Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive238

Fair use rationales

(hoping this doesn't become another subpage monster, but here goes...)

Eastmain (talk · contribs) is following my trail of tagging images without a fair-use rationale and inserting what I believe to be wholly insufficient rationales, then deleting the {{nrd}} template. One example is here. "To illustrate the article" is a fair-use "rationale" that seems to me to be synonymous with decoration, which is expressly prohibited by our non-free content rules. Can someone help set either Eastmain or myself straight? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He's absolutely dead wrong per policy - David Gerard 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He's flat out wrong, according to our policy. Needs to be detailed, with each specific instance documented and shown how the criticism or commentary would be lacking without it. -M^ask? 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All reverted. And one by accident on ESkog's page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Eastmain here. I was not dealing with images in general, but rather with logos, book covers and album covers (not photographs), which were used in the article about the album or book or about the owner of the logo, which has always been considered acceptable. Do you really want to throw away all the images of album covers or book covers that Wikipedia has, except for those that appear in articles about the subtler points of album cover design? --Eastmain 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That would in fact be what policy demands. It's a widespread myth that cover art is under a blanket fair use justification for every book/film/CD article. I know we've tolerated this common practice, but it's still wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What policy really says

For logos, {{Non-free logo}} says:

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

For album covers, {{Non-free album cover}} says:

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

For book covers, {{Non-free book cover}} says:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers

• to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

So I believe that my actions were in each case consistent with the text in the relevant tag, and that the tags are an accurate reflection of policy. It may not have been obvious that I was dealing only with images in these three categories, so I recognize that my actions may have been misunderstood. Now that I have explained things, would someone please restore my edits to the affected image pages? --Eastmain 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All non-free images still require a detailed and separate Wikipedia:Fair use rationale for each use in Wikipedia. The tag is inadequate. The images should therefore still be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}. Oh, additionally, the tags you quote are not policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is policy. --Iamunknown 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, is there any reason not to boiler plate it for those three special cases? --Selket ^Talk 00:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An image description page of non-free media must contain the "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source" in addition to a fair use rationale for each use of the image in an article and an appropriate image copyright tag. I assume that not all of the logos, album covers and book covers in question are from the same source or are owned by the same copyright owner; it would therefore be technically unfeasible to use boilerplate text and provide the necessary information that is unique to each non-free image. --Iamunknown 00:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the rule is pretty clear that there needs to be justification for each specific use; that is, each time a particular image is used in a particular article. The justification needs to show that the image is used for both identification and critical commentary in the article. I have encountered other users who have experienced similar confusion with these boilerplate templates and perhaps the solution is to cut down their size so that they don't seem to be prewriting someone's fair-use rationale. I think I'm heading off to one of those talk pages to propose just that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - please join in the discussion here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

bogus warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baxter&diff=next&oldid=128048860

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=128063011&oldid=127984511

I removed unsourced material which did not have inline citations. I would like the warning reviewed and my edit reviewed. Can a Wikipedian give people a warning without any validity. I felt I was harrassed. Please evaluate this situation and deal with the issue at hand. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The template warning was inappropriate, but this has already been brought to Runcorn's attention. Furthermore, it seems he has provided a citation for the disputed content. -- mattb 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) You might want to re-read WP:BLP. Negative or controversial material can and should be removed instantly if unsourced. (note that "sourced" is not the same as "has inline citations" there are other ways to source statements). Content that is uncontroversial and not apparently negative is probably worth asking on the talk page if anyone can point to sources. OTOH, it would have been more polite in the case of an established editor to raise the matter on your talk page with a specific question rather than a generalized warning template. But a template that says that someone else thought that your edit was improper is not harassment, IMO. Now why don't all involved discuss the matter on the article's talk page and try for consensus? DES ^(talk) 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crohnie&diff=prev&oldid=128064101 Editor is now engaging in edit war on Larry Sanger against consensus and has issued another bogus warning to another editor. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Runcorn to stop misusing warning templates in this manner. [1] Note that this is only in reference to his behavior with these templates, not any comment on the content disputes. I encourage you to heed DES' advice as well. -- mattb 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Runcorn This person is actually an administrator. I am shocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiLeon&diff=prev&oldid=128074598 He/she has claimed it was "vandal fighting." This remark has alleged that Crohnie and I are vandals. And the editor is engaging in more edit warring on Larry Sanger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&diff=prev&oldid=128075176 He/she has issued another bogus warning after being warned about misusing warning templates. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did receive one too. I have shown him how to reference an article correctly (ie not lewaving it in the ref section), part of the problem is that he badly edited wikipedia and then accused people who removed these edits of vandalsim. And clearly the message from Matt didnt work, SqueakBox 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&diff=prev&oldid=128079857 SqueakBox has received yet another warning and has been threatened to be blocked for no good reason. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I just got threastened with blocking too, didnt sign and didnt refer to what vandalsim. As this chap is admin it may be that the account is compromised, and either way this is completely unacceptable behaviour from an admin (and an admin who cant reference properly), SqueakBox 23:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And a new editor chased off the article "in his own words" here. is this the sort of berhaviour we expect from admins? SqueakBox 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this warning. I'm not going to defend anyone's actions, but Runcorn only reverted once. The second time he added the information back in the article it was with additional references, thus not a revert. Given the frustration one can have when dealing with these same users, I can understand that Runcorn might have been on edge. Quack has a history of stirring up needless confrontations over trivial matters. But I don't know Runcorn, so take what I say with a grain of salt or whatever. Just my two cents. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And normally I do try to avoid interaction with Quack due to past confrontations, but the conversation here just seemed a little.. one sided, for a lack of better words. -- Ned Scott 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn has made at least 3 or 4 reverts with a 24 hour period.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128018198
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128039273
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128064754
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128077095

Any suggestions on what course of action to take about the edit warring.

Ned Scott has removed an appropriate 3rr notice which may be seen as disruptive

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Runcorn&diff=prev&oldid=128106083 Any suggestions on the behaviour of Ned Scott on removing a 3rr notice. It may be seen as disruptive.

Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but I was mistaken about the number of reverts. Perhaps I was looking at the wrong page history. None the less, it's pretty obvious even from the above message that Quack has a way of getting people on edge, and has a tendency of escalating disputes rather than helping them. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking out comment above that I feel is a borderline personal attack. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unstricken.. -- Ned Scott 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I have suggested to Runcorn that he take a couple of days off to destress. Georgewilliamherbert 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of sysops powers

After the Kevin Potvin article was protected, Zanimum (talk · contribs) used his or her admin privileges to edit the article [2]. Under normal circumstances, these might be justifiable edits (with the exception that "fall" should in fact be lowercase according to WP:MOS), but there is no libel issue here being taken care of, or any other serious matter requiring immediate admin intervention to an article under full protection, and no comment on the talk page. I request that these changes be reverted, along with whatever else you people do with wayward administrators. If Zanimum wishes to edit the article, s/he can plug his or her nose and slum it on the talk page with us commoners. bobanny 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

These edits appear to be related to the same issue that caused the page to be protected. I've asked Zanimum to clarify this. >Radiant< 11:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Letter posted to the talk page. -- Zanimum 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

Could someone temporarily protect Buckingham Palace, it has been vandalised 7 times in the last 24 hours. Obviously with the Queen being un USA it is the headlines in America at the moment. Giano 07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's not really enough activity there and I just blocked the main anon culprit. The other page-blanker hadn't been warned at all yet. Warned now - Alison ☺ 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I cycled past it yesterday, it looked pretty well protected to me - plod and soldiers and everything. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That really is very funny. LOL Giano 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How dare they vandalise it while she's out of the house! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• LOL!! Very funny :) - Alison ☺ 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

100110100 (talk · contribs) making death threats

I blocked 100110100 (talk · contribs) for a week for edit warring and making a nonspecific death threat at Template talk:Sailor Moon. This user has a history of abusive behavior, and I wasn't sure whether to block for longer (since the threat was not specific), although the behavior doesn't seem to have included death threats. Therefore, I need this action reviewed in case the block needs to be lengthened. --Coredesat 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not indef? User is obviously completely disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Case in point calling another editor a bitch while reverting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Binary frequently edits from an IP address. Someone should keep an eye on it to make sure he doesn't engage in sockpuppetry. JuJube 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured I should've gone with indef, but it's very late here, and I'm too tired to deal with any potential fallout at the moment. I'll keep an eye out for socks, though. Thanks, Ryulong. --Coredesat 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user WilliamMelvin back AGAIN with new IP

This time it's 80.5.205.84 (talk · contribs). He'll probably run out eventually. Diff. The escalating "retarded" personal attack this time probably warrants a further block extension. He'll get the point eventually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: I have self-reverted at that article to his last version. The talk page at said article has an ongoing discussion about the entire set of points his puppetwarring relates to, and I don't want my personal opinion on the matter to affect dealing with the behavior at issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected images

Wikipedia:Protected titles/May 2007/List contains two images (Image:WinXP_exclamation.png and Image:Stop_X_XP.png) that were nevertheless recreated. Does this process not work on images, or is something else wrong? >Radiant< 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the protected title template; you have to specify the namespace with the "ns" parameter or it doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with User:Anna Vida

I have recently entered a discussion concerning Anna Vida's opinions on Wikipedia, she said that it "Sucks" and is "Utter Rubbish", so I left a message on her talkpage, she then replied with:

You added the following to my talk page:

"Our site sucks? Well, then leave it, we don't need people like you around here"

Here we have another wiki member who thinks they own wikipedia (by saying: our site sucks) you don't own it, and it is not your site!

Secondly, seen as (for some reason that isn't obvious to me) university students use wikipedia for assignments, so someone has to make sure that the info on it is true and correct (which in most cases it is utter rubbish).

And finally, don't stick your nose into business that doesn't concern you, the comment i made was to Jimbo Wales not you, so but out, and mind your own business, or don't you have a life?

A personal attack, implying that "I dont have a life"
She has also, on many occasions, distrupted wikipedia to make a point, and placed more incivil comments on my userpage. in short, I would like her blocked, because she obviously doesent understand the way wikipedia works, and demonstrates this by distruption, incivillity, and personal attacks.

Thanks, Gherkin30 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think blocking is needed at the moment. Why on earth did you respond to a criticism on Jimbo's talk page with a suggestion to leave? I think that she should be spoken to politely, even if she is a bit on the rude side, We can always block later but not for the above rant. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

vandal & dubious user name

• Cockmaster69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandal-only and dubious user name. Andy Mabbett 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Next time please refer such cases to WP:AIV. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was vandalised?

Resolved

• Iamsaa (talk · contribs)

Iamsaa's edit, archiving by MiszaBot II.

I believe some vandalism went under the radar there. Simply reverting it is not a solution since many edits were made ever since. [3]

-- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was vandalism? Because there was a problem a while back with the page histories, where people's browsers were being fed out of date revisions, resulting in large numbers of accidental mass reverts--VectorPotential^Talk 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that was what I saw when Ryulong seemed to delete another editor's comments while adding her/his own. Anchoress 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... mind the [?] on the section header, I am not 100% certain if it falls under WP:VANDALISM. Whatever the intention was, there are missing comments that need to be restored. Both there and at the archive page -- Cat ^chi? 14:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's much that can be done, short of reverting the whole thing, and adding back more recent comments one at a time. There only seem to have been 16 comments to the page after Iamsaa, so it's not impossible, just very tedious--VectorPotential^Talk 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now 17. hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. I tend to think it was an accident of some kind rather than deliberate. Thatcher131 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Naruto134

User:Naruto134 blanks discussion topics he disagrees with. He is a high school kid who seems very self-righteous an self-important in his deletions, particularly when it comes to Toho monsters. He is unwilling to debate. Please investigate this guy and try to keep him editing Wikipedia in a proper manner. I don't think he realizes he is crossing lines. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but I can suggest kindly telling him that it is against policy, if he continues then you can warn him with:

• {{subst:uw-delete1}}
• {{subst:uw-delete2}}
• {{subst:uw-delete3}}
• {{subst:uw-delete4}}

Then if he removes comments after this then you can report him to WP:AIV and if the circumstances are right, he will be blocked temporarily by an administrator. Cheers! The Sunshine Man 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to keep a watch on a couple of newbies

Resolved

Happened to notice while on vandal patrol that Pwnanza666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ballsmccloon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made seven defamatory edits to Pacman Jones within seven minutes.

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

I got a bit suspicious, given the similarity of the writing styles, and it turns out they were created within four minutes of each other. Pwnanza666 was created at 11:30 am GMT, while Ballsmcloon was created at 11:26 am GMT. They've both vandalized again (albeit to different articles) and have been level 3-warned. This bears the distinct flavor of sockpuppetry--only reason I didn't report it to the sock page was because they're newbies. But keep an eye on them, would you please?Blueboy96 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked them both indefinately for vandalism and serious WP:BLP volations, seam like SPA's to me. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RMc

This user has civility problems that I believe require some form of administrative intervention. All the more so since this did not arise from a content dispute.

Two days ago, I noticed that he had begun a revert war with User:VerruckteDan over the addition of a recently incorporated village to {{Orange County, New York}}. Since he was factually in the right, I suggested he create the article first, then edit the template as he would have facts to support it. I advised] VerruckteDan that I had done this so he would stand down.

RMc's response to me was completely unexpected. No personal attack was intended, but for some reason I cannot fathom he read it that way.

I looked over his history and found that he has similarly tangled with User:Rollosmokes in the past. This misbehavior earned him a block.

I responded patiently and tried to explain myself. In return, he again shot his keyboard off. My patience somewhat more strained, I basically realized he was beyond anything good faith could do and told him I'd let it go. He did, but not without getting in some last insults.

In reviewing his contributions, quite a few of which actually are constructive edits (mainly in the area of radio and TV broadcasting), I found an article he had recently created about a clearly non-notable location (I can vouch for this personally) near us and nominated it for deletion, per policy. He assented to the deletion but not without attacking me again.

I realized I couldn't let this behavior pattern go unreported at least, since he has already been blocked once for this sort of thing, and here we are. Daniel Case 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, folks, I'm getting a little tired of snooty little Danny Case ordering me about and then crying to daddy. I let him have his way on South Blooming Grove and Michigan Corners, New York, but, no, that's not enough...apparently, his little feelings are bruised. Here's an idea: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP HARASSING ME. And it's called a life...get one. RMc 16:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious hoaxes

