Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Coloane community ban discussion

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

This is in response to an email I received from a concerned editor. It would appear that User:Coloane continues to attempt to use FAC as a weapon for causing disruption against editors he has a beef with. There was a prior ANI discussion (here about possible problems with Coloane; this was resolved by Raul, who said that mentoring Coloane was a possible option. However, one of the main points in that discussion, that Coloane was using FAC intentionally to disrupt Wikipedia, was lost I think, and it is still happening. Two relevent difs: here: [1] where he claims to wish to see another editors article "fail and die at FAC" and here: [2] where he threatens to obstruct any articles edited by another user from becoming FAC. These edits are personally directed, and represent a directed attempt to disrupt, in my opinion. Now, this was all in the prior ANI report, however the behavior continues DESPITE the prior report. At this dif where he opposes the article U2, he makes a veiled reference to his deliberate attempt to obstruct of the Russia FAC. And the final issue is here: [3] where he cleary says that he is making outrageous and unactionable claims on the article, simply to obstruct the vote. This is stretching the bounds of good faith, and we should consider a community ban restricting this user from the entire FA process. What I see here is repeated attempts (feeble as they may be) to push a personal agenda by making outlandish and rediculous oppose votes at FA nominations. That such votes are patently rediculous and likely to be discounted by the FA director is moot. The Russia FAC would have failed regardless of Coloanes clumsy attempt to disrupt it; likewise the U2 FAC is likely to succeed in spite of it. However, these obvious and rediculous attempts at trolling need to be stopped. I recognize that he has been a valuable contributor to many articles here at Wikipedia, but he clearly misunderstands how to work well with others at FAC, and a community ban may be in order. Any ideas?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed his "vote" and the discussion thread from the FAC, directing him to dispute resolution. It was an inappropriate, unhelpful, and needlessly antagonistic exchange. El_C 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. I still press that a community ban of some sort on FA discussions needs to be addressed. Do others agree, or do we need to let this play out further. As I noted, the user has made some clearly positive contributions, but this behavior at FA should not be suffered for much longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are something wrong here. You tried to talk about the vote from Russia (or the last message from the noticeboard) and mixed up the vote I put on U2 in order to rationalise your above message. This is my first time to see it. Again, my vote in Russia and U2 are fair with highly detail reasons and they are all seperate issues. It doesn't make sense and it is rude to erase my vote over there. Everyone can go there and vote. With the message I wrote to Mikoyan is a third matter. You had better treat it one by one. So go back to the U2 issue. You made my comment over my comment, why didn't you take this to the talk page? I answered your question politely and illustrated my point clearly. The message I wrote you is to tell you what vote means and my comment is entirely my personal view. If you are not a nominator nor main editor of U2, you can simply ignore it. It is not a message to tell you that I will come here to disrupt FAC next time. Probably you didn't pay attention or misunderstood. Coloane (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have a history of behavior which cannot be ignored at this point. You don;t get to disrupt FAC after FAC over and over simply because you want us to forget about past problems. You have never adequately explained you outright declarations to intentionally disrupt the processes at FAC. For this reason, I feel the community ban is an appropriate solution. I urge you to refrain from commenting on FACs and FARs in the future, and return to editing articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is your concrete evidence to prove that I disrupt/ed the FAC process? I am not going to write anymore here since it really wastes me too much time to reply your comment, so this is my last comment here. I guess you probably wanted to save your face on my comment under U2. Plus I guess you have nothing to do so far and that is why you spent most of your time to see if you can do something. Oh by the way, it seems you did a right job to give a warning to someone I didn't know. Hopefully this is not the only one you can do as an admin. Good luck! Coloane (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem: [4]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then put this comment on Archive 354. Coloane (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see related thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Ongoing_harrassment.2C_vote_rigging_and_sockpuppetery_by_User:Coloane. It would seem a community ban on FA/GA discussions is the next stage from here. Orderinchaos 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall Coloane has commented in a past Macau FAC with personal attacks directed at Tony and myself at the very least. I have reminded this user that the attacking behaviour is unacceptable, but has ignored the message. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (GMT)

So the question remains: Are we prepared to institute and enforce a community ban on this user? Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence above, something needs to be done; I just don't know what. Maybe a ban, maybe FAC probation. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (GMT)

I think if the user were restricted from any future FA discussions, that would be a reasonable solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that he has not clean up his acts & instead went on his 'crusade' further by ignoring any past community warnings or actions & even while his case is in arbitration now, I wld like to bring to your attention on his editing behaviour & actions towards Singapore-related articles & the SGpedia community not too long ago. As his case is still pending here, he has 'retired' suddenly as of Jan 23 but I've lingering doubts that he will remain so for long. [5]. u may also want to read his remarks posted on Jimbo Wales' talkpage previously. Fyi, I'm a RC patroller & was given the roll-back authority to help in monitoring on Singapore-related articles for such trolls & vandals. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane is my husband. I already let him retire and he will not come back for sure. I hope it can clarify your doubt. In addition, I do not think your claim about what he did for Singapore-related topics are reasonable. Guia Hill 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

The statement I made were based on his pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen from his history logs, talkpage (blanked repeatedly[6]), personal attacks on SG-related articles [7] & SGpedians [8] that also matches similar reports made by other editors/Admins all these while. I'm not alone nor the only SGpedian in making such a statement as seen from this discussion, related disputes & repeated ANI cases initiated unabatedly over the past 2 weeks. Besides the SG case I mentioned earlier, I trust the Wiki community is able to evaluate on any such claims being discussed here & decide on its final long-term solution once & for all as the community has tolerated such behaviour long enuf. The community only welcome & valued volunteers who are civil and constructive to the spirit and aspirations of Wikipedia in the long run. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia anymore. I just make a response here for you. You can leave your message on my talk page if you want. Your claims are entirely not relevant. He already got warnings from someone and this matter was over long time ago. What Jayron32 wrote is also irrelevant. I didn't have much time to read his edit history. But I am sure that Miyokan is the one who voted and really disrupted the FAC process and that is why Coloane reacted emotionally on his talk page. That is why Raul restarted the nomination. Jayron32 didn't read the context carefully. Finally I would like to tell you that this page is not a battlefield for retaliation. I don't enjoy this much. I also trust Wikipedia can foster people how to love and respect each other. Nobody is prefect here. With love and peace!! Guia Hill 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

I responded to your earlier replies even though your intervention consitutes a possible COI here. My statement made were backed with factual logs & third-party's reports & I'm not using this platform as "a battlefield for retaliation" as u claimed; I'm expressing my views & concern here in my capacity as a RC patroller. Despite numerous warnings & repeated ANI action in recent weeks, he still persist with his disruptive remarks/action at the expense of the good faith & assistance extended to him earlier. Whether my view or someone else view is being discounted or not, the onus is still left for the community to decide in arriving at a consensus as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Ask him & yourself honestly this question - what led to this unwholesome karma now? Shld he chooses to return to contribute esp on Macau/HK-related articles in future, we hope he wld have reflected & learnt on this whole episode & to accord everyone the same "love & respect" as u mentioned above. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban from FAC. Long-term disruption leaves little confidence in a change after this. Lara❤Love 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Laralove, Jayron and Aldwinteo. Aldwinteo's remarks about the SG situation cause me particular concern regarding this user. We do not need people taking out vindictive GARs/FARs - it only creates more work for already overworked volunteers. Orderinchaos 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move for closure

Seeing no objections to the course of action, I say that we should notify the user that it has been decided that he is asked to make no further comments to FA and GA discussions in any way, and that such a probation means that if he continues to do so he may be blocked for disruption. Could another admin notify him of this. He already hates me, apparently, and in the interest of representing the widespread support for this proposal, it may be better if a relatively uninvolved admin notifies the user of this decision. If I do it, it may be taken as bullying him or something. Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is less than two days of discussion really enough to be able to gauge community consensus? At AfD at least five days is required. Guest9999 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this issue isn't only 2 days old. There are prior ANI reports on this user. Its been a frequent topic of discussion for over a week; the priod discussions are linked above. If this were truly only a two day discussion, I would agree with you, however, though THIS thread is only two days old, this problem has been being addressed by admins for some time, and despite this, the user continues the problematic behavior. He knows that we know what he is doing. He knows that we have told him to stop. He has not yet stopped. If you disagree that any action is needed, please say so yourself. The thread is here, and open to comment. What do YOU think needs be done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could tell (please correct me if I'm wrong) none of the other threads mentioned a community ban. So far in this thread four users (by my count) have supported a ban, two of whom are - or have been - involved in disputes with the user. Other users have suggested dispute resolution or simply unecertainty as to what action to take. Personnaly I do not think that this shows that a community consensus has been formed. Guest9999 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the views of ‘involved’ editors are less valid than those who are - um - uninvolved, perhaps you yourself could comment on the issue (as opposed to commenting on procedure around the issue) – as Jayron has already suggested.

PS, I am what you might call an “involved” editor, and have thus not commented in this thread (until now). --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Their opinions are no less valid, it's just that they have a conflict of interest within the situation that has to be taken into account. The main points I wanted to make were that the discussion on banning had been running for less than two days with four users supporting the idea and two uncertain, to me the length of time and level of contribution - at this stage - does not show the consensus of the community required for such a ban. Guest9999 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I've no prior disputes with Coloane as my only direct contact with him so far wrt to the above case, is my reply to his posting at the Singapore talkpage dated Jan 3 & it ended there with a non-reply from him. Also, I've not advocated any specific action here earlier, except calling for a final resolution done thru' a community consensus when presenting the mentioned case and its relevant facts. If a vote is needed so as to wrap up this case once & for all, I'll cast my vote formally then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

That formal dispute resolution processes are started to receive wider community input on the behavior of editors here. Let's start with an WP:RFC. Any objections to this idea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno how this proposal will go mate, I hope this case will not 'loose steam' again & be consigned to the 'Archives' & forgotten like [9] & [10] earlier. Also, I fear that the longer this case drags on, more 'show-stoppers or proxies' may pop up to derail the case,[11] although it's a clear-cut case of recalcitrant behaviour based on its merits for all to see. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it appears no one here cares much one way or the other, else we would have received more comments on this one. Users have valid concerns about a community ban so far; and if ArbCom will even accept this it needs to be shown that due process is followed and steps are taken at the community level to handle this. RFC seems a reasonable solution... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed immediate topic bans

• After reviewing the diffs above, I support an immediate and permanent topic ban on this editor. Classic disruption, nothing more, nothing less. It's these type of editors that discourage good people from contributing. -- Bellwether ^B_C 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I concur that, since no editor has come forward to support or excuse Coloane's behaviour (not even Coloane - he now claims to have permanently retired from Wikipedia), an RFC seems a complete waste of productive editing time and give my Strong support for immediate topic bans on:

1. Asian topics other than Macau and Hong Kong
2. FACs and FARs

for a minimum period of 9 months. I am an "involved editor". Alice^✉ 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support of the above including GAC & GAR ban as per his history logs. Unlike wat u think Jayron32, I believe this case is being monitored by many of his past victims & affected WikiProject groups but they're reluctant to comment or support further; either they have given up hope on seeing any final resolution again as per previous long drawn clashes/ANI episodes, or to avoid being seen as 'bullying' or 'involved editor' at this stage now. Let's get this done with so that everyone can move on & get back to our regular tasks in Wikipedia folks. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why this couldn't go to arbitration? Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are an administrator who I greatly respect, Carcharoth, so I am a bit puzzled by the implied implication that it should go to the ArbCom; I don't think there is any technical reason for not raising it at ArbCom (although they may decline to accept it). (It can't go to other forms of arbitration, I presume, because Coloane has stated on his user page that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia due to time constraints.) Alice^✉

• Support as this was my idea from the first. However, some users apparently felt this was too harsh. As to why this couldn't go before the arbiters; well it could, and no one can read their minds, they could accept it. However, based on a long history of precedent, ArbCom is more reluctant to take on cases where no prior attempts at behavior correction are undertaken at the community level. If these topic bans (GA, FA, and any Asia related articles except Macau and Hong Kong) are violated, THEN ArbCom will have something to work from. Lets atleast try to handle this at the community level before involving the ArbCom... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Support - Support ban on WP:FAC and WP:FAR for a period of less than one year, followed by a permanent ban if disruptive behaviour resumes. Final warning for disruptive behaviour on Asian topics followed by an immediate and indefinate ban if there is any further disruptive behaviour. Support ban only if (and then when) the editor resumes editing Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, duh. However, we should notify them of the ban if we decide to enforce it. They claim to be retired, and while that may be so for now, if and when they return, they need to know that the ban is in place (whetever we decide it should be). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple but informative notes (referencing this discussion) placed on Coloane's User and User Talk pages will suffice. Coloane will get the big orange message directing him to his talk page if and when he logs on again. Alice^✉ 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my above comments. Orderinchaos 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: Interesting. As far as I know, the previous ANI discussion [12] regarding similar behaviors had the conclusion: "a mentorship or some kind of user-user adoption would be in order." Notice that not even a formal warning is issued. And a couple of days later we're talking about an "immediate and permanent topic ban." Even blatant vandals are warned a few times before they are blocked. Shouldn't User:Coloane be at least warned first? That if his behavior continues, he will be banned from all FAC pages for a long, long time? It worries me to see such a severe measure is taken without warning the involved editor first. Since banning is used to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users, and any further disruptions by Coloane can be easily identified, I don't see why you cant be more generous and forgiving. Josuechan (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That ANI you referenced, like many, just fizzled out. That was a concluding comment - not a closing summation of the consensus reached, I would suggest.

There is no ban proposed here. There would be more than a million WArts (Wikipedia Articles) he could still edit. The topic ban is specific and proportional to the damage and disruption caused. He has been warned many times - not with templates but with comments left on talk pages. How would you suggest further disruption to Wikipedia by Coloane be prevented if not with the specific and directed and proportional measures proposed? Alice^✉ 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just block/ban him outright? He's said he's effectively 'done' here anyway. HalfShadow (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In response top Josuechan, his numerous responses to each of the ANI's shows that he is well aware that a) what he is doing is regarded as wrong and b) he doesn't seem to care. The fact that no-one left a generic uw-template on his talk page means little... We have no reason to doubt that he is fully aware what he did was unwelcome, and yet he continued it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Coloane is fully aware that what he did was unwelcome. Maybe he is not. But that is not the point; the point is that he may not be aware of the severe consequence as he was not warned of that. He might have expected to be blocked/banned for a few days or a week. But come on, nine months? When someone is trying to kill you and you have a gun, you shoot his legs first, not his head. There's a reason why atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima first, then Nagasaki, but not Tokyo.

Any actions taken should be aimed at preventing disruptions, not punishing users. Banning Coloane on FAC/FAR discussions and other Asian topics for a long time would only induce him to assume a new identity to disrupt, if he chooses to do so. Think about it, a new user who aims secretly to game the system, and the good old Coloane: who's easier to spot? Josuechan (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should be primarily focussed on preventing damage to the project and you make a valid point about reincarnation. You seem to know him well - may I press you to answer my question and suggest the remedy that you think would be more effective, please, Josuechan? Alice^✉

That's a difficult question and I was secretly hoping I would not be pressed to answer it. But since you insist, here's my two cents. An economist would tell you that a user would assume a new identity when the benefits to do so are greater than the costs. What are the benefits? Well, he could get rid of maybe a dozen users who are keeping an eye on him and evade the ban. What are the costs? He would lose his some 1000 edits and the shiny barnstar. What I am saying is that banning him for nine months makes the reincarnation option too tempting to resist, as the benefits far outweigh the costs. Just ask yourself: with so many enemies and a ban of 9 months, while those 1000 edits could be made in maybe 3 months, wouldn't you just get a new account right away? So I say a ban of duration at most a month, otherwise it's counter-productive.

Note that Coloane is no vandals; he made quite a few valuable contributions. The ultimate solution is to lure him to make more edits, acquire more barnstars and build up a reputation, so that there's more at stake. But since whether he will come back or not is still a question, I'm not going to bore you any further. Josuechan (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very perceptive analysis, Josuechan.

Let me throw another variable into the calculation. Let us take Coloane at his word and assume he will be rather busy in his new job for, say, 2 months. That presumably means we should add on the time when he has no time to edit to your estimate of the attractive period for him to sit out a topic ban. That makes 3 months. I also think we should discount the fact that he will not be banned from editing - just banned from certain topics. He's not stupid and knows that if he appears at FACs, FARs, GACs & GARs he will be spotted as a sockpuppet and blocks begin. I think the discount that should be applied for this opportunity sacrifice should be quite large, but lets err on the conservative side. Would you support a topic ban of 4 months starting tomorrow? Alice^✉ 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your spirit, Alice, but I'm in no position to bargain the duration of a "sentence." I'm just concerned about the procedural justice (severe punishment without a warning of the consequence) and whether such a punishment would have its desired effect. I do not oppose nor support the 4-month ban you mentioned, and seeing that all the people agree with your original 9-month ban proposal, you don't need my blessings to go ahead. Josuechan (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if he assumes a new identity to disrupt the project, the limited scope topic ban on not editing FA and GA discussions instantly becomes an indefinate block on both usernames as an abuse of sockpuppets to evade a ban. We don't avoid issuing sanctions because we fear that the person we are sanctioning may "cheat" to avoid them. If they do, they have broken ANOTHER rule, and that will be met by further action. However, I still haven't seen any reason why this user should NOT be proscribed from FA and GA discussions, beyond "he didn't know what he was doing would result in sanction" (he knew it was wrong; that he didn't know what punishment he risked is moot... He knew that he shouldn't do it and he did it anyways. The specifics of the sanction should not have entered into his calculation to decide to break the rules. Such a reasoning is rediculous.) and "He might just cheat to avoid the sanctions" (well, lets atleast assume SOME good faith here, and if he does, there will be additional consequences for his actions). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day it comes down to this - I don't believe many new users would come on and think that vindictively disrupting the Featured Article process to spite users who vote or offer advice on an article candidature in which he is clearly over-invested, is non-sanctionable behaviour. We have disruptive behaviour guidelines for a reason. I don't believe for a second that he would seriously believe he could continue like this indefinitely. Orderinchaos 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just two brief comments:

1) "We don't avoid issuing sanctions because we fear that the person we are sanctioning may "cheat" to avoid them." Don't forget sanctions are given to prevent disruptions, not as punishment. It follows that if it is expected that a severe measure would induce more disruptions, then it should not be given. That was my first point.

2) "The specifics of the sanction should not have entered into his calculation to decide to break the rules. Such a reasoning is rediculous." Gary Becker might not agree with you. Suppose you travel to a different country and somehow you run out of money and have to steal food. You're caught and according to the penal codes of the country, your hands should be chopped off. It's too severe, of course. But surely, stealing is wrong, and the specifics of the sanction should not have entered into your calculation to decide to break the rules. That was my second point.

