Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive379

Peculiar fixation on Jake Gyllenhaal

An editor -- from the evidence, BatterBean (talk · contribs) -- has been constantly recreating a rather odd assortment pages (disguised as User pages), which are cut-and-pastes of Fergie album articles with her name swapped out for Jake Gyllenhaal's. So far, the ones I've come across over the last several months and which have been deleted are:

User:4 U12 User:BetterThanEver User:Taste A Cake User:Disc6 User:Sun Is Down

User:Love-Haha User:WhatIWanted21 User:Jakie21 User:Smashout21 User:IPodLove

User:ITunes69 User:Cut Ur Cords User:MediaKarma User:Explode24 User:Explode25

User:Sweet24 User:Wind24 User:God24 User:All24 User:Clumsy24

This is getting a bit tiresome. He's been left messages every time he tries this, but he immediately deletes the warnings without comment. Anyone want to have a stronger word with User:BatterBean?

See also:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive103#Someone.27s_fantasy_life...
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cut Ur Cords
• This !vote at the MFD,
• and this commentary on the above

--Calton | Talk 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget User:Glow69, User:LeaveItAlone69, User:Scream69, User:CrazyLove69, and User:Livedvd69. I deleted a bunch of these userpages in December, all Fergie/Jake Gyllenhall nonsense, and if BatterBean is the culprit, we should probably dispatch of him from the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Any sockpuppetry check? I'd try blocking the IP address and if someone is suddenly autoblocked, things would be interesting, to say the least. I'd fear some more bizarre meatpuppetry here, which is would be quite difficult to follow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I checkusered these, starting with the first few, and all matched BatterBean. I doubt it's worth checking the entire list, as it seems pretty obvious already. Also, that's a lot of work I'd rather avoid. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone blocked the IP address (if it's fixed)? He'll either respond or stop playing around. Passive-aggressive, but works for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that it is a much better idea to discuss whether or not we should allow BatterBean to continue editing Wikipedia with all of these other accounts being used improperly, rather than discuss whether or not the IP should be blocked (or request a formal check).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser against User:Creepy Crawler. He had a JG fetish as well. ThuranX (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice advice

A user has asked for my advice as an administrator on a matter involving potential vandalism. But I was previously a mediator in a content matter involving him and the alleged vandals. So I feel it would be inappropriate for me to judge their conduct, as I'm an involved party. Could an uninvolved admin review and act on if necessary? Below is a copy from my user talk page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"I advice you for 2 vandaling edits in my user page by same user:this one and other one. Also vandalism is this edit against valid and correct editor. You are admin and you know rules. Regards,--PIO (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)"

First and third edits look like clear cut vandalism. Was the question whether it was vandalism or not? Looks like edit 1 deserves a warning, and edit 3 a considerably harsher warning. Avruch ^T 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my question was, can someone else handle this (warnings, etc). I was rather emphatic at the MEDCAB that no user conduct sanctions would come from me as a result of mediation, and I don't want to be seen as going back on my word to either side. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I warned the first user with a level 3 (because they'd had earlier warnings) and the second with a level 2 (because they apparently had not). delldot talk 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my edit, for which I've now been warned, did any of you actually read what User:Cherso had written to inspire the comment I put on his user page? I very much doubt it. However, I take my warning to heart and humbly apologise if I may have broken any rules. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My userpages