user:PossumWith seems to be creating (Special:Contributions/PossumWith) obvious hoaxes based on existing Wikipedia article. Could an admin review his contribution and delete the hoaxes? (As a side note, is there a real speedy criteria for such obvious hoaxes? I think G1 can't apply here.) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Different admins feel different ways about obvious hoaxes. Some prefer there to be an "obvious nonsense" tag. Others, like me, view big, obvious hoaxes as vandalism. Others believe that there is no existing speedy criterion and that hoaxes have to go to AfD. I think they're speedies, but I also understand and agree with there not being an easily applied CSD category. Geogre 11:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes are not speedyable IMO because they may not actually be hoaxes - if you get my meaning. NOt talking specific examples here. Viridae^Talk 11:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced, implausible article can easily be tagged with proposed deletion (PROD) and a suitable explanation. If the tag is removed then it can be taken to Articles for deletion (AfD). If someone properly sources the article and removes the tag, all is well. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied two obvious hoaxes recently (and permablocked their perpetrators). One was brought to my attention by the relevant WikiProject and so I was not just acting on my own judgement, the other was a hoax that came after move vandalism. When an admin is faced with such compelling evidence, I don't really think it matters exactly which CSD it falls under! If the admin is not sure, then of course a PROD or an AfD is more appropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear CSD for hoaxes, but I think in cases of extremely obvious hoaxes you could make a judgment call and speedy it without anyone making too big a fuss. Of course I would have to be 110% sure that this is absolutely, positively, a hoax with no chance of ever being verifiable before I would speedy something like that... because if you are wrong then you are looking at a possible WP:DRV.--Isotope23 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that in clear-cut cases one can speedy. The evidence has to be a bit more than "this looks a bit improbable", and both the creator's prior behavior and the considered opinion of third parties can be decisive in cases where doubt would otherwise merit a PROD or AfD. I wouldn't like to see an attempt to codify this in the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) but it seems to me this kind of deletion, in the right circumstances, is well within administrator discretion. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that there is meant to be no administrator discretion about CSD - either it is explicitly covered by a CSD criterion or it isn't. If there is any doubt that one or more criteria apply then it is by definition not eligible for speedy deletion. PROD was set-up to handle probably-non controversial deletions that didn't meet the speedy criteria. In this case, if the article is >100% certainly a hoax and other factors (e.g. third party opinion, author's prior behaviour) also indicate it as not valid, then it is speediable as G3 vandalism. Thryduulf 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR does have its legitimate purposes. I deleted an article about a blue whale that lived in Saskatchewan, it would swim along the plains. Being a whale that lived on land was certainly a claim of notability, so no CSD applied. I used IAR and deleted it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what HighInBC said. For process wonks, I'm willing to say that obvious hoaxes constitute disruptive editing that should be rolled back or deleted, or perhaps that they're just simple vandalism and can be speedied under that criterion. For people willing to employ common sense, we have WP:IAR and no further explanation is required for a reasonable deletion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have speedied a number of blatantly obvious hoaxes. (In addition to inherent indicia of implausibility or complete lack of verifiability, I have found a useful criterion to be whether the alleged hoax article is the creator's only edit or series of edits.) On the other hand, I have also seen an alleged hoax article on AfD and demonstrated it wasn't a hoax at all, so caution should be used. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time tagging articles to be speedied, and I try to follow a guideline of plausibility, much as others have described. For things that could be real, I prod them instead of putting a speedy tag, following the logic of WP:HOAX that apparent hoaxes aren't speedyable because they might not be hoaxes and thus deserve more time and eyeballs. For example, a couple of days ago I prodded Peter Boylan, because it's certainly possible that this person exists and does the things described, though extremely unlikely. An article about a land-swimming whale is something I'd likely mark as speedyable under G1, with the idea being that it's not a hoax, but rather complete nonsense. I try to err on the side of caution, though, so it has to be blatantly impossible and obviously unsourced before I'd try to have it speedied. Pinball22 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How obvious is "obvious"? Truly, truly obvious, nonsensical hoaxes aren't worth a second thought before tagging/deleting -- take Non Sequitur's example of uploading an article about yourself winning the Nobel Prize for Best Girl of All Time, or whatever it was. Just delete and be done with it. Less obvious cases, though, I think that's more what we're getting at with "hoax isn't a speedy criteria" (and the really obvious hoaxes are presumably covered as nonsense or vandalism, anyway). That's my take, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious hoaxes which are confirmable as fake by a simple Google search should be speedied, inasmuch they substantively and actively decrease the quality of the encyclopedia, and mislead any reader which might happen to stumble over them. Nothing which is false on Wikipedia is benign. If it's clearly nonsense, don't PROD it, nuke it. Every moment such an article exists on our encyclopedia is a blot on our copybook, inasmuch as we already have enough problems with our reputation for inaccuracy. We don't need to exacerbate the problem. We're rather lucky the media didn't get a hold of our article on a putative major city in Pennsylvania which happened to not actually exist, for example. FCYTravis 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is, in short, an issue upon which the magic pixie dust of "administrator's discretion" is applied liberally. Some are quick to kill them (me), others slow. It depends. I don't think I need to defend my position, but for those interested in my logic, it's this: an obvious hoax is defacement. If a person writes, Gary Hart, "He ate booogers!" then we treat it as vandalism. If someone creates an article called Booger eating presidential candidates and puts Gary Hart in it, it is no different. So, similarly, if a person puts, "And me LordDeathSkorpion" to List of presidential candidates, it's vandalism. If he writes, LordDeathSkorpion and says, "Famous presidential candidate in 2025 for the United States Empire," we shouldn't suddenly go into convulsions because "Oh, my goodness! there is a claim of notability there." It's only a small step to "Bongo Rabbitt Destroyer55 created the MiteeMuse music service in 2006 and began serving over 12,000 radio stations with streaming content." It's all just a childish desire to giggle at getting an article on Wikipedia. I nuke 'em. Geogre 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'm more of an inclusionist than deletionist, with regard to potential hoaxes, I believe it is better to err on the side of deletion. It is worse for a hoax to remain on wikipedia for a week, than that an apparently obvious hoax which isn't, be deleted, since such a thing will undoubtedly reappear in short order. imagine actual land-swimming blue whales being discovered, how long after its first article was deleted as a "hoax" do you suppose it would take for a second article to be created? A simple procedure which I use and which doesn't require a lot of pixie dust, is to ask myself: Will more harm likely be done if I delete and it's not a hoax or I don't delete and it is? Paul August ☎ 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PossumWith may be related to User:WombatWith, who created Wizard Done A Earthquake in school (sic) and added it to Caravan Pictures. —tregoweth (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

COFS indef blocked

Given the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, I have indefinitely blocked COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because the CSI LA account was used for block evasion during COFS's past blocks. This does not mean that the blocks cannot ever be lifted, or even that the blocks should not be reduced immediately. I have no opinion about the appropriate block lengths. But I felt this was the necessary first step while discussion takes place about what exactly should happen in the long run. ··coelacan 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... both of those accounts were involved in the minor shitstorm over my week-long block of Misou (talk · contribs). AGF or RFCU, I'm so conflicted... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I kinda doubt Misou is the same person, but who knows. CSI LA stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. 75.62.7.22 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe there may be several people sharing a common ip at Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles, Misou is also one of them. I would like to reduce the block to a week and then have this matter follow the dispute resolution process. I have looked at the edits of CSI LA, while aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view, they mostly consist of removal of links to original research by the opposition. Fred Bauder 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about the WP:OR the editor(s) were removing? Anynobody 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quentin_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121754554
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121753145
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodore%27s_Messenger_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=1217410
• Fred Bauder 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fred Bauder, I wanted to make sure it wasn't one of mine. (P.S. the third link goes to some page from 2003). Anynobody 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The first one isn't original research as per WP:OR, it was based on quotes of other people. The second one was based on an analysis of "48 hours". The third one don't work properly [11], it goes to a weird page not based on the history of the article. If you mean this edit, [12], it is a link to a biography. --Tilman 05:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing CSI LA's edits as merely "aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view" drastically underplays the disruption of this editor. At L. Ron Hubbard, CSI LA stated([13]) that he had looked up certain quotes from Hubbard's The Fundamentals of Thought cited in the article, and found those quotes differed significantly between his book and the article. He characterized the quotes, as presented in the article, as "falsified" for "the purpose of slandering Hubbard". Strong words, but nothing outside the boundaries of appropriate debate, IMHO, even if he added speculation on the "motivation behind this and motivation of those keeping it in there". I checked the quotes in question against my own copy of Fundamentals and found that in that edition, the quotes existed in almost exactly the form presented in the article, differing as far as I could see only in punctuation. I replied to CSI LA,([14]) explaining that while he might have in good faith believed that he had irrefutably proved "falsification", I could personally verify that the quotes he asserted "do not even exist" did in fact exist in official editions of the book, and if he wished to verify it himself he had the full publication data of both editions cited. Obviously it was disappointing when his next comment on the matter([15]) continued to call the quotes "a fake and slander attack on Hubbard" and assert "The real quotes are not containing such statements". Ignoring others is not civil. Judge for yourself whether my response([16]) was mild enough given the circumstances. CSI LA's next comment([17]) was what went completely beyond acceptable behavior. It was not only full of attacks upon my competence ("... to cover up that you have no full concept on the development of Scientology, its literature and founder.") and upon my motivations ("Maybe so you can complain along about hot air.", "You seem to be part of the "alternative" Scientology scene which uses altered materials.") but upon my integrity as an editor ("You know better than you say.", "What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes.") By still calling them "altered quotes" he is alleging that when I say I checked the evidence and told him how he can even double-check that very same evidence if he chooses, that I am lying. If it is allowed to simply allege without just cause for suspicion that someone is lying when they say "Here are the reliable sources which say these things verbatim", then we might as well shut down Wikipedia right here; it cannot operate other than on the principle that when one editor of good standing says "yes, I have checked this source, and yes, it does support this claim," the burden of proof is then upon those who would dispute that. To say "nothing is sourced well enough to go into the article if I have to take someone else's word that the sources support it" is a form of solipsism, and it is equally deleterious. As I have frequently pointed out, politeness is not civility; CSI LA's language might meet certain minimum standards for acceptable debate but his monstrous allegations attack the entire concept of collaborative editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The disturbing evidence brought forth from the Checkuser Case Confirmation brings up other issues as well. Isn't this also blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline??? At the very least, if the IPs are all coming from this certain locale, it belies that most likely there is some sort of funding going on to edit Wikipedia in a certain manner. How is this any different than the User:MyWikiBiz issue? Certainly this would go towards some serious considerations of many of the subsections of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, including but not limited to potentially: Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, Close relationships, Campaigning, and Citing oneself... Also, at User_talk:Coelacan#COFS_and_CSI_LA, am I correct when I read that Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is also related to this series of IPs as well? How many of these individuals are either the same individual or organization, or are relate to the conflict of interests outlined above? If this is not allowed for the concept and user User:MyWikiBiz, why is it allowed in other situations? Smee 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you Smee for your words. Although I'd understand that corporations are allowed to work on the wikipedia entries of their products and services, I consider it deeply disturbing when several staff members would do so. Theoretically, scientology has the resources to simply set up 20 full time Sea Org staff members (payment: less than $100 a week) at that same IP. Hey, it could even set up 20 different IPs for them. --Tilman 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the cofs would do this because it could always be reverted at a later date AND they have a "security" concern about staff getting information that might lead to them change their point of view on the cofs and leave.--Fahrenheit451 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why current block makes sense

I've honestly tried to think of how this could be a mistake as opposed to dishonesty, but whenever I try to give the editor(s) in question the benefit of the doubt they demonstrate reasons why I shouldn't. For example this statement from COFS talking about how Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop was able to stay:[18]. (My reply:[19]).

He'd get the benefit of the doubt except since he knows about Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop he's either read up on it in the archives like I have or he was here under a different name while it was happening. Either way, he should know better based on the outcome of said example. Or how CSI LA harassed a sysop for blocking Misou:

1. CSI LA advocating unblock of Misou, calls neutral sysop anti-Scientologist for not unblocking
2. same as last diff but on WP:ANI.
3. CSI LA advances notion that Misou was "set up".

If it's one person, the block should stay. If it's several people the block seems just as appropriate because they appear to be working together in a manner not intended by the principles of this project. Also please note that even the points for unblocking raised by them are misrepresentations. CSI LA has said (in an e-mail postd on his talk page) that 1000 Scientologists are being affected. This can not be true, and instead makes it seem as though we are persecuting people rather than enforcing the rules (something the CoS has been observed doing in the past). Anynobody 08:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The comparisons to my "highfructosecornsyrup" experiment aren't even in the same ballpark anyhow. My two accounts never had conversations with each other, as CSI LA and COFS did. My two accounts never backed each other up in edit wars- in fact, I had stopped editing as Wikipediatrix during that time. I didn't operate two accounts simultaneously. COFS/CSI LA, by contrast, made every effort to portray themselves as two different persons, talked to each other, and apparently used the identities to bolster one user's opinion with two user's voices. (and even if they are two different people, if they're editing from the same office on the same mission or as a WP:ROLE account, that might as well be one person, as far as I'm concerned.) wikipediatrix 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I explained to COFS, you were not trying to give the impression that you are more than one person whereas he was. The difference is as big as night and day, with what you did being day and their tactics being night. Anynobody 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the sock-puppet matter alone is egregious enough to block this user, but the adjunct policy violations, such as repeated personal attacks and incivility, strengthen the rationale for the block.--Fahrenheit451 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this whole incident with interest, and feel it necessary to voice my opinion about what's been going on. I feel that the current block is warranted. I've witnessed COFS and CSI LA do some truly disquieting things since arrival.

The question of whether this is more than one person editing from the same IP, or two sockpuppets, seems irrelevant to me in this case.

They should be considered sockpuppets of one another, for the purposes of votes, discussions on the same page, etc. The reason for this should be clear. If we allow them to NOT be considered sockpuppets, then we have two editors working from the same IP who CAN "sockpuppet" by agreeing with each other and coordinating on discussion. And if we don't let the RFCU keep them marked "sockpuppets" of one another, as well as rooting out all other sockpuppets in this range (Misou and Grrrilla seem to be within this range or at least editing very close to it and generally backing up a Scientologist viewpoint in discussions that overlap with COFS and CSI LA), then we write a blank cheque for mayhem.

If we end up not punishing these users for collusion in the same, say, talk page discussion or afd (voting together and agreeing with one another), then we open the door to twenty, thirty, a hundred, or a thousand Scientologist editors to all show up from the same IP, and agree in the same topics, without officially being "sockpuppets" for all we know. Thus, I request that COFS and CSI LA as well as any other editors found to be editing from this set of IPs, be considered sockpuppets of one another for safety's sake. After all, they're editors with nigh identical opinions and goals within Wikipedia, editing the same general areas, and all from the same IP. Seems to fit the definition of "sock" to me, and if they're allowed to stack discussions to make up imaginary concensus from the same IP, we've failed.

I feel the block evasion was a taunt in the face of Wikipedia's standards and does much harm. No apology from COFS or CSI LA has been offered, presumably because the contention still stands that they are two different people. But, even if this block is reduced to one week, I wish to ask: will they be considered sockpuppets of one another in future discussions? And if anyone else is discovered to be editing the same kinds of articles from the same IP address, will they too be considered so? That's all from my end, but this being a single proxy for a large workplace should not allow the door to be opened to a hundred disruptive sockpuppets who may vote in droves. Raeft 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Block reduced

User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA Anynobody 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So, with the exception of Fred Bauder, no one has supported my reduction of the block. Wow. But I do want to give them a second chance. Some people have come to my talk page and said "don't reduce the block" while overlooking the fact that I have already done so. I'm not about to reblock them at this time before their block even expires.

These users have to be treated as meatpuppets. That doesn't mean be rude to them. But if they are involved in a vote or any discussion where consensus is being weighed, do make a note that they are organized from the same church headquarters and cannot be considered to be "acting independently". It's not good form to hound them about this. Please make an effort to remain civil. But do make a small note for the admin or whoever is evaluating consensus, that these are meatpuppets.

Besides that, please remember that they are allowed to use these accounts as long as they are not violating WP:SOCK. For the specific incivilities that seem to come regularly from certain of these accounts, please use dispute resolution, or notify an admin if you see something outright blockable. And if other admins here think I've been right or wrong to reduce the blocks, I'd appreciate your opinions. ··coelacan 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User Stalking Other User with Constant Incivility and Per Attacks

User Eleemosynary has been following around user Getaway and reverted almost all edits and then personally attacking user Getaway. Examples of this can be found in these places: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. I need assistance.--Getaway 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Getaway/Keetowah: I'd be happy to post diffs for over 500 instances of personal attacks and disruptive edits coming from you, your various identities, and your sockpuppet/meatpuppets. I urge you, as Fred Bauder has, to take this to a dispute resolution so all information can come to light. : ) Eleemosynary 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, you took the time to count? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

500 is a conservative estimate. : ) Eleemosynary 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious BLP Violations on the Wikipdia Co-founder Larry Sanger Biography (oh my)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=127983001 I would like permission granted for any editor to remove this unverified and controversial information on the Wikipedia co-founder's biography. The 3 revert rule does not apply to BLP violations but I want to clarifiy it here first. "Larry Sanger creates a new Wikipedia" Jewish Chronicle, October 27 2006, p.10 This reference can't be substantiated. I cannot find a copy of this reference. I did my best to find a copy of the reference and thoroughly searched for Larry Sanger refering to himself as being Jewish. He has not spoken publicly about his religious beliefs. Therefore, it is highly suspicious and should aggrassively be removed per BLP violations. Futhermore, there was a category added about Jewish Americians which Larry Sanger has not publicly identified himself as. I believe the category and reference are both BLP violations and the 3 revert rule does not apply in this case for removing such controversial claims. A simply clarification and/or guidance is needed to properly handle this matter at hand. Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

I carefully reviewed the BLP policy. I believe the reference and the category are both poorly sourced and highly contentious material. Therefore. the 3 revert rule does not apply in this case. I will remove the suspicious material per discussion here and per talk at the Larry Sanger article. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Contentious that it be added or not; it's not derogatory or contentious substance. It might be wrong, but I doubt Larry would be grossly insulted by the mistake. BLP enforcement has to get enthusiastic regarding derogatory material, but this doesn't count. You by yourself saying that you can't verify a source isn't necessarily good enough. Lacking other admins/editors agreement, you should hold off. Georgewilliamherbert 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin gone wild?