I'm glad this incident is coming to an end. Take care. Josuechan (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Amended proposed sanction

In the light of discussions in the previous section, I now propose:

With the exception of topics specifically relating to Hong Kong or Macau, User:Coloane is prohibited until 1 June 2008 from editing

1. either Asian articles or Asian article talk pages
2. FACs, FARs, GACs and GARs

Appropriate warnings are to be placed on Coloane's User and User Talk pages making clear that

1. breaches of these topic bans will result in blocks
2. attempts to circumvent these topic bans by using different user names will result in indefinite blocks on all relevant usernames as an abuse of sockpuppets to evade a topic ban
3. the warnings should not be removed before 1 June 2008 (so that editors may be aware of the topic bans and react appropriately if they are breached).

• Support Alice^✉ 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Unless there's a valid objection expressed from a highly respected official arbitrater, there's no need for another round of vote at this stage now as almost all the users has supported the proposed topic ban as summarised based on the discussion so far:

Support

• Jayron32
• Orderinchaos -- topic ban (FA/GA) good, rest seems a bit bureaucratic? Orderinchaos 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• 哦，是吗？
• LaraLove
• Bellwether
• Alice
• Aldwinteo - Coloane was warned by experienced editors from different WikiProject groups & admins on several occasions & was blocked twice before - the recent case was for 24hrs for violation of 3RR on Jan 11 [13]. Instead, he persisted with his recalcitrant ways immediately after his ban (although he claimed he won't be returning back to Wiki until the following week due to his bz schedule then. Sound familiar?) which led subsequently to the previous ANI & Checkuser case (both unresolved), & finally to this ANI case which we have been discussing for the past 7 days now. How do one communicate with such individual when he resorted in blanking his talkpage repeatedly to hide his incriminating remarks/acts & the increasing spate of warnings against him? See [14] [15] [16] [17] (He claimed it was his "user's right" to do so, when everyone know it's a 'privilege' & 'not rights' as it can be challenged or revoked by anyone anytime as per Wikipedia policies & guidelines) In fact, his remarks & actions all these while (till his sudden retirement) doesn't show he was repentant or receptive to warnings (even from an admin) or even good counsel at all! As such, I supported the first proposal by Alice's which nearly all of us here find it's a fair resolution in relation not only to the disruptive acts he has committed so far, but also as per his positive contribution mainly to Macau/HK-related articles previously. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• HalfShadow
• DGG -- previously uninvolved altogether. Topic bans are a good option we should be considering in general.

Semi-support

• Guest9999 I absolutely oppose a user not being able to remove warnings from their user/user talk page. Guest9999 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Sandra123234345 - I oppose because in the past few days, some reasonable oppose comments have been removed. This shows that the support people do not have sufficient grounds for banning and must resort to removing all discussion which is different from their opinion.

I support an outright block of 1-2 months and then no restrictions on editing. Trying to restrict certain topics is just muzzling someone and can be a tactic to censor opinions by falsely claiming other editors with different opinions are the same person as the sock. This is a tactic used by editors trying to own certain articles. Sandra123234345 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC) See below for a simpler proposal which is an outright block then welcome back later, not complicated scheme like the above.Sandra123234345 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any oppose comments being removed. If you could link to them with diffs, or if you don't know how to do this, give the date and time of the edits, I'll certainly have a look. Orderinchaos 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

diff of my comments which were deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=186769152 I will not repeat what I wrote before because I was blocked indefinitely before just for writing these comments shown in the diffs and do not want to be blocked again. So to prevent being blocked again, I will not comment any further except to say that I agree with you 10,000% whatever side you are on. Whoaslow (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Very strange, it was reverted by an admin who has not expressed any view on this debate at all. I wouldn't doubt there's been some misunderstanding - there's nothing controversial there, even if I disagree with it. Orderinchaos 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the user was blocked for being an "AN/I troll"[18] by the admin in question. I would guess that is why he removed the user's contribution. Guest9999 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Either that or he was using "trolling" as an excuse because Orderinchaos thinks there is nothing controversial there. The administrator who called it trolling actually harms a fair process and discussion by tampering. In real life, if the police tamper with evidence, the criminal goes free. If a hospital alters the records, the patient wins the malpractice lawsuit. Maybe the administrator opposes the proposal so he tampers with it? Whoaslow (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Abstain

• Josuechan

Let's give another day by Jan 28 (UTC) for everyone, including newcomers, to contemplate on the final details of the proposal or to reconsider their votes now. I believe many wld want to see a final closure soon including the 'silent watchers' on this long-drawn case, but we shld show all parties concerned that our deliberations & final consensus reached shown fairness & accountability as a record for ArbCom or audit later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why are we running a poll? Furthermore, I did not express any approval nor disapproval of actions to take; I was merely tossing some ideas up in the air, along with some evidence. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Amended proposed sanctions II

A 2 month block as punishment then AGF and no restrictions after that unless the user acts badly.

Comment: Currently this proposal has 100% support and the other one has some opposition. So this proposal should be accepted unless the vote changes. Sandra123234345 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Sandra123234345

Oppose

• DGG - Considering he is a good editor in some respects this does not seem addressed to the situation. Why should we block him where it isn't necessary?
• Orderinchaos - Agreed, he has strongly disrupted one part of the encyclopaedia but in others his editing appears positive.
• Blocking should never be used as punishment. The result of a punitive block would be even more atrocious behaviour. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Proposal 3

I oppose proposal II as does most people. Blocking is often used as punishment but it is not supposed to be. Someone said that the person is taking a break and can't use dispute resolution (therefore, they are proposing to place a topic ban). This is not logical. The logical way would be to say that before he edits in the topics, he must use dispute resolution or he will be blocked (not you will be gone so we skip certain steps). I think this proposal should satisfy everyone because it incorporates the first proposal yet also incorporates the dispute resolution proposal. So,

Proposal 3: The community has decided that user must participate in dispute resolution upon return. If they return before 1 June 2008 but does not participate in dispute resolution, the user may be blocked for periods up time up to 1 June 2008. Whoaslow (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Image:Fred_after_pub.jpg

I would appreciate if an admin could restore this image (still hosted at answers.com here) which was deleted without going through the proper ifd process. We are having trouble getting decent free images as it is, so I don't think we need to be deleting images such as this which was highly likely imo to be a genuine upload- it is high res, and the user commented on the image here [19]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion review is the best route to take in this instance. The scan seems original, and it was tagged CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The image didn't satisfy WP:CSD#I9 so I've undeleted it. We have WP:PUI & WP:IFD to deal with suspicious images, and this one appears genuine. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, it should be reviewed in terms of clarifying rights. User's only contribution; no overt assertion of having been the author of the picture or of some other way he'd have the rights to it, which given that it is a picture of a famous person seems particularly an issue (in that someone could well own it and argue that it has monetary value). - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The overt assertion would have to be the upload itself, as supported by the caption and talk page post referenced above. Unfortunately, we have an absentee uploader with no set e-mail address. We are left with two options: AGF given no evidence to the contrary, or delete the image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or do some research as to whether the picture has been published elsewhere, and with someone else claiming copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should AGF here. The uploader knew when, where and in what circumstances it was taken and made a comment that seems perfectly genuine:

"This picture, taken in 1965 Freddie Mercury and his Isleworth Polytechnic student friends, after a lunchtime session at the pub. His rather conventional appearance hiding his hugely extrovert nature!". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the research approach. So far I haven't found anything using google image search, but if this photograph was previously published it is likely to have occurred in a print biography on Mercury. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but without a source or the uploader to ask how do we really know that the image is what it claims to be. Can it (or does it need to) be verified? Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we really know the veracity of any image uploaded to Wikipedia? We are instructed to use our best judgment to decide whether any upload is accurate and useful. If a new account were to upload a low-rez but otherwise professional quality photograph of a celebrity, it would be foolish of us to accept it under a free license without corroboration. Then again, it is easy to trace such photographs by using GIS or searching the databases of Corbis, Getty, and other commercial content providers. In this case we have a decent-quality scan of a candid photograph described by the uploader. WP:V isn't an applicable policy since the issue isn't with the article and any prior publication used to verify this photo would likely invalidate its licensing status. Since this appears to be a candid shot from a private collection, we may never find any prior publications or commentary on it. For the purposes of this thread, the image did not fit the I9 speedy criterion. Deletion of this image can be suggested up by any user through a nomination to WP:IFD. The decision whether to use this photo should take place at Talk:Freddie Mercury. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike an image that uses {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}, this template contains no claim of authorship. Nothing on that page states who the author is. It could have been the uploader, the uploader's grandfather, or something within a pay portion of a service like ancestry.com that wouldn't be indexed by Google. If the uploader had used PD-self or GFDL-self, we would have at least had a claim that we could choose whether or not we believe ... but here, no claim has even been made. The image is unsourced. --B (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Send it to PUI and let them determine the image status. I personally think deletion is the right course of action for the image, due to the various questions we have for it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The uploader hasn't been around since August and has no set e-mail address. You might as well delete the image. Sorry for wasting so much time on this one, the prospect appeared worthwhile. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions of User:Reino Helismaa

Plz, take the attention for Reino Helismaa (talk · contribs). His ru-wiki account ru:User:Reino Helismaa(block log) was blocked by me (as ru-wiki-sysop ru:User:Alex Spade) for a month, because his vandalism and sock puppets: ru:User:87.240.15.25(block log), ru:User:Pmmm(block log), ru:User:Hiljainen Soittaja(block log).

After that he have started to change the personal page/information in En-Wiki.

• [20], [21], [22] - assertive changes of my attribution.
• [23] - change of my language status.
• [24], [25] - the non-authorised upload of my photoportrait. (1) He is not author - this image was created in 2003 on Starcon-2003 (annual Russian Star Wars fans gathering) by another. (2) I'm not АЛЕКС СПАДЕ (or Алекс Спаде). My pseudonym is Alex Spade (Latin) or Алекс Спейд (Cyrillic) and nothing else - this is my attribution and only these variants of pseudonym is permitted. Alex Spade (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Заблокировали меня не Вы, а администратор Кalan, на срок до 6-го января. Вы лишь совершенно произвольно переблокировали на бОльший срок, чем предусмотрено правилами, без соответствующего решения АК; по электронной почте присылали оскорбительные письма с угрозой бессрочной блокировки. Так что не надо врать.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No hablamos ruso aquí. Hable inglés por favor. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservation for removal of misunderstanding. I haven't been asking to analize and take into consideration actions of ru:User:Reino Helismaa in Ru-Wiki - this is just a prehistory. I am asking to analize only five actions, which are mentioned above, in accordance to Wikipedia:Civility in point "Defacing user pages" and some others. Alex Spade (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of at least attempting to understand the above statement by Reino, I ran his text through Babelfish. Here's what it gave me. Do with it what you will:

• Blocked me not you, but administrator k.alan, for the period up to 6th January. You only completely arbitrarily interlocked for larger period than it is provided by rules, without the appropriate solution OF AK; insulting letters with the threat of termless blocking sent on the electronic mail. So that it is not necessary to lie. <--- babelfish translation of above.

That's all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If en-wiki-sysops are interested in more commentaries - why and how much times was Reino Helismaa blocked in Ru-Wiki - the brief review can be given. Alex Spade (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to, I am not sure it will inform here, and can only serve to bias admins from making a neutral assessment of the situation. For the record, I gave him a stern warning at his talk page about vandalising other people's user pages. I consider that such a warning is sufficient action at this point. If he returns to vandalise your user page, even once more, or does so to any other user, a block will be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a few interactions with this editor, who has been creating Finnish-language articles on the English Wikipedia, has uploaded a lot of images without valid copyright statuses, and doesn't respond to messages on his Talk page. He may have a communication problem, but the problems with him are escalating. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate, and refusal to acknowledge and react to warnings is still blockable as disruptive. If a user is warned, and the behavior continues, why not block? I have no idea if this is warrented here, but just a general statement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Извините, что пишу по-русски, просто писать длинные тексты по-английски я к сожалению не умею.

Итак, попытаюсь объективно объяснить суть своего конфликта с Alex Spade. Первый раз он заблокировал меня ещё в сентябре прошлого года за то что я переименовал статью "Элвис Пресли" в "Пресли, Элвис" согласно правилам именования статей о персоналиях в русской Википедии (Фамилия, Имя), правда сделал это не совсем правильно, вручную перенеся содержимое страницы, уничтожив историю правок [26]. Однако он мог пояснить мне, как правильно переименовывать статьи, вместо этого он расценил это как вандализм и тут же меня заблокировал без предупреждения.

В следующий раз он заблокировал меня 9 декабря за то что я попытался заменить английские шаблоны быстрого удаления на русские, сочтя что в русской Википедии они более уместны [27] [28] [29]. Надо сказать, многие участники русской Википедии были недовольны таким решением (например Udacha, Silent1936 и многие другие, см. тут и тут).

Затем, уже после завершения этой блокировки, с моей стороны имело место нарушение ВП:ВИРТ. Однако за нарушение этого правила блокировка налагается до завершения голосования, в котором было нарушено правило. В данном случае голосование, в котором я нарушил правило, закончилось 6 января этого года, следовательно, максимально допустимый срок блокировки - до 6 января. Администратор Kalan заблокировал меня именно на такой срок, но Alex Spade переблокировал меня на больший срок без соответствующего решения Арбитражного Комитета, в нарушение всяких правил. После этого я отпраил ему письмо по электронной почте, пытаясь объяснить недопустимость такого самоуправства, однако он отказал, не приведя никаких аргументов. Тогда я снова отправил письмо, и он снова отказал - и снова не привёл аргументов. В третий раз он прислал мне письмо, состоящее только из одних угроз и оскорблений, и дал понять, что дальше обсуждать ничего не намерен. Затем я отправил ещё несколько писем, на которые он не ответил. Тогда я был просто ВЫНУЖДЕН несколько раз вандализировать его личную страницу на Викискладе и здесь, надеясь хотя бы таким образом принудить его объяснять свои действия. Однако, как видно, даже это не помогло.

P.S. Кстати, ещё до Нового Года я писал об этом в финской Википедии (см. здесь), и там несколько участников также согласились с недопустимостью того что делает Alex Spade.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Isn't there some sort of 'For God's sake use English' clause while communicating here?) HalfShadow (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Translation, courtesy Google. Diffs go to the Russian Wikipedia, and VP:VIRT was linked to our WP:SOCK, so I re-added that link. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I write in Russian, simply write lengthy texts in English unfortunately, I can not.

So, try to objectively explain the essence of their conflict with Alex Spade. The first time he blocked me back in September last year for an article that I changed the "Elvis Presley" to the "Presley, Elvis' according to the naming articles on the personalities in the Russian Wikipedia (Name), but did so not entirely correct, manually moving content of the page, destroying history of edits [30]. But he could explain to me how to rename the article, instead it is regarded as vandalism and immediately blocked me without warning.

The next time he blocked me on 9 December for what I have tried to replace the British templates for quick removal of Russian, finding that the Russian Wikipedia they fit better [31] [32] [33]. Indeed, many participants were dissatisfied with the Russian Wikipedia such a decision (eg Udacha, Silent1936 and many others, see here и here).

Then, after the completion of the lock, with my hand there has been a violation VP:VIRT. But for the breach of the rules imposed by blocking until the voting, in which the rule has been violated. In this case the vote, in which I broke a rule, ended on 6 January of this year, therefore, the maximum allowable term of the lock - until January 6. Administrator Kalan blocked me for that period, but Alex Spade pereblokiroval me at the longer term without a decision by the Arbitration Committee, in violation of any rules. After that I otprail him a letter by e-mail, trying to explain the inadmissibility of such arbitrariness, but he refused, not giving any reasons. Then again, I sent a letter, and he refused again - and again gave no arguments. For the third time, he sent me a letter, consisting only of some threats and insults, and made it clear that he did not discuss further intends. Then I sent several more letters, which he had not responded. Then I was just VYNUZHDEN several times vandalizirovat his personal page on Vikisklade here, hoping at least thus forcing him to explain his actions. But, as you can see, even this did not help.

P.S. Actually, even before the New Year, I wrote about it in the Finnish Wikipedia (see here), where several participants also agreed on the avoidance of what makes Alex Spade .-- Reino Helismaa (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still uploading improperly sourced and copyrighted images, and when others tag the images, he removes the tag - [34]. Corvus cornix_talk 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I read this right? Did Reino just say "several times vandalizirovat his personal page on Vikisklade here, hoping at least thus forcing him to explain his actions." He admits to vandalising? Jeez... Also, I am leaving the "please use english" warning. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing Google translate, it could be a mangled translation with words in a weird order. I might leave a note on a Russian-speaking admin's page and see if he can help. Orderinchaos 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is more or less correct translation. The user writes that he "has to vandalize a commons page of Alex Spade to draw his attention to..." Obviously it is a wrong behavior. While disruptive behavior of the user on ru-wiki and commons is not the reason to block him here it is obviously a significant warning sign. If the user would be a problem here I propose an indefinete ban. If he will be a good wikipedian here, then lets wish him a happy editing. The rationale problem is probably a newbee mistake, ru-wiki does not require specific rationales and the user assumed the same is true here Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming - and agreed with your comments. Orderinchaos 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To Corvus cornix: [35]--Reino Helismaa (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing deletion tags. You have to provide a fair use rationale, which you still don't do on any of your uploads. Corvus cornix_talk 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have issued Reino Helismaa a uw-v4 warning for removing the {{deletable image-caption}} tag rom Masa Niemi even though he has yet to provide a valid fair use rationale. Corvus cornix_talk 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A caution on BetacommandBot deletions related to disambigation pages

There's a problem with the way BetacommandBot handles disambiguation pages, which results in deletion of properly tagged fair use images. The usual sequence of events is:

1. Uploader uploads image, links it from page A, and provides proper fair use template for page A on the image page.
2. Another editor moves A to B and makes A a disambiguation page, but does not change the fair use template. (Arguably, they should have fixed the incoming link from the fair use notice to A, but it's not a link from article space, so it's not customary to fix it.)
3. At some later time, BetacommandBot finds the image page, checks the incoming and outgoing links, notes that there's an incoming link from page B but no outgoing link to page B, and flags the image as lacking a fair use template. The image uploader is notified, but not the creator of the dab page. (Arguably, BetacommandBot should check the page move history, notice that B used to be named A, and fix the fair use template.)
4. The uploader gets a talk page message from BetacommandBot, but doesn't act on it. (It's not really the uploader's problem; their work was done back at step 1. The uploader may not even be active on Wikipedia.)
5. One week later, BetacommandBot schedules the image for deletion.
6. An admin, working off the BetacommandBot list, deletes the image. (Arguably, the deleting admin should manually check for this situation.)

