. Orderinchaos 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a simple matter of placing the article the picture is used in in the Fair Use rationale. If you do this, it should be okay. JuJube 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but couldn't BCBot be modified to insert the proper 10c article link rather than tag them for deletion on a technicality? Powers ^T 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that is not something a bot can do, how is it supposed to know where the current rationale is for? not all rationales are the same. β^_command 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, such logos are used on a single page. Powers ^T 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen images uploaded for page A and a rationale was written for page A, Image was placed on page B and later removed from page A. does that mean rationale A is valid for page B? (no) it requires human judgment. β^_command 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would object to a bot inserting fair use rationales, that should never be done automatically, or what's the point in having a fair use rationale, anyway? How is the bot supposed to know if the article that the image is in, is actually being used under proper fair use considerations? Corvus cornix 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree, but in the case of logos it seems vanishingly unlikely. The vast, vast, vast majority of cases are blindingly obvious. Powers ^T 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? So, then you think there would be no problem with putting a TV network logo into every program shown on that network and letting the bot create the fair rationale in those cases? I would find the idea that a network's logo in a series or TV movie article would fail fair use usage. Corvus cornix 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here...

...Was not the bot, nor the user who undid the bot. The problem was two sterile reverts: [26] and [27] which restored the bot rationale warning tag without explaining why the tag had been placed.

All editors and administrators bear a responsibility for discussing issues which may come up. We accept bot actions within accepted ranges of activity as exceptions to that - the bot tagging here is appropriate. However, Betacommand manually reinserted the bot tag twice without so much as an edit summary or talk page comment to explain why the rationale that was there was not compliant with rationale requirements in the fair use policy.

I have warned Betacommand for sterile edit warring and failing to take reasonable efforts to inform and discuss and clarify policy when it was challenged. The bot was right; the tag was right; the rationale was deficient. Explaining why it was deficient was B's responsibility under the circumstances, however, and he didn't do that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm supposed to be on wikibreak and I'm getting emails and messages at my talk page from newbies concerned their images are being deleted (I'm sure I'm not alone amongst admins in getting these sorts of contacts) - they simply don't understand what they need to do to make them comply, and there is a general perception out there that the rules and goalposts keep moving, so if they fix it now, they'll have to fix it again in a few weeks or months. This is the main problem I have with this - for the sake of arbitrary correctness we are driving good contributors off the project out of sheer frustration. In cases where it simply points to a redirect or disambiguation instead of the final destination, the bot should fix it itself instead of mindlessly nominating for deletion. Orderinchaos 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That last biut seems kind of obvious to me... Viridae^Talk 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too. It is understandable that a bot makes bot-like edits, but it is also reasonable to expect the operator of the bot to provide civil and helpful responses to good-faith queries. --John 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot follows redirects, as for DAB pages those are not valid. As for reverting, if a user actually read the notice, and the link that is provided they would know what the issue is. Instead the choose to undo or revert without fixing the issue that has been brought up. I just revert back. User who come to my talk page I try and help. β^_command 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. In particular, when applying arcane and often confusing policy to users who have little understanding of it, administrators and senior editors have a responsibility to proactively communicate in more detail to get the right message out. We cannot force the editor to listen and understand, but failing to make the effort to explain it to them adequately is assuming bad faith and unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. They should not have to come to your talk page to get an adequate explanation. If you revert, you owe them at least an edit summary that explains. You haven't been doing even that. Please take the time to help people. Assume good faith and explain it to them at least once, preferably at least twice if they don't get it the first time. WP:AGF and WP:BITE require that we treat them with respect and good faith efforts to communicate. The sterile reverts are as far away from that policy and underlying intended policy as you can get... Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

as for DAB pages those are not valid -- no, they're not valid, but what they are is automatically fixable. —Random832 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Worth considering (although tangential to GWH's post that began this thread) is that when one moves a pgae, a message appears to encourage oneto do some housekeeping afterwards -- fix double redirects, etc. It might be useful to add a note to also verify that all non-free images in the article are also updated. -- llywrch 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

The tags added by BetacommandBot seemed to be valid, but users did not understand why the images were tagged. Perhaps BetacommandBot could be reprogrammed to write "rationale lacks information about which article the image is used in" in its messages instead of "bad rationale per NFCC#10c"? This is not the first time I see someone not understanding this message. Is he back? 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions

Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) (aka Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)) is repeatedly disrupting XfD discussions relating to articles and categories in which he has a conflict of interest, despite the guidace at WP:COI to "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 2.Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors", which presumably also applies to autobiographical articles.

A previous example can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the most recent problems are with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers and with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the current AfD, Young has:

1. made one edit full of personal attacks, with lots of badly-formatted and barely-relevant links (it appears to be another block-copy-and-paste of a screen of google results) [28]
2. Accused me as nominator of having a COI becaise I nominated a related category [29]
3. chopped up and disrupted the nomination, leaving it unclear who wrote what [30]
4. abusively accuses another editor of "conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking" merely because they frequently comment on my talk page, calling this "a 'pissing contest'"[31]

Young also appears to contributing under an IP adress: [32].

It can often be useful to have the subject of an article comment at AfD, but this disruption is too much. I have restored my nomination, but please could someone try to apply some brakes here before this AfD becomes as much of a mess as the other XfDs where Young's COI has led him to post screenfuls of irrelevancies? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have tried discussing these problems with Young, both on his talk page and mine (see A, B B), including trying to discourage him from noting his canvassing, both in wikipedia and through his mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above user has conducted an unmitigated campaign that borders on abusive of the power and authority bestowed to a Wikipedia administrator. Questionable activities include:

A. Deleting relevant arguments

WP:AN on CfD disruption See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions.

Please note also that I have restored my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) to its state before you edited it. Please do read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

B. Using negative terms

C. Avoiding attempts at negotiation

D. Engaging in retributive AFD nominations

A check of the records will find that this originally started with Category:supercentenarian trackers AFD when the above user decided to delete pertinent material. I am a reasonable person but when someone begins making false accusations and then deleting the reponse, that has gone way, way too far.Ryoung122 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do read wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. BrownHairedGirl reverted your edit because the additions of your arguments made the AfD nomination unreadable. Interspersing your own comments between someone else's is bad enough in general Talk page usage (it's a lot like repeatedly interrupting someone while they're trying to speak) but to do so on an AfD nomination is worse. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, can you please provide diffs (Help: Diff) to substantiate your claims? Natalie 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And we have now had a further series of edits from Ryoung122 chopping up the nomination for a second time, and in this edit breaking indentation and introducing many paragraphs of material irrelevant to the AfD.

Two editors have taken some steps to tidy things a bit, but the discussion is still a huge big mess, and on past form will get worse if Young contributes again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is formatting, there is no issue. The issue is CONTENT. The content I added was highly appropriate. I merely documented the assertion that what I said about User:Aboutmovies was accurate: that he was the creator of the Mary Ramsey Wood page and therefore had a conflict of interest in this discussion, since he maintained that the woman was '120' years old, when research suggested she was around 97 or 98. User BHG claimed that some of the links didn't mention me, when in fact they did. Thus, in both cases the facts were on my side. The response, to delete them or 'claim' the issue is 'formatting', is a smokescreen.Ryoung122 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had a previous encounter with Ryoung122. I won't deny that he is knowledgable in his field, but the fact he acts as if his expertise excuses all incivil behavior on his part makes him a difficult case. He has been blocked once, & I wouldn't be surprised if he is blocked again, for a longer period. -- llywrch 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is the other way around. Some persons have made themselves into 'Wiki-stars' and have made process more important than 'content', making Wikipedia an end unto itself instead of the tool to arrive at the theoretical purpose, education of the public. I don't believe that 'uncivil behavior' should be excused. I do believe that persons who 'claim' someone else is being uncivil, OFTEN are being UNCIVIL themselves. For example,

How about THIS comment:

Comment. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe any of the claims made by Robert Young. In a comment above made from an IP address, Young says "there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet".

If someone who claims to be a researcher thinks that they are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", I have to seriously question whether anything they write can be trusted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the typical, BAITING, FALSE comment that BHG has posted. When the facts were on my side, the response is now an appeal to emotion. I note that her track record isn't clean, either, with disputes such as on the Erdos numbers page and others asking her to tone things down a bit. Saying that "I have to seriously question whether anything (they) write can be trusted" is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, given that what I said was VERIFIABLE and FACTUAL. Deleting references that support my statements hardly constitutes a fair, balanced, or civil approach. If the arguments get heated, remember it takes both sides. Remember user BHG started it, by deleting appropriate comments on a CFD page. If one as the accuser claims something is not 'verifiable' then, at the least, one would expect that the 'defendant' could post evidence of verifiability. Deleting proof is simply muzzling free speech.Ryoung122 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that anyone has ever been "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", or even that such a position could exist. and the problem is that Robert does not seem to understand the sweeping nature of the claim being made. He probably intends to claim to that his role as a fact-checker for a popular publication is not limited to old people in any set of countries, but the inability to distinguish between the two is what leads me to query whether any of his claims is credible. This sort of hyperbole is one the things which fact-checkers should be rigorously hunting down, rather than employing it themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I'd like to note some items in your response. First, as Natalie asked above, please furnish diffs -- or at least links -- to the pages you refer. I have spent a couple hours trying to find any trace of this exchange where BHG acted inappropriately. (I assume you are referring to this talk page.)

Second, there is a very clear line between commenting on a person & commenting on their actions; sometimes it is easy to blur the line between them. However, BHG's comment you quote above can be read or seen as a comment on your actions: she is making an observation based on your claim that you are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Taken at face value, the words "in charge" imply that you are responsible for their welfare -- you make sure that these people get enough food, receive shelter, are attended to by a doctor, and so forth. While I know from other contexts that this is not what you meant -- IIRC, you are in charge of maintaining a list of these people -- rather than clarifying this statement, or explaining that you were quoted out of context, you respond with a strongly-worded paragraph with six words capitalized for emphasis! (Using capitalization for emphasis is not like adding hot peppers to salsa: using a little goes much further than a lot.)

This makes for very unpleasant reading, & I wonder whether you are aware of how intimidating your responses can be. And I speak from experience. The one time we crossed paths was at the article Katr67 refers to below. Looking back I'm amazed that although I was only marginally involved in that dispute, reading that conversation left me with an unpleasant impression of you. Every point you made could have been done with fewer words & far less emphasis. Have a look at the discussion at the link I made above, to the CfD on Erdos numbers: people were passionate, even angry, in that discussion, but I rarely saw anyone need to capitalize their words for emphasis.

All of this leaves me with an impression of a person who is given to making sweeping statements, & who responds to questions not with careful, rational arguments, but impassioned assertions accompanied by wild gestures. I don't think this impression is accurate -- seeing how you have a job that depends on meticulous work -- but it is very hard to reconcile these two. I believe this led to BHG to make her observation about you. Unless you change your style here on Wikipedia, more people will come to believe she is accurate. If that happens, they will act appropriately. -- llywrch 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to point out that the conflict at the Mary Ramsey Wood article that Ryoung122 often brings up, (and in which he cited himself as source, which is what necessitated creating an article about himself) was not about whether she was 120 years old, a claim which nobody involved in the article was defending, it was about how to present the information that debunked the claim (which was made in 1908 and not by any of the involved authors, who were simply quoting cited sources). The article history and talk page gives the details of the mediation I requested by Trusilver, involving myself and Aboutmovies, with additional comments from Peteforsyth, who also made some attempts at mediation. I walked away from that article because of the relentless accusations of bad faith by Ryoung122, and I hesitate to comment here now because it's likely my comments will bring additional bad faith accusations, making my editing experience on Wikipedia stressful and unpleasant. If any editor previously uninvolved with the Wood article can point out how my actions there might be characterized as bad faith, however, I will certainly apologize to Ryoung122. Katr67 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• From what I saw on the talk page of that article it appeared that Young was attempting to brow beat anyone who didn't accept his word and opinions as irrefutable fact. Assuming good faith aside this guy seems to have a self-installed God complex. He appears to be rude, patronising and bullish. From what I saw you have no reason to apologise for anything. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More canvassing by Ryoung122

Just as he did at a recent CfD, Ryoung122 has now done some stealth canvassing of the AfD on his autobiography: see http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9032

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, removal of sourced material, POV-pushing, personal attack

Resolved

 – content dispute --Haemo 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EliasAlucard has removed sourced material from Neo-Nazism and National Socialist Front, in an effort to push an uncited point of view. I have made comprimises and searched out several references to back up the facts in those articles, but EliasAlucard continues to revert my constructive and referenced edits. He has also made at least one unwarranted personal attack against me in an edit note in the neo-Nazism article, and has used caps in edit notes (aka yelling). He was also recently edit warring to change the capitalization in the titles of Anti-fascism and Anti-communism; without justification, against standard capitalization guidelines, and against the consensus on Wikipedia for articles about isms (although he seems to have backed down from that).Spylab 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Spylab here is misrepresenting me. His sources don't claim that National Socialist Front has as its ideology, "Neo-Nazism". They call it a Neo-Nazi organisation/group, which is what it is, but they do not label its ideology as "Neo-Nazi". Second of all, Neo-Nazism, is not a unique ideology in itself, it's a political movement seeking to revive an ideology, namely, Nazism. This is even confirmed by User:Spylab's sources. About his sources, I didn't remove them, I bundled them together into one cohesive source. And as for his personal attack claim, I remarked: it seems you have a reading disorder or something; all of your sources confirm that "Neo-Nazism" is a political movement trying to revive Nazism; and Nazism is an ideology.[33] Why? because his sources, don't say once that Neo-Nazism is a unique ideology that differs from the original Nazism, they all say it's a political movement. This is hardly POV-pushing. I have been accused of vandalism by this user, and that can certainly lead to a block on his part for accusing me of vandalism over a content-dispute. What's more, is that he has been reverted by me and another user over his failure to understand that Neo-Nazi groups do not have an ideology called "Neo-Nazism", and he should be blocked for at least 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:17 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:Slarre reverted Spylab's edit by pointing out that his sources don't support his preferred version.[34] It seems to me, Spylab lacks a lot of knowledge on Nazism and he misinterprets his own sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:32 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

• My footnotes, do in fact, back up my edits. That is why I chose those references. That can be confirmed by clicking on those references and using control-F (or find) to find the appropriate text.Spylab 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The following references call neo-Nazism an ideology, not just a movement:

• "Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology..."
• "Neo-Nazism: An ideology which draws upon the legacy of the Nazi Third Reich..."
• "Where parents and teachers have fallen short of educating German children about the horrors of their past, as well as the dangers that come with allowing neo-Nazism to continue, the promoters of neo-Nazi ideology and organizations have been able to make inroads."
• "...the ideology of neo-Nazism is secondary to the cult of the music itself." I removed one reference that did not call neo-Nazism an ideology, but those four references clearly refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology.Spylab 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not the place to discuss this. This is a content dispute, not about vandalism or anything else. You should stop pasting your refs here and let us discuss it where it belongs. For the record, your refs are all wrong and not academic. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:12 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with the above. WP:ANI is not the place for content disputes; try dispute resolution. --Haemo 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a simple content dispute at all, especially since part of the problem is incivility in edit notes and talk pages (not just the single personal attack you linked to), and the unwillingness to comprimise. As for the content dispute itself, I have provided several references, and you have dismissed them all out of hand, and haven't provided any references proving that neo-Nazism is not an ideology. We are just supposed to take your uncited personal opinion as fact. Here is a list of 15 more references. That makes a total of 19 references explicitly describing neo-Nazism as an ideology vs zero references attempting to disprove that fact.Spylab 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been very unwilling yourself to compromise, especially with your reverts. You should be glad I haven't reported you for violating 3RR. There's no need to compromise with you when you are entirely wrong about the facts and misinterpret vague descriptions of your sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:20 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I have comprimised many times, by combining the two versions and providing multiple references to back up the facts. You have reverted to versions that are not backed up by anything other than your own personal opinion. You may have also violated 3RR, but I'm not petty enough to check.Spylab 15:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved at all; not just a content dispute

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EliasAlucard has continued to make uncivil and insulting comments in edit notes and talk pages, and has continued to blank out factual content backed up by multiple references; with no justification other than his own uncited personal opinion. He even admitted on Talk:Neo-Nazism that my references do in fact, back up what I have been stating all along, but still blanked out that content for no legitimate reason.Spylab 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic user P.F.O.S.B.