I kinda thought that admins were selected for being something of a cut above the regular editor, so imagine my surprise when I discover that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is an admin. After the whole fiaso regarding the Iranians back in early April that went to RfC or Incidents, he began contributing to the article, arguing over the usage of a translation of a Greek film review (supposedly utilizing his GR-3 skills denoted on his User Page). After arguing over the definitions of two words, he tried to add the original Greek link to the article (1). When it was pointed out in Discussion that we don't do that in the English wiki, he then changed the statement, deciding to paraphrase the quote instead. It rather detracted fromt he quote, and wasn't really to anyone's preference but, as the article has seen a lot of edit-warring, we weren't really eager to engage in yet another WP:LAME|lame dispute.
Today, he began removing the soundtrack image in 300, citing that it was simply decorative. He then posted that he would simply delete the image tomorrow, despite being presented with reasoning behind the image's retention.
I didn't even know that FutPerf was an admin until I left a message on his user Talk page today. I am a little concerned that this editor is actively editing in an article and using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent. As well, I am unsure as to the "crystal" clarity of the polcy governing his intended removal.
Maybe I am reading this all wrong. Is he going a bit overboard, or am I being too sensitive to his particular personality and editing style? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fut. Perf.'s interpretation of the fair use policy appears to be correct, and in any case this looks like something to be solved at the article's talk page or a deletion review. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say you "didn't even know that FutPerf was an admin until [you] left a message on his user Talk page today", but then also claim he is "using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent". Obviously, the latter is not true. Nevertheless, I'm not seeing how this is an admin issue and I don't see the problem here. He used a word that sounded awkward in English. You and others complained. He then decided to propose a compromise that just summarizes the reviewer's statement. I don't see how his paraphrasing is any different from the intended meaning. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus, for the sanity check. And Tariq, please don't call me a liar. I didn't know he was an admin until I sent to his talk page. It was after that that I posted here - after discovering he was an admin. So apparently both are true. However, its always nice to get your point of view. Thanks again, Akhilleus. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I called you a liar? I'm not sure if that's the right word to use... perhaps you misrepresented something, but being a liar is too harsh an accusation. Regardless, you didn't refute my point. If you were to read carefully, you'd see that I said Obviously, the latter is not true. Fut. Perf could not have been "using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent" considering you didn't even know what his "title" was until just recently, when you "left a message on his user Talk page today". (I'm assuming by "title" you mean admin status, considering that is what most of your post was about.) -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If I misinterpreted your accusation, then I am sorry. When I read his posts in the Discussion area, I thought he was just being an somewhat arrogant person who was simply posting what he was going to do without the intent of listening to our posts in dissent. When i went to his Talk page to take the subject out off-discussion page, I then discovered he was an admin. Re-reading what he wrote in the Discussion page made arrogance seem more like abuse. Then I posted here. I apologize if the detailed chronology (and refutation) wasn't made clear. I stiil think its kinda arrogant for anyone to decide unilaterally that they are going to purge an image without explaining adequately the fair use issues (he simply called it decorative). That I felt (and feel) that he approached the situation with two left feet wasn't wrong. Anyway, the topic is closed; you folks think he went about things jolly well, so what more is there to say? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this section name is too amusing... If the Wikimedia Foundation is ever desperate for funding, we could release an "Admins Gone Wild" DVD ("the wild side of administrators that you don't see on Wikipedia! Only $9.99 a month and cancel anytime!") Grandmasterka 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL :-) WjBscribe 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL!! "When good admins go baaaad! - Alison ☺ 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do get snippy sometimes, but I make every effort to hold onto my humor. It was either that or "Fast Admins, Slow Newbies." I erred on the late night comical of drunken college girls. I could do worse.

Honestly, what I think motivated my vigor in pursuing this is that I have an image of admins built up in my head that isn't fair. I expect these folk who put the Enn in 'NPOV' and are pretty nifty diplomats. There are a lot of them like that, and I was fairly blessed to see some of them in action as I was starting out. But there are people behind the curtain in the hall of the Great and Powerful Wiki, and they are just ordinary folk (albeit with powers beynd the ken of mere men). When someone breaks rank and acts - to my preconception - un-admin-y, I feel kinda offended. Maybe expecting FutPerf and others to fit that image every time is unfair. I know the admins often have a pretty miserable set of tasks, duty that largely goes unnoticed. I appreciate that. I guess that's what I sorta wanted to say. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "Admins going wild" documentation could start right off with a documentation of me going wild over another issue just today. ([25],cf. [26], [27]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thought you all might want to know of the discussion regarding the application of the delete being discussed with FutPerf. here. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MosesMaster

Resolved

This guy blanked the WWII page, and if you look at his talk he's done this to other stuff before. Actually, he was blocked in April, and someone unblocked him. --LtWinters 00:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for a month by Oberiko earlier. IrishGuy ^talk 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't vandalism-only accounts normally blocked indefinitely? JuJube 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think vandal-only accounts should be blocked indefinately. --24.136.230.38 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have indef blocked, myself, but this is something that should probably be taken up with Oberiko to see what the motivation for a shorter block would be. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't resolved. First of all, who unblocked him? And its not Oberiko's decision to block him, if he vandalized something he needs to be blocked. So why shouldn't we block him? Its our decision to make as it concerns us, and he did multiple things bad. --LtWinters 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody unblocked them. They had a prior block, which timed out normally, and then Oberiko blocked him/her for another month yesterday. It is exactly Oberiko's decision to block; he's an admin, we deal with these things. Lacking other abuses by them or a clear mistake in process or policy by Oberiko, the block should stand as-is. "Can block indefinitely" for vandal-only doesn't mean "Must block indefinitely".

If you object, contact Oberiko and discuss it with them. Georgewilliamherbert 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. Oberiko made a judgement call. It isn't as though the editor received a mere slap on the wrist...he garnered a one month block. If, upon his return, he continues screwing around he will be blocked again. Possibly indefinitely at that point. IrishGuy ^talk 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused... Could'nt he just make a new user name? Wouldn't nobody know he did that?--24.225.156.40 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

yea what 24.....40 said...--24.225.156.40 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you agreeing with yourself? IrishGuy ^talk 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor abuse? misconduct?

ResolvedLsi john considers the matter closed.[28] I have restored this for archival purposes only. ··coelacan 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee is acting improperly in Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training

One of the editors for this article had removed a template: [here]

Smee then reverted [here]

On another edit [here] information was removed which did not pertain to the book being reviewed.

Smee immediately reverted [here] and gave only the reason that the source was cited.

Then again, a valid reason was given for removal [here]

And again, Smee reverted [here] and again only gave cited source as justfication.

Next Smee turned his attention back to the template

His first act was to post comments [here] from another editor for another article in this article's discussion. The comments were posted in first person and no indication was given that the other editor had not posted himself.

Then, based on those comments, Smee edited the article and re-inserted the template [here] and gave this edit comment: upon comments provided from a neutral, previously un-involved editor on the template usage

Note that the editor being quoted did not post on this page, but his opinion on another unknown article was used to justify an edit on this page. Note also that the concerns of the original editor, who initially objected to the template, was never addressed.

When I discovered (by looking in edit history) that Smee had added the entire conversation, I reverted the Template edit [here], as well as his entire comment edit [here]

I also posted a note on his user page [here] and invited him to post and document the comments properly.

His response was to repost the comments exactly as they had been done the first time [here].

While it could be excused the first time. By posting exactly the same comments a 2nd time after being told of the issue, it appears that he may have intended to mislead readers.

Next, I properly cited the quotation [here] by putting it all in blockquote and "'s and added a paragraph which explained where they comments came from and who put them there.

Smee, then reverted my entire edit [here].

Several attempts after that to properly document the comments appeared to be headed to an edit war, so I have stopped editing there.

Thank you for looking into this matter, I'm sorry to bring up what I thought we would be able to over look. However, it appears that Smee will not allow us to over look it.

Lsi john 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• This user is simply attempting to cause trouble against me. I have edited and re-edited a "disclaimer" above the posted comments from the other user on the talk page in question - there were no untoward intentions here. Please see my disclaimer on the associated talk page. Smee 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
• First point; fraud is a heavyweight criminal accusation (second time I saw this today). Secondly, I think Smee is a she. Didn't you guys go through MEDCAB last month? - Alison ☺ 03:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand it, Smee is a he, and s/he is welcome to correct the misunderstanding.

Webster defines fraud as :1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY. Copying and pasting another editor's comments into a discussion (twice) and using them to justify an edit seems to fit under deceit, however in the interest of WP:FAITH I have removed the word fraud from the heading here. It does seem to be WP:TE and this is only a small sample of the observed conduct. The pattern is to revert and comment highly cited source and ignore discussion.

Yes we went through mediation. Based on the mediation, I no longer engage him in discussions of his behavior. And, his conduct has not changed since the mediation as you can see from the above sequence.

I don't know if this is the proper way to file an AN/I or not. The edits are documented and I tried to post them in an easy sequence.

Lsi john 03:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee's edits and explanations seem to me to be helpful and clarifying. Each edit was accompanied by Smee's edit summary and there were no involved IP numbers. Its very clear that Smee's actions are intentionally transparent and above board. But there have been large deletions of well sourced material from the Landmark Forum article without proper indication in edit summaries (Not by Smee). I believe the latter action is more likely to be classified as deception and trickery and that is more fitting for investigation. Jeffrire 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, your edit history is telling. --Justanother 12:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Smee's edits and explanations seem to me to be helpful and clarifying. Each edit was accompanied by Smee's edit summary and there were no involved IP numbers. Its very clear that Smee's actions are intentionally transparent and above board." -- Thank you, Jeffrire, for these clarifying comments as to my actions. This is exactly how I feel as well on this issue. I also second your consternation as to the removal of cited material from the other article in question... Smee 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

It was clear from Smees contribution if you read the whole section that the comment came from another page, but it was rather convoluted and if you just glanced through what looked like the most recent comment you could easily have missed this. But I would question the wisdom or fairness of transposing another editors comments out of context from a different page in this way. Posts are part of ongoing conversations and are rarely comments that can be universally applied. This one wasn't. It would have been better for Smee to say there was a comparable discussion on another page and provide a link.Fainites 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did say just that. The very first way that I had posed it, I stated that there was a comparable discussion ongoing, and gave the link to that article's talk page. I just did not provide the DIFFs for this, and was not super super explicit. I will be more cognizant of this the next time, believe you me :) Smee 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

98.1.242.33

This guy is driving me crazy. see his contrubutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.1.242.33 -- Penubag  02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to post here here. --ElKevbo 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Those edits are several days old. What do you want anyone to do about it now? --ElKevbo 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He already is "here," but I think I know where you meant to send him. =)

I don't see the problem. The user made three disruptive edits in a five-minute period on 30 April, and s/he was warned. Is there something I'm missing here? --Dynaflow 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Penubag may be referring to the ongoing problem at that page, from sundry IP numbers. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The vandalizing edits seem to be coming from a number of different ISPs' IP-address ranges and from widely-scattered geographic locations. Was there a special on stratus clouds on TV recently or something? --Dynaflow 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, look on the bright side: at least it's not a WP:BLP violation, since stratus clouds are not living people. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just what the radical humanists want us to think. --Dynaflow 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the radical group called the Weathermen? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Touché. --Dynaflow 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay nevermind he he was already warned for that incedent. It's just that it seems that all the weather articles are alwas vanalized. -- Penubag  22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney

Resolved

 – Lou Proctor indefblocked as a sock of User:Chadbryant - Alison ☺ 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is responding to my cited edits to Craig Roger Gregerson with threats and accusations of being a sockpuppet, and other harassment. I have asked him to stop and he refuses, even removing my requests to stop from his talk page. Lou Proctor 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please block this sockpuppet of User:Chadbryant, the edits to the Craig Roger Gregerson clearly show it's him and I've already raised the matter with User:Yamla and User:Tyrenius both of whom are more than familiar with User:Chadbryant, but are both offline at the moment. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to accuse me of being a sockpuppet. You claimed that my edit was original research when it was not, and now you are angry and lashing out. Please grow up. Lou Proctor 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I note that you're blanking your talk page messages. Furthermore, you're revert-warring on that article. Your last revert (finally) included a reference .... which is broken. A quick search of that site doesn't show up the reference you require - Alison ☺ 05:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - so I dug back through the history of the Craig Roger Gregerson article and note that a banned editor has been using various socks to repeatedly insert the exact same changes as you are. The last time this happened was just before you happened along. Furthermore, your account was created just a few days ago and you immediately started revert-warring on the above article. Can someone else give me a second opinion here? - Alison ☺ 05:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Smells like socks. JuJube 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • One more thing. This account was created 2 hours after his last sock was blocked. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok - I've seen enough. That, plus talkpage comments - Alison ☺ 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Just indefblocked seconds ago by Grandmasterka - Alison ☺ 06:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I don't know why it's me that always deals with the prolific sockpupeteers, JB196, RMS, Chadbryant.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're just a natural at it :) - Alison ☺ 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, at least in my case, my memory isn't very good. I've blocked literally hundreds of sockpuppet accounts amongst various sockpuppeteers and it gets hard to remember the identifying characteristics of each vandal. --Yamla 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

courtsey blanking

I don't really see the logic behind a "curtesy blanking" of an organisation's name such as here on my userpage. Does that mean that any organisation can request this? --Fredrick day 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a page about it if you're interested: Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking. As the name suggests, it is a matter of courtesy and not a mandatory thing. But I can understand that companies might not be pleased seeing their names coming up high in Google search because of a deletion discussion that turned to delete. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The user and organization just want to go away. There was a big mess involving numerous accounts from the user in the name of the organization, foolishly created using a real names, bad behavior on the user's part--who was not completely familiar with our policies, well-meaning administrators who persisted in applying the name in numerous locations on talk pages, citing guidelines as policies (such as WP:COI) and using those as excuses to block, rather than discuss things in a healthy manner... Immediate application to Community Noticeboard before the incedent had a broader look at it by less involved and heated users. All of the edits remain in the history of the pages, so any user familiar with Wikipedia will have complete access to these pages. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there some sort of discussion to eliminate those pages from the robots.txt file? What happened to that? howcheng {chat} 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing article

I came across What Goes Around...Comes Around and moved it to the correct What Goes Around... Comes Around, correcting a large number of double redirects. Something seems to have gone haywire, though, because the article has now disappeared, and there's nothing but redirects... Can anyone lend a hand? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it. Also, the image that should be on it, Image:Justin timberlake what.jpg is listed as not being on any pages. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ow my head hurts. I see what you mean though - I can't actually see the article in any of the histories. There are two deletions here - is that just a mistake or could the second one have inadvertently lost the article? Not being an admin I can't see. Sorry to not be much help. Will (aka Wimt) 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Think we're good now: What Goes Around... Comes Around. Lexicon (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes — thanks. Any idea how it happened, so that I can try to avoid it in future? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii

• Republic of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kingdom of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Native Hawaiians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hawaiian sovereignty movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Apology Resolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A short while ago somone requested one month's full protection for five articles due to edit warring. After checking them, it seems that Arjuna808 (talk · contribs · count) and JereKrischel (talk · contribs · count) are the Hawaiian versions of MariusM and William Mauco. Obviously fully protecting five articles because of two users is undesirable, I was tempted to give them each a three-day block, but I don't like doing things like that if I can avoid it. Can someone else take a look? – Steel 02:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting threats

I'm being threatened at my user talk page and at User talk:Big Boss 0 (both since reverted, see the history of each page for the edits) by 204.42.24.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The interesting part of this is that the user claims to be a former bureaucrat who will get his account up and running again to desysop me. Any thoughts on this? Metros232 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did bureaucrats desysop? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI? --BigDT 03:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Emerging socks of User:Masterofsuspense