The author of BetacommandBot says it's the responsibility of the creator of the dab page to fix this. (ref) A comment in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation says the deleting admin should check. I'd suggest that BetacommandBot needs to be smarter and check move histories; it has over 700,000 edits, and humans can't keep up. Meanwhile, admin caution at that final delete step is indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot has had problems like this for some time. It does good work, however the number of false positives due to misinterpreted redirects and dabs is unfortunate. Betacommand has been made aware of these issues in the past. I will not speak for him, but when I brought this same issue up before, he denied that the bot did this at all. If this is a problem, it is helpful to know ways in which the bot is making confusing and/or problematic tagging so that it can be made to run more efficiently in the future. I agree that this bot function is important, but I would like to see more responsive upgrades made to the bot so that its work results in less false positives like above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous issues were with redirects, which were apparently an issue with the MediaWiki API. The bot should be able to follow redirects, it can't however, determine which article on a disambiguation page to follow. Mr.Z-man 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

there is not a simple method of parsing DaB pages. some of the move,redirect,DaB creations are very complex and not parsable. And links in NFUR's that are Dabs, mean that the rationale for that image/use is invalid. β^_command 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS you also forgot to state that BCbot leaves a warning about the image on the talkpage of every page where the image is used. β^_command 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats rational. I agree; with regard to dab pages, the bot (and other users) should not have to decide which page in the dab it is supposed to follow. Perhaps, could the bot somehow provide a different warning for situations where it appears that a move-redirect-dab construction is the fault? Such as a special warning like "The fair use rationale currently links to a disambiguation page. The rationale may need to be updated to reflect a page move. Please update the rationale so that the image will not be deleted." That seems a reasonable thing to do; the bot should be able to look for markers on special kinds of pages and then tailor its warning messages based on the type of problem it encounters, shouldn;t it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the issue is the bot only sees the pages where the image is used (and redirects to those pages). the bot does not examin what links here, or even the links on that page. what the bot does see is a blob of text and a list of page titles where the image is used. it then checks the text for at least one of those. it doesnt do anything fancy it does not check for wikilinks all it checks for is the name of the article. β^_command 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Most dab pages are easily identified by a machine, due to the use of a template that includes the word "disambiguation". I suggest Betacommand upgrade BCbot to detect this situation and put such images in a separate clean-up category. I also suggested that the image page be checked for the existence of a non-free rationale template in general, so that images with rationales can have their links fixed by humans, as opposed to pages without rationales where a human has to do more work to fix the image (if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you missed my point. BCBot only sees the pages where the image is used. how is is supposed to find a DaB page when it does not know where to look, NFUR are not standard, there are no real methods of checking them except for what I am doing. β^_command 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia bot policy (WP:BOT) is that bots must be "harmless". Bots are not allowed "collateral damage". It's the responsibility of the 'bot's author to handle the hard cases in a harmless way. If they can't, the 'bot must be turned off. Technically, it's possible to fix this. Check the move log to find past names of the page; don't rely on redirects. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory BCB finds the file link name and compares it to the text on the image page, and if it doesn't match, then labels it NFCC-non-compliant. In cases of redirects, it somehow senses that the text on the image page leads to a redirect and compares that redirect to the file link. Would it be possible to sense that the text on the image page lead to a disambig and somehow tag differently/list centrally? MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it check for the {{disambig}} tag if it checks for the "REDIRECT" wording? MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BCBot does not check for REDIRECT. what BCBot does do is get the file links section. then for every page there it uses the API to get a list of pages that redirect to the page where the image is used. there are magic methods of finding DaB pages that relate to a given page. β^_command 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Humorous note: there are editors who reply to BetaCommandBot as if it were a live person, and answer the messages it leaves on their talk page. It does sound like a chatterbot at times. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Compare Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Request_for_comment_on_Finding_of_Fact_.239_.28Adam_Cuerden.29

with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Adam_Cuerden.27s_use_of_administrative_tools

Note that there are new votes on the second one. New support votes

Question: Has the Arbcom even bothered to read this RfC that they ordered? Because I have been asking them for two months to explain that finding of fact, and brought it up in the RfC because it seemed so problematic, but they refuse to comment on it at all.

The arbcom, after this RfC have now added another, new way to desysop me to their list of proposals - one that says that I can't be trusted as an editor either. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Proposed_decision_-_Adam_Cuerden

Is there evidence for that new, bold assertion that I can't be trusted to follow community norms as an editor? If so, it's hard to see where, since, you know, they don't bother to say.

In short, I have no faith whatsoever in the arbcom's ability to reacch a fair decision, since they show no signs of reading what I e-mail them, whether through Jimbo, (as was done two months ago), through Arbcom members, through mass mailings. They seem to be ignoring the RfC as well.

Can anything be done about the Arbcom, in situations like this? I edit under my own name, and am not looking forwards to having these things show up on google for the rest of my life. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to be more disruptive, and tenaciously promote far-fringe agendas or conspiracy theories. Then people will rush to your defense. HTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The case is resuming. It is not being handled as I would have advocated, but when things are handled by a committee of 15 people, sometimes they are going to disagree about things. I thought that arrangements had been made such that project-space pages no longer showed up on Google, but if that is not the case I can have the arbitration pages courtesy-blanked after the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See [36] Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad, finding of fact 9 makes very specific claims that appear to me to be obviously and unquestionably not true. Adam has asked directly about it here and on the RFC. I asked directly about it on the proposed decision talk page a month ago, as did others. In the case of Homeopathy and George Vithoulkas, no reasonable person could say that Adam used the tools in such a way as to gain an advantage. Could you, or another arbiter, explain this finding of fact? Thanks. --B (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also annoyed that the new proposed remedy compounds this by implying that my editing behaviour (as opposed to admin tool use) has not been within community norms, and requires 6 months monitoring to make sure I can edit appropriately to community norms. Where on earth is that suggestion coming from? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse me for being sarcastic, but if Adam started making articles like Blue Cheese Moon, Time is like an oval, Telepathic animal husbandry and Magical talking rocks and so on, and fighting frantically for the value of these, then Adam would come under the protection of senior members of the community and be a protected trusted contributor to Wikipedia. Adam's fault is that he tries to defend NPOV and mainstream science. He is on the wrong side.--Filll (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec, response to Adam's initial post and Raymond's response) Sarcasm aside, this was one of the most bizarre and unsatisfactory ArbCom cases I've ever witnessed. The case was brought by a sitting Arbitrator as a "test case" to examine the principle that we should desysop people more aggressively, or something. This was in the added, and explicitly stated, subtext that Adam was running for ArbCom at the time. It opened with rapid acceptance of the case in the absence of typical dispute resolution, in response to a slew of still-unrefactored personal attacks and abuse from the initiating Arbitrator. Within 12 hours of the case opening, there were draconian proposals put forward by Arbitrators for wide-ranging disciplinary action against Adam, including desysopping with extreme prejudice and barring Adam from any future RfA, as well as formally censuring a passing admin who declined an unblock request. There was a period of reactive sanity where a few of the more draconian or factually incorrect findings were withdrawn, and ultimately the case was suspended for an RfC which ought to have been a prerequisite for taking the case in the first place. The RfC showed community disapproval of some of Adam's actions, but general support for retention of the sysop bit. Now the conclusion is that he should be desysopped for 6 months and remain on probation for another 6 months after that, because resuming the case would be "problematic due to passage of time".

The problem here is that Adam's selection as a "test case" was, to the outside observer, highly capricious and arbitrary. While he had made mistakes, he was not afforded the usual dispute-resolution and feedback mechanisms; instead, it was decided to make an example out of him pour encourager les autres. That is bad for morale; the fact that the test case devolved into a mess doesn't help. As to what can be done, the answer is probably not much. ArbCom is composed of human beings. I think the best that can be done is to recognize that ArbCom is made up of human beings, to note the RfC findings, request a courtesy blanking, and make a decision about how strongly you want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. At the very least, hopefully we've seen the last "test case", but that's not much comfort. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - is there evidence that has been submitted privately that we don't know about? Quite frankly, this case is nothing but a chilling effect for all admins - you better hope you didn't make a bad block based on bad advice six months ago or you may be desysopped. Now that an RFC has expressed overwhelming opposition to the desysop proposal, the committee is drafting a new proposal that will prevent undoing the damage via an RFA (which, based on the RFC, probably would have passed within about 1 week and 20 minutes after the desysopping took effect). Is there something that the arbiters know that we don't? Because if not, I must have really bad reading comprehension skills. --B (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, this seems like making mountains out of molehills here. I do not intend to alter my blocking or protection habits at all based on this. For the record, there does NOT, as noted in the RFC and above, appear to be a push to remove his sysop tools and block access to RfA. The solution with the most support at this point appears to be that he is desysoped at this point, but is fully free to reseek them at any time, including by RfA. Also, Adam's own proposed solution, that he is on admin waiver for 6 months, and be regranted his tools upon showing good behavior, seems to also have some support among the arbcom. Let's not take an "us against them" mentality with the ArbCom. I am not sure such a mentality is terribly productive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...I never suggested that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, nor I. ArbCom does a remarkably good job in the vast majority of the very difficult cases which come before them. I'm saying that I think this particular case was poorly handled. Whether it's a mountain or a molehill depends on whether you're Adam, I suppose, or on how closely you can identify with his situation. Having been tentatively shopped as a "test case" myself, maybe I'm overly sensitive. MastCell ^Talk 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

B, I think they are looking at the RfC closely- at the defense, not at the votes per se. I don't think other admins have anything to worry about. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, maybe saying this is not going to help because of who I am. But please give it a chance and listen anyway. I said during the RfC exactly what I thought you needed to do- the first thing was to basically stop the general user behavior which you think is alright because you undertake it in the defense of what you believe is scientifically correct. I can sympathize with the view that if one user is right, their actions should be given license because of it. But I don't think that is what the ArbCom wants to hear. I tried to tell you, anyway. I think you're a good guy and a good editor, and you can have your tools back someday. Just don't act like the fringies are an inferior lot and get to be treated badly because of it (even though you think so). I genuinely think that factor, and the defense which grew out of it "look at what the fringies did, so what I did was OK," is what pushed it to this stage. Stop listening to those who tell you this: they are wrong, and you are losing your admin tools because of it. Maybe it isn't fair that you are the one to be made an example of, but the ArbCom is pretty obviously talking about the general situation. It is also probably talking about the defense on the RfC, judging that the defense "look at the fringies," and the user behavior which occurred because you are fighting the fringies, was not according to community standards. What other behavior could they be talking about in the new thing about general user conduct? I'm not meaning to poke you while you're down. And believe it or not I'm not here to gloat, because I really would have been happy if you'd just stopped acting as you were. I'm really trying to help, and I believe you will be an admin again. And a good one. Let me know and I'll vote for you per the ArbCom. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Query to folks who have the tools

During the RFC phase new evidence came to light. Adam had been brought to arbitration for a "bad block" on an account that he thought was a disruptive sockpuppet. Those of use who aren't sysops can't examine the new evidence because the entire editing history of the possible sockmaster account has been deleted - we can only gather from administrator conversations that this second account may have been a sock of the same editor. Could someone who has the tools please summarize this for the rest of us? Seven arbitrators still maintain that Adam's blocks were outside policy and six of seven have still signed onto a finding that affirmatively states There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew Hoffman is a sock puppet. Is this correct? Is there no evidence even suggestive of that? Since this was the ostensible reason for opening the case in the first place, I'd like to understand. Durova^Charge! 07:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Any hints as to the name of the hypothetical puppetmaster? Don't say it out loud; just point in the appropriate direction. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Durova^Charge! 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mateohoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've reviewed the contributions (active and deleted ones), and I can confirm that though the MatthewHoffman account (1 October 2005) was created before the Mateohoffman account (6 May 2007), the editing history does not overlap. MatthewHoffman edited from 15-16 September 2007. Mateohoffman edited from 6-9 May 2007. Mateohoffman has only deleted contributions to Matthew Hoffman and Talk:Matthew Hoffman (what looks like an autobio). Mateo can be a separate name to Matthew, and can also be an alternate version of Matthew. There are also lots of Matthew Hoffmans around. The autobio content is suggestive of certain conclusions, but should not be discussed as it contains private information. It is possible these accounts were created by the same person. It is also possible that they are different people. The same almost certainly applies to the accounts pointed out by RBaley below. I would urge those who think this means anything conclusive to look through the user logs and see how many accounts are created by people with similar names. And to remember that religious and science areas are a popular area to edit. It is not inconceivable that two people with similar names will (a) edit Wikipedia and (b) edit the same area (or display an interest in the same area). It would not be fair on this Matthew Hoffman, or the other Matthew Hoffmans, to go any further with this. Adam has expressed concerns about how this will impact on his name. The same holds true for the Matthew Hoffmans of this world. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if these registered names are relevant or not but they are similar. . .R. Baley (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mathoffman99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

  Matt hoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

  Matthoff96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

  Mattius Hof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

  Hoffymatt76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And for the record, the vast majority of the above accounts are completely inactive - maybe only created to enable certain viewing preferences. Creation dates (where available) range from 2005 to 2008. The only deleted contributions made by the above accounts are to Matt Hoffner by the Matthoffner account (another nn-autobio) and to Daniel M. Cook by the Mattius Hof account (again, another nn-bio, note was left on the talk page of the account linking the two, so revealing this here is not a breach of privacy). The three nn-bios all describe different people. Which kind of proves my point. Let's stop trying to ferret out sock-puppetry when the point here is that relatively inexperienced edits (the top-posting, for a start), with a knowledge of policy (pages anyone can read before beginning to edit) were met with a bad block that was compounded by bad advice and an extension of the block to indefinite. I haven't looked through the recent indefinite blocks, but I hope the situation has improved since. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

the committee is drafting a new proposal that will prevent undoing the damage via an RFA (which, based on the RFC, probably would have passed within about 1 week and 20 minutes after the desysopping took effect). - then this can become a test case on whether Arbcom really does have the authority it claims to forbid an RFA. It is manifestly unclear where this supposed authority derives from, since Arbcom's authority is an extension of Jimbo's authority, and Jimbo's authority derives from being a highly respected user on en.wikipedia. I see no legitimate basis for Arbcom to override the will of the community. —Random832 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, let's just MFD the arbcom case then. The community made it loud and clear that this case is abusive. --B (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• on the original question perhaps it should be reiterated as policy that WP space is off limits to Google. I too thought that was the policy. People can still search the material from within WP , and that is all that is necessary for proper transparency. DGG (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently not. Orderinchaos 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms repeated vandalism by sockpuppets

JackQPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was originally blocked for edit warring on the above article on 14th January. He then edited as an ip, following which his block tariff was increased and the article sprotected for a short while. He has since then created a whole series of sockpuppets;

• Ben10023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRlad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRlLAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jackt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JDT2k8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Youf123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRsteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Please note that the first is an old account, which appears to have been a long term alternative id of JackQPR) to revert the removal of one edit. User:Black Kite and I have between us blocked the various puppets, but JackQPR seems particularly tenacious - he is just creating and using socks without any attempt to hide his identity or intent. User:Tangerines and User:Jimbo online, two editors who have tried to maintain process at the article, have requested my help previously (here and here) to which I have responded here and here.

The above editors are suggesting that the article is again protected (I sprotected for 3 days so as not to overly inconvenience legit ip editors), that JackQPR is indef blocked, and that the drawerful of socks is stopped from further disrupting the article. I'm not convinced that the first two options (although I support the indef block as it does not appear the editor is interested in working to Wikipedia rules, etc.) are going to make much difference to this matter; The socks will be allowed to mature for the requisite days and then get used to make the same one edit, and JackQPR is careless to the effect to his account. I would welcome help and suggestions regarding future actions to protect the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd already semi-protected again before you posted here. I'd guess that the ways forward here are;

• semi-protect and revert
• Wait until JackQPR gets bored
• Fully protect the article
• Run a CU in the hope of finding a suitable rangeblock.

I'd be tempted to go for the latter in the first instance. BLACKKITE 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... CU might find a static underlying ip - we could stop account creation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, knowing the history of this, we should fully protect the article pending the outcome of the checkuser. This has been going on for a while, and we need to stop this. We should ALSO block all of the above accounts as suspected sockpuppets. Blocking them would not preclude the use of checkuser to issue a possible autoblock or rangeblock to the appropriate IPs as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• All of the socks are already blocked indef, and I've just upped the main account to the same. BLACKKITE 20:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This was also the IP user that he seemingly used -

• 82.45.213.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As Jayron quite rightly says, this has been going on for a while, the user just seems to have gone into overdrive over the last few days. However, whilst he probably would end up getting bored doing all of this, he does seem quite determined and would probably try again if he can get back editing on the article. The article itself if it needs fully protecting whilst this is sorted it wouldn't be a problem anyway. Thanks for everyones help sorting it though.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may ask a naive question: could contacting the ISP do any good? The Transhumanist 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• 82.45.213.208 (talk · contribs) is a Virgin Media IP address, and will probably trace to North of England, as my Virgin Media IP does.