P.F.O.S.B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor may need to be blocked soon for editing which perhaps falls short of being obvious vandalism. They have made a number of edits, clearly NPOV violations, to controversial articles (e.g. Abortion, Lethal Injection) with plainly misleading edit summaries. The editor has also edit-warred on Prison Break and so far has removed one warning from their Talk page without comment (not a crime in itself, I know, but it doesn't help assess the user).

This begs the question of how many "good" edits a user needs to make, to be able to avoid being blocked as a disruption-only account. In their defense, I'm sure P.F.O.S.B. will point to the many speedy-deletion tags that make up the rest of their contribs. However, tagging Base load fallacy as an attack article may not be all that constructive... Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

I've been thinking about this too. The user has made about 80 valid speedy deletion taggings, which is an excellent contribution from a new user joining new page patrol. But, we can't make it seem like one can "buy" POV edits and tendentious practices with a certain amount of near-automatic new page tagging. Leebo ^T/C 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read the message by User:SheffieldSteel on my talk page notifying me of this discussion here. The problem is that I sometimes use Wikipedia from a public computer in our college library. When logging in to Wikipedia I habitually check the "Remember me" box so I must have been logged in to Wikipedia on that computer all the time. Then some other person using that same computer must have made all those stupid vandalism edits you are talking about - which meant nothing to me at first, before I went checking them out just a few minutes ago. I'm sorry for any extra workload that this might have caused you. I'll definitely try to be more alert using the "Remember me" feature but you know how it is with those bad habits... Regarding the Base load fallacy article (which actually was tagged CSD by me) I have to point out, that this article was written like an attack page at that time. However, it has been cleaned up since, so the matter can be considered resolved by now. Maybe I should have put a cleanup tag rather than a CSD on it in the first place, I have to admit that. P.F.O.S.B. 15:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, please keep in mind that you are responsible for all edits made by your account. You have received warnings for these edits, so you may still be blocked if they occur again in the future, regardless of the person physically pressing the keys. Leebo ^T/C 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I made a mistake in my initial assessment of P.F.O.S.B.'s contribs, and apologise for any distress caused. As a non-admin, I couldn't see the number of good speedy deletion nominations this user had made - only the noms that hadn't yet been deleted, plus various POV edits (totalling less than 50 - Leebo's mention of 80 tags alerted me to my error). Hopefully P.F.O.S.B.'s account will in future be more secure as a result of this discussion, so, despite my initial error... all's well that ends well? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:69.226.46.17

• 69.231.5.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.226.46.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mastermesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brother Dave Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently it all started with the popular culture section of the Plymouth Valiant when I added a trivia tag then purged that section, that user got angry and vandalised one of the page I created as seen here as well as writing in to another user with a false statement that I removed it because it had nothing to do with foreign shit boxes, this is without checking my user contribution history

He then under the username Mastermeth (see contribution history), decided to vandalise numerous of my articles, which he ended up getting banned. Following the ban, he than came to my talk page and made another personal attack, accusing me discrediting Detroit and then removed that. I only got to know about it when I received a new message notification. I believe that these listed above are the same users as he has written the same topic about Michigan. Willirennen 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I don't see anything since two days ago. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Willirennen contribs, it looks like he logged in today and saw the new message banner. spryde | talk 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this contribution history, I suspect that that user may be a sock puppet of this user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this user appear to have used two accounts to split his contributions history, also uploading pictures as means to replace the trivia section which has been purged off per policy. Not to mention writing to my talk page and contributing to the same article within an hour of each other. Willirennen 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:63.3.10.130

User:63.3.10.130 attempted to reset my password today, probably in response for me nominating one of his articles for deletion. Is there a protocol for handling situations like these? Caknuck 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now that I look at this more closely, I'm pretty sure we have a sock of User:Cowboycaleb1 here. Look at the date the account was created, the contribution histories & the spelling of "referance" in the edit summaries. Second opinion anyone? Caknuck 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As some small advice, delete the e-mail/ignore/don't do anything with it. Maxim 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I figured. Thanks, Caknuck 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I'm not sure it's worth spending a second bothering with that idiot. He twice tried to have my password reset which is annoying but completely harmless. I see that the IP has now been indef-blocked though I'm guessing this will be lifted at some point due to collateral damage. In any case, CowboyCaleb1 has also edited from public computers so he'll probably continue to be a nuisance. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be alert

Everyone's favorite foul-mouthed, likely-Canadian-expatriate vandal is back. This is following a four+ month absence, so watchlisting the articles on the linked page, or at least some of them, would be greatly appreciated. Natalie 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Add 58.8.21.24 (talk · contribs) to that list. I had a lovely little exchange with this dapper young gentleman. JuJube 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And 58.8.28.232 (talk · contribs). JuJube 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's fun. A real charmer. Natalie 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• And 58.8.26.174 (talk · contribs) yesterday. Pascal.Tesson 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Venusboat

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Shell Kinney. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to voice concerns about this user. He has been removing a smile on Jimbo Wales's talk page saying it is "unencyclopedic." Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the guy is now calling Angel David (whom posted the message) a "derranged stalker." I'm starting to think this guy is somewhat of a troll. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, he's a troll for sure. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, it was pretty clear from his first edit that he was a troll. Corvus cornix 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block on IP 165.21.83.230

Resolved

 – Blocked 72 hours.

I've noticed this IP address has made many spam edits. I just reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odex&action=history Please investigate. Talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:165.21.83.230

Jc4k 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days by User;Flyguy649 for vandalism. Next time, please make reports of persisting vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ~ Sebi 09:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

SPAM?

Is this really okay? See these contributions Special:Contributions/Zhanliusc. - Rjd0060 06:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been done before by other similar projects. Precedent from those experiences seem to say that it is permissible as long as the survey is legitimate, among other "requirements." —Kurykh 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OKAY. I have no idea, just wanted to point it out since he says he is going to add it to 200 admin's talk pages. - Rjd0060 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just spent 20 minutes trying to find it in the archives: link. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember receiving an email about something similar a while back, about some interview or survey... wait let me dig it up... "Request for opinions about our Showcasing events on the impact of Wikipedia" was the subject. The email goes on to discuss celebrations of "Jimmy Wales' work" in setting up the project, before suggesting some ways to celebrate, like distribution of "Wikipedia-related postcards" (my favourite :P), mascots and some wiki-related documentary... hmmm... ~ Sebi 07:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly (?) I am not one of the 200 randomly chosen admins. This looks like a legitimate academic survey, although leaving a note at 200 talk pages seems... spammish. That said, unless people have strenuous objections, I suggest leaving this up to the recipients. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems spammish to me too. And for better or worse, I've already deleted well over half. -- Hoary 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I could self-revert. On the other hand the would-be researcher could simply (i) write a description on a subpage of his, and (ii) link to it from a likely page. -- Hoary 10:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Its been done before - see User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf/Archive15#Survey Invitation - Special:Contributions/WikiInquirer. If I remember correctly it was legit, and after some discussion on one of the noticeboards (don't take my word fully on that - I can't remember for sure where it was discussed) (Oops I missed Bbatsell finding it) it was deemed harmless. Best part was, you got either a $10USD certificate to Amazon.com - or a 10$ donation in your name to WMF. I chose the latter myself. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've read a discussion of a similar event that led to the opposite conclusion. But since I don't remember any name involved, it's hard to search for.

I'm all in favor of academic research and I'm not strongly opposed to "mass-mailings" when they're for this purpose. But I suppose lots of other potential mass-mailers seriously (indeed fanatically) believe that nothing is more important than, oh, say, the rights to life of fetuses: if you allow spamming for academic purposes surely you should allow it for this or that other cause or matter of Faith (capital F).

It may be highly presumptuous of me to say the following, never having got an MPhil (let alone PhD) in anything like communication, but I think I'm also doing this person and his or her apparently inattentive supervisor a big favor by aborting [pardon me!] this attempt at research. If the research is what it claims to be, the methodology (to phrase it grandly) has a whopping great flaw in it. (See my message on his talk page.) They should rethink it, trash any results they've already got, and start afresh (perhaps following my own amateurish advice, which you're all of course welcome to refine, or even contradict). In view of this, I suggest that somebody else completes the job of deleting his many invitations. But you may on the contrary decide that it's me who's confused, and decide to revert my deletions. -- Hoary 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man deleted the rest of the "spam", I gave him the link to this discussion too. Only one left is [35] which was the only one I undid as I saw it thanks to my watchlist. Since I wasn't invited I don't much care about the survey itself, I just wanted to let you know that there was a discussion going on. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for doing so. But I think that this time I was right, and to hell with the contrary precedent. I wish them well with the research, which they can carry out just as well (indeed, I think much better) by soliciting participants in a different and more careful way. -- Hoary 11:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) As one of those "randomly" selected for solicitation, it strikes me as outright spam — which I happen to be allergic to. Regardless of the intentions, there are proper channels for initiating this sort of effort. From what I gather, there are those with authority to speak on behalf of the Project; targeting me for participation because I am armed without going through the proper channels does grate on me. --Aarktica 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is legit, the student should leave his/her advisor's university-based e-mail address so it can be verified. Otherwise, we're opening ourselves up to all sorts of general mayhem. Rklawton 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The message does provide some links to the university website and a university email address, which means that the person is at least a student. I'm not sure what the protocol for verifying identities is when doing online research, but I hope there is one that this person is following. Natalie 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of more formal process for this type of situation in the future. Ideally, I'd like to see some sort of contact page here or on Meta pointing to an appropriate Foundation representative who could 'sanity check' such requests. (While I wouldn't want the Foundation to be in the business of deciding which projects have scientific merit, they could verify that the research was being sponsored by a legitimate and responsible institution, that – where necessary – appropriate ethics approval had been sought and received, that the researchers provided contact information to participants, and that steps had been taken to protect the privacy of participants. The Foundation could also potentially screen out the requests that were some sort of phishing or commercial spam.) Most solicitations for participants could be placed on the Village Pump, the Administrators' Noticeboard, and/or a special noticeboard specifically for the purpose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If anything I feel the inappropriate thing was to go about reverting it. There isn't really a point to that.. Cowman109^Talk 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Message from Zhan Li regarding Survey

I do apologize to anyone who was made uncomfortable with my original approach and if this contravened any Wikipedia guidelines. This is a genuine survey that has already passed an institutional review board process as well as review by a professor, and I did leave my email address ( zhanli at usc dot edu ) and university profile weblink (and my advisor's webpage) with the original message. And as I mentioned in the message, full details of survey conditions and participant rights (and full contact details) were also linked. I understand that there are objections to the way I began sending invitations, and I accept the community's decision to revert my invitations. I chose the individual random selection approach for sample size and variable control reasons (there are simpler methods would have much easier and faster for me, but not as effective). Regarding the point that sending the invite to 200 pages seems to be a disconcerting number, the size is not unusual. We are typically told to expect a 10-20% response rate, so only perhaps 40 responses would be expected from 200 invitations. But I understand why people might feel it was a "spammish" size. Regarding the point made by User:Hoary that the survey method was flawed as anyone could click on the survey link posted on an admin message page, this is a good point (though the survey questions do include a question specifically asking confirmation that the respondent is an administrator and any self-report survey is at least partially dependent on the honesty of its respondents). I am sure that there are ways that my research method could be improved. This is a project for an introduction to research methods course (the first time I've done any surveying).

It has been suggested that I post this survey invitation to an Administrator noticeboard (WP:AN ? ) instead. If this is a path that people on this board can generally agree on, please let me know. I will monitor this board for responses.