It appears that User:Masterofsuspense (previous discussion here) is emerging again. I've had to block three (!) admitted (!!) socks in the past 24 hours or so, one with the dubious name User:MasterofsuspenseSOS(save our sockpuppet). Obviously this user has created multiple problems in the past, but now s/he has attempted to contact me directly. I have no idea why... probably thinks I'm naïve enough (since I was on de facto Wikibreak while the original problem occurred) to accept the "I promise I won't vandalize again!" line, which has obviously not worked for the score or so other socks created in the past. Not really anything substantial here, beyond the whole "keep an eye out" for other obviously named socks, but thought I'd bring it to the board's attention nonetheless. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Can an unbiased administrator please look at this article as soon as possible please? An administrator with a Sinn Féin image on their userpage has taken exception to content that is fully sourced from reliable sources, claiming WP:BLP. Practically every single book ever written on the Troubles or the IRA names Adams as an IRA member in the 1970s, and I've recently cited four of them in the article along with other sources which were there already. Betacommand has then jumped in threatening to block anyone who adds the material back without proper sourcing and multiple reliable sources, totally ignoring the fact it is sourced exactly like that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The above statement regarding the use of "reliable sources" is patently false. I've recently learned that Sean O'Callaghan is being used as a Wikipedia reference to make spurious claims about Irish politicians being involved in criminal activities. Sean O'Callaghan is a former IRA member who became an informant for the Garda (Irish police). He has an inherent and evident bias against the fellows who he turned against and cannot be considered a reliable source. I've tried to explain this numerous times that the section in question does not comply to WP:BLP. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<:::::::::No distortion was intended. My point was, if you concede that the Foundation does not consider this to be a violation of Florida law, then it seems clear that WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply. Therefore (unless another relevant policy exists that hasn't been mentioned here) preventing edits of the hexadecimal chain in question is unsupported by any Wikipedia policy and is in violation of several Wikipedia policies that do exist. Konekoniku 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)span style="cursor: w-resize">gaillimh]]^{Conas tá tú?} 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's disputable, but the section doesn't even say that he was an IRA member, it just says that various people have stated that he was. The very first sentence in the section was that he denied it. -Amarkov moo! 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer (if you object to O'Callaghan) would be to remove the O'Callaghan part, and leave all the other sources in. Objecting to O'Callaghan does not give you carte blanche to remove every other source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but as I've mentioned to you in the past, Adams has directly refuted and dismissed Ed Moloney's claims. In addition, you sourced Michael McDowell, the PD leader. I wouldn't consider that at all reliable either. Using Wikipedia to advance your goals of attempting to associate a politician with a criminal organisation is inappropriate. In addition, there's not been any proof of this, and again, Adams has denied all of these claims. You've been edit warring with me on numerous articles about this particular point, and while I've attempted to reach a compromise with you on List of IRA Chiefs of Staff, you keep insisting on interjecting your POV gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I insist on maintaining a neutral point of view, as do several other editors who've tried to add the Adams content back. It's quite ironic that by one group of editors I get accused of having a pro-republican bias, now I'm being accused of having an anti-republican bias. The presence of a SF logo on your userpage clearly shows your POV on this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My having a SF logo on my userpage equates to a POV that I eschew the IRA? Haha, now I've heard it all. This conversation might be a bit confusing to those outside of Ireland, and perhaps Britain, but SF has long since maintained direct ties to the IRA, so I'm not sure how removing biased information about an SF member incorrectly being labeled an IRA member equates to a POV (as I realise that I've mentioned they've direct ties, it should be noted that the IRA is completely decommissioned now, off of the US list of terrorist organisations, and plenty of SF members have never been a part of the IRA, Adams included). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you consider McDowell or O'Callaghan a reliable source is irrelevant. If they made these claims and the claim has been reported on in a reliable source then there is no issue including it in an article here. In these cases all the information is referenced from reliable sources. On the Adams article, as ONiH states multiple sources have been given. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, it doesn't matter if I consider them to be reliable. Apologies for the confusion. I don't consider them reliable based on Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact I specifically added four additional sources before adding it back the first time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh, you misunderstand. McDowell is an Irish politician and lawyer, O'Callaghan is a former IRA member. So their opinions or claims are relevant. Any of our own opinions on them are irrelevant. We might think they are wrong, but that's irrelevant. They made these claims and they were reported on in reliable, independant sources which are used in the articles. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without the alleged IRA membership, the article fails WP:NPOV. The significant view (among journalists, authors, politicians etc) is that Adams is a former member of the IRA, that Adams denies it does not affect this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is significant opinion that Adams has been an IRA member in the past. In an attempt at a compromise, I suggest that we find reliable sources to present both claims, while obviously giving precedence to Adam's own refutations and the lack of any hard evidence to the contrary. Sean O'Callaghan and Malcolm McDowell clearly fail WP:RS. I am still a bit unsold that this compromise will adhere to WP:BLP, so I would like another administrator or someone well-versed in this policy to take a look at it gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I recommend this article stay protected until such a compromise is worked out gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have all the sources we need. There's plenty of sources already in the article saying Adams was an IRA member, but Adams denies it. That's there already, and I honestly don't see what more needs to be said. There is no WP:BLP violation, the page should not have been protected in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Betacommand was correct and judicious in protecting the page, given the stated WP:BLP concerns above. Again, Sean O'Callaghan and Michael McDowell are not reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So that would be why Betacommand describes the sources as "anti-adams POV/slander sites"? Any administrator is welcome to check the sources being used, and they will clearly see they are nothing of the sort. This is just another example of poor judgement by Betacommand. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please dont quote me unless you get it right because that is also making my statement false, I also cited BLP and RS for removal so please shut up with trying to smear the admin who took the action and get to the meat of the issue. Wikipedia is not here to spread speculation, have a reliable 3rd party source the data. IE a fox news, the guardian or some other non-biased reliable third party confirm it and there will be no problems. but using confirmed POV sources that lean toward what you are trying to state is not a good Idea get a third party to source it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you missed the four books by respected authors, some of which have won awards for their reporting on Northern Ireland? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason this conversation is being held here instead of the article's Talk page? --ElKevbo 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Betacommand was quite correct in protecting the page, and it's always best to err on the side of caution when dealing with BLP concerms. The anti-Adams POV evidently refers to Sean O'Callaghan and the slander-sites is probably a bit of confusion with regards to the McDowell silliness in The Guardian. As a related aside, I can't see how one would ever think Sean O'Callaghan could possibly be appropriate for citing in an encyclopedia (other than, perhaps, in his own article when sourcing biographical information) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. I've been asked along to venture my two penn'orth, but I don't think it will help much. For what it's worth: the statement that several people accused Adams of being an IRA member is both factually accurate, correctly attributed, and significant in context. The fact that he rejects the claim, and that no credible evidence exists to support it, is also accurate and significant. It's not massively important, but it is highly significant and still believed, as far as I can tell, by a significant proportion of the militant Protestant population. WP:BLP does certainly provide for the inclusion of validly attributed, significant, but almost certainly wrong material, provided it is stated neutrally and tied to those who say it. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your estimation of BLP, and have several times suggested a compromise to this effect, despite this significant opinion being wrong. My issue is with attempting to pass off Michael McDowell and Sean O'Callaghan as reliable sources, when they are the epitomisation of what Wikipedia should strive to remove from biographical articles gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem being that you didn't remove those sources and the information they sourced, you removed an entire section including information sourced by reliable sources, and have repeatedly refused to discuss this despite requests from myself and another editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, I'm sorry to hear that you've used my absence to give a skewed account of the events. The truth is that I've tried to approach this fellow numerous times in an attempt at resolution and he's reponded in the snarky manner he's demonstrated directly above. Again, I'm disappointed in you, mate, and you've lost a bit of respect from me given your blatant lying in my short absence gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any of this personalising of the dispute helps much. Are we all agreed on how to proceed? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• True enough. I put forth quite a few attempts to compromise with the fellow and am eagerly awaiting a response. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism

The oft-deleted Matrixism was reposted a couple of days after the WP:SALT was removed. It was taken to AfD, I closed it as a repost (DRV is the right place, in my view). Neil reverted that, restoring the article, and then removed the AfD notice as "closed". So: AfD notice removed because AfD closed, at the same time reversing the closurew of the AfD. Which pisses me off just a tiny bit. In the mean time we have rewarded the wankers who have been bleating about this crap-off-teh-Internets non-religion with its Geocities homepage since forever by giving them what they want. Way to go, team.

But it's worse:

• Neil created the current article
• Neil moved it to mainspace without deletion review, depspite presumably knowing that dleeiton had been endorse drecently
• Neil undeleted it after another admin (me) speedied it as G4, rather than taking it to DRV
• Neil then removed the deletion tag because the debate had been "closed" - but it was closed as delete, so he unilaterally reverted closure in favour of deletion of an article he himself had created, and which he surely knew to have been the suject of multiple deletions.
• Neil did not at any time that I can see declare that he was the creator when doing the above

That does not look too good, does it? Guy (Help!) 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• 11:38, May 4, 2007 Neil (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Matrixism" (39 revisions restored: Utterly invalid application of CSD)
• 21:15, May 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (CSD G4: Recreation of Deleted Material, re-created very shortly after removal of WP:SALT. No.) (Restore)
• 21:27, April 17, 2007 Cbrown1023 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (content was: '{{deletedpage||July 2006}} <!--Excess long comment to prevent listing on Special:Shortpages.........................................................') (Restore)
• 01:15, July 25, 2006 Philwelch (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (nonsensical redirect) (Restore)
• 21:57, May 10, 2006 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Matrixism" (4 revisions restored)
• 18:48, May 10, 2006 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (Restore)
• 03:10, November 22, 2005 Sherool (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (WP:CSD#G4 recreation) (Restore)
• 07:18, November 20, 2005 Pamri (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (it is reposted content that was removed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. It may have undergone a vote for deletion here. See also this page's entry in the deletion log.) (Restore)
• 18:15, October 3, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (deleted per (old) VFD) (Restore)
• 15:09, August 26, 2005 Ahoerstemeier (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (content was: 'what is matrix....nobody knows' (and the only contributor was '202.88.159.172')) (Restore)
• 22:11, August 6, 2005 SimonP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (protected blank two months ago to prevent recreation) (Restore)
• 22:59, May 6, 2005 Texture (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (deleted VfD'd content reposted again) (Restore)
• 20:16, May 6, 2005 Texture (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (deleted VfD'd content reposted again) (Restore)
• 19:51, May 6, 2005 Academic Challenger (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (Restore)
• 19:48, May 6, 2005 Academic Challenger (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" ((deleted content reposted again)) (Restore)
• 19:45, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (restored to protect, deleting again.) (Restore)
• 19:44, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Matrixism" (1 revisions restored)
• 19:41, May 6, 2005 Postdlf (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (recreated vfd'd article) (Restore)
• 19:05, May 6, 2005 Xezbeth (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (redeleting) (Restore)
• 19:03, May 6, 2005 Xezbeth (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (recreation) (Restore)
• 18:49, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (redeleting again) (Restore)
• 12:06, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (speedy deleting previously deleted article) (Restore)
• 18:20, May 5, 2005 Jnc (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (pr request, redir) (Restore)

Someone is playing pitch-till-ya-win here. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. User:71.112.17.109 is joining in the fray, too. >Radiant< 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you know what they say about shit-off-teh-internets. Cleaning the toilet bowl of the internet is like trying to scrape fish crap from the ocean. I'd say G4 applies since it was VFDed, SALTed, deleted a whole lot, and all that other stuff. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think calling other editors "wankers" is very productive. The speedy criterion only applies if the versions were "substantially identical", which they weren't. Neil corrected your error, which was a completely reasonable judgement call. Addhoc 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You want tact and diplomacy? Ask someone else. This is a nonsense "religion" with 300 adherents which has been relentlessly spammed on Wikipedia pretty much since its inception. The sources evaporate under any kind of light. The homepage of the purported religion is a Geocities page. We deleted it several times, and reviewed the deletion and endorsed it several times. And very shortly after the WP:SALT was removed, it was re-created yet again. Like I say, someone is playing pitch-till-ya-win. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering there was one valid AfD and no valid speedy deletions, I'm not sure what the pasting of the log is supposed to accomplish. The DRV result was, incorrectly, "Deletions endorsed; if the sources contain encyclopedic material, a new article should be started in userspace." The second part was done. What's the problem here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that admin Neil restored the article deleted by Guy that editor Neil had written; an obvious conflict of interest. Neil should have gone to DRV. If the article is really as different as he says, the result at DRV would have been to either undelete or list at AfD (which is happening now, but without the conflicted and possible misuse of admin tools. Thatcher131 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so (not that I'm convinced he did anything wrong at this point, although I probably would have preferred him to go the {{editprotected}} route), but he was also right in line with the DRV closing. Considering how often DRV gets it wrong (including the last Matrixism discussion), and how many people seem to be missing the boat, who can blame him? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you're not advocating ignoring the rules, are you? In any case, an article which has been repeatedly deleted should be subject to discussion before recreation in mainspace. If someone wants to create a userspace draft and take it to DRV saying "Hey, guys, I think I've actually got a decent article on this, could we allow recreation?" I have no problem with that. But you don't just recreate, and you certainly don't wheel war when someone properly G4's it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I'd never do such a thing. There's no inherent need given the DRV closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Stating that "DRV gets it wrong a lot" is not a reason to ignore it. JuJube 10:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters redux

Our old friend is back yet again with 68.126.7.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). So far all he's done is respond to me telling him to go away, but if he starts editing actual articles in the slightest fashion, or do anything else harmful/disruptive, block the bastard. Moreschi ^Talk 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted Orange Revolution, since that seems to be the article he's interested in now. Will block if I see anything that needs a block. Heimstern Läufer 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a good deal of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution article as well as of the Ukrainian famine article and these topics seem to heavily interest JP. I have seen JP's "contributions" to several UA related articles and I must say that despite their being disruptive, I was able to use a small minority of the sources he added by integrating the info from them in the appropriate form (he usually lies on what sources actually say.) What I mean is that as long as someone immediately goes over his edits, there may even be some net positive of his intrusions and integrating a small faction of his info weeding out nonsense would be much more useful that reverting him on the spot (while the letter is less time consuming.) That said, I do not advocate unblocking, of course. If he decides to change his ways, he may ask the Arbcom to lift his ban under the conditions of the supervision and sockpuppetry probation. I just thought I add this here for the full context. --Irpen 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, seeing as you're the one editing the article, and I'm not. Elsewhere, though, Jacob's "contributions" have been pure junk, usually involving the removal of references to nasty Western historians who Jacob doesn't like. Of course, he can appeal to the ArbCom if he wants, though he also seems to have a nasty little sideline in flinging personal attacks at people. We'll see. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 08:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Need quick de-escalation

Hello. I need help on my talk page. Per a suggestion, I archived my talk to start afresh after several accusations of being a sockpuppet. One of the first persons to accuse me of being a sockpuppet is repeatedly wanting answers now.[29]

This other user has been asked politely to stop posting to my account several times in the past, and I can post diffs if necessary, or you can see the archives.

The remedy I seek is to have an admin ask this user to desist from communicating with me on my talk page until I contact him at a later time. Others and myself have asked him to desist from communicating with me in the past, both politely, and rudely--(see archives). I have requested a mentor but the request is still outstanding.

Thanks. Infinite Improbability Drive 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Others? Who? Who recommended you wipe your talk clean? Why did you archive information that 6-8 other established editors think you are being disruptive and are a sock? Then added a "welcome" template, which you yourself signed?Arbustoo 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is very disconcerting. He was warned by one other here. The block was over turned, the admin who overturned may or may not think I am a sockpuppet of yet another user, but Arbustoo is on a mission, and this needs to stop pending the mentor request I have made. Thanks. The only remedy I want at this time is for a third party to ask this user to desist from communicating with me on my talk page until I contact him at a later time. Infinite Improbability Drive 04:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You should quote that in full because in the context you were banned, and he said there was no need to me to ask you anymore questions about your behavior.

That editor you are quoting also said to me "Arbustoo, I sympathize with what you're going through with this editor. I noticed that your questions went unanswered on ImprobabilityDrive's talk page"[30] Arbustoo 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo has accused me of being two other sockpuppets here.[31] You'll just have to trust me that as a result of the unblock it was requested that I seek a mentor, and I have done so. You could also check the archives but this is a very complicated case. Meanwhile, please just ask the user to desisit from following me around. It was suggested that my talk page be archived to avoid this sort of explosive situation, and I did it. If the suggesting admin wants me to undo the archive I will. Meanwhile, this pestering needs to stop. Infinite Improbability Drive 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Indirectly, I raised the idea of Infinite Improbability Drive archiving the user page, which I understand to be acceptable when a talk page has warnings. Arbustoo has evidently had past experiences leading to quick suspicion of possible socks, but in my opinion assuming good faith and giving IID a chance to act in a constructive way will be more productive. I've noticed several anons editing in an accomplished way, and have advised them to get an account. It now seems that can lead to others thinking they're a sock because they start out knowing how to sign posts. Deescalation is a good idea, mediation by a third party might be useful ... dave souza, talk 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify. There are about 4 other users who think this account may be a sock not including the admin who blocked this user. This user has engaged in edit warring, WP:TE, WP:DE, paranoia, and personal attacks.