I'll see what I can do regarding this. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I have put in for an IPcheck at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Woody (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results are in and the IP has now been blocked - Alison ^❤ 09:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rogue admin

Resolved

Seems we have another rogue admin supplying text of deleted articles, see [37] (look at the end). Also looks like the admin in question is offering to do this on an ongoing basis. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually against policy? I certainly wouldn't yell rogue admin for just this, or perhaps I am missing something? Prodego ^talk 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, my first thought is that it shouldn't be a breach of GFDL merely because an article has been deleted from here; all that means is that the article didn't meet our standards but may be ok for use elsewhere. Unless I'm wrong, which isn't unusual. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've provided deleted articles (not attack articles) for work before, I don't see a problem with it. Lots of admins do it, AFAIK. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with this. What if he accidentally provided confidential information? And to MyWikiBiz, who was banned by Jimbo Wales, AND community-banned under another account? Okay, I may be a little paranoid here, but I still consider the issue valid. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

if you fel so strongly about this situation, convene an ArbCom and see if you can get hte admin in question sanctioned. i personally felt that s overthe top but you have every rtight to do whatever you want to whoever you want on here, as per WP:BOLD. Smith Jones (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I can't imagine ArbCom taking this one, even if they've got a quiet afternoon, which is moot. It's a straightforward interpretation of GFDL, and WP:BOLD is not carte blanche for anarchy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion: All our articles are licensed under the GNU GFDL. Deleting them does not break the license agreement. Anyone can ask for a copy if he wants it, unless the information is not for public discussion (like private telephone numbers, etc). Therefore, I see "giving" deleted articles to others is in accordance to our licensing policy. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just a case of "ZOMG!!!!! Banned users getting Seekrit Stuff! Call the cops!!!!!!!!!!!" *Dan T.* (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've just restored that last uncorrupted version of this page. Sorry if contribs have been lost, I will check to see whether this is the case. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes; some comments were removed from the section below. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to restore those manually but got sidetracked for an explanation; damage limitation & repair sometimes takes time. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree I don't see any policy issue with this. Deleted articles are routinely still living in Google cache and routinely supplied to user-space on request with intent to correct. If an article has "personal information" then it should be oversighted in the first place and no mere-admin can view purged data. Wjhonson (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's an entire category of admins who have agreed to provide copies of deleted articles. It is not against policy. Deletion doesn't mean that the material is damned for all eternity to the fires of hell; it means that the material didn't meet encyclopedic standards. It may be perfectly appropriate for another site. The only thing admins should refuse to provide is copyright violations and other material that clearly and obviously has the potential to cause legal trouble. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes... But what you all have to realize is that is has historically been a sensitive issue. Grandmasterka 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they restored personal information, something which admins should never do. It is stated on the deleted copies category that any personal/libelous information will not be restored. I think this is a different case, where the articles concerned are non-notable people/groups have and the deleted text is not contentious. Woody (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyking didn't actually restore anything; he merely gave an indication that he might be willing to look over some particular deleted material and possibly provide a copy to the banned user requesting it. Whether he would have gone through with it, even after looking at the material and seeing that it contained (whatever the heck it contained that was objectionable; privacy violations, libel, or something else evil) is unknown, because he was rapidly desysopped before he could go any further. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So the only affect of this thread is the subtle message "If you give deleted articles to people we do not like you will be called a rogue admin on AN/I." Seems to me that this should be archived. The articles he requested are in the same thread, so another admin can check those to see if anything was inadvertently revealed. Otherwise, this section (titled "Rogue Admin" !!) has no purpose, unless someone is trying to argue that deleted articles, having no privacy violations, should be off limits to regular users. daveh4h 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is not deleted for reasons of gross violation (i.e. it's about an entirely non-notable person or thing, or is OR or fails RS) and is not a living persons or legal issue, I really don't see the problem with admins supplying deleted revisions to users on request. If however the article was deleted as a BLP violation or on an OTRS ticket, or is the product of trolling or harassment, then that is an entirely different matter. Orderinchaos 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, this is giving deleted content available therefore only to trusted users, to banned users, by request outside Wikipedia. I suspect this course of action is not supported by consensus. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure - I think that what matters more than the person to whom the information is being supplied is the nature of the information being supplied. If an article was deleted solely on notability grounds, I see no problem with supplying it to Daniel Brandt, if he wanted it. If it was defamatory or involved somebody's personal information, I do see a problem with supplying it to even a trusted Wikipedia user. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarcasticidealist, the content should be the only consideration - there is far less variables to consider than character checking the intended recipient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just another front in the Wikipedia Culture War between those who think this site's function is to collect and disseminate information, and those who think the prime directive is to be punitive towards Enemies of the Wiki. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist worded my point better than I did. Orderinchaos 16:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

More trouble

Rikara (talk · contribs) has been blocked again for incivility, this time for 31 hours, and he's being absolutely belligerent on his talk page. I think an indef-block or a cluemaul might be in order here; I'm currently talking with him on his talk page and he's being less-than-civil bordering on rabid again. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

dont worry jeske i have a lto of experience havndling deranged editors and i will go over ther e and try to reason with UserRikara. Smith Jones (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you let things calm down for a while before you look at the talk page again? Jeepday (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried that with a 24 hour block, but he came back the next day as belligerent as before, according to the contribs. I was offline when he was blocked this time and missed the edit-war. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go help. i am en expert dwith dealing with belligenrent users. Smith Jones (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit Conflict)He's constantly playing, the "I'm Right, You're wrong", "I'm Innocent, Block them", And the "I'm annoyed by you so shut the **** up" cards. He didn't learn the first time, AND he Violated WP:3RR again, last time he got away with it because he was blocked, but I think we should actually add another 24 hours to his block for that so he doesn't get away with it again.
Better yet, why not block him for, maybe a week, untill the game is out and he can actually PROVE his theories? Dengarde ► Complaints 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Dengarde, blocks are not punitive. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware. But we both know that he's going to just come back and do the exact same thing when he's unblocked again in 30 hours, I still say that at LEAST the 3RR violation be added this time. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. a block would be the worst possible solution in this answers. all that resnentment will just pile up and the atmospehre on this talkpage will just getm ore and more pooisonous. the only way a block owuld help is if it was for a week to give him a chance to calm down but i think that everyone here would rather correct User:Rikara's flaws rather than just dismising him out of hands. Smith Jones (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Blocking is not punitive, I suggest letting User:Smith Jones, address the user. If there is a violation in an article, block per standing policy. And don't respond on his talk page until the block has expired. Jeepday (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already blocked him for this comment, and his consistent background of disruption (adding unsourced information, not listening to reasons, etc). Shortly after I had to block user 67.171.14.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who went on disrupting the article, I guess it was him again. I think that will give him a time to reconsider his actions. I have also left a message in the talk page of the article saying that I would just protect the article until the game is released. Interestingly, people want to have the article fully protected and edit through requests. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving User:Smith Jones the awesome responsibility of negotiating. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, the block by ReyBrujo was made before this came up here, it was not in response to anything that was said here. I think you're assuming that he blocked after Jeepday's comments, and that's not the case. Corvus cornix_talk 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I blocked him for his unnecessary aggressive comment, feel free to unblock him now that the articles are fully protected. Next time it would have been a good idea to post a comment in the article talk page to let everyone know about this discussion. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per request of the community I have Protected this article until February 14 Diff Jeepday (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

That's all well and good, except that the disruption is mainly on a different article - Super Smash Bros. (series). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did not see that, edit-conflicted when I was removing it. In any case, the main place he's being disruptive is the talk page of the aforementioned series article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't mind if people become heated in a talk page. But when the article is the battlefield, it becomes serious. My only connection with the article is that I am going to buy the game once it is released, but from what I saw in these last days, Rikara has some problems talking with others (or, at least, making himself clear). As I just told him in his talk page, his last edit was reverted by three different users. If that doesn't tell him something, he needs to be temporarily stopped to think about it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been so much heated as he has boiled over. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is way far to go for someone who insists that a forum post is a reliable source. JuJube (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I still can't believe someone is getting to the point of using far too many capital letters, incivil language etc for a number of days over articles or content relating to characters in a Nintendo game. Orderinchaos 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem user

Marcopolis (talk · contribs) seems uncommunicative and has gone from adding oversized images to articles, to completely replacing wikiformatting in articles with html formatting. I've asked him to use edit summary, made suggestions to him, and explained reverts in edit summaries, but he seems to plow forward undaunted. His edit here [38], leads me to believe his english is not fluent which could be part of the problem, but my french certainly isn't up to trying to converse with him in French. But these are unnecessary [39], [40], [41]. As well we had a repeated copyvio issue with him. He's contributing some great photos which might be useful. However I actually question his assertion that he's the copyright holder on this image (and others like it) Image:Seoulines.JPG. I'd rather not see him blocked, but I'm at a loss on how to handle him. I mentioned this on village pump and it was recommended I post this here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy favoring wiki formatting over HTML? I would note than many times I've found certain wikiformats like tables to be very confusing and in some cases had to resort to HTML fixes because the wikifix is not apparent. As to the Seoul subway image, I agree it seems like a likely copyright violation. Assuming good faith that he merely doesn't understand the various issues the image should be deleted. What is the regular copyvio issue other than that image? The user seems to be interested in being productive, noting his maps uploaded which generally help the project.Wjhonson (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, Wikipedia:MOS#Section_headings he just had a map deleted because it was a copyvio. Then he uploaded it again and tried to insert it in to the article again. While continuing to claim he had the copyright to it. [42]. [43] which he put back in through this series of edits [44]. Since he's had images deleted for copyvio, he has a message on his talk page about it, yet ignored it to repeat the upload, and then further uploaded images he obviously doesn't have the copyright on, I can't imagine how we're supposed to continue to assume good faith when the user also refuses to respond to any kind of communication. He's also uploading the same copyvio image multiple times Image:Linestyle.jpg Image:Seoulines.JPG, Image:Seoulines.jpg, as well as Image:Smrtclines.jpg, Image:Onlysmtro.jpg, [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]--Crossmr (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We should continue to assume good faith. I don't see a lot of cross-talk on his Talk page about the situation. I do see that he's uploaded one image several times that appears to likely be a copyvio. But I don't see an explanation to him of how to address the problem like "You can upload a photograph you've taken *of* the sign, but you can't upload an image that you've copied from someone else..." or whatever. Some sort of suggestion to him, of how to get the essential picture, without violating copyright. That is, trying to steer users to productive uses by appropriate suggestion.Wjhonson (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't assume it blindly, nor is criticizing an editor an automatic assumption of bad faith. I've made a request that he use edit summaries and he's failed to do that. An editor asked him a question in December and I found no evidence that he answered it. I posted a couple of comments on his edits on the article talk page, both of which went unanswered, and I've made comments in my edit summaries point him to guidelines and explaining why I'm doing things. He's repeatedly undoing them without communication. In addition to that he's re-uploaded material that was deleted, for which there was an explanation provided on his talk page and he's ignored that. I'm not saying the communication problem is intentional, his nationality is french, he appears to be living in korea right now (even though his user page indicates attending school in montreal). He may simply not know enough english to communicate here. Not his fault, but if we can't talk to him, and he won't respond or learn from his mistakes on his own (which deleted images, with explanations should tell you) perhaps he's better suited to the french wikipedia where people can communicate with him, unless someone here who speaks enough french wants to try and talk to him.--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at his image upload history, he already seems to have pictures of most of those copyvio images.--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As a start perhaps an admin could nuke those images. I don't think they're being used anywhere right now, and I think its far too obvious that they're unlikely his own creation. I'm still trying to dig up where they may have come from. I'm not sure if it could be a web image or a scan off a map or what.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted material help

Would somebody take a look at BeRecruited.com and it's talk page and help with this? I've chosen not to get too acquainted with copyright issues; I just copy/pasted info from the "Possible Copyright Infringement" box on the article page. Pairadox (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if Admins here don't want to deal with it, perhaps you could direct me towards those that would be willing to help. Pairadox (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:KellyAna

This issue is regarding KellyAna. I’m requesting some admins to look into this issue, as I’m getting tired of dealing with her. KellyAna and I have a very bad history, see here[53],[54],[55]. A brief on the issue: Our dispute on the Las Vegas TV page ended a couple of days ago, when I decided to leave the site, to work on other sites that had well knowledge editors. Everyone dealing with the Las Vegas dispute stop arguing and moved on, besides KellyAna. She has continued to harass myself and now my relatives. KellyAna has now contacted another admin. Gogo Dodo because of this issue, as she has with several other admins, most of which discarded it because she started the issue. You can check several talk pages where other admins have been disgusted with KellyAna comments and games she plays. Now, KellyAna has been off Wiki, because she claims she was in Daytona. However, the minute she returns she attacks my brother’s talk page. She claims she was trying to help but what she says on her talk page [56] and Blackwatch21’s [57] is nothing but threats and intimation to a new user. One statement from her says, “I can certainly "intrude" in ways that would get you in trouble”. I wouldn’t call that helping. If you look at their history (KellyAna/Irishlass), I counted 6 to 7 new users that they threaten, warn, double team, or intimate. Now I’m pretty sure Wikipedia doesn’t want users acting that way to new users joining the site. That’s very unprofessional coming from a professional person KellyAna claims to be. Now that’s the only reason we (KellyAna and myself) came back into contact, is because I saw her mean, unnecessary comments on Blackwatch21’s talk page. As for Blackwatch21, YES that is my younger brother joining Wikipedia. Now KellyAna can call it what she wants, I really don’t care. I’m sure ¾ of Wiki users have relatives that have Wikipedia accounts. As for the comment I sent to KellyAna, which I’m sure she will mention, was nothing more than me pleading not to make this an issue again but with the type of person she is, she calls it harassment. I just wish that someone would block her, as I’m getting tired of dealing with this. Everyone from the BIG Las Vegas dispute has stopped arguing except for KellyAna. Again I apologize for this issue. I’m trying to make this issue go away, but that’s hard when you’re dealing with troublemakers. If anyone has some advice or actions they could take, that would help a lot. I’m willing to answer any questions or add more info if needed. Like I said, you can read several talk pages that I referenced that shows the history between KellyAna and I. Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to include that, all I'm asking is for someone to tell her to leave me alone. Gogo Dodo has asked us to go our separate ways, that's what I want and again another admin has come to the conclusion to drop the issue. However, normally this is when KellyAna goes off to another admin and brings up the issue all over again. See here [58] for Gogo Dodo's comments on the issue. I aggree with his/her conclusion but KellyAna normally doesn't listen. --DJS24 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Gogo Dodo Gogo Dodo, this has absolutly NOTHING to do with the Las Vegas article, as you can clearly see I have not touched the article since last weekend and have no desre but DJS24 claims I "had to get the last word" when it is clear I moved on last weekend. He then claims I "harassed" his relatives when it was impossible for me to know that there was any relation. I warned someone to remove logos and he jumped on my page. I did not contact him, I still haven't. I came to a neutral third party for advice and he started things up AGAIN. There is an obvious issue here and I'm not the one with it. He makes several false claims which I could point out here but won't. I just wanted your advice as to what to do, but he had to make it a big deal obviously following me around AGAIN. I have been calm and have ignored him, for the most part. Truly, how was I to know they were related? Truly, why was it wrong to tell someone to remove illegal logos on their page? I replied to Blackwatch only after he came to my page followed by DJS24. You'll see, if you truly look into the situation, I'm by and far not the instigator in any of this. I'm copying most of this to the reported incident and will show history that DJS24 is clearly instigating the problems ever since the creation of the sock last weekend. That's my reply this morning to the falsehoods in all of this. I dropped the whole Las Vegas issue and have not even been on DJS24's page but he did come to mine. I had gone to a page to ask for help and clarification on a scab writer for soaps, where I saw a request for "anyone who can help" from another user. I went to that person's page and saw illegal uploads of copyrighted team logos and gently warned/advised the person they should remove them. He replied and told me to stay out of it. I simply explained, on my page, that I was only trying to help him when I could have simply reported the issue, which I could have. He then claims I followed him, when I was clearly lead there by another page User talk:IrishLass0128. The warning was nothing more than to remove illegal logos, which he actually apparently uploaded twice from what I can see and after he was warned by an admin.

The crux of all this is last weekend, DJS24 created a sock who claimed to be a former admin whose account was hacked and jumped in and backed his argument. I caught them and one account was blocked [59] and DJS24 was warned [60]. Yesterday I did ask for advice from an admin rather than creating a report. I actually didn't know Gogo Dodo was an admin when I went to his page, just saw his warning and had worked with him on some Survivor pages. A few minutes after I requested help from Gogo Dodo, and when I could have possibly had no knowledge of any relation, DJS came to my page. I did not go to his as he claims. I have not gone to his page since well before he received the sock warnings. He's the one making this an issue, I've not edited any page with him on it nor have I gone to his page or that of CarsGm5, his blocked sock. I have been very open in this, since last weekend when I reported CarsGm5. DJS24, however, has not been as forthcoming and has been the instigator since last weekend even clouding the true issue on Gogo Dodo's page by bringing up the dead Las Vegas issue, making personal attacks, false claims, and repeatedly implying I'm a troublemaker by simply warning someone about illegal uploads. I assumed good faith with that simple warning, that's not being a troublemaker, that's trying to help a new person not get in trouble. KellyAna (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you need to drop the words “personal attack", your not going to get far in life if you think everything is a personal attack. Everything I say, you accuse me of a personal attack. I would also advise you, for your benefit to drop the sock claim, that issue goes very deep, to where you no nothing about. Also, the person that blocked CarsGm5, seems to have a possible relation w/ KellyAna [61]. As I've shown above, the comments from KellyAna to Blackwatch21 were comments to scare, threat, and intimate a new user. Far from helping one. After I saw the comments, as it is my brother's page, sent some comments to Blackwatch21's page to advise him not to get involved in KellyAna. As I know her history and past, and I didn't want her to be the first editor he came into contact with because of this issue right here. KellyAna calls that a personal attack, but I could say HI to her and she would call that a personal attack. It is true, she hasn't sent me anything, instead she's sneaking around talk bad about me to admins. That’s when I sent her a message ASKING to stop this. She calls that harassment (No surprise) and now reports it as me being an instigator. I don't know how I can be an instigator when I'm asking her to stop the issue. This issue has NOTHING to do with the Las Vegas page, as I left that dispute days before KellyAna did. This issue is dealing with a user that won't leave me alone and gets off on scaring new users. Also, let me point out, she seems not to care about,Gogo Dodo the admin who came to a conclusion to drop this issue. She just continues to make this a bigger issue.--DJS24 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be the one telling me to drop anything as the evidence is in my favor that you have followed me around when I asked for advice from another editor, lied about you dropping the Las Vegas issue before me [62] as history shows you clearly have three talk edits after me and Blackwatch even has two and revision history shows I have not touched the infobox. I've not dropped the sock issue because that is the heart of this and I've provided links that provide links to your behavior. In this edit [63] you clear disparage my name and make false claims. IrishLass0128 was around all day Thursday and part of Friday, based on edit history, and I didn't get back until last night. And if they are brothers, why communicate who I am and disparage my name here rather than one on one at home? I also believe the claim that I "get off on scaring new users" is a personal attack.