User:Metros is having a bad day and wants to delete my userpages. I'm not advertising anything nor am I trying to promote a political agenda. I am "running for president" to promote wikilove and wikicohesion among editors. Its not serious and I don't expect anybody to vote for me. I am sorry if I caused any problems with it but I am not doing this out of bad faith. I feel it improves civility and makes the encyclopedia work better. Jimbo has encouraged WikiLove in the past with his support for the "Autograph" books.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? This board is for actions to be taken, so administrators will need to know what you're looking to be done here. Your page was nominated for being, as I believe, inappropriate. It is essentially a blog where you're sharing your personal beliefs on how to change the world. This is inappropriate under WP:USER guidelines. The other page I nominated is not "your userpage" and is actually a Wikipedia-space list. (Discussions are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians who ran for president) Metros (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I want an administrator to talk to you about your actions. Why do you keep reverting my attempts to talk to you when I have no bad faith intended.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because your explanations for why you think your page is appropriate belongs at the deletion discussion, not a user talk page. Metros (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting comments on one's own talk page is okay, and what is there for someone to 'talk to him about'? He provided a decent reason for the deletion, has composed himself civilly, and is not acting in a disruptive manner. This is a non-issue. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was explaining my reasoning to him. Using a rollback summary implying vandalism when it is not, is incivil. If somebody thinks something is divisive explain it to me on my talk page, there is no reason to bring it to AFD. I think it is a waste of an AFD since the editor Metros could have just left a friendly message on my talk page and the whole issue could have been adverted.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a waste of a MFD too, but it's there. Silly but just go along with process, Uga Man, and explain your reasoning there. You are not probably going to gain anything by talking to Metros. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did not mean to imply anything by that; sorry if I did. Just meant that you should go to the centralized discussion. Talk with Metros wouldn't do much. At best, he could withdraw the nomination but it would be more effective to try to answer everyone questions, if they are any, at the MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice of range block

I have blocked the 118.137.0.0/16 range for 1 month due to only vandalism (as far as I can tell) coming from the range. I had previously blocked it about a week ago for 1 week due to extensive vandalism, and the vandalism restarted almost immediately upon that block expiring. The following IPs were all used for vandalizing the same set of articles:

• 118.137.2.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.2.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.3.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.3.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.34.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.34.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.34.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.34.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.35.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.35.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.35.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.137.50.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They are all from some ISP in Indonesia. Whoever it is seemed to like adding various MGM-related info to totally unrelated articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nihon. The following 5 blocks would cover the range 118.137.2.0-118.137.63.255 and only block 15,872 IP's as opposed to the 65,536 that you have blocked.

• 118.137.2.0/ 23
• 118.137.4.0/ 22
• 118.137.8.0/ 21
• 118.137.16.0/ 20
• 118.137.32.0/ 19

Perhaps you may want to minimize the block -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a thought, but this guy keeps switching IPs, and the range keeps getting bigger (there were fewer last time). However, they are all within the 118.137.x.x range. I also left the possibility open for a person to create an account if they really want to edit, so it's not a completely shut door. Just a guard asking for ID. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the update. -- Avi (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

EnglishClassKazan (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – See below. Rudget. 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Short query: see the user page for the above user: is this an acceptable use of a Wikipedia user account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage deleted and another page this user has created have been deleted as a role account userpage and under U2 respectively. ECK has been indef-blocked as {{usernameblock}}. Rudget. 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack only account?

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by Maxim —Travis^talk 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TenOfSpades has made three edits since his account was created on 22nd Feb purely to insult other users on a user's talk page. Could someone please sort him out? I don't know whether this would be classed as an attack-only account, another user hiding behind a sockpuppet, etc but he clearly has an attitude problem. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the last edit, I've issued a final (only) warning; no reason to put up with someone who has done nothing but insult other users. He suggests at a history on Wikipedia, so pissed off sockpuppet is a good probability. I certainly wouldn't object if someone blocked him. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to issue warnings for obvious sockpuppet trolls. Blocked as one accordingly. Maxim_(talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. John Smith's (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits to support eBay fraud

Resolved

 – blocked

Account Thomiswil and two -puppets (see RfCU/Thomiswil) have been engaged in edits designed to remove unfortunate facts and supporting references from “E. M. Washington”, and to replace these with fulsome praise and other dubious assertions:

edits by 209.244.62.98: [1], [2], [3]

edits by 209.244.62.101: [4], [5]

edits by Thomiswil: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

eBay account thomiswil is selling work by Washington:

1. [14]
2. [15] ←
3. [16]