I very much appreciate people's guidance on this Thank you everyone, Zhan Li ( zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I, being the person who first brought this to the attention of ANI, agree with the above comments. The way you went about notifying the users of the survey wasn't entirely appropriate. I support the idea to add it to Administrators' Noticeboard and let the admin's decide for themselves if they want to become involved in this. - Rjd0060 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(As a fellow academic researcher with survey research experience) If your IRB will permit, you probably would be better served contacting admins individually via e-mail instead of posting a link to the survey anywhere in Wikipedia where it can be seen by everyone. That would preserve your random sampling methodology while ensuring a higher level of security for your survey. It would take a little while to click on the "e-mail user" link and paste your message 200 times but that's not too different from editing 200 user pages. --ElKevbo 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Spam. While not specifically to the point of how we feel about survey invitations, they do give the general feel about how we feel about mass posting of any kind of link. If you want a random sampling methodology, you probably need to limit participation to invitees. To do that, you probably will have to email the involved users, using the "email this user" link in the left hand toolbox on each selected user's page; but that would also be viewed as like spamming. To limit self-selected participation to admins, you can with the help of an active admin create a page containing a survey password and have it immediately deleted. Then a central notice can point to the deleted page, so that only admins will be able to see the password (admins can review deleted pages). Please, go ask your instructor whether a random sample or self-selected sample is better. Then ask them why... because that is how you will learn. GRBerry 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that drawing a distinction between a 'random sample' and a 'self-selected sample' is a bit of a stretch in this case. As Zhalinusc notes above, he expects (at best) a 10-20% response rate to his invitation. So he doesn't have a choice between 'random' and 'self-selected' samples—he has a choice between 'admins who will respond to a boilerplate spam message on their talk pages' and 'admins who will respond to a request on WP:AN'. Unless he's interested in doing research to measure the effectiveness of talk page spam, I see a pretty limited distinction between the different classes of self-selected participants he will get. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now contacted everyone (or I think I have. sorry if I have left anyone out inadvertently) involved in the original discussion to inform them of this subsequent discussion. Thank you very much for the advice given by everyone so far. Clearly there are people with far more experience and expertise in this kind of research method than I have. GRBerry has commented that emailing users with invitations would also be viewed as spam and has suggested setting up a password-protected page in collaboration with an admin. Would there be a way of limiting to approx. 200 the number of people "asked" or "shown" the page (regardless of whether they actually decide to participate)? Thank you. Zhanliusc 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with GRBerry's view that e-mail invitations may be perceived by a significant number of people as spam. There will be a number of people who view any unsolicited contact as unwelcome, regardless of the purpose or origin of the contact. But the bottom line is that a random sampling methodology demands that you invite potential respondents to participate. I could be wrong but setting up a password system and trying to limit it to admins sound relatively complicated and time-consuming, particularly when compared to e-mailed invitations. If you're really concerned that e-mailed invitations will negatively affect your response rate, bump up your sample size (which is virtually free using electronic surveys) and note this as a potential limitation in your write-up. --ElKevbo 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Stratified (when possible) random sampling is best, but when participation is voluntary, it's still a self-selected sample (unless - theoretically - you get a very high response rate; in practice I've never heard of that happening). Rklawton 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody very much for the helpful responses again. I really want to come to a solution which minimizes the chance of people worrying about spam, even if as people have noted above, it means better randomization/sample control is not possible ( I will just have to write up the limitations). I am also under some time pressure so I would like to come to a solution as soon as possible. Can I go ahead and assume that posting to the WP:AN noticeboard with an invitation and a link to a deleted page containing the survey link would be acceptable? (if so, please can someone help me create the deleted page then)? Alternatively, is there an admin-only email list that I can ask a list manager permission to forward the invitation to?. Zhanliusc 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from your nemesis, the jerk who deleted most of your invitations. Again, I didn't enjoy doing that: on the contrary, I'm inclined to give lots of help to anybody doing serious research, as you appear to be. As you'll have noticed, this page gets very full very quickly, and discussions roll off the top. I therefore suggest that all of us who are interested continue this discussion on your talk page. -- Hoary 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

---

Kwsn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) overturned a block of User:Perspicacite by TimVickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). User:Kwsn did this without discussion or notice. He's had the mop for 9 days according to his user page. What's the procedure on something like this? Is there a mentor prgram for inexperienced admins? --DHeyward 06:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The procedure, to me, would be going to Kwsn and talking to him about it, because sometimes people do slip up. However, about a minute before you posted this, he did indeed leave a note with Tim Vickers. So...what's the problem? Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What Mike said - try and engage him on his talk page first before bringing it here. And no, your post to his talk page doesn't constitute engaging him. Viridae^Talk 06:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing the merits of the block or unblock. However, I think it's appropriate for other admins to review exactly what courtesy is expected before undoing someone elses block. Jimbo was pretty clear. This type of unilateral undoing is disourteous and in some cases grounds for desysopping. --DHeyward 07:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, DHeyward waited eight minutes between the block and bringing this to AN/I. Sometimes people need to do things in their real life that might not let them write a note right away. Like, using the bathroom. Or walking a dog. Or eating. Or something. Eight minutes is hardly sufficient wait time before bringing it to AN/I. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --DHeyward 07:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I not clear? At the top of the page it says specifically that you go to the editor's talk page to resolve the issue first. You waited eight minutes between the block and complaining here. In that eight minutes, he contacted not only the unblocked user but the admin who blocked. In other words, the itchy trigger finger is a waste of AN/I's time. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was an hour and a half after he lifted the block. --DHeyward 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh really?

01:41, November 8, 2007 Kwsn (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Perspicacite (Talk | contribs) ‎ (No uncivility found, blocking admin was in conflict with blockee)

01:43, November 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Perspicacite‎ (→November 2007 - unblocked)

01:48, November 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:TimVickers‎ (header)

01:48, November 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:TimVickers

From what I can read here, exactly seven minutes transpired between all of these events. You then posted here that next minute. So where is this hour and a half? Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)‎

Wrong. I posted an hour after those events. here and here. 22:43 vs 23:49. --DHeyward 07:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you're the one that's an hour late. He wrote the note an hour before you got here. His events took seven minutes. You were delayed by an hour. So bringing my mistake up actually still makes you look bad here, because you brought it over despite Kwsn doing the right thing, and had completed that an hour before. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, no. The issue isn't that he "notified" the blocking admin. He undid the block without any discussion with the blocking admin. Jimbo very pointedley called out this type of admin behavior as incivil and disrepectful. I am only asking for comment/review on that action. --DHeyward 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other disturbing signs: Indef block of User:Masonflick as "Vandalism only" after only a single edit to a non-article. Year long block of IP 205.222.248.208 which belongs to a school. This seems to be a little over the top. --DHeyward 06:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Strike based on comments below.

Talk page. Viridae^Talk 07:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The eight-minute trick you just did does not help making your case against him, I'm sorry to say. Keep your ducks in a row before casting aspersions on others. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also probably worth getting your facts correct first. User:Masonflick had created a number of (now deleted) attack and nonsense pages. The achoolblock of 1 year (note - a schoolblock, not a hardblock) comes after increasing blocks of 2 months and 6 months and is a completely normal admin action. Anything else you'd like to bring up here? ELIMINATORJR 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DHeyward, please engage the administrator in discussion first. For your information (as you would have been told if you asked and didn't assume), Masonflick has 10 attack/nonsense page creations which are deleted, hence you can't see them. Daniel 07:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And on the IP, schoolblocks are often made for long periods of time (six months up to two years), with the summary {{schoolblock}}. Anon-only, account creation blocked is perfect (see the template). Daniel 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Masonflick (talk · contribs) created a series of very nasty or just stupid pages and was validly blocked. The block of 205.222.248.208 is also fairly standard given its block history (previous block was for 6 months)... WjBscribe 07:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what an utter waste of time this thread is. Moving along ... AmiDaniel (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's not really anything else to say here. :/ --krimpet⟲ 07:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? How'd this get closed in under an hour? I've reverted that (feel free to revert me back AFTER you've addressed the points I make). Seems to me it got sidetracked by focusing on the wrong person... I'd say a reminder to everyone that communication is good is in order, but that the reminder needs to start with an admin that feels the need to lift a block unilaterally rather than with the person that points out that a reminder is needed (in the wrong place, yes but it's a valid message). How many unilateral block lifts, followed by drama, do we need before the basic message comes through, don't lift without some discussion first? Can we expect that the messenger is always going to get shot from now on too? ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do hope not.

I think it's quite important that miscreants (or alleged miscreants) can't shop around for admins and attempt to play one off against another. Do you guys have some closed sort of clubroom where you can discuss nuances with each other away from the glare and scrutiny of non-admins (and, indeed, newbies such as myself) ? Alice.S 12:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Any large enterprise with thousands of volunteers is going to develop a mix of communication mediums and strategies. Some things are properly discussed in public, and some in private. So yes. And that is eminently right and appropriate. The trick (and it is not an easy one) is to make sure that appropriate use is made of the different channels, and that private channels are used only for discussing things that SHOULD remain private, and not to falsely replace public processes or the public seeking of consensus. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an admirable reply, Larry! (I thought you were Swedish until I just looked at your user page - however did you pick your weird account name?)

Bravo! What a wonderfully transparent, open and honest project I've joined, if you're anything to go by!Alice.S 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really important that we all internalise that. And I've been nicknamed Lar (short for Larry, say it with a long A) for at least 35 years... and have used the id "Lar" online (whenever I could get it anyway) for over a quarter century now... so the "why I got that nickname exactly" bit might be a bit lost in the mists of time... :) ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• And it only took 6 hours before the unblock by Kwsn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had to be redone. See block log of Perspicacite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --DHeyward 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that the unblock was wrong. And it still doesn't excuse you from bringing a whole bunch of !problems here, before you attempted to discuss them with the Kwsn. Natalie 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I went to close this thread, and see its been closed and reopened. We will not be admonishing kswn's behavior here, take it to the talk page first. Allow Vickers and kswn to talk, and/or talk to kswn yourself. There is no need for administrator intervention here. Mercury 14:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The drama that happens while I'm asleep! We've sorted this out on our talk pages. Tim Vickers 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or disguising as another user

User:bstringer87 posted on this AfD as [[User:5763497|bstringer87]]. Based on an email bstringer87 sent to my personal email address, I also suspect the user is a sockpuppet of User:Hemstrong due to the fact that Hemstrong is the creator and main editor of an article I nominated for AfD, the AfD linked above, and I pointed out his own admission of affiliation with the subject of the article via a message he left on my own talk page at User talk:Allstarecho#RE: Message. Such of course is within WP:COI. Hemstrong deleted AfD template, left a message on my talk page saying, I've contacted Ally magazine's legal department. It seems your just a sore fag because your a wiki editor and not part of something successful. I hope ALly gets on your ass. and then blanked my talk page. Now all of a sudden this bstringer87 user comes out of nowhere, removing the WP:COI and Unreferenced tags from the article in the AfD and sends me a personal email saying, Ally magazine has notable sources, may edits that you've done in previous history are not notable, I've tagged them for deletion. Also, I've contacted Wikipedia's Manager of Editorial Operations for your violation of Wiki's TOS. I know, it gets confusing. Either the article needs full protection until the AfD is over or the user(S) need a ban - at the least the user posting as someone else. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think [36] is a legal threat. User blocked for 48 hours, so that he can calm down. --Alvestrand 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Endless stalking

Resolved

 – for now, at least - Perspicacite blocked 24 hours for edit warring, querulous complaints and WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I got in a dispute on Tokelau with Alice.S back on Oct. 29.[37] She then proceeded to stalk me, harassing me on as many pages I can. She goes through my talkpage history and tries to get other users to block me.[38][39] She fails so she posts an uncivil rant on my talkpage.[40] I comment on WP:AN/I, so she posts another uncivil rant.[41] I edit Frank Gaffney, so she tries to start a fight with me on the talkpage.[42] I edit Economy of Australia so she tries to start a fight with me there.[43] She then apologizes for being uncivil and stalking me,[44] but apparently the apology was false. I edit Rhodesia,[45] so she reverts me, implying I am vandalizing the article[46]... I talk to TimVickers so she tries to get me blocked.[47] I talk to BScar23625 so she again, tries to start a fight.[48] How many times does she have to follow me to another page and try and start a fight before she's blocked? Perspicacite 07:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the above "summary" is accurate or true - but then I would say that, wouldn't I?

If others spend the time to track the relevant reversions (and lack of discussion prior to those reversions) by Perspicacite a different viewpoint will emerge. My sole interest is encouraging him to change his editing behaviour for the good of our project.

I would like to alert all concerned admins to a peculiar feature of User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour - not as a personal attack but because this behaviour damages collegiality and goes to the very heart of our co-operative enterprise.

I am brand new here and perhaps, therefore, a little naive when it comes to interpreting policies and guidelines but I understood that simple reverts were basically to be used only for vandals.

I have spent some considerable time analysing User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour and discovered that he uses this powerful revert tool excessively - in my opinion.

We all understand that it is the work of a moment to revert to an earlier edit version but, if this is done without due care and attention, then not only can one revert to a version with errors and mistakes but one also risks (unintentionally or otherwise) slighting the work of other editors.

For example, in this recent reversion, User:Perspicacite re-introduced US-English spellings into our Rhodesia article that previously consistently used Commonwealth English against WP:ENGVAR, removed sourced material without explanation or discussion and changed into "redlinks" internal linking that, in the reverted edit, functioned correctly. All with the less than helpful or explanatory edit summary of "Not sure why you're stalking me here...". {this diff shows that the edit in question was actually yet another one of Perspicacites simple (but very destructive) reverts.}

For the avoidance of doubt, our behavioural guideline specifies "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." (my emphasis added).

I have only edited articles where User:Perspicacite's reverts of multiple good faith editors are particularly and unequivocally damaging and I seek neither to aggravate nor antagonise him - merely for him to change his behaviour so that he actually analyzes others contributions and then subsequently makes constructive edits rather than destructive reverts. Alice.S 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the above lie, she introduced American spelling to an article on Rhodesia and restored the racist claim of "uncivilized tribal populations." She restored blatant vandalism just so she could get back at me. Perspicacite 08:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. This is your second revert today to this article.

Like it or not, Wikipedia does not arbiter or adjudge "The Truth". It merely tries to summarize in a neutral and balanced way the various cited points of view from (preferably) authoritative sources.

I would have no beef with you if you would simply expunge text (racist or otherwise) with an edit summary of "un-cited" or "unrepresentative of the majority of authoritative sources" - or better still tag them with a template so someone has an opportunity to properly cite. My beef is that by not taking the trouble to actually edit (rather than revert) texts you introduce mistakes that have been corrected by other editors. In this example you lost a link to Warfarin, altered correct italicization and I would really like you to specify exactly which are the British or Commonwealth usages that you believe I changed to Americanisms.

Here's the "racist" text after I edited:

A lengthy armed campaign by ZANLA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), against the Rhodesian government followed UDI. This became known as the "Bush War" by White Rhodesians and as the "Second Chimurenga" (or rebellion in Shona) by supporters of the guerrillas ("First Chimurenga " was the name given to the Second Matabele War(1896)). The war is generally considered to have started in 1972 with scattered attacks on isolated white-owned farms.

ZANU was led by Robert Mugabe, latterly based in Mozambique and was supported by the People's Republic of China. ZAPU was led by Joshua Nkomo, based in Zambia and was supported by the Soviet Union. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU claimed to represent the 80% of the Black population who were Shona speaking and ZAPU claimed the 20% who were Ndebele-speaking. Most educated Africans supported one or the other of these parties, but the bulk of the uncivilized tribal population was indifferent. ZANU and ZAPU both resorted to intimidation, arson and murder to force the tribesmen to support them.

The degree of support offered by China and the Soviet Union to the nationalist parties was probably less than was commonly thought at the time. The nationalist parties were often described as 'Marxist', but events showed that this Marxism was largely superficial. The main priority of ZANU and ZAPU was to end white rule in Rhodesia.

And here's "your non-racist" revert:

A lengthy armed campaign by ZANLA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), against the Rhodesian government followed UDI. This became known as the "Bush War" by White Rhodesians and as the "Second Chimurenga" (or rebellion in Shona) by supporters of the guerrillas. The war is generally considered to have started in 1972 with scattered attacks on isolated white-owned farms.

ZANU was led by Robert Mugabe, latterly based in Mozambique and was supported by the People's Republic of China. ZAPU was led by Joshua Nkomo, based in Zambia and was supported by the Soviet Union. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU represented the 80% of the Black population who were Shona speaking and ZAPU represented the 20% who were Ndebele-speaking. The degree of support offered by China and the Soviet Union to the nationalist parties was probably less than was commonly thought at the time. The nationalist parties were often described as 'Marxist', but events showed that this Marxism was largely superficial. The main priority of ZANU and ZAPU was to end white rule in Rhodesia.