As to the claims of me knowing the admin that blocked CarsGm5, I have no clue what that's about short of grasping for straws. The user that blocked Cars User:FCYTravis is one I've never encountered and lives in Fairbanks Alaska. I live over 5,000 miles from Fairbanks. How we can have a personal relationship or even be accused there of is beyond me. He claims that I should drop this but I'm not the one that brought this issue here or told people it was here. When someone insist on repeatedly making false claims after being told to drop it, one should be allowed to defend herself. KellyAna (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me point out that KellyAna has a big history of dicing around the issue. Half of her argument is this sockpuppet claim. The same claim that she caused and had someone she knows block the accused sockpuppet. User:FCYTravis simply blocked CarsGm5 without proving or providing facts for his actions. The sockpuppet was a claim made by KellyAna and action was taken by someone KellyAna knows. Also let me point out that this sockpuppet claim was a last resort on KellyAna’s part to keep her side of the issue right. This sockpuppet claim was a big issue in the "LAS VEGAS" dispute. The same dispute that KellyAna claims she doesn't talk about anymore. After the Las Vegas dispute, I have been doing nothing but defending myself against her claims. She attacked Blackwatch21's page, I came to defend him. Then she attacks me on Blackwatch21's page, again I defend myself. Then I find her sneaking around to an admin who has no reference on this big issue, and attacks me again. Again I need to defend myself against her. Let me point out, that Gogo Dodo is the 7th admin she has contacted to try to get me in trouble. All the other admins have discarded her claims. I have nothing against Gogo Dodo; they are just another victim of KellyAna’s desperate attempt to get rid of me because I'm the first person to argue with her to this level. I have also tried several times to stop this issue, instead she calls it harassments. This is just another example of how KellyAna has acted throughout this entire dispute. If you read my references, you will see that several admins. have told KellyAna to drop the issue. She has failed to do that. It's obvious that she doesn't care about admin. notices, advise, conclusions or comments. Finally, it’s funny how everything I say is a personal attack, yet she can speak as freely as she wants.--DJS24 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all that has just been said, I find the accusations against User:FCYTravis the most appalling. I've never seen him, dealt with him, or had any contact with him. Saying User:FCYTravis blocked CarsGm5 because he knows me is yet another false statement by DJS24 to attempt to cover his own discretions. I feel confident that the administrators of Wikipedia, if they fully look into this matter will see who is truly at fault. BTW ~ as you can truly see from my contributes on talk pages [64] I've had no contact with FCYTravis and certainly have not talked to 7 admins regarding DJS24. En total I have not dealt with 7 admins. KellyAna (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To all involved, I will repeat what I said to you on my talk page: I suggest that all parties just separate and avoid each other. No more accusations, no last words, no more messages left on each others pages or other editor's pages. If you see one another, go the other way. If the parties really do mean that they wish to step away from the issue, then step away. Continued bickering over who started what, continues to do whatever, or having the last word is not stepping away. Just agree to disagree and move on. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Five comments ago that might have been possible but I do wonder now. He's accused an admin of impropriety and that is beyond acceptable. He's made so many false claims after you told him to stop, he's taken this beyond smiling and moving on. The accusations made in regard to FCYTravis is unacceptable. Creating this "report" after you told him to stop is also an issue. KellyAna (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to stop discusiing this issue and stop talking to KellyAna, I will RIGHT NOW. However I don't think I'm going to be the problem with the conclusion. As from KellyAna's last message, she doesn't seem to want to stop. I'm willing to stop right now. I'm ready. --DJS24 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was opened before Gogo Dodo responded to the issue, review the history.--DJS24 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you not drop it but rather reply after Gogo Dodo replied, you put your link to this on his page after his comment? Regardless, the fact is you accused an admin of impropriety and that should indeed be looked into. KellyAna (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not wrong to question an admin's actions. Again you fail to end this, by now bringing up another new issue. Your now going to put me up against an admin to get your way. You just keep proving my points. You should stop talking, its only hurting you. --DJS24 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a new issue that I brought up, it is one you brought up and I think the admin should know you've done it. It's a false accusation and unfairly leveled toward him. I do hope FCYTravis sees your accusations, he has every right to put you in your place. And again, you speak only falsehoods or maybe mirrorisms is more accurate in your case. It's wrong to question an admin with false claims. Do you have any proof of any form of relation between the admin and I? Have we ever edited the same page, make comments to one another? Has he ever reprimanded me? No to all. Therefore you accusations are not based in fact and should be looked into. Many things you do should be looked in to. KellyAna (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done discussing this until an admin steps in(Gogo Dodo has already, but KellyAna has again failed to listen).I hope Gogo Dodo see's that. I wouldn't be surpised if Kellyana responds, as she always needs to get the last word in. --DJS24 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out to everyone that KellyAna has put her information in the wrong order, as her time clearly comes after DJS24's message. I changed it to show the correct information. I also want to point out, that KellyAna has been a problem on my talk page and has personally attack DJS on several different times on my talk page. It was referenced above. --Blackwatch21 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments returned to original order, I was replying to something and the order was correct where I put it. The comment I replied to was not the last so where I put it was correct. As you can see, there's a questionable issue here, I'm not the one at fault here moving people's comments around to suit personal needs. The "ganging up" by a "relative" is just as unacceptable as sockpuppetry. The situation has gone past assuming good faith when one backs up the other, which is the same situation as last weekend with CarsGm5 before that identity was banned. KellyAna (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for Blackwatch21's comments on this page, obviously as related to me, his comments don't matter. I have advised him not to talk on this page again. He did however notice that KellyAna did put her statement in the false order and has put back in the false order; clearly her time stamp shows that. KellyAna clearly didn't want my statement saying "she needs to get the last word in" to be true. However her, changing the order of words proves that. I'm also seeing now that KellyAna, is trying to pin me against FCYTravis (An admin) in a last effort to try to block me. After FCYTravis block CarsGm5, Cars pointed out some good points on how they might know each other. I have no reason to believe otherwise, as Travis never questioned or disagreed with Cars comments. I'm not questioning Travis's admin duties, I simply don't agree with what he did. KellyAna, can you show me the in rulebook where I can't disagree with an admins choice of actions. Clearly, KellyAna is trying to have FCYtravis come in here mad at me and bully me around, an action that KellyAna would do. However the bigger issue isn't how I disagree with an admins action but how KellyAna is disregarding Gogo Dodo's (An admin) conclusion and request on this issue. The same thing she has done to every other admin that gave a request to stop this. --DJS24 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments go below the statement they are replying to. My comments weren't out of order. There are no "good points" to indicate any relation between myself and Travis, none what so ever. As an admin, Travis has nothing to explain especially when there's no evidence that Cars' accusations have any validity. You do realize, I've never called for your block, while you have clearly called for mine. KellyAna (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of that, but then again you made up the rules as you go. I just wanted to point it out to all the admins that you changed the order of statements to a false order. YES, I have called for your block, as your actions are unacceptable and against all wiki. policies. Please respond, everytime you do, you just prove all my points. --DJS24 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I want everyone to know, that KellyAna has contacted another admin to join the discussion. This just shows how she disregards any admin's requests that don't go in her favor. This is now the 8th admin she has contacted. No surpise, she has contacted FCYTravis, the same admin to side with her before. I don't have a problem with FCYTravis commenting, I just hope any action taken isn't done by FCYTravis. Its clear now, that KellyAna is trying to pin FCYTravis against me, hoping that she finally finds that ONE admin to side with her. PLEASE some other admins respond to this issue, as my fingers are getting tired of typing on this page. --DJS24 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, false information being stated. I contacted FCYTravis when DJS24 made his previous claims. I notified him that his reputation was being questioned. A courtesy anyone being accused should be afforded. As DJS24 did not afford him the consideration, I did. A cursory glance will see it was a simple notification of his name and reputation being brought into the discussion, not a plea to take a side. I am highly curious, where do you get that I've contacted 8 admins when my edit history clearly shows that not to be the case. As for the comment order, I learned that at Village Pump. Confused me at first, but I learned to understand the rules, not make them up as I went along. And does anyone find it odd that first "the brother" points out the order issue and then DJS claims he pointed it out. Another pattern forming again? See [65] for the oops of editing themselves on the wrong page. KellyAna (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where I took credit for finding those statements out of order. I love your quote, "A courtesy anyone being accused should be afforded". I didn't see that same courtesy to me, when you were tossing my name around like a piece of trash to several admins. Again, the more you talk, the more you look bad.--DJS24 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep claiming I talked to several admins, but have no evidence of the fact. I talked to Gogo Dodo once, that was it and you followed me there. Where are all these other admins I talked to? I asked Gogo for advice, I didn't trash your name or not notify you. You started this but never notified me, you brought Travis into this but didn't notify him. I afforded Travis the courtesy to see what you've done to his name. You followed me to Gogo's page. What other admin have I contacted? KellyAna (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all you brought up Travis's name. I may have referenced the issue but never mentioned his name until you did. You were talking on his behalf. You should of told Travis about this because you brought up his name, I didn't until you did. And for this OOPS thing, I'm sorry, I was fixing a word he spelled wrong, he is young. I didn't know I couldn't do that. I can't believe how desperate you are in finding any possible flaws in me. I've already pointed out he is related, so stop mentioning him. You're tring to make a 12 year ago kid's username look bad, you must be proud of yourself. I din't realize you could get that low w/ respect. It doesn't matter how many admins you contacted, review your own history, you'll see them in there. The fact of the matter is, you asked for Gogo Dodo's advice, he/she tells you to drop the issue, and then you pretty much throw his/her comments away and continued to argue w/ me. I have asked, suggested and even tried to stop this issue. Your the one that keeps editing and giving out false claims. I'm just defending myself until a admin steps in. Also let me point out, blackwact21 never asked for this, you went to his talk page and started this up again.--DJS24 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who started what? You started all of this. And you still haven't produced evidence that I contacted 8 admins. I gave your brother a good faith warning, you're the one who then started this. You could have left it at that but didn't. You're the one that has completely escalated all of this with all the falsehoods and blatant lies you stated. KellyAna (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. Both of you, take this elsewhere. This is not an admin issue, it's a pissing contest. GogoDodo had it right—stay away from each other. Horologium (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done addressing this issue, clearly this is another admin that has asked to stop the issue. I will leave it up to other admins to decide the faith of the issue. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely; both of you need to move on. I don't see any big misbehavior here on either side apart from this pointless dispute. In fact, I think you're both asking each other to be left alone. Take your own advice. Don't look through each others' contributions, don't make complaints about each other, don't try to address each others' behavior, just stop. Mangojuice^talk 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, for addressing the issue, it needed to be addressed. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue: User:Perspicacite at AfD

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Angola, Perspicacite/Jose João has been acting in an incredibly uncivil manner. I happen to agree with him regarding keeping the article, but I don't agree that it's ok to call placing a prod tag vandalism, accusing the AfD nominator of acting in bad faith, suggest that a 24-hour block for the AfD nomination "would be lenient", lashing out against other editors who question him, or to delete comment objecting to his bad behavior as "harassment".

I had no clue that I was wandering into such a tarpit when I commented on this AfD. Argyriou (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor did I when I nominated the article. Perspicacite/Jose João has repeatedly refused to comment on the merits of why the article should stay, and has instead harrased anyone who opposes him. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone who opposes him" consists of you and an editor I have not gotten along with for months. Jose João (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your failure to be able to work civilly with another editor, to the point where you've been sniping at her and labeling her edits as harassment, ought to earn you a good long block for incivility. Argyriou (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User Perspicacite (who now signs as "Jose João") has drawn the lesson from previous reports where no action followed, that he is exempted from our usual standards. Even after he was aware of this report, he has effectively thumbed his nose at community standards by repeating the very same behaviour complained of on exactly the same Afd.

When he can overcome his collegiality issues and co-operate with his fellow editors, Perspicacite is a prolific and productive editor that makes useful contributions to our Encyclopedia, so I would not support a block for these proximate incidents. However, he does need to be very firmly warned indeed that removing other editor's comments from talk pages (especially article and project discussion pages) and other personality directed reverts are completely unacceptable behaviours and will be followed instantly by a block in future. He needs to learn that WP:3RR is not the only rule that will be enforced. Alice^✉ 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing's happened for a bit, so maybe this is resolved. If the user keeps removing comments from AfD, though, or doing other disruptive things, we probably will have to block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have neglected to look at the piped diffs contained in my comments above which immediately precede your own, Heimstern Läufer. The latest incident of removal occurred less than 5 hours before your statement that "nothing's happened for a bit" but more than 9 hours after these continual breaches were first reported. Although I am an involved editor, I do not think that yet more green approval flags should be waved or "not much to worry about" messages should be sent. Alice^✉ 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when I said "nothing's happened for a bit", I did mean "for a few hours". So yes, I read correctly. I was hoping that he had decided to stop. Obviously not the case. My message was not meant to be a "don't worry about it" message, but rather a "let's hope this stops so we don't have to worry about it anymore". Didn't turn out to be the case, alas. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that my note about having to block if he continued hardly suggests I'm waving the approval flag. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perspicacite has removed my comments at the Afd AGAIN, just now! Obviously he feels totally immune from compliance... Alice^✉ 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a final warning. We don't do that in AfDs, no matter what we think of opposing comments. For some reason no-one had left a warning, otherwise I would have been clear to block. Should he re-offend, I would suggest a 24 hour block for disruptive editing. Orderinchaos 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. (There have been other incidents of comments that he doesn't like being removed from talk pages, so I don't believe that Perspicacite was ignorant of the norms, but I hope he now gets a very clear message.) Alice^✉ 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. My public service training, however, holds that the paper trail is most important. Last thing one wants to do is to take an action only to see it reversed on a technicality. Orderinchaos 01:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, your obfuscation and condescension are truly epic. When you are banned, and you will be, I look forward to administrators undoing each and everyone of your 'edits'. Jose João (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor the above comment: it seems quite out of place here. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommending editor for oversight

Thebluesharpdude is a young and enthusiastic editor who doesn't quite seem to "get" many of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. He's created numerous non-notable articles (see his articles list), even after I tried explaining Notability to him (diff). He's uploaded numerous images, claiming to own the copyright when it's obviously not true (partial list). I convinced him to get Wiki-adopted, but his adopter doesn't seem to be mentoring him, aside from giving him Twinkle and designing a user page for him. I've been trying to keep an eye on his edits and have offered advice and tips but it hasn't seemed to help much. The last time I headed down this road, I ended up with Tweety21; I'm really not interested in a sequel so I'm reporting this here in the hopes that someone can offer some close attention. As I said, he's young and enthusiastic and I think he could definitely be an asset to the Project given the right amount of guidance. Precious Roy (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can keep an eye on him. I'll watchlist his talk page and keep an eye on his contribs.--Phoenix-wiki 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd appreciate any help that anyone can give. Precious Roy (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute re Franco-Mongol Alliance

Resolved

 – 2 week full protection

This is “an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin”, which I gather is to be posted here. User:Elonka is currently in the process of “hijacking” the page Franco-Mongol alliance. Although no consensus whatsoever exists for her actions (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus), she has deleted about 130k of highly referenced content in order to promote her own point of view version. The main version of the article, which has been developed by numerous editors over 6 months, is now being systematically replaced by a short pov version, deleting about 300 academic references.
She does have the support of a few editors, but overall, she has not managed to obtain a consensus in favour of her replacement of the original article, and she has even resorted to a false claim of consensus to try to have her way (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). This is highly disruptive, and a flaunting of Wikipedia’s most basic rules.
I am asking that Wikipedia’s rules be respected, i.e. if there is no censensus for a major replacement of an existing article, the status quo should prevail, and that Elonka be reprimended for a disruptive behaviour unworthy of an Administrator. Regards. PHG (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy bejesus that's a lot of poorly formatted references. It appears from first glance that she didn't remove references, but notes pointing to individual parts of those references. I'l let her know about this discussion. Grandmasterka 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are really unhappy about this, you may wish to file a Request for Comment on the admin to see what the community think. D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) She is not abusing the admin tools, although admins are expected to work towards consensus. This is the diff apparently, but it is virtually all red and makes my head explode. I think we can fully protect the article and let everyone discuss until getting consensus. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted 3x) First of all, Elonka didn't use any administrative power on the article as far as I can see, so her being an admin makes no difference. Two, there is no hijacking. Three, this is a content dispute, and from the looks of Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#False_claim_of_consensus, it doesn't look like you have many supporters of these kinds of accusations and you also seem to be the one using other editors statements out of context to advance your point of view on the article. I suggest if you actually want to make a formal complaint about someone's behavior you go through Wikipedia:Requests for comment rather than make absurd comments of hijackings. — Save_Us † 15:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unless there is an abuse of admin powers this is a content dispute., Try mediation or an article RFC to promote wider input from the community. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration over this dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected 2 weeks. No admin tools were used by Elonka. Arbitration is not needed yet as this is a content dispute. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Check my request. I think you will see that arbitration is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but would like the parties to try to work this out one more time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise! I've been watching this dispute for months. It has descended into bad blood and accusations. One more try will not be successful. Rather than waiting for more damage to be done, I have requested a structured environment so the parties can work out their differences. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what the arbs do. And unless one of the parties is an admin and uses their bit, they have 2 weeks to work it out ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This post is complete and utter bull. To put this a bit more in perspective, PHG is edit warring with 6 other editors in an attempt to keep his preferred version of the article. Absent his interference (especially during his recent 24 hour block over this same disruption), these other editors have been resolving the issues via the talk page -- again, these other 6 editors are not edit warring with each other. The protection is actually completely unnecessary since we've only got one editor trying to own the article (he's been reverted by four of the six other editors over the past 5 days). PHG's insistence that Elonka is the one at fault here completely ignores the fact that not another soul agrees with what he's doing -- Elonka has not edit warred with him, not used her admin bit and has been active in productive discussions on the talk page. Thanks for requesting the arbitration Jehochman. :) Shell ^babelfish 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My views on Elonka's past disputes are reasonably well-known, but in this case I agree with Shell - I've also been watching this one and it seems she's been dealing in the best way possible with people persistently adding fringe theories. I also have to agree with Jehochman that it's gone on so long now that Arbcom is probably needed in order to decide where best to go with this. Orderinchaos 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Girona

In the article Girona an anonymous adds some external links. I think they don't satisfy the requisites of WP:EL as I stated here, I notified the user, and after a long time waiting I received no answer. Then, the links were removed and again the same ip adds them. I think it is too early to add this links in the spam list, but I would apreciate some admin intervention (perhaps the links are apropiate? semi-protect the page? remove the links and notify (again) the user?...). Thanks! --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the links could get blacklisted if they are spam? D.M.N. (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I think it's a bit too early to blacklist. I think better first look if you find that these links are not appropiate and in this case advise the ip. If he continues, I'll go to meta (I've seen (s)he also added the links in Spanish wikpedia).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like IrishGuy is on top of things as well. In the future, another really good place to report this kind of thing, and get advice and assistance on possible blacklisting, is WT:WPSPAM. — Satori Son 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kumqat1406

This users edits seem primarily to nominating articles for deletion, see the contributions. I'm surprised to see that a "new" users first edit would be nomination an article for deletion. D.M.N. (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the AfD nomination of Future of air transport in the United Kingdom is somewhat questionable, it does not appear that this account is being used for disruption. And having an alternative account is not, in and off itself, prohibited. — Satori Son 19:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I've just noticed his userpage which contains a wierd message on it. And he's just nominated another article for deletion, again an article which seems notable. D.M.N. (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And now that the second AfD was speedily kept, Kumqat1406 opened an equally futile DRV discussion. This is looking more and more like a disruptive sock trying to make a POINT. Caknuck (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How come nobody either notifed them about this or attempted to discuss it on their talk page. I've let them know this discussion is here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because (a) the user page mentioned this already, and (b) because the message on his user page mocks anyone who would try and discuss the issue with him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't bother reading user pages and didn't look at theirs. Just noticed from the contributions link in the section title that the talk page was a red link. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, CambridgeBayWeather. I was aware of the discussion. I maintain I was not being POINTy, I believe that Sisters (TV Series) was a legitamite candidate for deletion and do not believe the Speedy was anything more than retalitation for my nomination of the air transport article. After the fact, I admitted that the air transport nomination may not have been the best as I misread the article. While I accept the DRV consensus that Sisters is notable, although I personally don't agree, I still think it was appropriate to list there due to the fact that no one was able to contribute to the AfD. Kumqat1406 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's problematic, because Sisters (TV series) is notable. The consensus at DRV was not that it was notable; it was that it was so self-evidently notable that having an AfD was a waste of time--that is, it was not a legitimate candidate for deletion. If you fail to understand Wikipedia's standards of notability, and continue to nominate such things for deletion, that will be disruptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed as a sock of User:Travellingcari per a checkuser so blocked indef, butWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimo_Williams very strange though. Secret ^account 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting by Jaymes2