And at least one of these auctions (1950 M. C. Escher by E. M. Washington 'Gargoyls' (Rare)) resumes the Washington fraud, dating a wood-block or print to “1950-1969”. (Washington was born in 1962, and didn't make any wood-blocks until the '90s.) —SlamDiego_←T 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears the editors last edit was more then 48 hours ago, as there are vandalism warnings on the talk page addressing the behavior and it has stopped, we can probably assume no further action is required at this time. Jeepday (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose account with a transparent motivation to return to vandalizing, whose prior improper edits continued well after warnings were given. —SlamDiego_←T 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser case was filed regarding this matter. Now  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

blatant sockpuppet needs blocking

KayShawn24 (talk · contribs) is a blatant sockpuppet of Shawnkay1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalizing the Tammy Lynn Sytch article. Sock is editing in the same manner as the indefblocked editor and the username is just a variation of the original account. WP:DUCK -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yep its a duck. Took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs

I've spent the last 24 hours trying to decide if I should really blackbox it and leave the project. I wrote this to be a summarry, but maybe someone else would like to examine it.

Having spent two months revamping the hulk article, and getting it up to Good Article status, to have another editor blank repeatedly what I and others had worked hard on, was frustrating. To be the third editor to revert his edits, and the first to invite him to use the talk page, I was shocked by his response, which attacked me for violating WP:OWN, and having failed the GA. The refusal of an admin to use the talk pages, and to continue to attack me is bad. That he's been dismissive of consensus is worse. When I offered a simple starting place for consensus, his reply was plain. I was no longer welcome on the article. As such, I delisted the article, and will be moving on. I am not sure where I went wrong, that after two others reverted him without comment, it was I who was attacked. I do care about the article, and given how much I put into it, I feel justified in watching over it. But it has been edited by others since (4K in added material), and I've been open to other improvements. I do feel that having hit GA, I was also justified in making sure newer edits added value, not just bytes and hype, to the article. To have all my work repudiated is bad enough, but to have it all come under a pile of attacks is enough for me to leave the project. When admins model that sort of behavior, it's not hard to understand why so many people leave.

Am I right that his actions were poor, if not outright wrong? ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Um. Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing, at first glance. I need to look closer into this. Oh, and FWIW don't leave, we can't do without good editors like you. Black Kite 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree. this other guy is acting like a rela prick but its important to assume good faith and continue to try to colelaborate with him. i have seen many instances of users who seem kind of unhelpful when they first join but grow to become incredible editors who later even become admins or even presidents. his behavior indicates that he is at least interested in editing the article Hulk so i would recomend that you back off him for a bit and wait here for an administrator to interveine. sometimes engaging someone can be helpful but toehr times disengaging and letting the soul struggle work itself out for the fate of your wikipedia editing careres to be a far more rsafer alternatronive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

David is an administrator, not a new user. Your comment "Acting like a rela prick" is a personal attack, and you should be warned that violating that policy on this page often leads to a block. Please - try to make your comments here constructive, and use "Preview" before you save in order to correct the other errors that have pointed out to you many, many times. Avruch ^T 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out Thuran that you didn't need to strip the article of GA status just because I voiced the concern it may not have met the requirements. That's what WP:GAR is for, and I'd rather improve the article rather than going through that process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I do hope you will stay with the project. Thank you for developing a great article. Staying calm and keeping your own behaviour top-notch will produce the best chance of getting calm, reasonable behaviour from other editors, in my opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Staying calm and keeping my own behaviour top-notch" didn't get me anything but hostile responses and accusations of policy violations. I was polite, invited him to use talk instead of just reverting. Three editors say no to the changes he makes, one says 'come talk to us' and he yells at that one. I really wish I'd started a revert war. It would've been simpler.