Can you really not see what you have lost?
Why do you think we do need duplicate internal links to ZANU and ZAPU but not a single link to the Second Matabele War(1896))?

I believe that many of the folks that you antagonize/characterize as "wanting to pick fights with you" are actually just trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to get you to change your sloppy editing behaviour and not victimize or attack you personally - let alone see you receive an escalating series of blocks for incivility, etc... Alice.S 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one attempting to start conflict and that appears to be all that you do. The sooner you are blocked the better. Perspicacite 09:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we close this now? JuJube 09:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One or two weeks for the block? Perspicacite 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, I feel like you are pushing your luck with a second over-dramatized complaint this week. You read apparently polite things as gross incivility, you manage to offend a variety of editors with your behavior, and you have repeatedly demanded or threatened to seek out blocks for relatively minor infractions--and some things that weren't infractions at all. A variety of people, including a few admins, have tried to tell you this, and I've seen no indication that you've paid more than the most grudging sliver of attention.

If you believe somebody is misbehaving, open an RFC. I remind you again to read the top of this page -- this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Yes, Alice probably shouldn't be following you around and butting in. On the other hand, you've been difficult enough that I would keep an eye on you if I had time, so you are unlikely to get the sanctions you seek. And I'd encourage you to consider what role you've played in this. Had you, say, shown a bit of courtesy and a smidgen of contrition for your real but reasonable errors, Alice would likely be off doing whatever she was doing before you two crossed paths, and all of us could be doing something productive.

So either talk it out with her or file an RFC. I'd recommend the former, as you really need to improve your skills in that regard. But either way, stop with the block demands for a while. Thanks, William Pietri 09:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite has instead displayed a wonderful degree of lateral thinking and, instead, reported my constructive edits as something known as "3RR": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=170074528#User:Alice.S_reported_by_User:Perspicacite_.28Result:_.29

However I do take your point that trying to re-educate him and preserve the quality of our articles from his attentions seems a somewhat sterile (and hazardous) exercise so I will remove him from my watchlist. Goodnight!Alice.S 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation

TDC (talk · contribs) and Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) have been edit warring on this articles (as well as on come others, such as Mark Lane, for quite some time (a look through the history should show this without too much trouble). They were once the subject of an ArbCom case a couple years ago (note this Checkuser case that links Xenophrenic to the anonymous editor in the case). It seems to me that this edit warring has gone on for far too long and that we should seek either community sanctions for both editors or another trip to ArbCom. As far as I can tell, both editors are equally responsible here, so I would pursue equal sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been half-heartedly working on VVAW, but I've seen them tangling elsewhere. I suggest 1RR per day on Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Winter Soldier Investigation, and Mark Lane (author). Xenophrenic denies he's the IP from the previous ArbCom case, but a) I don't believe him, and b) there has been enough edit-warring from his account to justify a 1RR limitation (ArbCom is now calling this "editing restriction" instead of probation). TDC's long block log and Xenophrenic's lack of any real editing history outside those three articles lead me to support such a restriction now, though it would appear premature under different circumstances.--chaser - t 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, concerning Xenophrenic's denials: The checkuser evidence supports that he is the same as the IP, combined with the fact that he shares the same MO (i.e., edit warring with TDC over this and related articles). I do believe I hear quacking. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may respond to the above comments: Heimstern observes that "this edit warring has gone on for far too long." In my opinion, any length of edit warring is already too much. Once an editing conflict is discovered, it should be discussed until the conflict is resolved, before editing continues. I try to let this philosophy guide my editing, but sometimes it is impossible when some parties to the conflict refuse to discuss the conflict. Heimstern suggests community sanctions or ArbCom? It would definitely end up in ArbCom, especially with Administrators making noises like Chaser saying he doesn't believe my denial that I was party to a previous ArbCom; Blacketer saying he thinks I am Reddi; Heimstern misrepresenting a CheckUser result by saying it links Xenophrenic to an anonymous editor, when it does not; MONGO saying Xenophrenic is using multiple accounts. All a bunch of cow dump.

Chaser, your suggestion to reduce the 3RR to 1RR (or expand it to 7RR, for that matter) fails to address the problem. Moving the "electric fence" doesn't mean some editors aren't still going to proceed right up to it, repeatedly, day after day, where ever you happen to place it. Why not address the conflict instead? I've tangled with you about as long as I've tangled with TDC, and on much of the same editing. I don't recall ever edit warring with you. Why is that? Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't address the problem; it reduces the resources we must sink into stopping the edit-warring. Dispute resolution is the way to resolve content disputes. Anyway, in Xenophrenic's case, he abuses 3RR as an electric fence, going right up to the limit (see [49] and the current history of Winter Soldier Investigation). TDC goes over and gets blocked.--chaser - t 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, please. Can we not take things out of context? The link you provided does show Blacketer cautioning me that I've reverted three times, but what you fail to mention is that I contacted him and asked for his guidance. Instead of "abusing 3RR," and just mindlessly reverting whenever "legally" allowed to, I sought 3rd-party assistance to resolve the issue. Following Blacketer's advice, "It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply," so I made the reverts. Now look at the current Winter Soldier Investigation history that you mention, and the talk page. (Since this ANI was posted, TDC has now started to discuss his reverted edits! Xenophrenic 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) TDC deleted text about Winterfilm Collective, and a wikilink to same. No explanation. TDC inserted false text about Cannes Film Festival, and a web link that counters, rather than supports, his edit. I raised these issues on the talk page and didn't receive a reply, so I reverted. The 3RR rule exists, so I follow it. There is also a rule against edit warring, and I follow that, too. This rule in a nutshell: If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions. It takes two or more to have a discussion, and I am always there. Your statement that "Xenophrenic abuses the 3RR as an electric fence" is unfounded. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A few things, you only contacted 15:11 October 11Sam after he warned you15:17, October 11, and then you responded to him by saying another "too busy to check" admin breezes through. Secondly, you never sought any assistance to resolve the issue. As it turns out, the information was not "false" as the several links inserted in talk bear out. You continual denial of what is obvious to everyone here will make you aware of the old saying "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice attempt, TDC, but all of the edits are recorded in the history. I was commenting on a Diff provided by Chaser above, not on the ones you are slyly trying to substitute here. You can save the personal attacks. Xenophrenic 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum...there is no excuse for 3RR violation, but indeed, TDC appears to have been outnumbered due to, so not sure an "equal" block is fair. Xenophrenic is using multiple accounts (including his IP to evade 3RR) afterall.--MONGO 09:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean tag-teaming? There's never been overlap between relevant IP edits and Xenophrenic.--chaser - t 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--MONGO 09:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200#How about a little more info? which relates what happened to a previous 3RR report when I tried to give Xenophrenic guidance on how to avoid revert warring. He did deny being Reddi but I also think he is. I felt that Xenophrenic was trying to spin out discussion of what he knew to be unacceptable. Sam Blacketer 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO: I'm not so sure "equal" sanctions are fair. I have never broken the 3RR rule; TDC jumps that fence regularily, even today on the Depleted Uranium article. I have productive editing collaboration with other editors, where TDC prefers to endlessly revert the very same content. TDC tries to outnumber editors, instead of rely on good editing practices, afterall. Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As you may or may not known that article has also been subject to massive edit warring by another banned user and his dozens of sockpuupets. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I do not know the history of that article. All I saw was you reverting repeatedly, beyond 3RR, while claiming various editors were sockpuppets. I also saw administrators saying they disagreed with you, and warned you to cease casting accusations ... it all just sounded so familiar, so I commented. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would one of you brave souls spend five minutes and take a look at TDC's most recent edit and explain it to me? It's not long. He deleted a couple sentences and citations, and sticks in the word "allegations" here and there. Oh, and he added a line saying a film debuted at the Cannes Film Festival when it didn't. Someone explain that brief edit to me, please. Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that I stepped into this one without adequately reviewing the history. I'm going to unblock for now until this is sorted out. Ronnotel 12:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me state that I truly do not believe that I was in violation of 3RR, as I don not believe that the first edit was a reversion. As something that I have been chastised for on numerous occasions, I am very careful to explain revisions if required and not to cross the threshold.

Now onto the other things. From the checkuser checkuser and Xenophremic's behavior and particular focus on Wikipedia, I think its rather obvious that he was the IP user who was involved in the same Arbcom case as I was over the Winter Soldier article. Its difficult to surmise the depth and extent of his article ownership tendencies and edit warring habits, as the IP address was dynamic, and not easy to keep tabs on, bet believe me it was extensive, and involved at least a dozen other editors.

Article that Xenophrenic has been edit warring on include, but are not limited to the following: Mark Lane (Author), Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Winter Soldier Investigation, Fulbright Hearing, Going Upriver, Russell Tribunal, List of Vietnam War veterans, Al Hubbard (VVAW), and Massacre at Hue. I would also like to point out that I am not the only individual Xenophrenic has engaged in long and pointless edit wars with, there have been at least a dozen other editor that he has done this to.

Even editors whose only involvement was the removal of mass quantities of copy written material (this point is very well documented) were edit warred with, called names, and they eventually gave up.

It should also be evident that Xenophrenic has another account on Wikipedia, as the user account of Xenophrenic is always able to revert an edit he disagrees with within several hours of that edit being made, regardless of the accounts activity. That can only mean that either Xenophrenic goes to Wikipedia every few hours without making any edits (which would be rather odd) or he edits under another account and switches when he wants to assume the role of his sockpuupet. For example, the recent editing over at the Winter soldier article, Xenophrenic remained inactive from October 22nd until my first edit on the article, where he proceeded to RV it in less than a day. He admitted to as much a while back on one of the talk pages:

“my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required.(UTC)”

[50]

How anyone can deal with an editor like this and WP:AGF is beyond me. I have tried RfC on content, Arbitration and mediations, taken advice from Chaser and left certain things to work themselves out ... but nothing seems to make a difference. I know my behavior here has not always been appropriate, but I have never used sockpuppets to evade bans or deceptively edit articles.

There is a lot more to this story, and I am glad it is coming to a head. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) )

“RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)”

[51]

I filled in the quote above provided by TDC, that he attributes to me, and added the real signatory. Strange that TDC deleted from this page my first attempt to display this unparsed version. It was posted by an earthlink IP user calling himself Rob, apparently a Robert Morrison by the looks of other edits here and off-wiki sites. Other users also commented on that same archived page:

Apology accepted, and no - that is not one of my edits. Looks like one of Rob's, or one of the Poli-Sci students editing that mess during the election season. 165.247.213.43 04:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. As I mentioned above I assumed you were the anon who initially inserted this copvio (you both have EarthLink ip's)--Duk 05:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I share a service provider with some editors, and I share some disagreements with TDC, but not much more in common. I don't have sockpuppets, sorry. I don't have tag-team partners. My name isn't Rob, or Morrison, or Redding and I'm not a political science student. There is nothing "odd" about me noticing edits to articles I have taken an interest in, some are on my watch list. I also spend most of my work day, and much of my leisure time, at my computer. You will have to find your conspiracies elsewhere. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, but after dealing with you on talk for a while, user:Duk changed his opion of you a bit.

I guess that's the joy of editing behind anon ip's. You can deny you were the initial ip that installed this copyvio and beat your breast in righteousness over being falsely accused. While continuing to reinstate copied paragraphs that other people wrote, and which you modified slightly, over and over again. But what really matters is that the whole article is now a copyvio. --Duk 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, you cannot get away from the fact that all of this is saved for review. Anyone checking your blockquote can quickly tell that Duk was speaking to User:165.247.202.83, not me. Xenophrenic 02:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And everyone here would seem to concur that Xenophrenic=Anon editor in question. And for those who were curious, your copyvio seems to have carried over to yuor new account as well [52].Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided show your copyvio issue, TDC. Would you care to explain what you mean here in more detail? Xenophrenic 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Both users in question seem to have forgotten that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. Who has or has not crossed the arbitrary threshold of three reverts per 24 hours is simply irrelevant. What matters is that both sides are edit warring. Both the three-revert rule policy page and the more important one, the policy on edit warring, make this clear. It is time for the community to put a stop to this. A 1RR restriction would be one way to attempt this, and I would support it for now. If that does not solve the problem for either or both editor(s), we can seek a ban for the one(s) in question. Does the community agree that such a restriction is a good idea? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to a 1RR restriction on the effected articles, but only if Xenophremic’s 3 year edit warring is put to an end, and his master account is revealed. Otherwise, I would like to see him banned from the above mentioned articles permanently. He has not even waited for the resolution of this ANI discussion to make his Rv to the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TDC, you are already restricted to one revert per article per day. If you have a problem with other editors, suggest you try RFC or Arbitration. Thatcher131 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) My bad, it expired. However, renewed edit warring on this article is not promising, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter Soldier. Thatcher131 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As you know both have been tried (including mediation), with little to show for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried mediation with TDC twice, on the Mark Lane (author) and VVAW articles, with success to show for it. Xenophrenic 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I could demonstrate that Xenophrenic had edit warred with other users, other than myself, would that demonstrate that he might be more culpable in this dispute than I am? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the easy solution to this edit war found in:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement and
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Edit_this_section_for_new_requests

After months of edit warring, I was the editor who called the Arbcom in 2005. If the behavior is the same as it was in 2005 (and it sounds like it is--though I maybe wrong) I think both editors are too blame for the edit war. Travb (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the remedies from that case are now expired, so we'd have to have a new one for there to be any more effect. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would accept a community decision, Arbitration can take months. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been little discussion here of how to solve this problem; rather we simply discuss the problem itself and the solutions that haven't worked. I ask the community again: Shall we impose a 1RR restriction on both of these editors, or is there another solution we would prefer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement is still valid. The one year revert ban has expired, but the Ban violations and Parole violations have not expired. I would suggest asking an arbcom. Maybe I can. User:Xenophrenic seems interested in a new arbcom, I am strongly encouraging him to take a community decision, as TDC has offered. User:Xenophrenic also keeps refering to the anon in the third person. Travb (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep referring to that anon in the 3rd person? Go figure. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true, that proposed enforcement has no expiry given; however, there is no proposed remedy to go with it (the proposals in question did not pass the vote), so I believe it was determined to be a meaningless enforcement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am with you, Heimstern, in seeking a real solution. Previously, you said,

"Who has or has not crossed the arbitrary threshold of three reverts per 24 hours is simply irrelevant. What matters is that both sides are edit warring. Both the three-revert rule policy page and the more important one, the policy on edit warring, make this clear."