I do not think that learning to sign is a reason for thinking this user might have had another account. It is a variety of factors: advanced use of policy, requests, usage of AN/I, tags, OR, treatment of vandalism, and so on. Dave, do not paint this as a single issue. There are a variety of factors with several other editors. Arbustoo 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, what is you goal? You seem to demand answers which IID is not in any way obligated to answer, yet you seem to insist. If you have issues with IID, discuss those issues with him; don't hammer on questions that are irrelevant. Yes, he may have been an editor, either as an IP or with another account. You should read up on Right to vanish. Again, IID is in no way obligated to answer you questions, and you hammering on about it borders on Harassment. --Edokter (Talk) 12:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Arbustoo has been brought to ANI for this exact same thing. See [32] and [33]. He got it in his head last month that I was a sockpuppet, and took to edit warring with me on my own talk page and posting spurious block requests on ANI. He finally left me alone after JzG had a word with him and NewYorkBrad removed his non-stop harassing questions from my talk page. I have no opinion on IID's alleged sockpuppetness, but this crap needs to stop. Frise 12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive for Arbustoo's accusations, with another user certifying the basis for this dispute. I've not looked at all of the case in detail, but in part of it Arbustoo seemed to aggressively WP:OWN an article. As shown at User talk:ImprobabilityDrive, ImprobabilityDrive has been adopted by a mentor and myself and another user are encouraging this as a way forward with an end to misbehaving.. dave souza, talk 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And on a mostly unrelated note, Arbustoo's user page is looks like a BLP violation. Statements like that about a living person (even if we think he's a total ass) aren't tolerated on any Wikipedia page. Very similar to the situation with MantanMoreland [34] which was rightfully removed (and he didn't object to).Frise 13:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh joy. Time to bust out the WP:OFFICE? --Kim Bruning 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Following the links, he's vilifying someone who has been POV-pushing at wikipedia. :-/ Still not supposed to do that though! --Kim Bruning 13:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte socks

Resolved

Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently under attack by single-purpose socks of banned user Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), namely Gândacul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fat frumos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cel care e destept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Also, one of them created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alaexis. Any help will be appreciated. MaxSem 07:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit has been taking care of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV for closure

WP:DRV#Bob_Dobbs, please, before User:Eep² wastes any more time over his insistence of having a direct link with editorialising in the current {{delrev}} page. Been over 5 days. For my money the overturns amount to WP:ILIKEIT and do not challenge the original AfD result but I am a notorious evil deletionist, and that's irrelevant anyway; I suspect external canvassing has probably had the effect they want. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed. --pgk 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Xob12xobxom and the editor's love of the word "cunt"

In the twenty minutes since Xob12xobxom (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) registered, the editor appears to started an axe grinding campaign against American Evangelists. The time line so far is as follows:

• 6:41 - registered
• 6:49 - uploaded the shockingly-amateurish image Image:Benhinn.jpg
• 6:51 - added [35] above image to the Benny Hinn article and inserted various insightful bits of text such as "fraudulent" and "Then he became a cunt and has remained one to this day."
• 6:52 - added "He's a cunt at the moment. He's always been a fucking cunt." to Peter Popoff
• 6:52 - edited Peter Popoff again, this time changing Mr. Popoff's country of birth, current location, and occupation to "cunt"
• 6:55 - added "Thank fuck for that!" to John Wimber
• 6:57 - creatively changed Oral Roberts University from saying "Prohibited activities include lying, cursing" to "Prohibited activities include lying (so obviously evangelism is out of the question), cursing."
• 6:58 - added "He's most famous for being a total and utter fucking cunt." to Oral Roberts
• 7:00 - in a final edit, added "Basically he's a fucking cunt." to Benny Hinn

Currently I am in the process of reverting these edits, but if an admin could enact a more permanent solution ... --Kralizec! (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User permablocked; image deleted; crap reverted.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy assistance! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Whosda1man (talk · contribs)

This user has left incivil comments on his talk page towards both Ellbeecee and myself saying "fuck y'all" and still insists that The Man (chicken) should not have been deleted by referring my to myspace blogs and photobucket pages which contained "The Man" allusions. What should I do (i.e. open a RFC or something like that)? ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 14:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I could have done that. Should I open a RFC? ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. I'd wait and see if the warning works. If they persist in creating inappropriate pages or making personal attacks then they will be blocked anyway. Will (aka Wimt) 14:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've never really had this big of a problem before, so I didn't know when an RFC was, is, or will be necessary. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If the warning works, great, if it does not then further action can be taken. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian

The members of WikiProject Comics have a thorn in our side and his name is Asgardian. Most recently, he has taken to haranguing [36] an editor who tried to step in to mediate a dispute over the article Whizzer. If this were the first incident, it might be worth trying to mediate. However, he has been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard before. Since that time, he has been blocked twice, [37] once for violating 3RR and once for edit warring. Moreover, he has engaged in edit wars over several articles: Absorbing Man, Avengers (comics), Basilisk (comics) [38], Black Bolt [39], Celestial (comics) [40], Dark Gods (Marvel Comics) [41], Eternity (comics) [42], Gladiator (Shi'ar) [43], Hyperion (comics) [44], Living Tribunal (as 203.46.189.91) [45], Man Beast [46], Mephisto (comics) [47], Mjolnir (Marvel Comics) [48], Odin (Marvel Comics) [49], Perrikus [50], Quicksilver (comics) (once as 211.29.188.167) [51], Speed Demon [52], Thanos [53], Wonder Man (as 203.46.189.91) [54], and Wrecker (comics) [55].

Asgardian seems not to understand Wikipedia's concept of article ownership [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63], even while telling other editors that they don't own the articles. [64] [65] He frequently claims that his work is superior [66] [67] [68] [69] and denigrates the work of others. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] He often tells other editors that they need to "read the books" [80] [81] [82] [83] and that their edits are "non-thinking". [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] He asks others to be civil [89], but can't abide by that rule himself. [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] He is fond of calling posters with whom he does not agree by the derogatory term "fanboy". [100] [101] Another time, he accused someone whom he couldn't get along with of having a "cosmic fetish". [102] When he doesn't agree with choices made by other editors, he accuses them of vandalism. [103] [104] [105] More often than not, he prefers to blank his talk page, rather than respond to criticism there. [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] He is willing to carry on an edit war just "for the sake of it". [111] When action is taken against him, he accuses his critics of "jumping the gun". [112] [113] [114] In truth, this has been ongoing since his first arrival here in September 2006; I don't see anything expedient or hurried in the handling of this situation. Ultimately, I do not believe that his contributions outweigh his unwillingness to build consensus and work collaboratively. He's had four months to change his behaviour since the last time this was brought to this noticeboard, but I don't see a substantial improvement. --GentlemanGhost 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate for user conduct RFC than this noticeboard. At least, I think it's more likely that you'll get responses there. I have no comment on the merit of this request, as I have not read the the links posted above. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. I was not familiar with the user conduct RFC. This is where the issue was reported last time, so I followed suit. Would it be better to move it there now or to let things play out? --GentlemanGhost 11:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jersyko. Some edits aren't bad, (some edits to Odin were actually RVs of vandalism, and Galactus), some are, his summaries and talk page behavior should be addressed. IT'd be far better to tlak to him first, then go from there. (IANAnAdmin.)ThuranX 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for injecting some common sense into what appears to be an out-of-left-field argument based on assumptions and massive generalisations. The opening statement:

• The members of WikiProject Comics have a thorn in our side and his name is Asgardian.

is dramatic, emotive and immediately indicates that the poster cannot be objective. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most recently, he has taken to haranguing [115] an editor who tried to step in to mediate a dispute over the article Whizzer.

Not true at all. If GG had actually looked at the History, he would see we have been working to better the article. What I objected to - and still object to - is the condescending language Tenebrae has been using. Talking of improving my writing skills when I have rewritten many, many articles full of POV, spelling mistakes and other Wikipedia faux pas is of course going to nettle. Tenebrae needs to work on how he delivers the message. Admittedly, in electronic form it can be hard to read the "tone" but in general it has been condescending. This he needs to work on. Not what he says but how it is said. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• If this were the first incident, it might be worth trying to mediate. However, he has been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard before. Since that time, he has been blocked twice, [116] once for violating 3RR and once for edit warring.

Two of those incidents - one occurring just recently and questioned by another poster - were erroneous. Another was inexperience. Look at the learning curve and how many articles have been improved since. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Moreover, he has engaged in edit wars over several articles: Absorbing Man, Avengers (comics), Basilisk (comics) [117], Black Bolt [118], Celestial (comics) [119], Dark Gods (Marvel Comics) [120], Eternity (comics) [121], Gladiator (Shi'ar) [122], Hyperion (comics) [123], Living Tribunal (as 203.46.189.91) [124], Man Beast [125], Mephisto (comics) [126], Mjolnir (Marvel Comics) [127], Odin (Marvel Comics) [128], Perrikus [129], Quicksilver (comics) (once as 211.29.188.167) [130], Speed Demon [131], Thanos [132], Wonder Man (as 203.46.189.91) [133], and Wrecker (comics) [134].

What is the point of this? GG and many other posters have also engaged in these so-called "edit wars". If GG took the time to check the Histories, he would see that many of these articles have been polished and left as is for MONTHS, with only the smallest of correctional edits. MONTHS. Further to this, the articles have ALL been improved substantially since the time of editing. I don't expect everyone to be a comic buff, but articles such as Odin, Thanos etc. were truly terrible. I spent DAYS sourcing and then citing and referecing histories for characters that simply wasn't there. No one else came forward to do this.

I also note that GG has included a sock puppet claim, which was proven to be unfounded. Given the length of time I worked on some of these articles, the computer timed out. Again, an unnecessary mention. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Asgardian seems not to understand Wikipedia's concept of article ownership [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142], even while telling other editors that they don't own the articles. [143] [144] He frequently claims that his work is superior [145] [146] [147] [148] and denigrates the work of others. [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] He often tells other editors that they need to "read the books" [159] [160] [161] [162] and that their edits are "non-thinking". [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] He asks others to be civil [168], but can't abide by that rule himself. [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]

The flaw in the logic is that once again GG has not checked Histories. Thanos is a good example. I do not own the article, but I believe it fair to try and stop someone flooding it with inappropriate images. This is the same thing that I was working on GG WITH on the article for the character Zzzax before he decided to report this. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• He is fond of calling posters with whom he does not agree by the derogatory term "fanboy". [179] [180]

Over a year ago. Doczilla and I now have a good relationship. He INVITED me to participate in a discussion recently... - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another time, he accused someone whom he couldn't get along with of having a "cosmic fetish". [181]

Hardly earth-shaking. His Edit History would seem to suggest this anyway, as the poster focuses on almost nothing else. That's odd. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• When he doesn't agree with choices made by other editors, he accuses them of vandalism. [182] [183] [184]

It is only GG's opinion that it was not. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• More often than not, he prefers to blank his talk page, rather than respond to criticism there. [185] [186] [187] [188] [189]

Once again, there is NO official mandate that a Talk Page be archived or kept. If it changes, so be it. Frankly, that's none of GG's business. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• He is willing to carry on an edit war just "for the sake of it". [190] When action is taken against him, he accuses his critics of "jumping the gun". [191] [192] [193]

Has GG even read the Talk Page for Galactus and the consensus reached? - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• In truth, this has been ongoing since his first arrival here in September 2006; I don't see anything expedient or hurried in the handling of this situation. Ultimately, I do not believe that his contributions outweigh his unwillingness to build consensus and work collaboratively. He's had four months to change his behaviour since the last time this was brought to this noticeboard, but I don't see a substantial improvement. --GentlemanGhost 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some massive and condescending generalisations. I suspect that GG and other parties may feel a tad intimidated by my level of comic knowledge, as once again it is true that I have brought many sub-standard articles with POV, spelling mistakes and missing/incorrect information (eg. Odin, Thanos, Hyperion) up to an acceptable standard. I've yet to see another poster perform accruate rewrites on this scale. As for working with others, if GG had again thought to check, many of Tenebrae and others edits have been incorporated. Not everything, as there is still a degree of POV etc that has to be ironed out, but articles such as the Whizzer hardly reflect an edit war. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To conclude, this is unnecessary and frankly, baffling. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, having just checked some of GG's supposed "proof", he is reaching at straws. In the case of the Absorbing Man, it is perfectly reasonble to remove an assertion that the character appears in the film when they do not. The Avengers is the same -there was no "warring" and a resolution was reached. All in all, this is a very flawed argument. - Asgardian 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Asgardian brought my name up with certain claims, I'm going to comment briefly.

Many WikiComics Project editors have difficulty working with Asgardian. His response is that people are "jealous" of his comics knowledge. This is highly debatable, and it's certainly not true my case.

It would be helpful if Asgardian acknowledged and took some responsibility for the fact that so many editors revert his edits and so many editors have lodged complaints about him. To hear, "I'm right and these dozen people are all wrong" as his response to virtually any complaint ... that's neither right not realistic.--Tenebrae 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said I was right all the time, and have apologised before now. Others, however, ALSO need to take responsibility for their actions. That said, GG's argument is weak and flawed. I'll chat with you further on Whizzer at that page, which is all that was ever necessary. - Asgardian 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this a record for number of diffs in a single post? --Random832 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not (I've seen some interesting Arbcom postings : ) - but it's definitely "up there". - jc37 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible solutions

I'd like to point out that this discussion is nothing new, and has been going on for a rather long period of time. The last time this came up, User:Hiding suggested that perhaps the way to go with this would be Community probation. It's clear that User:Asgardian has made good edits, it's just that along with those come the issues such as linked to above by GG. Hence the community probation suggestion. AFAIK, it never came to fruition, merely due to the state of "busy-ness" of the time. (The WikiProject templates ratings system had just started for articles immediately after that, and Hiding very nearly single-handedly updated the entire comics WikiProject - If others were involved, I was/am unaware of it - and so he became too busy to pursue the probation AFAIK.)

I think at this point, I'd like to avoid seeing this escalate much further. It's starting to wear on all involved, perhaps creating an environment in which one of those involved may inadvertantly "cross-the-line" out of frustration.

I think that we have several possible solutions (besides people quitting Wikipedia, making new accounts, or blocking someone). The main issues with User:Asgardian would seem to be an inability to "back-down" from a WP:BOLD action and WP:EQ/WP:CIVIL issues. Both seem to stem from a sense of pride, and the self-assurance of being "right". This is not to say that others have not, or do not, bait him, as well. Not all have, but I've seen that it's rather easy for someone who disagrees with him to "pull his chain" as it were, and thus claim his incivility in order to "win" their POV in the discussion.

So here're a few possible solutions:

1.) Community probation for User:Asgardian - move this discussion to some part of the WP:CN, and discuss what the probation would entail, what criteria would have to be achieved to move off from probation, and what penalties would be enacted should the probation be violated.

2.) Mentorship for User:Asgardian - find a mediator or someone "third-party"-minded to become a mentor. Focus should be on the 5 pillars, and the MoS, and a thorough knowledge of the WikiProject guidelines for comics articles (since that's where the user does most of their editing). The goal is to not ever presume the user knows, since, of course he'll claim he does. But to presume he doesn't and "start from scratch", in the hopes of developing someone who has the potential to become a great editor.

3.) A short term ban from editing comics-related articles for User:Asgardian. Perhaps spending some time working on other tasks could help the user to see and understand the whys of the guidelines better.

4.) 1RR for User:Asgardian - To help suggest that "taking it to talk" is a better option than quick, off-the-cuff, edit summaries.

Any of these, a few of these combined, or perhaps all, are options that the community could discuss.

All that said, there are divergent opinions in the WikiProject about certain things (as I presume is found in any WikiProject), and I don't want to just single User:Asgardian out, to where he has little to no recourse than dispute resolution. If he runs into such situations, I think the more eyes, the better, so perhaps he should make more use of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.

I'd like to hear others' thoughts and comments on this. - jc37 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with 1 and 2 as written; 3 and 4 are more troubleome. I'd suggest a 48 hour block at most, or perhaps a 'ride-along' style ban, in which he and another editor review soem articles for ways to fix them in tandem. A short, intense mentorship, so to speak, and as for 4, I'd say that a note to him that any time he finds himself wanting to hit 2RR, he should open a talk page section when doing t, and never hit 3RR, using the talk page. I know things like 'never' are tough on WIki, but I think that instead of just putting up a brick wall, we should open a door as well. ThuranX 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I still feel the whole business has been a massive overreaction, and close examination reveals the many holes in GG's argument, which on some levels is very petty. As for my edits...the last fortnight or so should be telling enough. I've been touching up where needed and even reworked an article with - oddly - GG's support. I only revert largish amounts of text where the writing is poor, and usually full of POV (a major Wikipedia issue), spelling mistakes, past tense etc. I think when I point this out to other users (eg. JGreb) it may sting a little. That said, it's not personal. I'm just trying to help make these articles the best they can be. A quick look at the "then and now" versions of entries for characters such as Odin, Thanos and this week Zzzax should be testimony to this (on a side note, there seem to be very few other researchers, who will sit there for hours and source the right material and then present it in a coherent fashion - it takes a LOT of work). As I also said on the Talk page for Galactus, if people took the time to actually look at the edits, they would realise that 90% of the work is still there, and the rest can be settled on the relevant Talk page (Whizzer being a good example - the article is much improved and I've taken on board some of Tenebrae's suggestions).