Moved from WP:AN. — Satori Son

User:Jaymes2 (contribs) (talk) has been posting a long speculative piece about the relationship between meteors hitting the earth, Mass-energy equivalence and global warming on Talk:Global warming and other global-warming related pages. The user has been warned several times on the user's talk page, responded to my warning with a post of the same information to my talk page, and continues to re-post the same information (plus impolite comments directed at people who have deleted the speculation) on the global warming talk page. The user has made some edits unrelated to this theory, but it appears that they've all been reverted as unconstructive. I think that this user needs to be blocked, as several attempts at warning the user and introducing them to the purpose of Wikipedia have not affected the user's contributions. - Enuja (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the user has not edited since their final warning about inappropriate use of the talk page (warnings left at 17:29 (UTC) and 19:00 (UTC) on 26 Jan 2008, last edited said talk page on 14:06 (UTC) 26 Jan 2008). It would be reasonable, before any action is taken, to see if he heeds the warning or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The user deleted a level 4 warning on 16:40, 26 January 2008 [66]. - Enuja (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the editor should be blocked. There are six warnings on the relevant talk page, excluding any deleted ones. Even if the warnings are not for the same things, it shows a pattern of disruptive behavior that should not be tolerated. Why are we tolerating an editor who has done nothing but waste our time (e.g., this discussion)? I say that we agree to block on the next disruptive edit. The block should be implemented even by an "involved admin" since she will notice the disruption faster (thus, an effective block) and the decision to act was taken here as a group so the admin merely implements the block but does no "decide" to block. Brusegadi (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this admin agrees; block on the next disruptive edit that has the same content. Blocking is preventative, not punative, so that makes sense. Also vandalism, and that is what it is when it is disruptive - even when made in good faith - means that otherwise "involved" admins can act, similar in the way that vandalism does not count against 3RR. However, if they have otherwise stopped - just let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, another one. I've reverted. I would block, but I'm borderline involved, so if someone else in available, please go ahead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs by User:WikiBakel

Unacceptalbe incivility, insults, and ethnic slurs by this user [[67]], [[68]], [[69]]. The remainder of his postings consist of trolling. Users have tried to reason with this guy, but to no avail it seems. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like he has no intention of becoming a good-faith Wikipedian users. Block indef in my opinion. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of material from extremist nationalist website to the discussion page of Cham Albanians [[70]] --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect hit them with RFAR/Macedonia, they won't be around too long if they keep it up. east.718 at 22:43, January 26, 2008

This user continues; personal attack to User talk:Tsourkpk here and to Greek editors here. Furthermore he deleted warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here and instead he replaced it with the same dubious info citing an ultra-nationalistic site. Helladios (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also in the section Editorial Harassement by Greek nationalistic extremists here!!! Helladios (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm it, please, everybody. The stuff from his "illyria" website is pretty poor quality, but that can all be pointed out on talk pages politely and without a lot of fuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy user page - User:Wright93

Resolved

Random832 fixed it with the user's cooperation. (oops) Orderinchaos 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually I fixed it on my own initiative, the user hasn't gotten back to me yet. —Random832 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Think the title says it all really. Any idea whats going on here? Looks likes the source code for some website--Jac16888 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Its actually very fancy wiki-code that was broken in this edit [71]. Don't know how to fix it though. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone failed to understand the difference between HTML and Wiki-Markup, used a Web-Tool on the HTML rendering of a Wikipedia page, and pasted the result into the edit box. Nothing that needs Admin intervention, although a kind soul could explain this to the user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Microsoft Word code within there, which has all kinds of junky HTML coding, Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone actually tell the user? DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could come to a consensus to ban Microsoft from trying to take over Wikipedia :) Orderinchaos 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

External links on US presidential election, 2008

Resolved

• Talk:United States presidential election, 2008#External links to political campaigns

I removed external links to the pages of individual candidates from the general article about the article. But they had been restored back twice ([72] [73]) so far within minutes I made my two removal attempts.

Because it is a current event and because we had cases of congress peoples employees editing wikipedia I am bringing this to the general attention of the community. This is less of a complaint in that sense given this isn't the complaints department and instead a noticeboard. Hence this notice.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to your most recent change, as you are correct. Horologium (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse reversion by Horologium, although the links could be used as referential. the_undertow ^talk 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh there is an article for every individual campaign of the individual. The article in question isn't about any individuals campaign and instead about the general election process and stuff. They can ofcourse be used in <ref></ref>s for example. -- Cat ^chi? 14:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban on Heqwm

I request Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruption.

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. He awarded me what he called an "anti-barnstar" and accused me of "maliciously writing outright lies about" him.[74] I have not had any interactions with Heqwm for many months, and I have never posted lies about him. I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations.[75] He declined to do so.[76] Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack.[77] Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page.[78] I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it.[79]

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. I warned him about personal attacks more than a year ago.[80] He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation.[81] I don't think I have had any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. In my statement at the arbitration, I provide plenty more diffs to spell out Heqwm's disruption. I certainly have not had any interaction with him for several months.

I believe the above diffs show clearly that Heqwm has made repeated personal attacks without any sort of provocation. His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? Johntex\^talk 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i dunno, mate. he isnt bothereing me a bit. What i recomend doing is to not give him any more recogniton by continuing to talk to him. wait here for an admin to block him. i warn you that you might not get a permanent block like what your looking for here but he'll probably be taken out of action for a while unles he apologizes. with regards to the "anti-barnstar" -- LOL! what you should have done was kept the barnastar but write your own text in the textbox and award it to yourself in recognition of your general awesomeness. good luck, and havea safe flight!!!! Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what, what do you mean, he isnt bothereing me a bit? Why should Johntex care whether this editor is bothering you or not? Smith Jones, your edits on this page are becoming more and more bizarre. Corvus cornix_talk 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Smith Jones thinks he/she is an admin...going by his/her edits to this forum. Shot info (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Heqwm for 48 hours for making personal attacks. If the community decides on a longer block or even banning, it would have my full support. Dreadstar † —Preceding comment was added at 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gust

Resolved

Hi, there is a problem with Gust, it has not been correctly moved to Gust Corporation, see [82]. Maybe Gust can be made into a disambiguation page and Gust Corporation deleted so that the old version of Gust can be moved to Gust Corporation, I don't know if there's a better way to proceed. Concerning Gusts, from what I see, it's standard to redirect it to Gust (just like Hills). For the meteorological aspect of gust, I don't know if it deserves an article (with a title like Gust (wind)), maybe a mention in Gust is enough. -- Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed before it needed admin intervention, you can move it around as needed now. east.718 at 01:47, January 27, 2008

Thanks, if a similar problem happens, should I post here ? -- Cenarium (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're looking for the cut-and-paste move repair holding pen (that's a mouthful). east.718 at 02:05, January 27, 2008

Homeopathy

Resolved

There is a problem here[83] and at the section just above it; I think things may blow up soon. Admin help would be appreciated. I have tried to calm things down, but to no avail. Anthon01 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Any further disruption on that long-term battleground will be handled via blocks. east.718 at 04:53, January 27, 2008

Ignored warnings on edits

Advice would be appreciated on this small-scale issue: This editor [84] has a long history of making unreferenced contributions, and has been cautioned a number of times. A recent warning by me led to the following exchanges: [85] and a reply [86], after which the contributor resumed making similar edits [87], [88]. Small stuff, but erosive to general quality. In short, the user pays no heed to cautions or warnings. My question is whether the behavior merits further warning. JNW (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the user talk page. If the user persists in making contributions of this sort, a report for administrator action may be warranted. However, he does appear to be somewhat receptive for advice, so I'd advise continued discussion for now. Sandstein (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Category "dispute"

someone threatens to block me for adding an in my view non-controversial, referenced category to the Winona Ryder article (my edit here). See (Ryder talk page discussion and my talk page). I feel my edit is getting reverted without base yet the reverter accuses me of edit-warring. Could someone briefly have a look thanks. 87.126.142.54 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the three-revert rule. Any further edits by you today to the article to reinsert that information will result in a block. Please discuss such changes on the talk page. Nakon 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, another standard reply. Well I have- discussed and sourced my edit on the talk page. But the reverting editors are the ones who are reverting my edit without discussing, yet they accuse me of edit warring. 87.126.142.54 (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at User talk:Ward3001 requesting his participation on the article talk page. Hopefully this can be cleared up quickly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. 87.126.142.54 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I added something on the Talk page. Although I disagree with adding the category, my biggest objection was that 87.126.142.54 (talk · contribs) was edit warring and violating 3RR without allowing adequate discussion. He posted a comment on the Talk page in response to my request for discussion and four minutes later began edit warring, claiming that he did not need consensus. All of this can be seen in his edit history. And one more point. 87.126.142.54 (talk · contribs) claims to have sourced his edits. The source does not state that she is Russian-American or that she identifies herself as Russian-American. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Radiohumor

Resolved

_{relisted by nat.utoronto at 08:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)}
Someone might want to keep an eye on Radiohumor (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as recent contributions have been quite uncivil, and not exactly constructive. nat.utoronto 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He is watched, and I assume that the editor just needs some acclimation to the wiki. He has 2 warnings, and at this point, I don't see further action as necessary. the_undertow ^talk 09:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected title Flash Flash Revolution

Resolved

Requesting protection under the new system, including an explanation of why it was salted. - Chardish (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't get what you are trying to request as the page has already been protected. nat.utoronto 08:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The page was protected from creation due to endless recreations after a consensus concluded it should be deleted (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 15). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nikkul on Poverty in India

File:India Rural.JPG

Poverty is more common in rural areas of India. Shown here are homes of farmers living below the poverty line in Maharashtra

A beggar in Bodhgaya.

I found no way other than coming here. User:Nikkul is continuously adding an image of homes in rural India with a caption "Low income homes in rural India". His edits are going too much problematic.

• First, in rural India, homes like these are quite common, and in rural India, per capita income is relatively low than in urban India. An image in a article for poverty should depict the subject very well. But farmer's homes are not well representative of Poverty.

This user is also removing the begger image wikilawyering this image is WP:UNDUE. This is blatant wikilawyering and excuse. In India, many poor homeless beggers live like this, and there is no wikipedia rule that an image of a begger cannot be included in an article. He is continuously reverting my edits, no intention in engaging in a fruitful argument in constructive manner. Dispute resolution is not posiible with this editor. I think an experienced editor or administrator should look into the matter. I am getting tired with this user's disruptive edits. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

From memory I seem to believe that there is no Wikipedia rule that determines that an image of a Manatee cannot be used in article space, either... Of course, context is everything. "Low income housing" (besides being a recent Western concept) may not necessarily indicate that poverty (or "trans or sub subsistence income") exists in an area - although economic weakness may make it more likely should incomes be reduced even by a small margin. Also, as suggested, a traditional low cost building does not mean that the locality is economically depressed, it may simply mean that semi permanent dwellings are not considered as essential as to another culture.

Begging, outside of religious/cultural practice in the sub-continent, is an obvious sign of poverty, however. It is indicative of a lack of employment opportunities (if the begger is otherwise fit) and also of a welfare provision where the begger is not capable of work which are strong indicators of poverty.

I will comment on Nikkul's talkpage, noting this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is dispute resolution not possible? I see no recent edits from you to either the aritcle talk page or to Nikkul's talk page. When you find yourself arguing against a policy, ANI is usually not the first place to try. The inability to resolve disputes with a particular user is generally established by precedence. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose edit warring, for that is what it appears to be, is a matter for admin input? Anyway, I have left a message at the users talkpage. Hopefully both parties can now move forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm just saying, ANI isn't the first step in dispute resolution, and one shouldn't assume it won't work before one has tried. But yes, it will hopefully take care of itself now :-) Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason this user is giving in removing the begger image is "all beggars do not have messed up legs, this image is undue". This is ridiculas argument and apllying WP:UNDUE here is blatant wikilawyering. Many beggers have no eyes, many beggers cannot see, many beggers have no arms, amny beggers cannot walk steadily. This is the reality, the truth, it is not right to conceal it. On the other hand many beggers are physically fit. So how to judge a begger image? This begger image is right, this begger image in not right? Many beggers, as I have told earlier, forced in this profession due to utter lack of livelihood, and live more worse condition than depicted here. So placing this image is completely appropriate, using the above argumant this user is applying is ridiculas and certainly POV pushing. This user's only job in wikipedia is bigging up the India articles by placing nice touristy pictures and removing "negative material" which he is doing here.

• This user is mixing "low income" with "poverty". "Poverty" is defined as "condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". Low income houses, the farmer's houses are not representative for what "poverty" stands. In wikipedia, we cannot place an image of a farmer, or a farmer's house when depicting poverty. I think in an article, which completely describing poverty, only those images should be given which are well-indicative to the subject. And by that, the begger image is terribly appropriate in the article. I hope after LessHeard vanU's message on this user's talk page, this user will not disrupt the article again. But if he continue his disruptive edits, I may need help from other editors. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, while an excellent source of images, proves problematic in the extreme about their use. For those wondering why DR isn't tried, I suggest a look at the Talk:India archives. Relata refero (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First,I would like to say that Otolemur crassicaudatus did not ask me to discuss this on the talk page. He also did not leave me a note telling me that this discussion was going on. This is another attempt by him to block me. He has tried to delete my userpage because I said "Being an American is priceless"

• User Otolemur crassicaudatus keeps deleting my contributions without giving a good reason as to why. Any edit that i have made to this page or another is always reverted by him. This is getting tiring for me and is hindering my efforts on Wiki.
• Poverty in India is mostly rural. Most people who live under the poverty line live in rural places. No other picture on the povetry in India page shows rural poverty which dominates over urban poverty. The picture of homes represents poverty in rural India, because these homes are where poor farmers live. I have travelled in poor parts of India and I know firsthand that these homes house people under the poverty line. Not having an image of rural poverty is wp:undue since all the images show urban poverty which is only a fraction of poverty in India.

• I have explained this many times to Otolemur crassicaudatus but he still keeps removing my image with an excuse that "no place is mentioned"

• The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers or beggars. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of indias poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.

• This is just another attempt by Otolemur crassicaudatus to make India look bad. This user bears a strong hatred towards India and would like to deride the country as much as he can. Before, he has tried inserting an image of beggars washing their clothes in a puddle in the economy section of the India article which is featured. He still kept doing this even when I told him that the image represents the poorest of the poor in India and that every country has poor people, but most do not show an image of the dirt poor on their economy sections.

• Because the beggar in Bodhgaya image doesnot show the truth of Indias poor, andbecause user:otolemur insists on having a beggar image,i haveuploaded Image:India poor.jpg which is more representative of beggars in India rather than a man with broken legs

• Also, when I say low income housing, i do not mean housing for the lower class. I should have made it clear that these homes are of poor farmers who live below the poverty line. Hence, the image is appropriate for the page. It also shows rural poverty which is significantly greater than urban poverty

Nikkul (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Many beggers have various disabilities. It is a blatant excuse by a POV editor.
• Any mention of "negative aspect" of India is attempt to make India bad by this user.
• The farmer image is not indicative to poverty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. Please take it to the article or your own talkpages, or pursue Dispute Resolution. I would suggest that the rhetoric is toned down also, assuming bad faith does not help the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think Nikkul has a reasonable point here, to be honest. It seems that WP:UNDUE is being violated by use of an unrepresentative or overly polarising image in the context in which it is being used (the image could be used in several other contexts without any problems). I suggest that the users try to resolve their problems at the article talk page and assume good faith - both editors do wish to improve the article, that's obvious by the above, but just have starkly different ideas about how to do it. Orderinchaos 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul's image is much more relevant than a handpicked photo of a beggar. Beggars in India need not be poor, while slums are the home of the poor. OC's edits indicate a pattern of Indophobia that Nikkul has brought to light.Bakaman 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And similarly low-income housing is sometimes misused (by putting it on rent by those who supposedly need it). The fact is that vast majority of beggars are poor. Also, you allegations of Indophobia, as a way to solve disputes, are a violation of WP:CIVIL.Bless sins (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing incivil about calling a spade a spade. I pointed out that his edits, indicate a pattern of Indophobia. Incidentally, wikistalking is a clear violation of policy, unlike spurious allegations of incivility. Nikkul's image is much more germane to the situation, and OC's forum-shopping does little but to exhaust the time and patience of more productive editors.Bakaman 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the beggar's image on the Begging article. I removed it since there already was a representative for India. Perhaps this is related to this incident--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have worked signifiantly with Indias poor. I have travelled in rural maharashtra and given firsthand help to people under the povety line. I have also worked in urban slums. Last time I was involved with a project, it was in Worli, Mumbai. I established a school for slum children. The teacher we hired were from the slums. They were paid 200 rupees per month (less than a dollar a day) to teach slum children. After a month of volunteering, I was invited into one of the teachers homes. I was surprised to see that though she lived below the poverty line and though she lived in the slums, she had a color TV, a stereo player, an sofa, electricity, and running water. The point im trying to make is that India's poor do not have broken legs and most are not beggars. Of those who are beggars, they surely do not look like that man in Bodhagya.

User:OC's excuse is "Many beggers have various disabilities. It is a blatant excuse by a POV editor." which really is not the case.

This user is being very uncooperative. He removed my pic of rural poor homes and so i asked him to please not insert the beggar image until this dispute is resolved.He has reinserted that image again.[89] He has continued to edit war even when I asked him to hold off on the image and I told him that I wouldnot insert my image until the dispute was resolved. Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The image of the beggar is relevant to the article and should remain. The image is relevant to text and gives a clear description of what poverty in India (at its most extreme) is like, especially to those unfamiliar with the subject of poverty in that country. I don’t think the picture of rural homes in the countryside really portrays poverty at its most extreme. The photo in question looks more like and old country town in a rural setting where the inhabitants would not be rich or to poor, but would be able to support themselves by living off their own crops and lives stock and fend for themselves by living off their own land, unlike the poor beggar with broken legs begging in the streets to make a living. To someone unfamiliar with the subject this picture does not portray poverty but a rural lifestyle.

The user in question seems to have a bad habit of wanting to get his photos into articles regardless of relevance or quality. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, whether you find the image offensive, or not in accordance with your work with beggars, that is not relevant. Some time ago there was a huge debate about whether to have a picture of prophet Muhammad, or whehter to have the Jyllands posten cartoons. The result in both cases was that though the image may be false, it'll still be included because wikipedia is not censored. If you have a copyright related objection, then by all means, remove the image.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of WP:FAIL

After a discussion about Wikipedia in #Wikipedia-en on IRC, User:Gurch decided to start removing mass amounts of content from WP:FAIL. [90] He disagrees with the opinions of the essay and is upset by it, which was why he originally wrote WP:MNF. In our discussion on IRC, he asked if he could block me for being "an asshole," and was later warned for making that statement. After our discussion was over, he decided to start blanking material from WP:FAIL, by reverting to a far older revision.