I agree. The number of reverts allowed is arbitrary, and irrelevent to the real problem: edit warring. What confuses me is that you immediately followed that observation with a proposal to change the irrelevant threshold from one arbitrary number to another arbitrary number, as if that would solve something? As I said before, that sounds like an attempt at punitive action instead of a solution. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing you're exactly right about, Travb, is that Xenophrenic and TDC most certainly should seek a community sanction rather than arbitration. Given how long this edit war has continued, it's very possible they will face harsh sanctions if ArbCom does become involved. If no community-based sanction can be reached, I will bring this matter to the committee (barring someone convincing me not to, of course), so I suggest both editors agree to a community-based sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion received, but I must pass. Please don't misunderstand me, if you feel punitive sanctions are warranted, like changing an arbitrary number from 3 to 1, then please do and I will abide. You are in effect saying, "There now TDC, you will only have to visit that article 1 time per day, instead of 3 times per day, to carry on your edit war. Let that be a lesson to you." I will still, however, be seeking a solution to this problem -- an actual working resolution. So far, ArbCom, along with thorough investigation, seems the only way to accomplish that. Your comments about harsh sanctions through ArbCom give me hope, since previous sanctions do not appear to have had the desired effect. He is still at it years later. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind a one-revert parole is that it makes it extremely difficult to edit war. Once you've made your one revert per day, you're required to discuss it as part of the parole, and can make no further reverts. Ideally, the user will realize the need for discussion. If not, the parole also allows administrators to more readily block the offender and thus prevent the edit warring. That is why 1RR has, at least, the potential to be an effective sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So the two benefits of the one-revert parole are easier blocking by Admins, and required discussion. I don't give much weight to the easier blocking benefit, as I've been told that an Admin can block an editor at the first sign of edit warring, whether there has been 10 reverts or even just 1, with equal ease. The required discussion thing, however, is an actual benefit. Based on my experience with TDC on the three articles we have both edited, I have my concerns about the simple way you have described the sanction. The sanction is too easily gamed, and can be wiki-lawyered around. Let me describe some past situations...

• He "discussed" his revert, but not to the point of resolution. Instead, he refuses further discussion and just reverts some more.
• Or he stalls the discussions with an insincere statement like, "I will photocopy Stacewicz, and upload it for all to evaluate" while he continues to revert for days. (The source didn't even exist.)
• Or most recently on the WSI article, he repeatedly reverts while discussing just one small segment of the edits contained in his reverts.
• Or he follows me to another article (Mark Lane (author)) and picks up edit warring with me there, no longer restricted by the one-revert sanction.

Maybe redefine the sanction to include, "...always discuss reversions, until fully resolved to both party's satisfaction even if Dispute Resolution needs to be used, before making another revert; applies to all articles..." I'm still not convinced it would be an effective sanction, even though I could really get behind the must discuss reverts stipulation. In fact, as a show of good faith, as of now I voluntarily submit to the following requirement: I will not implement a revert, on any article, without also discussing that revert on the appropriate talk page. This applies to any revert, even of simple vandalism, no exceptions. This requirement is for an indefinite duration, and violation of this requirement will carry a penalty of a 1 week block.

It isn't an imposition, since I already discuss the majority of the reverts I make. I'll remain under this requirement independently of whatever other course of action we decide to take here. I'll put a similar statement on my user page so those communicating with me will be more readily aware of this requirement. Xenophrenic 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for ArbCom: We could go there now, if you so chose. Nothing prevents you from making a request at Requests for Arbitration now. But I would advise against it. When I referred to harsh sanctions, I did not mean for TDC alone, but for both of you. I'm not an arbitrator, so it's no decision of mine, but I suspect that you, too, would be sanctioned. So here's the question: should we go to ArbCom, or should we mutually agree to restrict you both to one revert per day and to always discuss reversions? Or is there another solution we should consider? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your advice against an ArbCom, but we are looking at it from two different perspectives. You are trying to resolve an edit war between two editors of the WSI article. My perspective covers the interaction with this individual over several articles, edit warring and tendentious editing, deceptive editing practices, harassment and personal attacks since I started editing here. I am confident enough in my editing practices and history, good intentions and respect for the project to go before an ArbCom with my grievances. You are looking for a bandaid while I am seeking a cure. Are there any other solutions that can be considered? Xenophrenic 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with sanctioning the both of us equally is simple, Xenophrenic is a sockpuupet of another user, and as such his primary account and all of his other sockpuupet accounts (if they exist) will not be affected. If Xenophrenic would voluntarily reveal his main account, I would agree to equal sanctioning, unless for some reason his behavior in his main accounts calls for something else.

As for community based sanctioning, I would be willing to submit to the following community sanctions without objection.

1. An edit ban for myself and Xenophrenic (with an expiration date based on demonstrated good behavior) on the effected articles, if another editor(s) will spend some quality time remedying the sourcing, POV, and longstanding Copyvio/plagarism issues present in them.
2. An unconditional 1RV limit on these article (with discussion of all edits) if Xenophrenic is banned from editing them.
3. A general 1RV limit on any article (with discussion of all edits and an expiration date based on demonstrated good behavior), if Xenophrenic and his future manifestations are banned.

I feel that considering Xenophremic’s conduct, article ownership, personal attacks on other editors, sockpuupet (which even after the overwhelming consensus here he still refuses to admit to), the above three are more than equitable. Sockpuppetry is one of the most damaging issues here at Wikipedia, and to not factor this into any community based decision will only encourage it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exclamation Mark on donation header!!!!!!

Resolved

As much as i love you guys - "You can help Wikipedia change the world!" does not work. I would be appalled if i saw a sentence with one of those things (!) in an article. It's just too mad trot - like headlines in Trotskyist newspapers (see Posadist 4th. Can we get rid of this horrificness (is this a real word? <add exclaimation mark for effect> !) before we drive people away with our dire attempt to solicit money and also try to educate people with our very very lame exclamation marks. Mike33 - t@lk 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied your message to Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Personally I like the exclamation point. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over legal action in the US chess community. (User:Sam Sloan et. al.)

I have a concern regarding Sam Sloan (talk · contribs). He has filed a lawsuit against various officials of the United States Chess Federation. The list of defendents looks like the list of candidates for the USCF board plus the USCF itself, including Susan Polgar and Paul Truong and also User:Billbrock. The lawsuit has been posted prominently on Sloan's personal webpage ([53]) and the entire text of the lawsuit is available there. One will note that the Wikipedia involvement is mentioned in the suit.

Note that User:Sam Sloan has mentioned the lawsuits in the articles of Susan Polgar (diff) and Paul Truong (diff).

I do not know if the suit has any merit, and that issue is definitely for the court, and not the Wikipedia community to decide. However, I feel that the Wikipedia community can take a stance on the involved parties' editing priveleges while the lawsuit is being processed. I feel that involvement of this nature at this time brings up all sorts of conflict of interest issues, and possibly WP:NLT concerns as well, and would appreciate any administrator attention to the subject.

I will add the following notes regarding myself:

1. I am a member of the United States Chess Federation, but a passive one since I have not played in any USCF sanctioned tournaments, hold no positions of trust within the organization, have not voted for any board members (foreign members cannot vote), and I purchased the membership solely in order for the Chess Life subscription and access to "members only" areas of the USCF website. My active chess association membership is with the Norwegian chess association, an association Sloan is not affiliated with. I am not among the people Sloan has cited in his lawsuit.
2. My interactions with Sloan have been purely on-wiki. I think I spoke against Sloan on an ArbCom request he filed against User:JzG (case was rejected), and voted to endorse the deletion of one of his articles on DRV. I voted to "keep" the BLP Sam Sloan on an AFD once.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I echo Sjakkale's concerns. Sloan is and always has been completely unable to check his biases at the door, many of his edits have a blatant conflict of interest. He has also stated on Usenet that he will repost articles deleted by AfD, and has done so, and has personalised matters when they are deleted again. The lawsuit also involves individuals who edit Wikipedia. I cannot tell whether his contributions to chess articles outweigh the problems he causes, what is certain in my mind is that his edits to articles on people against whom he has an off-wiki vendetta need to stop. And actually I have serious questions in my mind whether Sloan is capable, in his own mind, of separating his opinion from objective truth. Here's an example of the kind of thing that's being directed against Polgar: [54]. It's almost as if a Certain Website were involved... Guy (Help!) 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  "...a Certain Website..." That would be Wikipedia Review, wouldn't it? LessHeard vanU 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For Sam I find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#User:Sam Sloan as prior AN or AN/I discussion. (There is also one complaint that received zero response and a complaint about someone with a username impersonating this user.) Sam Sloan attempted to file an ArbComm case against Guy at one point; it never opened and I haven't dug into the history of why it was rejected. (Being completely ridiculous would have been an appropriate reason for rejection, from what I can see.) There are about a dozen bot produced subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam that I don't grok how to parse.

For Billrock I don't find prior AN or AN/I discussion. There are a pair of those bot produced subpages that I don't grok.

My impression is that we need to watch this. Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest are obviously relevant policy. I note that the particular diffs aren't obviously troubling - linking her blog responses is plausible, but there is a risk from comments (potentially later) to those blog responses. Billrock has indicated that the lawsuit received some NYT coverage. I think Sam and Billrock should be reminded that due to conflict of interest it would be best if they refrained from editing related content directly and limit themselves to proposingon the talk pages. This requires an uninvolved editor with at least some subject matter knowledge who is willing to watchlist the relevant articles. So I see two questions: 1) which articles are relevant and 2) who will be the uninvolved editor(s) with subject matter knowledge? GRBerry 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting User:Rama's Arrow username and google search result

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

---

Lord Rama is most devoted figure for one billion Indians and he is always depicted in deity or picture with bow and arrow. When a person enter keyword 'Rama's arrow' or 'Rama arrow', user page and talk page of User:Rama's Arrow appear in first 2 search results. On talk page of this user, there are pictures of some boxer. I am Indian and I think this is insulting for Lord Rama. Since the user has left wikipedia, please redirect his username and talk page to Rama And protect these pages. Thanks. abhih 10:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think the content of a (inactive) user's talk page should warrant a forced name change. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do a Google for "Rama". Only 2 of the top ten hits are about the deity. If you want Rama to get good Google returns, you have more pressing things to worry about. Like all the showbiz-"rama" hits. On the other hand, a search for "Lord Rama" is fine. Carcharoth 11:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What about using name of Rama to puplicise own picture on Internet? Be it active or inactive, keywords on world's most powerful search engine leads to picture of boxer and irrelevent userpage. I have already complained that wikipedia is being used for advertisements, self-bio. And now to publicise own pictures. Be it that picture of the user or another boxer, it is still outragious. Will you people tolerate if keywords 'Jesus second coming' on google leads to pictures of boxer on wikipedia? I once again request you to redirect those pages to Rama. "In fact those pages must be deleted. Thanks. abhih 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They are actually pictures of wrestlers, not boxers, and dead wrestlers at that - see Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero. Having said that, I am sympathetic to your worries. You could try putting {{thisuser|Rama's Arrow|Rama}} on the user page and user talk page, but that should really be left to the user in question. Difficult to know how to handle inactive accounts. Is nofollow used on user pages and user talk pages? For the record, the above would produce the following:

This is a Wikipedia user page. For other uses of Rama's Arrow, see Rama.

Would that be acceptable? Carcharoth 12:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not censored. While I am sympathetic to your concerns, this user is not claiming he is a deity, and it is not necessarily Wikipedia's fault that his page appears on Google. If anything, it's Google's fault for thinking you wish to search for User:Rama's Arrow and not the arrow of Rama. Google, like all search engines, merely seeks out pages that match a query. If Rama's arrow was notable enough to have its own article, a Google search may well point to the article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply putting userpage box and link on userpage and link to Rama on talk page is not enough. Please do not forget that 'Rama Arrow' keywords result page shows these pages on top. People will still see picture of wrestler instead of info about Rama. And perhaps you don't know. I can't edit those pages Because those userpage and talk page are protected.

These are Diwali festival days in India. Tomorrow is Diwali. But in fact Diwali celebrations start one week before and end one week after. It is biggest festival in India and it marks Rama's return to Ayodhya from Sri Lanka. In these days people tend to read about Rama by giving keywords. And 'Rama Arrow' keyword leads to picture of wrestler is simply outragious, unacceptable. Thanks. abhih 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think you may have mistaken Google for something that actually matters. Anyone who is looking for Rama will find the information they seek, all they need to do is ignore the irrelevant hits, just like we all have to do for pretty much everything we search for. Look on the bright side - at least it's not one of those keyword spam sites. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Screaming bloody murder and making all or nothing demands isn't going to get you anywhere. This is a user page. There will be no cross name space redirects just because you complain loudly. EconomicsGuy 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• • My response to abhih's message on my user page. I have also replied on his user page: [55]. I hold the position that Rama and User:Rama's Arrow are two distinct entities, and all intelligent people should be able to differentiate between the two and the people searching for information for Rama should be able to understand this distinction. Let the Festival of Light bring happiness to all. --Bhadani (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• I do not see any reason to force a name change. Insinuating that the fact that google returns User:Rama's Arrow somehow hurts the sentiment of Hindus is almost ridiculous. As Bhadaniji said, intelligent people should be able to see the difference for themselves. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If rational of all of you is right, please allow me to use 'Jesus's Second Coming' account as you did with username 'Rama' and 'Rama's Arrow'. But I know you people do not allow to use any account which clearly link to Jesus Christ. This is your blatant bias towards other religions. And it is being proved. You are going to block my both accounts citing any reason. abhih 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE OTHER USERS' COMMENTS. Also, it's bad form to delete your own comments after they've been addressed in subsequent conversation. If your browser is having problems with the length of the page, then click the [Edit] link on the section header for this section. Powers ^T 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured that was your creation -- please read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I am sorry that this upsets you, but no rules are being violated. Find a constructive way to contribute to our project -- perhaps by improving the articles on Rama or Divali. -- Merope 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant to reply to Abhih? Regardless, he's got a point. I can see why the username "Jesus's Second Coming" might be blocked as disruptive since we know Abhih created it, but you blocked it as a violation of the username policy. I don't see how that violates WP:USERNAME, or if it does, why "Rama's Arrow" does not. Powers ^T 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, got edit conflicted. I should have added a note to my block log -- it seemed that creating this was intended to be disruptive and to "invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way". For the record, I would also block an account called "Vishnu's Tenth Incarnation", which I would see as analogous to "Jesus's Second Coming". -- Merope 15:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to last long on the Internet if this kind of thing bothers you that much. JuJube 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can I try and quell any arguments of religious bias by pointing out the existence of User:John the Baptist? --Smashville^BONK! 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block by Merope. --Bhadani (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the matter should be treated as closed, and focus should shift to value addition to the project as suggested by Merope. --Bhadani (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Archving now. Happy Diwali, everyone. -- Merope 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Choo Weets continuing blocked user's editing pattern

Resolvedblocks issued GRBerry 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Choo Weets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the editing pattern of indef-blocked user XusSatyrtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see previous notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:XusSatyrtn, disruptive edits, possible sock of blocked user). 71.49.175.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be involved as well, although that was yesterday or the day before. Powers ^T 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PeterStJohn canvassing of DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_7#Category:Erd.C5.91s_numbers has been extensively canvassed by the nominator, PeterStJohn (talk · contribs). (See the relevant contribs list). The extensive list of those notified of the DRV appears to include none of those who !voted to CfD "delete", and at least one editor who did not participate in the CfD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I !voted for delete, and I was indeed very fairly and properly notified of the deletion review. DGG (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The user who you refer to as not participating in the CfD debate is somebody who has certainly expressed an interest in and has been involved in this issue, as can be seen by looking at this page that he created in his own user space: User:Mikkalai/By Erdos. -- Ramsey2006

Why is this posted here? It seems obvious to me that PeterStJohn is very new here and not aware all our guidelines. He merely needed to be pointed to the canvassing guideline, which is what one of the DRV participants did. I don't see a need for administrators to intervene. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a bit too fast here. PeterStJohn is not that new, but it looks very much like he was not aware of the canvassing guideline. In fact, after Jc37 pointed this guideline out to PeterStJohn (diff), the latter notified people that supported deletion like DGG (diff), as noted above, and MeegsC (diff). So the canvassing accusation seems baseless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing that some of "delete" voters were notified, however I can see that at least two delete voters were notified, and it appears that the notifications went to all the "keep" !voters, and to others. WP:CANVASS does permit "Notifying all editors who participated in a preceding discussion of the article or project, as long as it goes out to all editors", but the notification still remains selective, albeit not exclusively partisan.