For what it is worth, I have been working in tandem with others (and like Tenebrae's idea of a side bar for the whole multiple universes concept).

Asgardian 00:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Galactus is a perfect example of where the page had to be protected to stop an edit war and THEN progress was made. --GentlemanGhost 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Several weak edits were made that jarred with the rest of the article. Simply check the user profiles for types like TheBalance and HalfShadow. Very telling. That said, this is not the place to nitpick given your weak argument. Take it to a Talk Page.

Asgardian 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New accounts might deny terms of site

Resolved

 – Multiple admins have explained that they have to open new, separate accounts. Yamla undone the autoblock only, so no worries John Reaves (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about a couple of recently created accounts, Pi-group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Henry Gage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The text of both of their front pages is virtually the same:

Pi-group: "I am an agent constituted by philosophers, logicians and scientists interested in the philosophy of information. My constituting members prefer to remain anonymous not because they wish to hide their identities behind mine, but because they believe in non-individual agents and do not care about claiming authorship of particular wiki-contents or wiki-contributions."

Henry Gage: "Welcome. My name is Henry Gage (soldier). I am the collective allonym under which a group of philosophers, logicians and scientists interested in the philosophy of information operate. My constituting members prefer to remain anonymous not because they wish to hide their identities behind mine, but because they believe in non-individual agents and do not care about claiming authorship of particular wiki-contents or wiki-contributions."

At minimum, it sounds like they're fundamentally denying this site's TOS. At worst, they appear to be shared accounts. Can someone have a look?Blueboy96 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff at Special:Contributions/Pi-group. Either way, shared accounts are blockable, right? x42bn6 Talk 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, role accounts are expressly forbidden. Natalie 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And they're denying the terms of use of the site as well--users are individually responsible for their contributions.Blueboy96 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Something else I thought about--can contributions by shared accounts be reverted on sight? My thinking is that shared accounts are not part of the Wikipedia community, and therefore 3RR doesn't apply.Blueboy96 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked them both, see meta:Role account for more information. John Reaves (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pi-group made Henry Gage's front page any way, so you know the two are related. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had extensive email conversations with the owner of the account. The person now understands exactly why role accounts are bad and has promised not to do this in the future. As a result of this email conversation, I am assuming good faith and unblocking. --Yamla 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest reblocking. If the accounts had previously edited, then the GFDL has already been violated and no clear line of authorship can be drawn. They really ought to start over of they would like to continue editing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, reblock these accounts. I explained to them in response an e-mail I received and the unblock-en-l request that they can't do this and that can and need to establish separate accounts. As their accounts are already established a role accounts, it would be best to leave them blocked and let them simply create new accounts. As far a GFDL goes, all edits were reverted. John Reaves (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot

Resolved

Given the recent arbcom ruling, why is BetacommandBot running? Nardman1 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#User:BetacommandBot. It's tagging fair use images as orfud, and adding a tag that says to use {{not orphan}} to indicate it's not an orphan. But it's missing images that use redirects to it, such as template:notorphan, such as here. Nardman1 13:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left Betacommand a message on his talk page. I do not think him using a bot after the arbcom ruled he misused bot abilities is appropriate. Nardman1 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If it has approval, why not let it? I don't think he'll make the same mistake of running an unapproved bot again. --Cyde Weys 14:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If ArbCom wanted to prohibit the user from running any bots it would have said so (compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki). It didn't, so the bot is allowed to run if properly approved. If anything, I think Betacommand is to be commended for remaining active after what had to be a painful decision for him (we lost Maru as a contributor altogether when his case ended :( ). However, I really would urge him to be extra careful that the bot is performing accurately. Newyorkbrad 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Note: I fixed the link to RFAR - Gavia immer (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad. In fact I think the ArbCom in that case considered a ban on Betacommand runnign bots, but failed to pass one. That arbcom case did inclulude as a Principle the statemetn that " Generally, scripts require manual confirmation of each edit. Unsupervised and supervised automatic bots require approval of the BAG. Manually assisted bots and scripts may require approval if the editor anticipates making high-speed edits." (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand). I don't see a problem with such a bot running, however any user runnign a both that effectively tags pages for deletion should be careful toa void false positives, and Betacommand in particualr should be extra careful, given the history cited above. DES ^(talk) 14:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of info: When the problems with Betacommand first arose, he was removed from the Bot Approvals Group and had all bot approvals and his bot flag withdrawn. This happened prior to and, for a while, concurrent with the Arbcom case. He has his bot flag back and several specific tasks approved (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot and subsequent task applications); the Arbcom obviously chose not to take any further action.

Opinion: I also congratulate Betacommand on his steadfastness and hope he will carry on as a useful Wikipedian but, of course, he needs to be more careful than the average editor and bot operator now. Also, I routinely support blocking a bot which isn't behaving as described; unlike blocking a human it's no big deal. --kingboyk 15:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Per my link above, this bot was approved for 100 edits. It now has over 371 edits today by my count. It is also mistagging some images marked as not orphan, even though the tag it's putting on the page says that images marked not orphan should not be tagged with that tag. Could someone shut it off? Nardman1 15:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, bot is supposed to shut off when a talk page message is left per User:BetacommandBot but it is still running despite the fact I left a message. Bot is misbehaving. Nardman1 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked the bot on the basis that it has been reported (above) that the bot is not correctly avoiding false positives. Any comments to the BRFA would be helpful. Martinp23 15:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martin for stopping the bot, It should have stopped after 100 edits (there must me a bug). But as with any new bot task there will always errors regardless of the bot operator. as for the template {{notorphan}} how does that affect the fact that the image is not used in the mainspace? if its not orphaned it should be clear. just because someone adds a template doesnt change the fact of the status of the Image. (per the FU policy images need to be used in the mainspace) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem - indeed. It is my understanding that sometimes our {{notorphan}} images may be used on other projects, though I'd think that they should be uploaded there in their own right. Perhaps there's some other reason? Martinp23 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

the {{notorphan}} is a violation of the FU policy. FU images MUST be used properly or deleted. I was looking at Image:Meyer Lansky.jpg where it is used improperly. that page is not linked to from the mainspace and isnt really used at all, see [194] just a link to a user talkpage and another image page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with that, I don't see the justification or the ability of us to use that tag if its not being used to build the encyclopedia. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this also, Wikipedia should only be holding fair use images that are actually used in articles, everything else must be tagged for deletion and promptly deleted. -- Nick ^t 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So what happens when a vandal removes a fair-use image from an article? Delete the fair-use image because a vandal turned it into an orphaned fair-use image? I've heard of images being deleted merely because a vandal orphaned the images and no-one was watching the pages in question. Carcharoth 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is a proper use for {{notorphan}}. Not all images used in the mainspace are linked directly as images: They are, instead, text-linked—and these links can be found on the "What links here" page but don't show up in the image-page section "File links", which makes the image appear to be orphaned. The proper use of {{notorphan}} is to mark these images. The bot tagged seven images I uploaded, all of which are text-linked in a mainspace article (Timothy McSweeney's Quarterly Concern) and contribute to the value of the article. Yes, the template {{notorphan}} may be misused by some to attempt to protect improperly used images, but the presence of the template means that you should at least check how the image is being used before deleting it or nominating it for deletion. --ShelfSkewed talk 03:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That might be true but per US copyright law, and WP:NONFREE the use of such images is very restrictive, just because they add value doesnt mean we should/are allowed to use the images. see the family guy episode guide issue. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag your bot is adding to the pages says to use notorphan to prevent their deletion. You are arguing against your own position. Nardman1 03:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a seven day period between tagging and deletion, and there is always the undelete button if needed. but our WP:NONFREE says either use them or delete them. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This post has been resolved. It started off with a user asking why a bot by Betacommand was running after the ArbCom ruling, he had a misunderstanding of the ruling which was quickly fixed. There is nothing wrong with his bot, it is working fine, the only problem was it did too much. :) Send further questions about the bot's purpose to the user's talk page and any concerns to a BAG member or the RFBA page. I am marking this issue as Resolved. Cbrown1023 talk 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am offically extremist

A person says me extremist and a wikipedia administrator agreed with him [195] instead of warning him per WP:NPA. Only because I do not support minority tradition to be presented as majority tradition per WP:Undue weight. I wish to know that is that align with wikipedia policies to give names to someone not agree with you? --- A. L. M. 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a thicker skin. Saying one's views are extreme is not an attack, it is simply an opinion. You don't need to agree.--Doc^g 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we were just trying to say that your point of view is extreme. I for one did not mean in imply you were an extremist by nature, just that your "don't depict Muhammad at all" point of view is rather extreme for Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on that link, you asked them to call you a terrorist instead of an extremist. That soounds like baiting to me. Edward321 14:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is different to call extreme opinion of view or "THE EXTREMIST". No I not have thick skin when an admin involved, who had file tomorrow a 3RR report against me under my user space[196]. --- A. L. M. 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you did remove my comments from an essay's talk page more than 3 times. Has it occured to you that your removal of any dissenting opinion to yours may be part of what is making your position appear so extreme? By the way, no need for bolding or all caps, I can read what you are saying just fine in regular text. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If they all think you are right. Then it okay. I am THE EXTREMIST (time to apply for user name change) and I commit WP:3RR violation while working in my user-space. Thanks. --- A. L. M. 14:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You can be anyone you choose to be. Please try to do it in a manner consistent with the community and its policies. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted it here to get other admins opinions instead of yours. I know that you think you are right. Can someone other than HighInBC look at this? --- A. L. M. 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone also please make ALM remove this hugely visually annoying petition that he has in his signature? He is ignoring my requests to do so.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored this page.--Doc^g 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that sig was really hard to look at. And yes, someone other than HighInBC please look at this and the surrounding issues, I am just being ignored. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that someone give you warning of supporting a clear personal attack. Can you block yourself? --- A. L. M. 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have diffs illustrating the personal attacks that have been directed toward you, or are you just making empty accusations and/or obfuscating this already muddled issue? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume that it was personal attack towards me because there was three people talking against their suggestion and other two were only saying per me. However, we cannot warn anyone based on assumption. Hence here I wish to discuss this admin, instead of the person making personal attack. This admin (HighInBC) I am sure talking to me here. He think it okay to call anyone the extremist. I wish if someone tell him that it is not okay. --- A. L. M. 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If I do not agree with him then he files 3RR against me working in my user-space here [197] and restore comments I remove from my talk page[198]. I wish he stop following me everywhere and let me leave on others . --- A. L. M. 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop bolding "the extremest" already? We get it. The bolding is a little extreme. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

These days calling terrorist and extremist to a Muslim is worst thing you could call him. Anyway, I am out of here. I do not care anymore. Doc time to refactored my singaures and I do not know why you need to do that. Bye. --- A. L. M. Can you help? 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your signatures were refactored because they were distracting. If you want to raise your point here you don't need to do it with large, bright and frankly annoying signatures. On your first point, the only thing that anyone ever said to you was that you had extreme views on whether or not a particular picture should be included. It was certainly not a reference to you or your religious beliefs. Will (aka Wimt) 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't have the time to deal with this.

With Picaroon9288's unprotection of Wikipedia:Esperanza, refusal to reprotect, and threat to block me for trying to stop Ed changing it against the community will, I am faced with a straight choice between studying for my exams and continuing to uphold consensus. Unsurprisingly, my exams, and future, win out, and so I am forced to give up on this. Let the Esperanza essay stand as an beacon of light to all who try to subvert consensus through sheer bloody-minded persistance. Shame on you all who let them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a consensus then others who support that view will be helping out, if you find you are the only one upholding the consensus, chances are the consensus doesn't exist. --pgk 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went and looked at that page, and holy crap... You've been edit warring on a dead page for months now? Why? That page has been protected multiple times and each time the protection comes off you go right back to reverting each other. That's ridiculous. Frise 15:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that is, in and of itself, a good indicator as to why the project ultimately disbanded. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that the mediation fo the page backed Dev. I reviewed the last few months of work, as well as most of the mediation, and the vast majority of comments supported Dev/Moreschi's version, and NOT Ed's. While Dev is probably the only one actively working to preserve the page's status, Ed's changes are substantively the same exact ones discussed in the mediation, the very same changes previously argued against and consensus'd against in the mediation. Ed should leave the page, and move on. There's no value in persisting in an edit war that already went to Mediation, and was decided against his choices, edits, version whatever you choose to call it. (standard IANAnAd) ThuranX 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation decides consensus? I thought mediation was those in dispute working out their issues and reaching a mutually acceptable outcome. If this has been through mediation and a dispute still exists, then that is indicative of the mediation failing to resolve the issue, further dispute resolution steps may then be in order. I certainly can't support the notion that mediation decides a binding consensus (Consensus can change) and certainly isn't enforceable using admin tools. --pgk 19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Topic/page ban for some people seems necessary here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is hopeless. Each time it is unprotected, Dev and Ed go at it again. Mediation hasn't produced useful results. There isn't a consensus on anything. Indefinite protection is the only viable solution I see. Picaroon (Talk) 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That or outright deletion. Frise 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I warned you, Picaroon, that Ed would add his utterly rejected version again, but you refused to listen. Someone protect the page at the consensus version and let's all forget about it. This isn't so much about the essay, it's about the right of one person to get away with ignoring community consensus and forcing his own way. If the consensus is to delete the essay altogether (and I wonder if it occurred to anyone that I argued against "the Messedrocker solution" on the MfD because I thought something like this would happen), then it should be deleted. But until then, I'd appreciate it if everyone could stop moaning about how old this discussion is and focus on the fact that Ed is trying to use that fact to put what he wants into the essay and not what the community originally decided on. Yes, this is an old discussion over a long dead organisation, and I am as sick of it as everyone who has to read these AN/I reports. But the basic principle is "consensus rules", not "consensus rules as long as the discussion is current". And is my fault that admin after admin keeps unprotecting the bloody page because "edit warring seems to have stopped"? Funny that, what with it being protected and all... Look, protect the page so Ed can't "improve" it anymore, and the issue stops. No-one supports his edits, and he is the only one driving this; the rest of us are all thinking "OH GOD, when will this END?!!!". Indef protection gives us all respite. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So why not just let him make his edits? What great travesty will befall Wikipedia if [sic]s and footnotes are in the essay? Picaroon (Talk) 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it, it's a worthless page (yes, I know this isn't going to happen). John Reaves (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been indef protected now, so problem solved. Spare us the "wrong version" stuff. Frise 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The "wrong version" philosophy actually only applies to temporarily protected pages, not indefinitely protected pages. What is really needed here is for other editors less passionate about the issues to get involved. It is obvious that Dev920 (as the original nominator) and Ed (as someone who was involved with Esperanza) are not the right people to be deciding what that page says. If more than those two editors got involved, and made it less a one-on-one issue, then some progress might be made. Carcharoth 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I put up another proposed essay at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation#2nd proposal by Kyoko, which I hope will be acceptable to everyone who still feels strongly about the issue. I'm not entirely pleased with the text, but I'm rarely 100% pleased by anything I write anyway. --Kyoko 06:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to protected template

I hate to sound impatient, but this template is used by a few hundred pages, and it's been broken for about three hours now: Template talk:Episode list#Broken template. -- Ned Scott 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet vandalism

All of my recent edits were mysteriously undone by the same user. [199] None of these reverts were explained. While he undid almost whatever I edited, majority of these reverts exhibits what SchmuckyTheCat frequently opposes. Is some kind of vandalism by way of sockpuppet taking place? Michael G. Davis 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowledgable editors wanted

Rodeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mary Lou LeCompte - Mllecompte1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made a large number of edits, almost all cited to her own books, and has added narrative style and what looks very much like opinion rather than analytical coverage. Anyone with interest / expertise of this field is encouraged to have a look. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If she's an expert in the field (or even a relative expert) an extensive rewrite should be fine, though she should not be citing herself as a source, but instead use the sources from which she originally gleaned her information. If she's a scholar of any caliber, she'll understand immediately when called to task. I would inform her of the WP:STYLE guidelines, though. No sense in putting together such a big contribution only to have it hacked to pieces because it didn't adhere to the manual of style. --Dynaflow 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with her before, if I recall correctly. Or rather, I have done some considerable work on the formatting of the article and have had some correspondence with her. I remember that working with her and her material was time consuming, but not unpleasant, so let's do what we can to not drive her away. --JoanneB 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article and it definitely needs some work, yes, it reads like an essay. Especially someone who's good in rewriting POV into NPOV en an overall suitable tone would be very welcome! I got the impression earlier, but also on the talk page, that she sees it as 'her' article, so I've left her a note about that. --JoanneB 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