I asked him to self-revert because I am not going to bother edit-warring with him. He refused. When I spoke to him about it in IRC, his first response as "LOL," and it was pretty clear that he was acting in bad-faith. To demonstrate bad-faith, I can share the IRC log, although not on Wikipedia, per Undertow's warning here. [91]

Based on this, I also request that his "rollerbacker" rights be taken away for obvious reasons. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, it is not vandalism, it is a content dispute of sorts. You should not assume vandalism from an established editor of the community (especially when the majority of the content he removed was written by you). However, Gurch is misusing rollback, as rollback is only intended for vandalism, extremely non-productive edits and your own edits if you made a mistake. Not only is Gurch apparently misusing rollback there in a content dispute, [92] he is using his rollback rights to revert messages sent to his user talk page he doesn't like. [93] [94]. — Save_Us † 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurch should also not of marked the edit as "Minor". As it is a content dispute, it should be discussed on the talkpage. Also, his rollback rights should be removed if he is abusing it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we should remove it from the ton of admins (including myself) who use rollback for non-vandalism. Majorly (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the bit from users who abuse their privileges. It's not exactly policy, but rollback isn't intended for content disputes and it is implied when the rollback function is used that the revision is something non-controversial to revert. User talk page reverts are borderline, pending what the message was. Rollback for content disputes on the other hand is pure abuse as that is not what rollback was meant for at all. — Save_Us † 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: User:Gurch also has an alternate account with rollback rights, User:Gurchzilla. — Save_Us † 13:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusing rollback reinserting vandalism/non-productive edits

Apprently Gurch has read this thread about his rollback edits being questionable and decided to revert any use of his rollback to the previous version, which is now inserting vandalism and blanking back into articles. [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] I urge someone to remove rollback from Gurch and Gurchzilla. — Save_Us † 14:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He still has the rights. See here and here. He seems to have stopped and left. Technically the rollbacker right should be removed, but my view is that if he returns and does useful anti-vandalism work, then the tool will be useful for him. So I'm not going to remove them. I suggest everyone go and learn how to use Wikipedia:Huggle instead. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New situation - help needed

Gurch has tagged all of his user subpages for deletion, including User:Gurch/Huggle, which has a lot of incoming links and seems to be tied in to the anti-vandalism scene (which I don't know much about). I'm reluctant to delete these pages even though they sort of do meet the user-request speedy deletion criteria. Since they're all still tagged, some input is needed here. --W.marsh 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurch looks like he has left Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they meet the speedy criteria, but I have the same concerns as you. I'm punting this one to someone with more experience with Gurch... maybe someone who knows him can find out if this is a storm that's going to blow over (leave them) or it seems for real (delete them)? - Philippe | Talk 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved some pages into the Wikipedia: space. The whitelist page may cause problems if it was anywhere else though. Majorly (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurch has left Wikipedia before, then came back. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone undelete User:Gurch/Huggle/Icons and move it to Wikipedia:Huggle/Icons. Can someone do that for his other subpages under the Huggle banner? D.M.N. (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Majorly. You are much less lazy than me. --W.marsh 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Somethings wrong. User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist was moved into the Wikipedia space at Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist. As a result, User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist , served as a redirect, but people are editing it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist as a redirect. Nakon 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Page ownership? and accusations?

I ran into a number of articles where after some recent edits a linkfarm was created (the latest additions contain several of the same links), some pages now contain 15 external links. After trying to clean the articles in question (which was also attempted by other editors), I was being accused of being a sockpuppet of another user who opposed certain edits (diff) and bad faith was assumed on those who performed those edits (see e.g. diff). To me it feels a bit like if the editors in question (User:KKonstantin, User:Ostap R and User:Galassi) try to own the articles. The articles involved:

• Ukrainians (15 EL) (which maybe also should be moved as well to Ukrainian (ethnic group) per WP:MOS?) ??
• Balachka (14)
• Ukrainians in Russia (clean)
• Ukrainians in Kuban (4)
• Ukrainian diaspora (7, mostly spelled in Russian)
• Ukrainian language (12; some in reference section as well (11))

I am stepping away from the discussion (well, tried that earlier), to cool down (well, not that heated anyway ..) from the accusations, name calling and to prevent edit warring (but maybe I am just taking it too serious). Maybe someone more specialised in these articles can have a look at the edits and articles, and try some positive discussion? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) (sorry, wrong editor named in original post, changed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Could you name specifically what links are being re-posted across several articles and possibly diffs of users who added them? If they're slightly different, but they're just adding lots of links, that's not linkfarming if each link is noteworthy and worth keeping. I did a quick search and found examples:

Islam (16 EL) Encyclopedia (13 EL) Science (14 EL)

As for Ukranians, yes, it should probably be moved. "Ukranians" sounds tacky, but unfortunately when it comes to ethnic groups, there doesn't seem to be a consistent MoS. I'd recommend moving it to "Ukranian people."

• Kurdish people
• American people
• Persian people
• Hungarian people

• Britons
• Russians
• Arabs
• Jew

etc..

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:KKonstantin is the one who added them (same/very similar links to the 6 pages), he and the others defend. Special:Contributions/KKonstantin shows the respective edits (e.g. this set of diffs (ignore the infobox change, that was by another editor)). I reverted those link-additions as they create a linkfarm, but found the mentioned resistance and response. And I know there are other pages that have quite some external links, but that does not make it OK, the same may be true for the other pages, I would argue that also in those cases it is more than 'a few'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chandlerjoeyross

Article creation issues: from the user's contribs, his article creation SOP is based on 1) finding a published obit, creating the article from the obit, and then claiming notability through "somebody else cared that you died", or 2) people who really aren't notable see User:Chandlerjoeyross/Articles_I've_Created.

Many of the articles he has created are stubs and also copyvio from whatever source he used, and since no one really heard of these people before their obits, there's very little published information - he doesn't even have full names for people, such as the aforementioned Thoreau, for example. Could someone speak to him regarding the intent of policies? I see all sorts of issues here. MSJapan (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are non-notable. I think you guys might want to take a look at the amount of warnings here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Obituaries are perfectly valid sources to use. Catchpole (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the articles has and will be sorted out with prods, afds, and speedies. Perhaps 1/3 of these articles were deleted, the others kept. That's not a great record but it's not a behavior problem requiring administrative intervention, is it? Either he'll get tired of having his articles deleted and learn to be more cautious, or he won't, but as long as he's working in good faith I just don't see the problem either. Copyvio is a more serious issue but I couldn't really tell if this is a persistent problem, or he simply had to learn. Notices from the image patrol bots are usually technical issues, not real copyvios. If he keeps doing it long term despite all the repeated warnings, that could be an issue. Wikidemo (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's well established that obits only show notability when used from sources that use a high degree of selectivity as well as editorial control, such as The Times and the NYT. They can otherwise only be a source of non-controversial detail. But a good number of his articles describe what are clearly people with notable accomplishments. He should do better sourcing, but he is not being disruptive. DGG (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Harassement by Greek nationalistic extremists

In the next links it is wise to look who started to be impolite

[[100]],

I don't like to be called "Dude"

[[101]],

I don't like to be called wikibabel wich refers to the tower of Babel. My name is wikibakel

I don't like trhat someone is telling me that i act like a troll (trolling)

[[102]].

Again the troll story

Editors Helladios and Tsourkpk act like they are god. No other opinion than theirs is allowed. They don't discuss with arguments they just censure. They accuse without reason the site Illyrians.org to be extremist nationalistic. This harassement has to be looked into by NON-greek admins. An article can only grow when the greek accept that there opinion is not the only one

Helladios accuses me of deleting a warning. This warning was on my one talk page. After reading i deleted this because i have enough braincapacity to remeber those messages. Furthermore it doesn't state anywhere that i have to keep every message on my talk page. Next to this i put the text that i wrote on my own talk page. What is helladios doing on my page? Is he on a personal vendetta? It seems so. Sorry I'm not impressed nor afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBakel (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) WikiBakel (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not obliged to keep the warning there, that much is true. On the other hand, it doesn't look too good for you if you first complain of other people misspelling your username, and then for you to persistently misspell that of the other guy. Come on, you are too intelligent for such games. The guy is called "Helladios". Now, come down from that glass dome, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I directly changed Heliastos in Helladios. This was a true mistakeWikiBakel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Your statement however doesn't change their censorship nor their accusations.Is that still allowed? WikiBakel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

your accusations of censorship aside, your attitude is far afield of civility, and should be put in check. Dick size comments is the best you can do to discuss problems with other editors? ThuranX (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell means "Dick size comments is the best you can do to discuss problems with other editors?" WikiBakel (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New editor engaging in POV Personal attacks, etc.

A comparatively new user, whose first edit was December 23, as per here, seems to be less than well informed about matters of policy. He has however regularly impugned the character of others, up to and including regularly calling a well-established editor a "hypocrite" and engaging in other repeated insults, as per the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page. He has also raised completely unjustified accusations against that editor, as per that same page. He has also created a subpage, Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References, in which he specifically requests that no one edit the page, in clear violation of WP:OWN, and so far as I can tell is trying to use the page as a way to circumvent policy and make several completely unsourced statements, again in appearing to further his own personal beliefs. He has also gone so far as to call others "desperate Trinitarians" here, and referring to a "schizophrenic trinity god" as per here. He also seems to think that perhaps anyone who espouses a trinitarian view of Christianity is somehow in a conspiracy to "hide the truth" or whatever, and seems to include me in that number. He has most recently repeated calling another party a "hypocrite" on the basis of factually inaccurate information, as per the Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Early Christian section. I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this individual. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as talking to the user hasn't done much good; I suggest blocking the editor for a week. D.M.N. (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As a somewhat involved party, I do not think that I am in a position to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The editor concerned has posted on Jimbo's talkpage here in relation to this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would I be justified in thinking we might wait for him to decide what if anything he wants to do about this matter before proceeding any further? John Carter (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I doubt if Jimbo is going to comment over such a matter. I posted the comment just to let other third parties be aware that the differing view has already been expressed outside of the article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the other party in question is continuing his at-best poorly-based accusations on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page. However, as indicated before, I do not think that I, having tried to work with the editor in question, and now also being subject to his insults and attacks, am in a position to do anything. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the editor in question has now posted a religion/philosophy RfC on the talk page above, in which he explicitly states, in a way which I believe completely and utterly fails to assume good faith, and I quote, "I suspect User talk:John Carter is in the background rallying more christian biased pet-editors and co-consipiritor Administrators to his defence." As a clearly involved party, I now believe that I would be disqualified from taking any action in this matter. However, I also believe that the party's behavior is becoming increasingly erratic. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I really, really do try and stay out of religious themed content/editing disputes, but I would suggest that an RfC may be an appropriate venue to get this sorted out. Never mind the ludicrous claims, except where it demonstrates a lack of AGF or impedes resolution, and use it to put your arguments across to a wider audience. It is a pity that no-one here (including me) felt that they could contribute in attempting to resolve this matter. Hopefully the RfC will address that need. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I can't imagine why people would like to avoid arguments like this one whenever possible. ;) No problems, let's hope the RfC comes forward with some information. I honestly don't know if the later nontrinitarians have added anything substantive to the discussion, and it would be useful to find out if they have. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please block PipepBot as out-of-control bot

Resolved

 – Bot blocked.

Originally posted on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, I'm moving it here since it might need a quick action : pywikipedia is not supposed to work that badly. NicDumZ ~ 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PipepBot (talk•contribs) is broken and is removing lots of valid interlanguage links, e.g. [103] [104][105][106][107][108] [109][110][111][112] (there are many more examples). It is also moving existing interlanguage links around (out of alphabetic order) for no good reason, e.g. [113]. This is causing disruption. The bot owner has been notified of these concerns [2], but I am suggesting a temporary block to prevent the bot causing further unnecessary disruption. - Neparis (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for the time being. Lara❤Love 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot is still operating across other wikis, e.g. fr.wiki, de.wiki, it.wiki (probably more wikis too). It is removing valid interlanguage links there too. I presume it cannot be blocked by admins on en-wiki. Is there a central cross-wiki noticeboard for reporting a bot that is misbehaving across multiple wikis? (rather than making multiple reports to different wikis) - Neparis (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for permissions on Meta, section Removal of access, probably, or contact a Steward. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought the matter to the French AN ... NicDumZ ~ 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a request for steward assistance on the bot status page on [114]. - Neparis (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this bot is not out of control. The user is fixing interwiki conflicts. Please unblock this bot. Nothing wrong with these edits:

• [115] - interwiki mess Town with City
• [116] - interwiki mess Dioxin and Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
• [117] - interwiki mess Particulate and Aerosol
• [118] - interwiki mess Calypso (RFID) and Navigo pass
• [119] - dont know
• [120] - interwiki mess de:Rapperswil SG and de:Rapperswil-Jona
• [121] - interwiki mess Donatyre and Avenches
• [122] - interwiki mess Schwyz and Canton of Schwyz
• [123] interwiki mess St. Antönien and St. Antönien Ascharina
• [124] - interwiki mess Stadtbahn Glattal and Glattalbahn

Looks like Neparis owes someone an apology - multichill (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

well, as far as I know, fr:Ville is the translation of City, even if it is also the meaning of Town. Interwiki.py usually don't remove "controversial" interwikis like these, unless the -force option is activated. It should not. NicDumZ ~ 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

City/town is a mess. Probably unfixable in the current interwiki system. But you're wrong about the -force option. I happen to run an interwiki bot myself and i never use the -force option. I do however fix interwiki conflicts every once in a while. This means i pick a page and run the bot without the -autonomous option (and without -force option). Bot asks me a lot of questions and in the end adds and removes a lot of links. Looks like Pipet did the same. multichill (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Next on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard ...This page is too big :) NicDumZ ~ 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

Well, the ones that really caught my eye were the interlanguage link removals for dioxin.[125] I just reviewed them again and at least some of them still look like they might be considered at least somewhat controversial link removals. I could be wrong about it, but some wikis (e.g. Danish) seem to me to have an article on dioxin, but not yet an article on polychlorinated dioxins, which is a specific type of dioxin. In such a case, having interlanguage links to dioxin, as the general term, seems quite useful to me. User:Blech from de-wiki has told the bot owner that most of the interwiki links that the bot removed were correct and that he has reverted the bot.[2] I have not checked any of the other examples in detail, but I had a quick look at one of them — the aerosol link removals.[126] Particulates are a cause of aerosols, and, though I may well be wrong about it, some wikis (e.g. French) seem to have an article on the latter but not the former, so, in such a case, having the interlanguage links, e.g. to fr:Aérosol, seems quite useful to me. I am acting in good faith here, and if I have made a mistake I will certainly say sorry to the bot owner. Please let me know your thoughts — I can take a wikitrout or two. - Neparis (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Persistant harassment & vandalism

Resolved

Page protected.

Ever since User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was banned for gross incivility, I've been the victim of substantial harassment and vandalism. A few of the highlights:

• Talkpage - Rynort claims ownership of vanadlism
• Userpage vandalism 1
• Userpage vandalism 2
• Userpage vandalism 3
• Talkpage vandalism 1
• Talkpage vandalism 2
• Talkpage vandalism 3
• Talkpage vandalism 4
• Talkpage vandalism 5
• Talkpage vandalism 6 (rynort)
• Talkpage vandalism 7
• Talkpage troll 1
• Talkpage troll 2

The violations are fairly severe (especially the anti-semitism) and make my Wikipedia experience unpleasant, especially given my history with the project. Any help would be appreciated. I also know that Croctotheface (talk · contribs) has also been victim of some of the harassment as well. Thanks! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked your talkpage history and noted very few ip's involved, so I have sprotected for 7 days. If you want the sprotect lifted or reduced then let me (or another sysop) know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Resolved

New IP's for unblocking are posted at User:Mercury/UnblockNonTor. Please review them and consider unblocking these. Testing reveals they are no longer proxy. Additionally, no posts to this section means it will archive in 24h keeping ANI clear. Regards, Mercury (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All unblocked where applicable. east.718 at 21:03, January 27, 2008

MZMcBride blanking my comment

Resolved

 – Article undeleted and sent to AFD. My comment in question is archived so it doesn't matter much. --W.marsh 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In this diff MZMcBride (talk · contribs), an admin, is blanking part of a comment I made. As you can see, I made a factual statement that the user was in an IRC channel. MZMcBride even confirms it's true, but still claims it is defamatory, and that he can blank it due to WP:BLP. I would like the comment restored, as it seems absurd to claim that BLP prevents me from making a simple declarative (and true) statement in a debate. I do not want to edit war over it though. We shouldn't be able to just remove comments we don't like... MZMcBridge should respond to my statement and what he thinks it implies, then people might well think there's nothing to my statement. --W.marsh 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement cast me in a negative light, had no bearing on the DRV, was unsourced, and entirely irrelevant. Are we to start listing all deleting admins who are part of #wikipedia-en-admins at the beginning of every DRV? Seems rather silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your whole comment there is unsourced... that's just an absurd standard to apply to discussion comments people make, especially if you don't even deny my statement is true. At any rate, people can decide what my statement was worth. If it was irrelevant, it will have no effect. --W.marsh 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, in my opinion. There seems to be widespread skepticism of the admins' channel; it's already been brought up in that specific DRV when an admin commented, "I'm all for A7-ing #wikipedia-en-admins though."