Despite being notified of the problem, Pete still hasn't completed notifying the "delete !voters", an this comment seems like a fairly clear statement of intent to do try to stack the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks all very much, I was waiting, and prepared (forewarned is forearmed!) for this. I contacted all of the people who voted on the ballot to delete the category, with exceptions as follows. I put a note on each of the eleven editors who voted "keep", Gandalf61, Roger Hiu, KSmurg, etc (I have the list). There were only 6 votes to Delete (the nomination to delete carried anway, by Kbdank71's fiat). Of those 6, one was an anonymous IP address, which I ignored. Three I contacted as you can check in the hisories, DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez46. That leaves two I did not contact; BrownhairedGirl and SparsityProblem. Since the message of the "canvassing" had been to point out (for purposes good or ill) that I had opened a review towards reversing the deletion, it was not necessary to contact those two because they had both already responded to it. As Brownhairdgirl well knows. I consider her ad hominem accusation to be detrimental to the process of reaching editorial consensus. Brownhairedgirls arguement is completely eristic, as she presumably knows that she already knew about the review process, as she has already participated in it, so her claim to have not been notified is vacuous and unenthical. I believe this is abuse of the system to promolgate a PoV with personal attacks. Pete St.John 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NPA: a good faith report of canvassing is not a personal attack, and the claim that I had already participated in the DRV is demonstrably false (do check the logs before making that sort of claim). I did not post to the DRV on Erdos numbers for over 12 hours after your canvassing (at 14:42 today), nor had I contributed to any other DRV on the same page (see the DRV Nov 7 revision history). SparsityProblem has still not commented at all on the Erdos numbers DRV, and SparsityProblem's contribution to another DRV on the same page was at 22:58; but as PeterStJohnPeterStJohn's logs show, the last notice he sent was at 22:21. It seems risky to assume that an editor is aware of another thread on a page where they have participated in a separate thread, but even that was not the case when Pete stopped notifying. There may or may be any significance in the fact the two delete !voters lrft off the notification listhad been the most vocal at DRV, but Pete's other explanation doesn't fit with the logs.
    I accept that the initial canvassing may have done in ignorance of the rules, but it was quite extreme, and the subsequent notification of editors of the opposing view was incomplete. As above, this comment seems like a fairly clear statement of intent to try to stack the discussion, even after being warned.
    If Pete didn't really mean to be selective in notification, he should now notify SparsityProblem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're claiming I "already responded to", but I didn't know about the deletion review until 5 minutes ago when I happened to be reading this noticeboard; if I hadn't happened to read the incidents board, which I don't read regularly, I probably would never have known about it. SparsityProblem 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in all of my previous encounters with Peter St. John, we had been on opposite sides. He notified me because he thought I might be interested, not becuase he knew how I would side. --Pleasantville 19:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I must concede a point of fact. Brownhairedgirl, while very active at the Deletion Review page, e.g. the 21:46, 7 November 2007 item, did not in fact post to this particular thread prior to my canvassing. That is my mistake, and it's a significant mistake, as I had deliberately ommitted her not just because she already new (which I merely assume she did, but mistakenly thought I had seen in the activity) but because I expected her to accuse me (just as she did), on the theory that she was looking for accusations against her opponent, as opposed to looking for unethical conduct. I now must restate my case, which is appreciably weaker:
• I canvassed the voters (as per precedent, and in respect of stated policy guidelines, as I had been alerted, or if you prefer warned, already by jc37). There had been 11 votes to keep the category and 6 to delete. That the motion to delete carried despite the clear preponderance of informed opinion, made some of us feel railroaded, so I have resorted to the most severe rebuttal I can manage within the scope of ethical conduct. Of course I notified all the 11 keep voters. Of the remaining 6, I notified DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez. One of the 6 was an anonymous IP address that I ignored. That left Brownhairdgirl and SparsityProblem. I mistakely believed (probably on account of a false, or exaggerated, assumption on my part) that both already knew of the Review. I was mistaken about their having posted to the particular thread in question, I reviewed Brownhairedgirl's contribution history for that day. However, as both Brownhairedgirl and SparsityProblem, particularly the former, have been exceeding active in the movement to delete the Erdos Number category, the presumption is not so ill-founded and the claim that they had been left in the dark seems weak to me. In particular, before opening the ANI item, I believe that Brownhairedgirl should have checked the other voters (it's all plain as day as consecutive, and near-consecutive, items in my own contribution history) and seen that in fact 3 of the 5 non-anonymous "delete" voters had been informed, and that she overgeneralized from omitting her. The fact that my contact with her has been vitupritive, unproductive, and unpleasant, plus the fact that she plainly is extremely well-informed and active in the politicing, makes my having omitted her no so unreasonable, IMO. However, I was mistaken about the particular point of fact; otherwise in fact I would have notified her. I can't apologize because my overall categorization of her behaviour is highly negative, but I must admit the mistake. Pete St.John 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No apology, hey?

I had indeed monitored DRV intermittently for a few days after the closure of the CfD, but when there was nothing, I gave up. I only became aware of the DRV when I spotted some of the canvassing (not at that point by Pete), on the talk page of someone who had not expressed any substantive interest in the subject. I'm disappointed that you can't apologise for your mistake because we disagree about the substantive issue, and because, as you put it, I am well-informed.

Your canvassing of the DRV was widespread, and although you belatedly made some limited attempts to balance the audience, your message was not neutral, as required by WP:CANVAS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could it be a coincidence that BrownHairedGirl and I, probably the two most vocal editors in favor of deleting these categories, were the two delete voters who were not contacted? And as for your claim "the presumption is not so ill-founded and the claim that they had been left in the dark seems weak to me", I request that you assume good faith and take both of our words for it that we were not aware of the DRV. SparsityProblem 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The votestacking exercise continues

There are two threads running at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics in which http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics&diff=170200122&oldid=170182374 continues to blatantly and unapologetically attempt to votestack the Deletion Review:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Status_at_this_writing
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Updating_status

I have never seen an exercise like this one: most canvassers attempt a measure of subtlety, but this is acknowledged as an all-out campaign:

• characterisation of those who support deleting the categories as "like vampires who crave blood but can't be killed"[56]
• saying "I felt, and feel, that it's important to get out the vote"[57] - this nearly 24 hours after he was first warned by jc37 about WP:CANVASS
• saying "As for slanting my notices, I am deliberating attempting to countervail a movement. I have a side."[58]
• Repeating a characterising by another editor of support for deletion as "craziness"[59]
• Posting updates of the count of "endorse" and "overturn" !votes at deletion, urging editors at that project to "send a message"[60][61]

If this sort of all-out campaigning to "get out the vote" for a particular result in a decision-making process is allowed to stand, we might as well tear up the guidelines on conduct in wikipedia's decision-making processes. What is the point of trying to make decisions by consensus if editors campaign to "get out the vote", despite multiple warnings to desist? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the most recent thread to the user's talk page. There's no need to lament the entire decision making process; this just seems to be one editor who has strong feelings about an issue. I hope that a few comments by uninvolved people will help to resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page asking him to desist. I have to agree that neutral notifications to a Wikiproject that an AfD or DRV is in progress are generally acceptable, but this goes way beyond that into the realm of active canvassing, campaigning, vote-counting, etc with a distinctly uncivil tone to boot. If there's any more campaigning by this editor outside the DRV itself, I would favor (and will impose, unless there is disagreement) a block for the duration of the DRV. MastCell ^Talk 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses, but at this point it's not just a matter of restraining Pete. I don't see how the DRV itself can possibly be considered to represent real consensus when there has been such a aggressive campaign to votestack it, even accompanied by a readymade pile of arguments to deploy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We deal with that sort of thing pretty often (think slashdot). I haven't had any part in the AFD or DRV, and I'm not planning to, but someone could leave a note for the closer pointing out this thread. The admins who close DRV discussions should be able to deal with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If mentioning proposed decisions on relevant WikiProjects is outlawed, we might as well outlaw WikiProjects themselves. And deletion sorting pages too, for that matter. Maybe even outlaw watchlists. It would be inappropriate for anyone who might know something about the subject to find out and influence the decision, after all: we must let the ignorant make their decisions on their own, because they're the only ones who are truly unbiased. —David Eppstein 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That (banning WikiProject notifications) has not been proposed here. Neutral notifications to WikiProjects, as stated above, are generally acceptable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion on WT:WPM was less neutral than I think appropriate, but it's natural that someone would have difficulty remaining neutral when a page or category he feels strongly about has been deleted, seemingly unreasonably. (I don't want to argue whether the closure decision actually was unreasonable, only that it likely seemed that way to that participant.) And in this case, other editors on WT:WPM already admonished him to calm down and stay civil. Why does this rise to the level of something needing admin attention? —David Eppstein 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

David, "less neutral than I think appropriate" is such a serious misunderstatement as to be a misrepresentation, like describing someone who reverts ten times in a day as "slightly inappropriate". The discussion at WT:WPM after the closure of the CFD was generally OK: one personal attack, but otherwise it was well within bounds. However, there's a huge difference between editors discussing how they feel about an XfD closure and what actually happened here: using the WikiProject to host a partisan list of "reasons to overturn" and aggressively canvassing and campaigning to "get out the vote". WikiProjects don't "own" a set of articles, and their areas of interest frequently overlap with other projects (in this case with the biography project); imagine the mess we would have if XfD or DRV became a battleground to be fought out between competing wikiprojects, which is the logical next step of allowing this sort of disruption to proceed.

It's good that other editors on WT:WPM had urged caution, but the aggressive campaigning came after the editor in question had his attention drawn to WP:CANVASS, and it continued after several warnings at WPM which the editor concerned rejected. Pete repeatedly acknowledged that he knew he was out of order but intended to proceeded regardless, replete with a stream of personal attacks. In what other context would that degree of disruption be characterised as unworthy of admin attention?

After the welcome removal of some of the more outrageous votestacking posts, the last remaining comment that discussion at WT:WPM is Pete's "stubborn-ness in the cause of mathematics is no vice". How is this end-justifies means approach compatible with WP:CONSENSUS? I support Mastcell's proposal to block Pete at least for the duration of the DRV. There is no indication that he has any intention of respecting the consensus decision-making process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of the above, the user's talk page, (and more), I've given the user a warning that he may be blocked for the duration of the DRV, if he continues. I think by now enough "notice" has been given, and this has strayed quite far into "disruptive territory". - jc37 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization from User:161.52.14.2

Resolved

 – both blocked by User:GlassCobra

209.94.170.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly trivially vandalized several pages, seemingly with the only intention of causing trouble. The user has also blanked several pages and been warned for this by bots. This behaviour has continued, and I now propose more permanent action against this user. The IP address does not seem to be shared, since all edits made from that address has been acts of vandalization.

Cambrant 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization from 161.52.14.2

209.94.170.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly trivially vandalized several pages, seemingly with the only intention of causing trouble. The user has also blanked several pages and been warned for this by bots. This behaviour has continued, and I now propose more permanent action against this user. The IP address does not seem to be shared, since all edits made from that address has been acts of vandalization.

Cambrant 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Both are blocked. For future reference, please use the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism forum for such reports. You'll get a quicker response that way. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible sysop impersonator

Resolved

Hello, I'm having a small problem with Tubesteak (talk · contribs). According to User talk:Tubesteak and User talk:Neranei, he is a sysop editing under an alternate account. Why, I don't know. As seen by the discussion, he will not tell me who he is an alternate account of. When I asked, he said that unless I was nominated, he wouldn't talk to me. I explained that I'm a current adminship candidate, and told him to take a look at my RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neranei 2) to prove that I'm a current candidate. He then changed to saying that he wouldn't talk to me unless I was a sysop. The whole issue is raised because he made an edit to Tube steak redirecting it to penis instead of hot dog. I gave him a level-1 warning as usual, but he asserts that his edit was correct and cites Urban Dictionary. I just wanted to bring this matter to your attention; all but one of his edits have been made to his userpage (which claims that he is a sysop), and the one is the disputed redirect. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignore him. No reasonable editor would cite urban dictionary. Friday (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of quoting 'Family GUy'? HalfShadow 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that it was simple vandalism, however, the user continues to assert that he can't speak to "a civilian" regarding the sysop issue. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I call vandal. Just block him as a troll account. JuJube 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block for either 1) pretending to be an admin or 2) invalid use of alternate account (avoiding scrutiny). -- Merope 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand blocked. -- Merope 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Good call. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

appears he was trying to impersonate/claim to be/confuse other editors that he is User:Turnstep per the Tubesteak user page. Dureo 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, "Turnstep" is just the first administrator that comes alphabetically after "Tubesteak". That userbox links to the userlist specifically searching in the "Administrators" group starting with the user's name and limiting the list to one account. Since Tubesteak was not an admin, he was not in the Administrators group, so it listed the first account in that group that comes after 'Tub' in the alphabet. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, was trying yo figure out how they actually got it to point there, makes sense now. Dureo 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the user page, most of the userboxes were copied from Alex Bakharev. -- Gogo Dodo 00:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is User:Sixstring1965. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights activist

An animal rights activist has turned up, two accounts which checkuser to the same IP, which is also editing anonymously: Doingwhatwikitellsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Untileverycageisempty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.105.144.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