Resolved

 – — Michaelas¹⁰ 22:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone clear this. Thanks a lot. 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin GWH indef. blocking of IPs

See this, and his block log. Someone please revert, because these IPs aren't even open proxies. Real96 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, see this. Real96 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)You appear to have reported this whilst Georgewilliamherbert was reviewing it and whilst it was under discussion with him. You also have told him you will report it here, but not that you have done so. All told, this doesn't seem to be quite ready for ANI yet and, since he's being reasonable about it with you, I'm likely to wave WP:AGF at you at this point. Just my two eurocent. ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that this is under review. However, he still shouldn't be blocking IP addresses indef. He is downgrading the indef. blocks (which is good), but I am reporting it here, to see what other people think. Yes, I am displaying WP:AGF, but for the first vandal offense made by an IP gets an indef. block? Real96 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

On his talk page, he has explained that he - rightly - takes many factors into account. Yes, indef blocks on IPs are discouraged and yes, indef blocking for a first offence isn't something we often do. But it's better to discuss this with him first and drag it here (the court of admin opinion, if you like, and thus the first step down the road of RfC, RfAr etc) if those discussions prove fruitless. Dragging it here now is premature. And, since you want to know what people think... well, I think bringing it here is premature and I'd be interested in the results of your discussion with him if they are anything beyond the current "you're right, I'll review it" that you've got from him already. Again, just my 2c mate - no censure of you (or him) is implied.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We have actually stopped blocking open proxies indef at WP:OP, since even those will be reassigned. I strongly discourage indef blocking an IP for any reason. Prodego ^talk 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So do I. I think that a year is a long time on the internet and the longest time we ever need to block for. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some one might want to have a look at this on blocking open proxies. WP:IP#Open_proxies Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 22:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that at some point they will stop being open proxies, so indefinite blocks should not be used. Prodego ^talk 23:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but policy should state this as it states "will be blocked on site". Current ways of handling the open proxies should be uniform and documented (i.e do one thing when policy says another can be confusing). Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 02:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, done. Prodego ^talk 02:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects left from deleted article

Resolved

I believe an admin needs to remove these two entries: Gilson-De Lemos Michael Gilson-De Lemos--Fahrenheit451 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Picaroon (Talk) 23:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with User:Jonghyunchung

Recently, I've warned an IP about vandalism, and User:Jonghyunchung goes in and refactors it. I then revert that edit and post a warning to Jonghyunchung about refactoring talk comments but I see that he reverted it off just now. I think Jonghyunchung might be hard to handle. --Addict 2006 23:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:TyrusThomas4lyf

This user was recently blocked twice for 3RR on Michael Jordan in two days, I'm wondering if the block can be reviewed or extended (his current block is only 24 hours) given his history of personal attacks. He's been warned 6-7 times and made several more today. Here's a list of some of his personal attacks and uncivil behavior:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf#Evidence of disputed behavior. See the explanation at the beginning of the RFC for proof that the IP is his. It's somewhat confusing as he more than one account. But the uncivil bahvior heading lists some of his personal attacks. Aaron Bowen 04:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: He blanked his talk page so he has more warnings than it would appear. Aaron Bowen 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant editing of the article Serializability

By 90.192.141.116 on 5 May, 2007

Sentence added:

This is a hand note from zahid. can you see that?

Comps 04:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• The vandalism was already reverted by User:Comps. I've warned the IP with {{uw-v1}} Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing with rage

I request that some admin stop User:Sarvagnya from going on a disruption spree. I don't want to take admin action as I'm a complainant myself. This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. His edit summaries and talk page comments are almost always provocative. One fine editor who has produced a bunch of FAs has gone into semi-retirement unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang. More users including me are stressed to the point of leaving. Attempts at reconciliation have not worked.

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. He took the next worst choice -- going on a rampage with anything that's linked from there. The latest is the article Tamil people, a featured article and also one which has undergone FA review recently. His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case, but request someone to look into his history of disruption and take action. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you guys to seek mediation, and I still think that's best for everyone. This seems to me to be a complex dispute and a two-way street. I nominated Tamil language for featured article review, and it was closed as a "keep", just as the article was being locked and having its neutrality disputed. This has quickly spiraled out of control, but I still would suggest something better than running to admins all the time during your disputes. Grandmasterka 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Sarvagnya seems to have been cleared of being a sockpuppeteer. Grandmasterka 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the same opinion about this as Grandmasterka... DR should be used for disputes, with ANI used when things spiral out of control, and admin intervention is necessary to sort things out. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself and he, having bought some time, started his disruptive edits with other related articles. Reg him being a sock, I just notice that the clerks asuumed good faith and revised the decision as meatpuppetry.

Kzrulzuall, I know that DR is generally a better choice. But, we've been through this earlier too. That time, I was a lot more patient, but still we lost or almost lost another editor. I am no longer willing to play this game of pacifying him. I'm going to go away rather than stressing myself with another DR with him. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I could tag the article for OR. But then Mr. Sundar and his stooge Parthi will come and immediately revert it. If you throw in two inline citations in a 10000 word article or names of two books under ==Refs==, the article becomes 'sourced'! Right? Yeah right. Sarvagnya 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Assumed good faith and revised as meatuppetry"?!! - Thats misleading people here with malicious intent. Sarvagnya 10:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The very accusations of sockpuppetry were infact in bad faith and I proved it. There was no sockpuppetry. There was no meatpuppetry. Nonsense! Sarvagnya 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. - Evidence please. Sarvagnya 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. - Shameless and malicious misrepresentation of facts. Does not befit an admin. Not in the least. Sarvagnya 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself - You didnt suggest that we write drafts. I did. Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. - Bullshit! Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. - I perhaps tagged only one such image. And didnt resist once it got reverted. Sarvagnya 10:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revise your tone, Sarvagnya, as you are not acting very civil. If you have comments, please address them properly. Accusing users of having "Malicious intent" does not help. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusing established and regular editors of disruption and nitpicking just because you're having a content issue with them on some article doesnt help either nor is it very civil. Sarvagnya 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And since when is tagging copyvio and asking for citations disruption?! Does this admin in question who openly told me that he cannot assume good faith with me even know what disruption is? Sarvagnya 10:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'd have done if I was editing with rage. I'd have moved Tamil language back into FAR. Whoever had heard of an article thats protected and with POV and disputed tags being closed as FAs. That too with no semblance of a voting exercise on the FAR page. Sarvagnya 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case... - I'm tired too. Or I could present several diffs.. even one of the admin in question biting a new user who just happened to be on the other side of the POV divide. Shameful indeed. I could also present a diff where the admin in question attributes malicious intent to me. And many more. Sarvagnya 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sundar wouldn't be an admin if he doesn't know what "disruption" is. If someone is behaving uncivilly with you, it is not an excuse to behave uncivilly back. Please calm down before you start making more accusations to respected users editing in good faith.--Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing in "good faith"? Dont you see how he lies about my block record in a bid to sway opinion of some admin in the hope that some admin would block me? He says I've been blocked several times for disruption and sockpuppetry while one quick look at my block log will reveal that I have been blocked ONLY ONCE and that too for 'fighting' with another user who the concerned admins will testify was a rank bad troll. He and all his accomplices were subsequently blocked for using abusive sockpuppets against me or other users. I could go on.. every single word that Sundar has written is a lie. L-I-E. LIE. Sarvagnya 10:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang.... - me and my gang? would you elaborate please? Last I remember, I was waging a lone battle against a tag team of reverters on Tamil language and Talk:Tamil language. Sarvagnya 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Signing off for now. If any admin has any questions, I will answer each one of them. For now, suffice to say that all of Sundar's charges are baseless and nonsense. He is trying to use his admin weight to bully me into submission in the content issue he and his friends are having with me on Tamil language. Sarvagnya 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since evidence is being asked, I will provide them.

Evidence of removing cited content:

He removes the following cited content unilaterally here.

"On the other hand a number of scholars believe that the influence of Tamil and Dravidian had a far greater influence, including grammar, syntax, poetics and meter on Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages."

He then proceeds to remove following cited fact here.

"Unlike in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where early inscriptions were written in Sanskrit, the early inscriptions in Tamil nadu used Tamil exclusively."

This is not the first time where he removes cited facts from Tamil nadu related articles. Previous cited content removal with offending edit summaries are here, here, here, & here. It is particularly notable that in one edit summary he indulges in OR & attacks the Tamil epic's content as disco-dance (a slang in south India for cabaret [200]).

Possible defamation of eminent Tamil researcher & other Tamil organizations (sangams) here where he compares their work to 'squat'.

"...Hart's campaign and sundry Tamil sangams' 'campaigns' would have counted for squat minus Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress govt.,.)..."

Then he indulges in personal attack on all other editors in the talk page of Tamil language article without proof here where he accuses other editors of trolling.

"If only you guys would have spent less time trolling on Halmidi and Rashtrakuta FAC and Kannada and Bharatanatya and Carnatic music, we could have had more time to thrash out several issues on this page."

I warned about this personal attack here.

Can he provide evidence for the claim that he was exonerated from meat-puppetry charges? The restrictions on him were removed on account of subsequent contributions by him & his confirmed meat puppet. Not that his confirmed case was changed to unconfirmed.

He accuses admin Sundar of bullying him (again without any proof). Please make a stop to all these. Thanks. Praveen 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being accused of being a stooge to Sundar. Brushing aside this personal attack, which I have to come to expect from Sarvagna, let me point out a few recent examples of unreasonable behaviour from Sarvagna.

1. He tagged dozens of Tamil History related articles with {{citation neede}} tags with the edit summary inline citations (book, year, author, p#, publisher, quote, isbn) for all the cruft here please. [201] While asking for inline citation is ok, does he have to insult the integrity of the author?
2. He tagged dozens of Tamil literature related articles as OR [202], [203], [204], etc with no justification or discussion.
3. He maliciously tagged images with explicit license information: [205], [206], [207], [208], etc, almost all pertaining to the soon to be featured History of Tamil Nadu or Tamil people articles. He also accused the uploader of one image of 'pompously' releasing it as {{PD}} [209].This is the image chosen to appear on the Main page on the 5th.

These are just a few example of the disruptive editing habits of this user. I request stern admin action to address this. 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To emphasise my point, let me give you an excerpt from a post from Arvind [210]:

“ This isn't an easy problem to deal with. It's hard to fault individual acts by these editors. They use "cite" tags and "NPOV" tags and tags you've probably never heard of strictly in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, but in a manner that makes normal editing next to impossible (for instance, a cite tag after nearly every sentence). They dig up dozens of references and insist on their inclusion - even though the scholarship they represent has long since been superseded or has been seriously questioned - and one then has to waste endless hours trying to demonstrate why those sources aren't credible. After a while of dealing with this, one just gets burned out, gives up on those articles, or walks away from Wikipedia altogether. ”

- 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya has a rather blunt way of putting things, however characterizing his editing pattern as a disruption spree seems like a large stretch. As for WP:BLP, he called the work squat, not Professor Hart (who is a respected expert on the Tamil language. Seeing the larger picture, this ANI post has been transformed into another of ethnolinguistic conflicts of India being played on the web. It centers in this context over the Kaveri water dispute and other issued dividing Kannada people (sarvagnya, KNM, and others) and Tamil people (parthi, praveen, etc.)Bakaman 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Kaveri, in this case. It's just some sort of "parity complex" that a few people hold. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So how much 'bluntness' you suggest the community to tolerate? Calling other editors trolls is according you is just 'blunt' way of putting things. Thanks for the insight.

If putting fact tags for every sentence (in some cases for every word) in an article [211], adding frivolous no-license tags for images with clear license information, calling all other editors as trolls, adding offending edit summaries are not being disruptive, what is being disruptive?

BTW: its nice to see Sarvagnya supporting your cause in Arbcom. Praveen 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I initiated the checkuser on sarvagnya, I helped thwart an RFC he filed back when Marathi vs. Kannada was the vogue ethnic conflict. I also had a huge disagreemtn with him over anton Balasingham. Sundar in fact, was asked by sarvagnya to attack me in hkelkar's arbcom, which he declined. Back to the subject of "friendliness", you seem to misunderstand POV pushing, and other negative terms, so you using them does not really have the effect of a good editor like sundar using them, though he is incorrect in this case.Bakaman 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First things first. Saying that I defamed Hart or anybody else is nonsense. Neither have I defamed Hart nor have I resisted them using him in their citations. When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a citation in hand. I was not just ORing.

This is all that I'll respond to right now as I dont know if anybody here is even interested/listening nor do I see any point in discussing content issues pertaining to Tamil language on ANI. But if any admin wants me to answer any of those baseless allegations they've thrown at me, point out the accusation and I will respond to it. Otherwise, I am done here. And before I sign off, I am still waiting to hear how tagging an article asking for citations is disruption. Or tagging(asking for source info) pictures that have been.. yes.. 'pompously' released on GFDL when there is zero evidence regarding the source or the original copyright holder. Sarvagnya 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a citation in hand.

Could you please show us the portion where Hart's (and other Tamil organizations') work is compared to squat from your citation? Thanks. Praveen 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Praveen and Parthi have presented enough evidence here. Moreover, he has himself shown a sample of his attitude with his above comments. I leave it to the admins. Back to content issues, with his relentless and systematic pushing across-the-board, I doubt if we can work out consensus without third party mediation at the least or even arbitration. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Praveen and Parthi have not presented any evidence whatsoever. All their so called 'evidence' is full of red herrings. For example, Praveen says I've removed cited content somewhere. If people take a closer look at the history, you will find that it would have been one in a series of consecutive edits by me(with no intervening edits from any other editors) and that I would have brought back the "cited content" myself in mostly the very next edit(the one about tamil inscriptions being in tamil and Kannada& Telugu being in Sanskrit, for example). If I have not brought back any content that I removed, then it means that the content has been disputed. In such cases, look at the talk page and you will find that I would have explained myself at length. In such cases you will also see that, instead of addressing my concerns, these people have tag team reverted me. And when they've reverted, they have infact removed "cited content" that I might have added(and in those cases, you'd hardly see any semblance of them discussing it on talk pages). Just because some content is cited, doesnt mean it is NPOV, undisputed or even relevant to the article.

The one example you gave is because you reverted my revert to earlier version. Could you give diffs for other incidents where you 'brought' back cited information? You claim you only removed 'disputed' cited information. Thats the point. The cited information was removed unilaterally. Praveen 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know who Sundar is referring to when he says that he's quit because of me. I presume he's talking of User:Vadakkan. If anybody takes a look at Vadakkan's user page and talk pages, you will see that he has been away since many months now. His going away has nothing to do with me and as his own edits(the few intermittent ones) will testify, he's been away because he's been busy in "Real life". Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago, he claimed that he was in Europe and busy in real life and would only be able to participate intermittently. How very convenient of Sundar to now claim that I drove him away!!

Parthi says I've tagged dozens of articles as OR. If he be asked to show the evidence, people here will come to know of the gross exaggeration in his statement. Exaggeration which is no doubt filled with malice(to try and sway emotions here and may be get me blocked). And even the ones I tagged for OR(and didnt resist once I was reverted), people can see how badly they're written. Zero inline referencing in fairly long articles but conveniently marked as "stubs".

As for the pictures he claims I've maliciously tagged, since when is asking for proper information of source for a pic that has been released on GFDL malicous?! Its not upto editors here to simply download pictures they like from somewhere and release it on wikipedia under GFDL. In some cases, there are pics where they've scanned it from some calendar and released it on a free license claiming that the copyright holder had "irrevocably released" all rights. When the fact of the matter is, they dont even know who the original copyright holder is!! In another case, a pic(on en.wiki) has a link to a "description page" on commons which directs you to fr.wiki and the fr.wiki sends you back to commons! And there is no source info. And it has been released under GFDL!

As for the mischevous insinuations about my sockpuppetry, [[212] here] is the evidence disproving that. It has testimonies and acknowledgements exonerating me of any such wrongdoing. The acknowledgements are not just by multiple admins who were involved, but also by the user who initiated the RFCU in the first place. can somebody please make me a banner out of this link and drop it off on my talk page. I'll be grateful to you. Thanks in advance.

As a humble and constructive editor who is not an admin, I submit that this is belligerence and not so veiled intimidation by an admin who is directly involved in a content issue with me. He is trying to browbeat me from even attempting to edit his favourite article while at the same time trying to present himself as some wronged martyr. Talking about things like an Arbcom(!!) to decide this content issue is in my view an attempt to intimidate and browbeat me into submission.