Regardless, I simply refuse to bring more drama to Wikipedia. I'll reverse my action and put the article up for AfD. How does that sound? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like what I said several hours ago was the inevitable result. And as I indicated then, I'd be fine with such a decision. --W.marsh 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got two trouts here, and I'm not afraid to use them. This is a silly conflict with people that should know better. How about both of you step away, ignore that article and that DRV from now on and let other editors deal with this particular one?(never mind) henrik•talk 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User Donchev -- 3RR, single purpose account and accusations of racism

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

This user has managed in his short history on WP to infringe 3RR and to accuse people of racism. I would have reported him for 3RR infringement, but this is a more serious case I think. Sorry if I put this in a wrong place. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of RFC

As this RfC has as its purpose a community ban, I feel it best to direct ye to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3

It involves Whig (talk · contribs)

Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it involved the Whigs. Thanks for the clarification! El_C 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, had to get template {{user}} in somehow =P Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Donmardon (talk · contribs · count) and personal attacks

Donmardon is making personal attacks on Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes.[127] [128]The attacks will likely get worse and start being directed at me specifically rather than everyone. If an admin needs something to do, could you please keep an eye on him? Thanks. NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also over at Talk:Worms: A Space Oddity [129]. They clearly aren't here to contribute constructively. NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will warn him. Smith Jones (talk)`

I'm sure that will be taken on board appropriately. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First edit [130], and indeed subsequent ones, indicate an account created by someone already experienced here that our Assume blind faith to the point of putting your head in the sand policy means we will now ignore until they are inevitably blocked anyway, as their disruption increases. Hi Ho. No edits recently so not a lot more to do for the time being Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Smith Jones getting so involved with sorting out disputes here? He's a new user, who currently has a warning for incivility on his own talk page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not a newbie user. I checked his contributions and stopped at a year. And he has just as much right to try and help as anyone else. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Donmardon (talk · contribs · count), please. I reverted their removal of a redirect and explained the problem to them. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse and Vandalism by IP: 71.110.255.19

The above IP has placed an abusive and rather vulgar statement on my user talk page. It was promptly removed but you can view this by looking at the page's history. Also, the same user put a degrading and insulting comment on his talk page in response to my request / warning of writing abusive things on article discussion pages. Based on the spelling errors and abrasive language style, I believe without doubt that this IP is indeed banned user Paul Barresi. He has also put several different times comments on the Paul Barresi article discussion page. One comment is still there. Several others have been blanked by other editors. I am requesting that this IP be banned and that user Paul Barresi's current ban be extended. I also request that discussion page for article Paul Barresi be sem-protcted to avoid further abusive comments. Thank you. Fuzzyred (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 31 hours but as I don't know Paul Barresi's editing style I'm not happy wextending the block without some evidence. Perhaps another admin whi is more familiar with the situation might do the honours? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I just deleted an article for being vandalism and having personal information in it. However, as the personal information is in the title, what should be done about it? Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFO. Mercury (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think oversight removed it from the logs, does it? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Except now it's present in every revision of this noticeboard page until someone thinks to remove it... – Gurch 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you FT2 and Gurch. Could someone oversight the revisions of the noticeboard? Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I've asked on #wikimedia-tech about removing it from the log, there isn't much concern since the title itself is not attached to any name or other info and the number seems to be a spam number based on a Google search. Mr.Z-man 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think whatever maneuver was just done here temporarily crashed the site, or it was something else. One or the other for sure. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something definitely did crash it. Malinaccier (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had one of those too, but the wheels fell off. Orderinchaos 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Billy Murray

BillyMurray (talk · contribs) This user keeps removing sourced stuff from Tom Cruise, using, for example edit summaries such as "there's nothing to discuss, articles are not a dumping ground for every random sensational remark about a celebrity". He has already been invited by User:Luna Santin and myself to discuss this on the article's talk page, but insists on acting without consensus. As you might guess, I'm pretty stressed out after this past week, and I'm tired of reverting him, so I'd be glad if someone else would advise this editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Already in hand --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Danny Daniel

This user has been blocked for multiple cases of sock-puppetry. This is a long-term issue with the user. He (gender assumption based on the names) periodically pops up with new socks. I'm not sure how many admins are familiar with his cases. An archived case by me is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel, another editor opened a second case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel (2nd nomination), and a third editor kept a trail of information at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Some of these are outdated with most current information, it's a little wearisome keeping up.

Today I noticed List of The AnimeLand characters (and previously deleted at least once, see the log), created by an SSP under the same motives as listed. I've tagged it for speedy under G5 (banned user), but it occurs to me that the editor has not been formally banned. He's just been chased down and his socks have been repeatedly blocked. It gets a little tiresome, and I think I realize there is not much that can really be done, other than vigilance, but that is the point of my posting: is there anything that can be done? Yngvarr 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue: mock-impersonation

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vigorously persuing his Assyrianist agenda. He now turned to mock-impersonating opponents. I believe that this 'translation' on Talk:Syriacs should be regarded as intolerable incivility. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not me pursuing an Assyrianist agenda. What's going on here is that we have a serious case of sockvandals running around and putting in dubious sources in the articles, and they are pursuing a religious agenda without any valid sources. They use examples such as Megalommatis, and so on. I will take this to arbitration, because I've had enough of trying to keep these articles on a serious encyclopaedic level. Oh and Pieter Kuiper here above needs to get a warning for WP:STALK, by the way. As for Benne, I was just describing what his agenda is here on Wikipedia. You can check up his edit history if you don't believe me, none of it is productive or contributing anything whatsoever to Wikipedia. All he has been engaged in is revert wars, prety much. That is pretty much his entire edit history summarised. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i ahve listed the relevent policies on both of your talk pages. please read them and ry harder to cfollow them in the futurue. Smith Jones (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:TeriBauer.jpg

Resolved

 – Deleted

Please delete as the image is a copyvio, and fair use rational deadline has expired.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats of off-wiki "investigation"

Resolved

 – Pol64 indefinitely blocked

This declaration of intent by User:Pol64 to "investigate" editors off-wiki strikes me as an attempt to intimidate. This isn't the first time this editor has used language indicitive of being on a mission, and routinely fails to assume good faith while labelling and threatening other editors as a part of that crusade.[131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151]. Regardless of the goal, these types of labelling and threats seem to violate several Wikipolicies. As per a previous discussion about this editor on this board,[152] it should be raised here again. Pairadox (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is VigilancePrime, , a good mate of Pairadox, who calls admins vandals, attacks good users and nobody does anything. Dioes wikipedia want to support these pedophole activists? Or not? I nhave done nothing than contradicts policy and if Pairadox, a good mate of Vigilance, wishes to claim otherwise there is rfc for that. I am a free persona nd off wikipedia nobody can stop me pursuing my legal path, i am an ex copper and if I see suspicious activity I do somethiong about it and pedophilia is against the lawPol64 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked on my talk page, but I guess I can ask here too. I have yet to understand where these comments about pedophilia come from? Incidentally, a typo meant the above userlink didnt work, so it is here: VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hope you don't mind me correcting your link, Pol. SGGH ^speak! 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i understadn both of your concerns but wikiepdia is not the place to pursue a personal or legal crusades. please do not issue legal threats; it is a waste of time and a possible violation of WP:AGF, and it's frowned up on in wikipedia. if you really think that another user is a danger to other people you should not try to handle it on wikipedia because there is really nothing the admins here can do to stop someone. The policies that you are violating are WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as WP:LEGAL. 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The disgusting comments by Pol64 have no place here, and should either be retracted, or the User blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Corvus cornix. (But this never seems to happen.) VigilancePrime (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to score points, so please don't do that. Corvus cornix_talk 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats or declarations are not allowed on Wikipedia, pure and simple. Unless Pol64 retracts her intention to investigate other editors, there's ample justification and precedent in WikiHistory for a block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These comments by Pol64 are instructive about the style of willy-nilly personal accusations the user has been making. ^Avruchtalk 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• And this one [153]
• Following up on [154] ^Avruchtalk 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of those last to, I move for a block, strongly against wikipedias policies. SGGH ^speak! 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Policeman

Some time ago, I reported Pol64 for his accusations of pedophilia and criminal activity towards other editors. Rather bewilderingly, there was not any action taken against this editor. That said, his most recent behaviour (now targeted towards myself) is really concerning me, as he seems to be threatening to engage legal action against an innocent person, due to some suspicion of his. Pol64 has explicitly stated that he wants to police and investigate other Wikipedians.

The following diffs, I see as legal threats, based only on suspicion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GroomingVictim&diff=prev&oldid=187355983 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GroomingVictim&diff=prev&oldid=187361548

Then Pol64 accuses a far more experienced and subjectively unbiased editor of being a "Pedophile Advocate" (supposedly after he voted to keep a WP:PAW article): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pol64&diff=prev&oldid=187361041

Again, I STRESS, that we cannot be having this kind of behaviour on such a sensitive topic. I have already revealed personal details, and with another editor threatening to expose those who it seems he sees as pedophile advocates (in some vague, contrived, noncewatch fashion), someone could end up getting a brick through their window (and yes, as someone who has worked in child advocacy, I have come close to a personal experience of this). The best outcome from all of this, is that yet more nonhysterical editors get scared off editing PAW articles, leaving that section of the site under the control of a self-described "anti-pedophile activist" and those who he does not pursue with legal threats and insidious character baiting. GrooV (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That second diff is an attack on me. Pol64 states above that he is an ex-police officer and again states that "pedophilia is against the law" it obviously is, but I believe this statement to be a direct threat against other users he seems to believe to be pedophiles. From my position in life, I know that using "I'm an ex-police officer" is almost always a threat. I agree with GrooV. SGGH ^speak! 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We ban pedophiles from self identifying, I dont think we should police officers from doing so but if you believe we should a policy page is where you need to be, not here. The idea that the average editor would have fear of the police is outrageous. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, I think he is referring to the "pedophilia is against the law" and the implied threat that since Pol64 is a police officerm he would try to point the finger at SGGH as such. There's no need to fear a police officer if you are innocent, but at the same time, to toss around blatant accusations is a deliberate violation of WP:AGF for one and a personal attack for two. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice the attempts by Pol64 to invoke guilt by association, twice, by labelling Vigilance and me "good mates." In fact, the last time I communicated with VigilancePrime was on January 22[155] to indicate that I was disengaging from the "train wreck." Most of our prior back-and-forth has actually been about the BIG ORANGE BANNER on my talk page. Pairadox (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend everything Pol does here, no way, indeed I have counselled him enough to calm down and be civil (via email), my point is that we should not fear the police per se (and God knows I am haven't been the most legal person on this plant, cough, cough). I have written to him telling him it isn't a good idea to make what might be construed as legal threats. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't fear the police, you could say I have a healthy cultivated respect for them. I am not stating that we shouldn't reveal who police officers are (check my user page!) I am staying that using the fact that you are a police officer to strike fear into people whom you believe to be offenders when you have no real grounds to do so, is against policy. Pol has a number of prior warnings which I have noticed he deletes from his userpage about this. I apologise if my statement was confusing. SGGH ^speak! 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And personally, I can't believe any actual police officer would make statements like link 147 in the section immediately above. SGGH ^speak! 02:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I consider threats like the ones cited above, to be reason enough for a permanent ban of Pol64 from wikipedia, under our usual interpretation of such behavior here. I'll be glad to do the block, if there is support for it. DGG (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT - There is. I for one could do without the accusations, attacks, and threats. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need consensus? I think that he should receive indefinite on policy grounds. GrooV (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It has just occured to me that Pol may mean police (fool I am) perhaps a deliberate troll? Regardless, such threats and the stuff of bans or at least a long block. Before it is instigated, I might just go and check how many warnings he has had for further grounds. Give me 5? SGGH ^speak! 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We have...

• 2 bot warnings
• sockpuppet block by User:WJBscribe, Squeakbox gives Pol advice on this, good advice too.
• a mediation case related to pedophilia topics
• 3RR block
• AN/I by GrooV
• A NPA warn from Vigilance
• Another from User:Seicer
• Another mediation call from User:Ryan Postlethwaite
• More NPA warns from Pairadox

Then after that I visit for the first time regarding blanking of a page being considered at MfD. That's a long trail so it seems to be a recurring problem. NPA warnings are the first port of call for someone reacting to this kind of "police officer investigating" things I would imagine? SGGH ^speak! 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SGGH, did you check the history or just the visible text? I suspect that if the history is examined more warnings, might show up, as this set of editors seems to be fond of warnings and blankings. Pairadox (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The history. Pol has removed content from her talk page on a couple of occasions, including past warnings. I have also just noticed this which seems... threatening... SGGH ^speak! 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE LEGAL THREATS PELASE. Clear violation of WP:LEGAL. you coudl be blocked for this, so please stop it. Smith Jones (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need concensus, I feel indef-blocking is the only option, I would do it myself but I am wincing at the sound of approaching neutrality accusations and an RFC that Pol seemed to be cooking up for me with Squeak, so I think someone else ought to do it if that's okay. DDG was somewhere a minutr ago. SGGH ^speak! 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a question of "who will block the "good guy""? GrooV (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He needs to be blocked, shall I just get it done and worrying about Squeaks RFC another time? SGGH ^speak! 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait for someone who is uninvolved, there is no rush at the moment. ^Avruchtalk 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I thought. Thanks Avruch SGGH ^speak! 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you yelling at, Smith Jones? Corvus cornix_talk 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he dislikes Pol64. GrooV (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to indef block Pol yet User:Blnguyen blocked him for a week before my block went through. I think that block may need to be extended. Any thoughts?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... ye-es. She has stated her activist intentions from the start, and has ignored previous warnings, most notably my own on this board. If unblocked, the same behaviour patterns will just repeat. I would advise an indefinite user and IP block (note that this user has abused their IP as a sock in the past). GrooV (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Typically IPs aren't blocked indefinitely (although I've seem some indef'd TOR nodes). Escalating blocks aren't necessarily a bad idea, to see if Pol64 responds and contributes constructively. She could simply be quickly reblocked if not. ^Avruchtalk 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - block is totally justified. Just look at some comments from Pol today. Past warnings have never worked. That, to most, should demonstrate that behavior is unlikely to change at all. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen is ok with extending it[156]. Is the consensus to indef? I will be glad to do it if that is the consensus.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (yet, hopefully in due time I'm lucky enough to have earned the right to be so), and I'm in volved as to I've added my $.02 in the discussion, but barely, however being a frequent editor and someone who tends to leave his POV at the door when I edit, these edits by Pol64 are a gross violation of WP:NPA and warrant an indefinite block. I'm surprised it's taken this long to do so in all honesty. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pol64 is now indefinitely blocked.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) The banning of an anti-pedophile activist while tolerating pro-pedophile activists is noted. Good job to suport freedom, eh. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay tuned

For the exciting conclusion of WIKIPEDIA, the worlds most boring and painfully addictive drama. [[Satan|DARK ALCHEMY]] (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark Alchemy (talk · contribs) = troll. Corvus cornix_talk 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...but it was still pretty funny... VigilancePrime (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC) :-D

Chronic canvassing by VigilancePrime disrupts another deletion discussion

Resolved

 – Page deleted

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

VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Albert Wincentz‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:HolokittyNX‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Homologeo‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Ospinad‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Ssbohio‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB)
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pairadox‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Tijuana Brass‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:TlatoSMD‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]

The above are all editors involved in a contentious series of content disputes with SqueakBox (the AfD, DRV and associated MfDs have been here a few times before).

This is from an editor who has been blocked for disruptive canvassing before, previously about an AfD and this time relating to a MfD about a userpage that is a storage of links and descriptions against User:SqueakBox (found here). Since the vote stacking has already had its effect, can an admin review this to decide whether the MfD should begin again or the page qualifies as a CSD attack page? Thanks ^Avruchtalk 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. The original block was short-tempered and that admin has stated that he would have handled it differently. Nice try, though, attempting to create a history.

On this issue, read the notes. The messages were PAINFULLY neutral. Hence, not canvassing.

Please stop trying to blow up these things out of proportion. This is really a simple matter. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. GrooV (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

its likely that if the afd drv overtursns that we'll see another afd within hours as well. these people think they can do whatever to promote their POV with impunity, attacking others etc. I haven't seen even approaching such a disgrace in my 3 and a half years on the project01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SqueakBox (talk • contribs)

Without trying to bring the entire debate over here, if the DRV is ruled to be overturned, mostly likely the article will be brought back to AfD anyway. This has been a VERY heated and quite ugly debate on both sides, and whomever the admin is that makes the final decision on the AfD, I'd like to buy them a (cyber) drink for their effects no matter how the decision goes. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The canvassing has been disgusting. That is why I am here. After vomiting (I am of a sensitive disposition) I decided it was time to act. Pol64 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Muscovite99

There has been an ongoing content dispute over several articles involving Russia, Putin, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., with this user and User:Biophys on one side and User:Frjohnwhiteford on the other. For the most part, this is of no interest to ANI. However, the narrow issue of uncivil personal attacks by Muscovite99 against Frjohnwhiteford may need to be addressed. The relevant info is summarised in this RfC/U, on which I have made the only uninvolved comment. Note that, of the five diffs listed under "Evidence of disputed behavior", the final two took place after I made my comment at the RfC/U. It thus seems that Muscovite99 is aware of what he's doing and has no intention of changing his behavior, and a short block (which I have no authority to enact) might be appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The case about User:Frjohnwhiteford has been at WP:COI noticeboard. Can anyone review if it was properly resolved? See [157]. User:Muscovite99 is a newcomer (less than 700 edits). I do not know if he was really uncivil, but no one issued any civility warnings at his talk page.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User repeatedly blanking his talk page.

I do not know how to correctly fix this. As you can see, this user has repeatedly removed legitimate content from his talk page, mostly warnings about his uploaded images, but apparently no one has noticed before now. The most powerful anti-vandal tool I have available is rollback, which is of no use in this case. Is there any admin tool that can remove all edits to a page by a particular user? Also, this guy may need to be blocked, but I am not experienced enough to know if his offenses warrent blocking. If you wish to make a comment directed at me, please leave it on my talk page, as I will probably not be back here soon. (I'm not even positive this is the right place to report this, if it's not, please lemmeknow.)
Thanks for your help.
J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine in terms or reporting it here. I can understand the user removing "image orphan" tags, because they can become an annoying clutter, though he could just archive them. Incidentally I have just had to clear off some IP vandalism from his page. Have you attempted to contact the user and ascertain why he is blanking his page? Perhaps he is not aware of guidelines, or the archiving system? SGGH ^speak! 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Guidelines" indicate that there is no problem with an editor blanking their own talk page - Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. Pairadox (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pairadox, he removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history, you may want to ask the user to archive the content instead of blanking it. Tiptoety ^talk 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is solved! By blanking parts of the page, he is confirming that he has received the message! This is better than if he did not blank the page. Whoaslow (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mp3tt

Mp3tt (talk · contribs) is creating multiple pages in his/her User space which are nothing more than external links to music download sites. I don't know whether the site is a legit download site or a copyright violating site, but are these edits appropriate use of User space? Corvus cornix_talk 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Mp3tt/ Rihanna Don't Stop the Music
• User:Mp3tt/ Sean Kingston Take You There‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Sara Bareilles Love Song‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Linkin Park Shadow of the Day‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Finger Eleven Paralyzer‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Chris Brown Kiss Kiss‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Colbie Caillat Bubbly‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Jordin Sparks Tattoo‎

So far--Jac16888 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those go to a site where you can download the entire album, track by track. I seem to remember there being a policy against that, somewhere... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any policy, i couldn't find any speedy tag i could put on them. Failry certain there will be a precedent out there somewhere though--Jac16888 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Advertising? Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It legally. Try download something:)--Mp3tt (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/_Sara_Bareilles_Love_SongAdvertising? Where?
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Rihanna Don't Stop the Music
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Sean Kingston Take You There‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Sara Bareilles Love Song‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Linkin Park Shadow of the Day‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Finger Eleven Paralyzer‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Chris Brown Kiss Kiss‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Colbie Caillat Bubbly‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp3tt (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have you posted a list of what links to your sub-pages? (i.e. here) Anyway, your point of the legality of the link, which i don't intend to use/visit, is moot, wikipedia is not a place for you to spamvertise.--Jac16888 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

POV warring and WP:OWN issues

User:Stone put to sky reverts any and all edits to Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States that do not meet his own POV, continually reverting cleasnup efforts to remove material that violates WP:SYNT and WP:REDFLAG and accusing those attempting cleanup of "being disruptive". This link may prove rather illuminating: [158]. I bring this here because his continuous reverts bring any attempts to work on Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States to a complete halt. Jtrainor (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)