This individuals edits have been to articles related to animal liberation (the extreme end of animal rights) and include a biography, Joseph Harris (ALF) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which appeared to me to fail WP:BLP1E, as the individual was only notable for a single criminal conviction and the sole source was a news report about the case, other edits are also tendentious, strongly suggestive of a conflict of interest, have included copyright violations, were in many cases speedily reverted, and have been problematic in sundry other ways. I have blocked all for now to allow discussion. If this person is to be allowed to edit, it is quite likely that every single edit will have to be patrolled, at least for a while. Actually I believe that animal rights extremists, like religious and other extremists, are often so carried away in their ardent need to promote "the truth" as to be incapable of editing within policy. But I am open to persuasion in this case. Regardless, two accounts and an IP all editing pretty much simultaneously, is not going to fly, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already asked the editor to confine themselves to one account, and support the block on all accounts until they chose which one they wish to use. Tim Vickers 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the editors trying to keep up with this users edits and trying to clean up after them. Myself and other editors made numerous attempts at communicating with this user and advising them to slow down and learn how wikipedia works. I think that a short block is in order, however I should also point out that the two username issue only arose because another editor had commented about the original name and so they opened another account. If nothing had been said then it is quite clear that this user would have stuck to one account only. I do not believe for one minute that they were deliberately trying to break any wikipedia rules by having two accounts. I would also suggest that they edited as the IP user, which again was something I picked up, not malicicously but perhaps by forgetting to sign in as only a small number of edits were made using the IP address. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The time period of overlap is thus far limited, but so is the total edit history. But this is certainly a persistent editor; from 13:57, 7 November 2007 to 12:00, 8 November 2007 there was no break of 1 hour or more. Humanly possible, but it shows strong dedication to editing Wikipedia in this topic area. Let's give the user some time to sleep it off; after at least 22 hours of activity nobody is operating in best form. Can we find an experienced editor with the same POV to get them grounded and headed in the right direction? I feel this editor needs to learn quickly to work the wiki way, or they make far too much mess. They also obviously need to use only one of the accounts. GRBerry 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you manage to get them engaged in rational conversation, and then we can talk about an unblock. If the edits were not so self-evidently crusading I would probably have been less firm, but I think we need to think long and hard before letting this one off the leash again. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted long essays based on WP:TIGERS. If the user responds, let's see how. Until then, we can leave the door shut. GRBerry 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the user clearly has very strong animal rights views and bearing in mind the one solitary response in which they took offence at someone being critical of their username (untileverycageisempty) during the 24 hour period of posting, somehow I doubt that an analogy about tigers in a zoo will go down too well with them, but you never know! :) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. I toned it down from stuffed tigers in a natural history museum (that would really have set them off). But I'm not going to produce on my own an essay as well written as Mr. Pietri's, so I went with what I could do. GRBerry 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization by 208.125.109.131

The account has been warned several times before and has yet to be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.125.109.131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifried (talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I left a V4 warning based on a very recent unreverted vandalism. (V4 had not recently been given). If he vandalizes again, report to WP:AIV and appropriate action will be taken. Arakunem^Talk 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Perspicacite‎ incivilty?

After he filed "a meritless 3RR complaint" according to JzG, Perspicacite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by JzG for 24 hours (this was after User:TimVickers blocked him for 48 hours earlier today and User:Kwsn overturned that block due to the fact that TimVickers was at the time "in conflict" with Perspicacite. However, 2 hours or so after JzG's block, Perspicacite made a somewhat worrying comment on his own talk page. I extended JzG's block for another 2 days, but requests a few opinions on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I was "in conflict" with Perspicacite was that he was objecting vociferously to a warning I had given him for uncivil edit summaries. This was not a content dispute, so you might want to reword that comment. Tim Vickers 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That was what Kwsn's unblock comment rate. I've changed part of what I said above in quotes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, don't want people to get the wrong idea. Perspicacite is extremely unwilling to listen to anybody else, although he is not gratuitously insulting, his attitude leaves a great deal to be desired. Tim Vickers 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The original 24 hours by JzG are appropriate IMO. Adding extra time because the user is testy while blocked is something we should always be very cautious of. Blocks affect people. Try looking away. And in this case, Perspicacite was being gleefully taunted on his talkpage, the only page he can edit, by Alice. After discussion with Penwhale, I've removed his 2 extra days . Bishonen | talk 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

I really wish you would not just go and undo/reduce blocks like that, it really should be done in line with consensus. I agree with the extension, being blocked is no excuse to be uncivil. (Retracted due to my misinterpretation of events) 1 != 2 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just go and undo/reduce ? It's not good enough to have the blocking admin agree to the undoing now? I truly didn't know that all blocks were sacred, regardless of the opinion of the blocking admin (and of the facts of the case). Does that sanctitude make more sense than saying "I wish people wouldn't just go and block people, without getting consensus for it first?" Which I don't think I've ever heard you say. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

As long as you discussed shortening the block with Penwhale or JzG then there is no problem. You don't have to clear this with everybody, just discuss it with the blocking admins. Tim Vickers 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Bishonen. Getting agreement from the blocking admin should be sufficient for an unblock unless there are extraordinary circumstances, which I don't see here. Ronnotel 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite‎ seems to be a potentially good editor with big civility issues and a tendency to see minor errors or misbehaviors as massive personal affronts. Aside from this, he's been around here thrice this week: report about him nearly baseless retaliatory report by him and another overdramatic report against a user he's in a tiff with. I was hoping discussion and time would bring him around, but it hasn't happened yet. Since other editors are getting drawn into his vortex of grump and misbehaving themselves, a block to get a break in the drama seems reasonable to me. William Pietri 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User/Bot VoABot II

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked for COI/promotional username --Haemo 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to add information for a client of mine, PPG Industries. Several times I've attempted to do so and each time it gets taken off. This is very frustrating as it is my job at the moment. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPG Performance Glazings (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a very obvious conflict of interests issue here. I suggest you look at that link and then figure out what to do. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• You can write encyclopedia articles about acrylic, adhesion, ASTM, casement, caulking, and so on. Or, if the articles already exist, you can expand on those terms or terms within the glass industry. Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of that knowledge, particularly in regard to articles in Category:Windows. If you add all that terminology only within the PPG Industries article, though, it might be hard for others to find. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User blocked due to promotional username. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that VoABot's use of the word "vandalism" in its revert edit summary is appropriate, here. ClueBot's explanations are much more helpful. Corvus cornix 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kizor and inappropriate speedy keep

Kizor and I disagree on deletions in general. He does not like me nominating things for AFD even though they clearly don't meet Wikipedia standards. However, I believe this closure was inappropriate and that he did it solely because he doesn't like me. He gloated inappropriately about it on my talk page. Now, if the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights) had been a snowball keep then I would have agreed, but it is not. He simply doesn't agree with the AFD so he just closed it. This is not appropriate behavior from an administrator. Pilotbob 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...I closed it because the article had been kept less than a month ago, and because two other administrators I asked agreed.
I keep away from closing fiction AfDs specifically to keep my opinion of the merits of the articles from being a factor, and made an exception here because the closure was on fully procedural grounds.
Later on, I decided to explain my reasons in detail on Pilotbob's talk page, to make sure this didn't jeopardize our good relation - he'd previously made a polite, respectful reply to me that was highly refreshing, and I want(ed) to talk to him further later - by making him think what he now does. Obviously the message went gravely wrong, so I'd appreciate your comments on how it did.
:(. --Kizor 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just put it up on deletion review. I know we disagree on deletions and it struck me as a bad faith move. If it had been an admin that never voted on my AFDs or expressed their displeasure on my AFDs, I wouldn't have tought that. The same as if all the responses were keeps. But seeing an approximately equal number of keeps and deletes gave me pause and I was a bit upset. I'm sure Kizor is just trying to help out and do what he thinks is best, but we disagree on some things. Pilotbob 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not sure your closure was appropriate. You closed it as premature due to a recent AfD; normally that would be correct, but the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". I believe current guidelines allow for near-immediate (although not compulsory) re-nomination in the case of no consensus. Powers ^T 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Those I asked were Jimfbleak and Resurgent Insurgent, though I mistakenly gave the time from the last nomination as five weeks. Jim told me to go ahead, Res said that he wouldn't close a nomination made over a month after a nc - and this turned out to be made under one. I searched the rules before closing, without finding anything about the grace period of a no consensus being shorter. --Kizor 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule about the time frame for nominating articles for deletion after a previous attempt, nor is there a hard and fast rule about closing such nominations. Personally, I wouldn't have closed an XFD discussion where there were already good faith !votes expressed unless it were clearly slanted one way or another or it was clear the nominator was not acting in good faith. I don't think either of those were the case here. That said, I don't think Kizor was acting maliciously and he was simply exercising his judgment. Unless Kizor feels the need to reopen the discussion at this time, I'd simply suggest the nominator wait 2 months, and then renominate it if the reasons it was originally nominated have not been addressed. This isn't an "emergency" situation and there is no timetable for considering this article for deletion.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If Pilotbob were to relist it at WP:DRV, I would surely !vote that the AfD closure was inappropriate, in light not only because of the obvious ill-will from Kizor, but Kizor's closing explanation being that there was a recent AfD, which is an invalid speedy close rationale. Corvus cornix 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, deletion review is certainly an option as well.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukanta Das

Resolved

 – 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukanta Das has been repeatedly posting a 45 kilobyte rant on Talk:Prabir Ghosh, consisting largely of insults and personal attacks against the page's subject. He has ignored multiple warnings, and became insulting to me when I removed the flaming (see User talk:Sukanta Das), as well as feuding with Prabir Ghosh's son User:Pinaki ghosh. User:Sukanta Das is a single-purpose account, with the purpose of condemning Prabir Ghosh. This is not by itself a problem, but the personal attacks are. Michaelbusch 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

o0; Blocked for twenty-four hours. Any sysop can feel free to extend the block if need be. — madman bum and angel 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – User blocked, likely sockpuppet. --Haemo 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the hedging with disclaimers (the user is, after all, a lawyer), I think this edit by 222.155.216.84, the IP avatar of Forrestergaz, constitutes a legal threat. I'm not an admin; are there any who think a block is in order until it's retracted? It would at least put a temporary end to his interminable screeds in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Forrester. Deor 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a threat to me, and they're demanding an apology from a blocked User, so even if that User wanted to issue an apology, they can't. Corvus cornix 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a month, but looking at the AFD, it's probably dynamic and certainly used by User:Forrestergaz. I warned at the account talk page, too.--chaser - t 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Forrestergaz has been very verbose on the AfD page for what is presumably his autobiography, and has just posted a sample of what I presume is his own poetry. I think a block for disruptive editing might be in order now, given all of the warnings he's been given. Michaelbusch 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults and now religious slurs.

Resolved

 – user blocked --Haemo 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I earlier reported User:Shabiha for consistent personal attacks over the past few months at 22:03, 29 October 2007. This included, among other things, her constantly calling me a Wahhabi despite me explaining numerous times that it's a derogatory term. I was advised to take the issue to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, which I did, and got no response.
Most recently, this user has been engaging in an edit war with myself and other editors on the Barelwi article. No big deal, I tried to discuss things on the talk page. Rather than doing that, Shabiha kept reverting and at 16:15, 8 November 2007 outright called me a Wahhabi again in the edit summary. She then left a comment on my talk page at 16:30, 8 November 2007 calling me a fascist among other accusations as well, all over a content dispute.
Look, how long will this be allowed to go on for? I came here to ANI, was sent to Wikiquette alerts, and am still being subjected to a religious slur. This user has been editing for a while, is familiar with site policy, and has been warned by multiple users multiple times. Something should really be done about this. MezzoMezzo 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for general disruption. Edit warring coupled with personal attack isn't on. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Abhih Advocating Vandalism and Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – User blocked until after Diwali, since that seems to be the source of his uncontrollable angst. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is about as straightforward as it comes. --Smashville^BONK! 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An exhortation to vandalise WP, but as long as the article in question is spam. Now I've seen everything. Relata refero 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a note. If that doesn't help, feel free to ask for more assistance. Given his willingness to use socks, I'd rather we try to engage him in dialog on this account, so I'd appreciate other admins not blocking him unless he gets really crazy. If you're an admin annoyed by bad speedy tags, though, a couple more comments might help him see his behavior is counterproductive. William Pietri 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See more drama at User talk:Merope. Getting a bit WP:POINTy. -- Satori Son 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Vhayste

Resolved

Hello admins,

I would kindly request, if possible if I you can email me the original codes of my previous user page? I understand the reason it got deleted and I was religiously maintaining it thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Anyways, I don't have any requests to restore it or such but at least let me have a copy of the original source code.

Many thanks and more power! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhayste (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done! Email sent. --Haemo 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Miranda creating an attack page

User:210.54.245.44 resumed edit warring

210.54.245.44 returned from a 31 hour block for edit-warring and went immediately back to edit-warring on the same article, The X-Files. --Pleasantville 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User has stopped. In the future, please report vandalism to WP:AIV for a better/quicker response. --Haemo 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user abusing talk page

User:75.83.171.237 using talk page to make threats and relay messages from banned user User:Ilena, I blanked the page and protected it from editing. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/75.83.171.237. Was this proportionate? Tim Vickers 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It would seem that User:Ilena, banned by ArbCom, has been continuing to work through a handful of proxies here. Given the relentlessly vituperative nature of her input, I think your response was appropriate. Of course, she won't have to work as hard to "out" you as she has been working to out me and every other editor she's crossed paths with... although I have to say I'm flattered by most of the guesses she's made about my real-life identity on the InterWeb. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've always felt vaguely dissatisfied that even though I've been in the admin cabal for ages, and I have even provided people with a photo, nobody has yet bothered to add me to their list of enemies on any of those attack sites. Their disregard is humbling. Tim Vickers 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Kafhimpa [62] has accused Touch Of Light of vandalism and spam [63] and made a legal threat in the edit summary in response to Touch Of Light posting the standard greeting on Kafhimpa's talk page. Edward321 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contribs look bad all around. There's a definite hostility going on. Probably needs a block, as he contribs show an ongoing pattern. ThuranX 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24h, but am open to extension of the block if people think that is too lenient. Tim Vickers 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That may depend on whether or not you get berated for spamming his talk page :) ---- WebHamster 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Pilotbob