Calling my edits disruption is just slander. If people investigate any content issue I may have been involved in, they will notice that I always take part extensively in discussing the issues on the talk page. Even in this case(Tamil language) you will see that I have been discussing issues on the talk page for nearly a month(and intermittently in related articles since the past one year). I could have tagged the article as disputed long back. I didnt because I assumed good faith. But when their "tag team belligerence" became too much to handle, I was forced to tag it as they had demonstrated no inclination to address the issues. Also btw, if I had a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, I'd like to know where he/she was when these people were tag team reverting me.

If anybody is concerned about any of my "content issue" edits that these people have mischevously presented as "disruption"(!!), I invite you to the concerned article talk page and I will be glad to explain it to you. But I absolutely see no point in discussing content issues pertaining to some article, here on ANI. Sarvagnya 18:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, to summarize the arguments above and a good view on it. This is a content dispute', nothing else. Sarvagnya has worked well among a wide spectra of nationalities and ethnicities including Tamil users (of which I am one). He has had a real hardknock conflict with a grand total (I have not seen sundar lately on wikipedia) of two Tamil users: Parthi and Praveen pillay.Bakaman 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That is just your assertion.There is enough evidence presented above where he calls other users as trolls, removes cited information unilaterally, tags every sentence/words in an article. Praveen 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Two former enemies lawyering for each other!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusing established and regular editors of disruption and nitpicking just because you're having a content issue with them sarvagnya should stop assuming that he is an established editor,on contrary he is an established troll. He is always behind other language articles be it Hindi, Marathi or Tamil. His extraordinary love for his language is to be blamed. I request a strict action against him. He is responsible for the exits of Mahawiki, Arya and sarvabhaum and fancy sockpuppet' allegations which led an admin to block whole range of IP.

Bogus MfD closure, and then some

I hereby award this giant noisy machine that does nothing to enhance the encyclopaedia to everyone who even tries to suggest that "anti-barnstars", as proposed by freakofnurture here, are useful in any capacity whatsoever to... well, I guess I had a point here, but I kind of got a caffeine lapse. Sorry. I guess I failed at an attempt at the humour. But is this image offensive? I sure hope not. It's philosophical. Gears are the most philosophical of the mechanical things. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Before I even get into this one, I confess that I was annoying in this particular MfD debate, as I admit at User talk:SMcCandlish#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner, and as amended at this diff with a broad self-revert. Despite no further issues being expressed by anyone, Freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the debate while still ongoing, supporting a "consensus" of keep and adding an "admonishment" to me for having proposed the MfD in the first place. I have four issues with this (and if this is really a WP:DRV issue, then say so and I'll take it there): 1) A party to the debate shouldn't close it; it's a conflict of interest. 2) An admonishment is called for in a case of bad faith, but not simply because one disagrees with the XfD nomination or doesn't like the nomintator's debate style. 3) More importantly, the "keep" decision strikes me as faulty; the only conclusion to draw (as much as I would like it to be otherwise) appears to be "no consensus" - a number of ediors raised substantive issues, in detail, that were never addressed by the more numerous but largely "me to" keep commentors, few of whom seemed to understand that the actual gist of the MfD was userspacing (or even another form of compromise) not deletion. And lastly, 4): Of over 30 commentors, only two suggested in any terms that I be admonished for bringing this XfD, and one made it very clear he was kidding, so a finding of consensus that I be so admonished is clearly nonsensical. That said, the fact that one seriously meant it and I got user talk comments about the matter was enough for me to re-examine my participation and change it, to the point of self-reverting much of my own text. I'm not sure what better sign of good-faith could be given. Still, the almost immediate "result of the debate was: keep and admonish nominator" followed by the strangest message I've ever gotten yet on WP, and I've been around since late '05. I don't think I've ever seen an Anti-Barnstar before. From an admin closing a debate he was party to.

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate way to close an XfD, even if you are irritated with the nominator. And I don't like seeing this sitting around in the archives "admonishing" me for having dared to challege something that I thought was (and still think is) ultimately detrimental to the project. That view may be debatable, but it is neither insane nor malicious.

PS: The personal attack message aside, I am being reverted by the same personage at the MfD page in my effort to resolve an edit conflict and add my final comment to that page, which has no effect whatsoever on the closure decision, but simply provides my response to a direct challenge for one. Judging from the edit summaries, he reversions are based on assumptions of bad faith on my part that are not justified (i.e. 'lol "edit conflict". I don't believe you, reverting.')

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from any other issue, what you believe would have been the proper result of "No consensus" would still default to "keep," so precisely how the closer characterized the close is not critical. The "admonition" is one user's view; it's not a formal ruling as part of the XfD process, so I don't think you need to worry overmuch about that. I suppose you can seek a deletion review if you want to, but my recommendation would be to drop the matter and see how this new idea works. If it has as negative an impact as you seem to anticipate, the matter can be revisited in due course. Newyorkbrad 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To interject: Yes, I know that it would be kept as a result of "no consensus", and I have no intentions to going to DRv about it; there is certainly no consensus to detele or userspace the stuff in question. But there was no "keep" consensus either, and a closure of "keep" gives the impression that ther was one, which is misleading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, closing admins need to understand that what they say in a closing has implications, and the "ruling" to admonish the nominator is clearly listed at the top of the delete debate for everyone to see. There is no question that it may be interpreted as an "official" part of the closing and should not have been included. The closer should keep his purely personal opinions, especially when of a negative nature, to private conversation with the nominator. Lexicon (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it would have been better not to include that comment at that location. Perhaps the closing administrator, on seeing this thread, will refactor the wording. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Regardless of anything else, the "middle-finger barnstar" [213] is a bit much. That really doesn't seem appropriate, whether or not the admonition is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that, having only looked at the MfD discussion itself rather than the talk. I have to agree that that was grossly inappropriate coming from any editor and especially from an administrator. I would urge, though, that the closing admin be given notice of this thread (if he hasn't already) before this discussion continues. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lexicon (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate, but funny nonetheless. I can't fault him too much for his anti-barnstar. --Cyde Weys 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the funniest (also grossest) things I've ever seen on WP was an image that Freak used to accompany his answer to one of my questions during his ArbCom candidacy. (He subsequently changed his answer, so anyone curious has to check the page history there.) Sorry, but this image was not in that league and seems to have offended a contributor. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an F-U Barnstar giver, ([214], [215]), I must say his use of it is fine. --Ali'i 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An "F-U Barnstar" in the way Freakofnurture used it is no different from saying "fuck you" outright, and is therefore undoubtedly a significant violation of WP:CIV. How could it possibly be defended as "fine"? Lexicon (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO the barnstar was given in good humor, if it were me I wouldn't consider it a personal attack. Roll with the punches and have fun. hombre de haha 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not dreadfully offended, crying my eyes out in the corner or anything. I'm an old Usenet hand with a pretty thick skin, and the image actually is pretty funny. What concerns me about this is more precedential. If it becomes "okay" or "fine" to do this in Wikipedia, then where does it stop? How many editors will we lose who make great contributions, tick someone off once in a while, and don't have thick skins? Will the pictures start becoming disgusting? Threatening? That's where I'm going with this half of the issue (the other half being that I think the MfD is simply wrong as "Keep" instead of "No consensus", shouldn't be attacking the nominator - again a bad precedent - and shouldn't be closed by a party to the debate. I care about that stuff more than the "anti-barnstar".) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm relieved to hear that you personally were not offended by this. Such an image, as used, is a personal attack, and in general I would not hesitate to deliver a 24 hour block if an editor did not remove such an image and apologize (although I am not threatening a block against Freakofnurture, as this appears to be an isolated incident). This is an encyclopedia, not a cage match. We aren't here to see who can withstand more torment and abuse, whether overt or passive-aggressive. I am concerned by Freakofnurture's action, but this can be a lapse of judgment. I am much more concerned by the attitude of those who think this isn't a big deal. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a playground only for people who don't mind being cursed at and insulted, then there's really no possibility of a viable community or a quality product as the result. If we're going to scrap CIVIL and NPA, there's really no incentive for most people to stick around. ··coelacan 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>. —freak(talk) 18:30, May. 5, 2007 (UTC)

Where? The anti-barnstar is still present on my talk page (I really don't care), and the MfD closure still bears the "admonish nominator" in the closing statement (I really do care). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"<personal attack removed>" was just Freakofnurture's response to me. It's another clever retort. I'll go refactor the MfD. ··coelacan 08:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a non-apology. You could use the good ol' stand-by "I'm sorry". But whatever. Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse

Over on User talk:HeadMouse, we've been having a discussion about the correct redirect for the page. I've tried to keep it calm, but this user appears to be trying to escalate the discussion. There was a reference to (who I can only assume is me) a "monkey" on their back in the edit summary for Mark VI monorail, and there also appears to be the thinking that this user owns any page they create. The original discussion was about the redirect of Monorail System to Monorail rather than Walt Disney World Monorail System.

I'm going to take a step back because I can feel my temper coming up a little, but would appreciate any input offered - even if it's that I'm felt to be in the wrong. Ellbeecee 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah, this [216] edit summary looks like a civility issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While I am not an administrator, I did step in as an impartial outside observer and point HeadMouse (talk · contribs) toward the relevant sections of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN. I also fixed [217] the HTML monstrosity that was the editor's first article and answered [218] his/her questions on WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I was worried that if I let my temper get in the way, I was going to escalate things, and I didn't want that, so I appreciate you stepping in and helping out. Ellbeecee 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Kralizec! for stepping in and helping with this - the situation has calmed and appears to be resolved. Ellbeecee 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gatorgalen 3RR & SPA

User reverts an article written by cult expert Larry Pile from listed articles based on his dislike for the website the article is posted at and not the author's authority. It should be pointed out that this is possibly a single purpose account for the purpose of pushing PoV in favor of Great Commission Association. Diffs: [219] [220] [221]

User contributions: [222]

Thanks for your attention to the matter. ClaudeReigns 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also asking for notice to be paid to user's conflict of interest as a fundraiser, missionary, and staff member for Great Commission Ministries. ClaudeReigns 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'll defend myself. The 3RR claim doesn't belong here; it doesn't really matter, because it's frivolous anyway. For some reason ClaudeReigns has become unwilling to discuss things on talk pages. As for SPA; I only have a certain amount of time. If it weren't for the POV editing by ClaudeReigns, I would be editing other things. As it is, I spend all of my available editing time tryin to make the GCA article NPOV. It's a very tiring task. For whoever looks at this, I would also like to ask you to review ClaudeReigns's edit history as well; though he apparently has much more time than me, he is focused on GCA issues as well, generally as I said in a POV manner. I have been upfront from the very beginning about my involvement with the topic and have tried my bestto remain objective. ClaudeReigns is an ex-GCA member who hates GCA; he is not upfront with this. I would also ask the administrator to investigate possible long-term sockpuppetery between ClaudeReigns and User:Xanthius. They apparently know each other in real life but refuse to discuss their involvement in opposing GCA. They do frequently back up each other's edits. Thanks for your time, I apologize that this frivolous report. Gatorgalen 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting points which Gatorgalen makes, but I can make it quite clear why Gatorgalen's own actions and discussion necessitated my involvement in Wikipedia. He himself mentioned my real name in Wikipedia talk pages. These remarks were since deleted by administrators. Since coming here under an explicit understanding with User:Xanthius that I don't have to agree with him, I find that I enjoy it, and have been attempting to branch out from the core subject of Great Commission Association by developing second and third degree articles as well as get involved in other interests here. I do not always agree with User:Xanthius though it is true that he is a good friend and we often do see eye to eye on the subject of Great Commission Association. We also do share an I.P. address for half of the day. However, since both of our real names have been mentioned by GCA staff members and deleted by Wikipedia administrators, it is only fitting, in my opinion, that we both be allowed to edit. I can also clearly establish how my anonymity has been made necessary by present and former staff members within Great Commission Association. I think you'll find that nearly every addition I make to Wikipedia includes an immediately verifiable source and that until recently I have striven to reach out to current members of Great Commission Association to make them feel especially welcome. All of this stands in direct contrast to User:Gatorgalen's record as editor--and even User:Xanthius'. The administration is welcome to seek any information they would like about my involvement in the topic or relationship to User:Xanthius--my anonymity is only to prevent misuse of personal information by said current and former staff members. I know the administrators will make a good decision in this matter as they have done in the past. ClaudeReigns 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - Claude's memory appears to be fuzzy, it was someone else who outed his real identity, I have no idea who he really is. Just a note. Gatorgalen 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material/vandalism, 3rr/edit warring, ownership of articles and personal attack problems with Gon4z

Gon4z continues to revert any updates to the following articles: Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces Command, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. Also his information is outdated, unsourced and he has done about 15 reverts in the three last days. He doesn't read any discussion post: here, here, here, here and here, but resorts to threats, insults and user page vandalism here. Some of his remarks to other editors:

on my (noclador) talkpage:

• "I will take further actions" Gon4z 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• "you did not citise anything its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" Gon4z 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• "ok I suggest that unless you have a real contribution you should not edit the article.... tahnk you" (unsigned)
• "you are delusional" Gon4z 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

on user MrMacMan talkpage:

• "I don’t know if you hate Albanians or what but pls do not edit that article unless you have sources from 2006 or 2007 I have been trying to work hard and fix that article I don’t need some one coming to ruin and spread propaganda just because they have a problem with Albanians" Gon4z 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Las time I checked it was you vandalising the Albanian military articles using racist anti albanian websites as source i have cetise my figures." Gon4z 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• "I not sure what you are considering an attack, I ahve not attacked you once I have just simplly replied to your comment, it is not nice to play the victim take it like a man you sources are not correct and are ruining the article." (unsigned, but once gain by Gon4z)

in the edit summary of Albanian Land Forces Command

• "I am clearly the only one here providing proof from my figures unlike you two whore are spreading bate propaganda"

My information is based on the following sources:

• The World Defence Almanac 2006, page 95, Mönch Publishing Group; Bonn 2006;
• The IISS Military Balance Report 2006- 2007, page 80, Routledge Publishing; 106 edition (May 24, 2006)
• SIPRI Yearbook 2006, Oxford University Press, June 2006.
• Centre for SouthEast European Studies: Albania’s Armed Forces- 2002 Data]
• Bonn International Center for Conversion
• Albanian Land Forces Command

All this is ignored by Gon4z, who bases his information on the same homepage he criticizes as "Greek anti Albanian website". Also the same kind of edit war and personal attacks is waged by him at the article Serbian Air Force, where he keeps reducing the number of active Serbian airplanes, substitutes the correct grammatical tense with the present tense, vandalises the syntax and tells a fellow editor: "this is the last time i will warn you get a profile because if not then your IP address will be suspended from editing any article" Gon4z 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, according to user MacGyverMagic Gon4z is a “editor who has a history of vandalism, POV and unsourced edits.” comment can be found here.

As Gon4z in continuous violation and a repeat offender of the following Wikipedia rules:

• Unsourced material
• Vandalism
• Three revert rule
• Edit warring and
• Personal attacks against at least three fellow editors

I strongly urge to block him for an extended period of time. noclador 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I am not involved in this issue with this user and today I reported the editor to the Admin 3RR board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:24h.29 which resulted in his/her 24 hour block. I have really tried to get this editor to explain his reverts and his rational for using his older sources and his actual, apparent lack of sources. I think that this user has disregarded the newer and better sources put before him and has completely ignored all information not coming from his own older sources. When bringing up this newer information he ignores us and makes accusations that I'm biased or using other information that he says is biased (which I wasn't using anyway). I don't understand why he insists without explaining his reasoning so I have to conclude he is not acting in good faith. If this user was explaining his rational for reverting the changes this would be a content dispute but his disregard on this dispute and instead he's been very unresponsive to any comments that have been made to him. I would also say that his blocking period be expanded. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reckless Copyright Infringement

User B7rent has persistently uploaded images that do not belong on Wikipedia for Copyright reasons. The user has also replaced free images from Flickr with images from the Associated Press or other sources. The user has ignored three warnings, and has continued the aforementioned actions, including after being given a final warnings. See User Talk] and [User Contributions] --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you reporting a new issue or an old one? According to the upload logs for B7rent (talk · contribs · logs), this editor has not uploaded any images since April, and even those were marked as {{untagged}} by OrphanBot and/or deleted already. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the User's contributions. He keeps on adding images that have been tagged as copy violations despite warnings. For example, the user uploaded Image:CHester Bennington 2007.jpg on 4/27. It was tagged for deletion because of its false licensing and lack of source. After removing the image, and asking the user to stop adding it, the user has persisted on adding to to an article. He has even attemepted re-adding the image today. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)