I have a real issue with Pilotbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Witht he exception of a (failed) deletion review request for Brian Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), pretty much 100% of this editor's contribution is tagging and nomination for deletion of popular culture topics, especially character lists. The edit pattern also looks very much like that of a sleeper sock. I have blocked for 24h for debate, to stop further disruption, as he's currently tagging articles like Rincewind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sleeper sock of whom? --EoL talk 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone. The behaviour is pretty standard; a small batch of edits, months of inactivity, and then start disruption. Guy (Help!) 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are several editors engaging in articles for deletion sprees on content about fictional universes recently - does Pilotbob's pattern differ from the others? In many cases, these have succeeded in deleting the articles in question, so consensus might indicate that this pattern isn't inherently disruptive. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 1, items 17-60, for example. JavaTenor 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not paying by the minute; you can spend the time needed to type 'for what it's worth'... HalfShadow 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the rate, it's just that it's all he's done since the Brian Peppers mention. Everything he's done is an AFD of some sort, and he does not actually read the articles half the time. With one, he said that an article on a television program wasn't notable per WP:FICT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which is the sock and which is the socketteer, but: [64]. -Chunky Rice 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He really needs to slow down the AfD tagging. Corvus cornix 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that he's deliberately doing this to be disruptive, but it is clear that he is at the very least taking little to no effort to review the things he is trying to delete. The AfDs of character lists and obviously notable characters such as Rincewind make that fairly obvious, as do his consistently phrased rationales when nominating them. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a lot of people feel the deletion sprees are very disruptive. For example, there's an RfC for Gavin Collins brought by 5 separate editors and endorsed by 28 more that finds his tagging and deletion sprees disruptive. [65] Near as I can tell, this hasn't affected Gavin's behavior at all. Edward321 06:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the character lists have little secondary sources as most of the primary sources are accurate(why would the creaters of the an anime/movie lie about their characters?), which he uses as a excuse to get rid of content. And because of the lack of them, many are getting deleted because almost all secondary sources are considered fan sites and even though they are clearly notable subjects.I think we should close every Afd he as nominated and the undeletion of the ones deleted, if anyone disbutes the undetetion, they can take it to Afd in a normal manner instead of a tagging spree. Af648 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Articles sourced exclusively from primary sources are not really what the encyclopaedia is supposed to be about. We are supposed to work from non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• • In the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that a lot of the articles Pilotbob nominated for deletion have been rubbish and fancruft created from a couple of primary sources, and were rightly sent to AFD. Neil ☎ 11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. A fair bit isn't and mass nomination is not helpful, nor is nominating material because the article is disorganized. I get sick of the bizarre cultural snobbery that seems to view anything more recent than 1940 as trivia. Anyone with half an interest in the area can find massive amount of secondary sourced on the most obscure bits of pop culture, just that much of it is extremely esoteric and many of us aren't doing it. The idea of prompt citing is for where material may be challenged, not like, duh, Nemo is a Clownfish (which was removed recently). I have found some stuff but haven't prioritised it. Anyway we're getting off topic here. Pilotbob sprang into action as a deletion happy account around the time a number of other accounts have been blocked. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion too. I think that the advice Pilotbob has been given is sound: cut down the rate of nomination and actually do some work before nominating. That is generically sound advice, in fact. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think the blockage is at all justified. Nominations for AFD are just that, they are not deletions per se. I could understand his concerns if this action related to WP:PROD, but AFD is a process that is subject to peer review. All of his nominations I have seen have been justified; by examining the AFD's you will see that they all concern plot summaries without real world context, having few or no primary or secondary sources. The nominations were made in good faith, and the articles concerned all fall outside of WP scope would have been nominated for AfD eventually.

Secondly, I think Guy may have overstepped the mark, because taking a dislike to an editor's edits is not reasonable grounds for a block. His attempt to discredit the edits of Pilotbob in this way is not appropriate; there is due process to be followed in these circumstances. Village pump, or RFC have been created for situations. The arbitary exercise of admin power against editors acting in good faith is basically tyranny. --Gavin Collins 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jidanni (talk · contribs) disrupting DRV and more

I encountered this DRV posted by Jidanni, for an article about himself. The DRV pretty much does nothing but make accusations against admins and the community, as the article in question has never been deleted or even nominated for any type of deletion. I speedily closed it, and admonished him on his user talk page. He responded with the same accusations and bad faith as before, then opened a WP:POINT DRV on Josephine Ho, which was deleted per A7. I speedily closed that because the nomination was still more accusations and bad faith against the community. I strongly support a short-term block for disruption and incivility, though I shouldn't do it myself. --Coredesat 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Another admin's waring wouldn't hurt. I thought his gratuitous insults were inappropriate, myself, as is clear from my comment on the DRV. Corvus cornix 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Squirrel1607 (talk · contribs) Apparent vandal only account

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by John --Coredesat 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[66], [67], and [68] were the only 3 edits he has made in order from most recent to first edits. The most recent are worse. And if this is the wrong place, point me to the right place. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is better. Viridae^Talk 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of 70.52.172.0/22

I have just blocked the range 70.52.172.0/22 due to the return of an individual who was supposed to have been dealt with concerning this abuse report. The individual operating out of these ranges have vandalized various articles I work on and does not respond to any communication. Blocks also do not seem to make him get the point either. I had sent another abuse report to the ISP and have been in contact with Darkwind who worked on the other abuse report. For a diagnostic edit, see this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that those edits by that IP is clearly unacceptable. Greg Jones II 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You ought to let Darkwind know, as he was the one in communication with his ISP. Corvus cornix 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already contacted him concerning the newest IP. I will leave him a message concerning this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

122.161.26.156

Please block/ban 122.161.26.156. It has placed irrelevant, vandalesque, and generally worthless comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medicare_%28United_States%29. The comments could not be undone, so I deleted the offending section. Annorax 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism intervention is thataway -> HalfShadow 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on the Annorax's and IP's talk page. Hopefully this is resolved. --TeaDrinker 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jbloun1 on New York City article

I am running out of patience with User:Jbloun1 on the New York City article. This user continues with personal attacks [69] and making edits against consensus. I'm sure the user is frustrated that he/she cannot just replace all the pictures in the article with his/her own, without discussion and consensus. But, I don't have a lot of patience for this sort of behavior, and to try and reason with the user. If an independent admin can look at the situation, it would be very helpful. --Aude (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I need some kind of mediation

After the month blocked by the arbitration committee, Maurice27 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) comes back trying to destroy everybody-who-doesen't-accept-his-POV's nerves. Without discussing in talk pages or, when he does, using a style too close to trolling and assuming he has the only truth, he started again his indiscriminate reversions.

Since I am already too tired (let me emphasize it: too too tired) of discussing with him with no result at all until a mediation is required (and by the way, then he accepts the solution proposed by the mediator, even if this one is exactly one of the many I proposed and he didn't accept), this time I decide directly to expose here the last reversions and then I will quit the discussion: I don't want to start an edit warring and I don't want to continue an already bad quality discussion which will bring us no more fruits than a complete loss of time.

• In Manuel Fraga Iribarne: this man has been considered in the category of fascists since may 2006. A couple of days ago, Maurice27 removes this category with the only argument in the edit summary: "removed a nonsense". Well, I thought that if a category remained for one year and a half in an article that is being edited quite regulary, perhaps is not so nonsense and, at least, it must be discussed in the talk page this removal before proceeding to remove it. Therefore, together with some other minor improvements, I added again the category just after asking in the talk page more detailed reasons to proceed with the removal (let's note I do not take part if Fraga is or is not a Fascist, I just ask for a justification). Maurice27 then deletes again the category after a despotic answer in which he asserts he has the only truth and I am wrong (excuse me, did I said if I deffended or I regected the category?) and moreover he adds "I really believe that your vision of how was Spain under Franco is rather weird". Sorry? Why this ad hominem attack? And then he starts speaking about his mother. I'm astonished. I have no arguments. Didn't he understand the question or he just acts as he didn't?
• Catalan Countries and Northern Catalonia: Both articles descrive both concepts clearly as (in other words) the name that certain Catalan people gives to certain territories (... a term which is sometimes used, particularly in Catalan writings..., ... The term is politically charged, and tends to be closely associated with Catalan nationalism and Catalan independentism...). But he includes in both articles the template {{Globalizecountry}}. Let's remark that in one article there is even a section about the controversy about the use of the name. Therefore, I don't see the point on putting those templates. Should we add also this template to Salegy, Bisi Bele Bath, Malagan, etc, because they don't represent a worldwide view of the subjects but they just represent the view from Madagascar, India and Papua New Guinea respectively? I asked the reasons to put this templates and the answers are... well, I'm sure we could be ages discussing without saying absolutely nothing: [70], [71].
• Estanislao Figueras, Salvador Dalí, and in general any article about any Catalan/Spanish person. I think no rule says that a biography must start telling the official citizenship of the person. So then, we can find many articles about people from Scotland which start with "xxx was a Scotish musician" and other which start with "xxx was a British musician (from Scotland)". And there is no problem and we can respect both ways, because both are correct. Well, it seems that is not possible with Catalan people. Maurice27 tries to make disappear any reference to Catalanity of any person in wikipedia. He argues: 1) There exist no catalan nationality and 2) Catalan is unknow, Spanish is known. Well, if there exist a Catalan nationality, neither Spanish politicians have it clear (almost 90% of Catalan politicians deffend there exists the Catalan nation -seen as cultural terriroty, NOT as a soverign state-, most of all the Spanish deffend there exists no such nation). So, if Spanish politicians don't know the answer to this problem, is my answer correct? I don't know. Maurice27 is however SURE, there is NO DOUBT, he has the truth once more and no, there doesen't exist the Catalan nationality. And this if already for him just enough to change all Catalan for Spanish. And about the knowledge of Catalonia, it deppends on the knowledge of the reader (some people from Europe will have problems to locate Missouri in a USA map, and some from USA will locate Spain under Mexico). Anyway, there is always a blue link that gives you this information you didn't know. But not being this enought, one user proposed some days ago in one symilar case a consensus solution: "xxx is a Catalan (Spain) musician...". Everybody is represented: Catalonia and Spain. Maurice27 seemed to agree. Well, it was just a mirage, because when after his change I tried to follow this formula and reach consensus, this time the solution was not valid: No consensus needed, his passport was from Spain. Note the sentence: "No consensus needed". Good example of his way of acting.

There are more articles, more disputes, more reversions. But as I said in the beggining, I am already too tired to discuss with him, it is not possible. I hope some administrator can mediate once more and we can find a solution that can please everybody and which increases the quality of the Wikipedia. Thank you, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you need mediation, you should head for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, like Xtv, I am also tired, discouraged and, to put it frankly, utterly disappointed at the so-called dispute resolution and mediation processes. Maurice27 has had a history of extremely (just to put it mildly) disruptive behavior in his attempt to discredit anything related to Catalonia. Unfortunately, in the English Wikipedia (or perhaps in the English speaking world), there is little knowledge of Catalonia, its language and culture, and therefore little is done to prevent vandalism in related pages.

There was a request for arbitration (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence), in which 6 different users exposed the inappropriate behavior of Maurice27 (including, but not limited to directly insulting and or cursing other people, article ownership, breaking or ignoring consensus, disregard of reputable sources to impose his opinion, vandalism and trolling). He has been blocked eight times. And after two months of silence, the arbitration committee closed the case by simply "encouraging all parties to debate" (as if we hadn't tried that before) and blocked Maurice temporarily. He has come back, and he refuses to debate and continues with his disruptive behavior.

Xtv decided to post his request here, because, after the utter failure of the Request for Mediation he, like me and many other users , do not know what else to do. Many good-intentioned Catalan users have already left Wikipedia due to the lack of proper administrative action -one administrator, who lived in Spain even sided with Maurice27, condoning his insults and disruptive behavior and even blocking those who opposed him! The Arbitration Committee also ignored this point.

If you decide not to intervene, then tell us if there is any viable mechanism within Wikipedia to deal with these cases, because we have tried everything, to no avail.

--the Dúnadan 14:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit War?

I have a couple NBA players on my watchlist, and I've noticed that 8-Hype (talk · contribs) and Downwards (talk · contribs) seem to be arguing over fairly minor details. Just look at the history of Ray Allen, Gabe Pruitt, Scot Pollard, and Tony Allen. Just thought you guys should know. SashaCall 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: check out Downward's block log. Sasha C. 06:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second note: I realize that checkuser isn't for fishing, but a quick look at both user's contribs shows some overlapping, and I was wondering if anyone thinks these two users are just one person having too much fun. SashaCall 06:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, maybe, but you need some evidence to even support a request for checkuser. In the meantime, 48 hours off for both accounts.--chaser - t 06:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I thought someone would say that. The block should work for now though. SashaCall 06:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NikkiZ23

This user has only made 3 edits since it joined but they can all be considered as vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NikkiZ23). All edits were fictional facts in three different biographies, which can be easliery confirmed. He/she has given no reason for the edits. This user deserves at least warning, or to be blocked. Thanks.

Tanyawade 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a warning and will watch him for the next few hours. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 10:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

World Pie Eating Championship

Resolved

LessHeard vanU 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, World Pie Eating Championship keeps being vandalised with homophobic content. Can you put a block on non-registered users and User:Winnets from editing it please? Thank you, Darkieboy236 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither the ip nor World Pie Eating Championship has edited today, and Winnets was indef blocked two days ago. In future WP:AIV is the place to report current vandalism. LessHeard vanU 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article semi-protected but please Darkieboy, do not use the word 'idiot' when reverting vandalism. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris Mordetzky

A user did a copy and paste move to this page from Chris Mordetsky without telling anybody or asking for consensus. In all likely hood because when WWE announced his suspension they spelled his last name with the 'z' as opposed to the 's'. Anyway, can an administrator please merge the histories as it is now all screwed up? Thank you. Bmg916^Speak 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't specify which article to leave it at, leaving it at the newer article with the 'z' spelling will be fine as we have a reliable source for that spelling. Thanks again! Bmg916^Speak 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Give us your fucking money

I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended. Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly. Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely. I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 14:38

No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [72] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though. Neil ☎ 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia. WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Neil ☎ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Edokter

There is a problem concerning a change to MediaWiki:Common.css. I am partly responsible for the problem in making the original change, but I would like to draw administrators' attention to the behaviour of Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in opposing this. A discussion thread regarding the change is open at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Edoktor seems to be threatening unilateral reversion on the main CSS file for English Wikipedia, here. He/She has already made changes here which had to be reverted here because of the problems they might cause. A subsequent change here is of a similar style. This administrator seems to have significant WP:OWN problems with this important page, and has not hesitated to make impetuous changes. I ask for guidance on how to proceed. Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've explained my reasons on MediaWiki_talk:Common.css. First, you added a class that is only use in one template, without any prior discussion. When I made the first change, I reverted it myself (not "had" to be reverted). The last edit I made was simply consolidating the two identical classes, and should have no negative effects on your template. Just because I look out for Common.css doesn't mean I WP:OWN it. But I do understand the importance of the file. I have also tried coming up with a solution to prevent future bloating of Common.css in this respect (a general metadata class), but you keep dismissing that; you seem to set on including the InChI class while better solutions are available. — Edokter • Talk • 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

At what point are anonymous only rangeblocks appropriate? Since late August, an individual attempting to push a POV at University of Western Sydney and Dapto High School has been evading blocks and periodically causing general mayhem through the use of allocated portable IPs. (See User:Moonriddengirl/Socks for details.) Primarily the individual is currently active on those two articles and on the user pages of editors who attempt to remove the material (particularly mine, since from my first appearance I have been The Symbol of Wikipression). Is the best and/or only option to continue dealing with these as if they were isolated incidents? Guidance from admins experienced with these situations would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)