As for David Fuchs, he was absolutely clear, not that he had "the concern it may not have met the requirements", he stated that it should never have passed. So I delisted it. When an article no longer meets the standard, it is stripped of the status ,and returned to a lower status. David Fuchs made it clear on the talk page that he does not need consensus to do anything on Wikipedia, and so I am simply enabling his no doubt incredible rewrite, making sure that everything is smooth for him. I am troubled though, that having promised a great rewrite, he dropped all efforts on the page once I left it.ThuranX (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can some other respected editors please stop by the Talk page in question and weigh in on recent activities and actions? Things are getting quite...silly. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And now ThuranX has begun editing the article to remove his earlier contributions, an obvious violation of WP:POINT and WP:OWN. Please, someone else try talking with this valued editor before he completely ruins his reputation and the article(s) he has edited. I have personally run out of patience with him or her and I am now withdrawing myself from this issue. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin gamed 3RR, ignored CONSENSUS, and was incivil the whole while. He stated that consensus is not applicable if he thinks an article needs fixing, thus using Administrative Fiat to establish, by his word alone, a new CONSENSUS. I brought it to AN/I, where no one found his actions to be any problem. Now I'm in trouble for working with the new consensus. I can't win either way. If I argue with him, I'm making a bad article worse, if I undo all my mistakes, I'm a vandal and a disruptor. I'm totally confused, because WIkipedia LIKES how David Fuchs edits, and now I'm doing what he does. he said the article failed its' Good Article Review, so I reset the rating to Fail, and B rating article, removed it fr omteh GA listings, and closed an unneeded GAR. How can this be wrong? David Fuchs says it's right. And consensus here at AN/I is that David Fuchs does no wrong, per Avruch, who points out that as an admin, not new user, David FUchs kenw what he was doing. Note that Avruch finds no fault in the actions, and no one has countered Avruch, thus establishing that consensus is for all of David Fuchs actions. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're being childish, Thuran, and disruptive. I never stated that since I was an admin it failed GA; I said it probably would fail if it was taken to WP:GAR. No you are acting petulant and being as incivil as I evidently was. I am not trying to create any sort of fiat; I shouldn't have reverted repeatedly, but your accusations of a cabal are lunacy. I am attempting to cut down the long character history masquerading as publication and characterization, and you complain I'm adding more in. I will not respond to this any more, since you've gone off the deep end. I've said I'm sorry, I offered to be more cooperative, and you've spat at me and everyone who has told you to calm down. If you're so upset, leave. But this tirade has gone on long enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A bald faced lie. YOu've never once apologized, you've never offered to cooperate with me. YOu jsut keep saying you know what's best for Wikipedia, and that I wrote a shitty article alone and have OWN problems. I worked with many others. I asked for input throughout, then ran it through three reviews by regular editors of the Hulk page, while it was on my sandbox. After I posted it, I watched it but was careful to avoid OWN, and it grew by 4K. I've thought about ways to continue to improve the article, and had intended to begin examining ways to incorporate the Powers article, and incorporate the work of Grest & Weinberg regarding Hulk's powers. Instead, all you have done is insult anyone who worked on it. I worked to cite all I could in the publication and Characterization sections, ensuring that the rampant In-Universe style of Plot narration was dropped, because it's simple not encyclopedic. I added sources left right and center. Your first edit was to blank all of that. No explanations except "i'll come back and fix this shitty article when I want to".

Three editors demonstrated there was consensus against you, and you ran right up to 3RR on it, rather than talk. When I reverted you the third time, and invited you to talk, you insulted me. I ignored that and tried patiently to explain WHY things were the way they were and WHY consensus was FOR the state of the page. You insulted me again, and again, and again. Every time I tried, your actions got worse. You instituted a new consensus that the article sucks alone, refuting all existing consensus. but luckily for you, Avruch supports you, and NetKiinetic showed up out of the blue to champion you. I've never asserted there's a cabal going on, but you did have two editors defend you without clearly looking at the situation. That's not a cabal, it's just Wikipedia.

As for the fail, you stated that the article "really doesn't pass GA standards." That's a FAIL. there's no two ways to interpret that. You said it does not meet the standards. THus, it should never have been given a pass. I have worked hard to rectify this obvious bureaucratic blunder.

In short, you have shown quite clearly that Administrators do not need to hew to the same rules as editors. I'm simply falling in line behind the new power structure. Really, what's the problem? ThuranX (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had very good experiences with ThuranX in the past, and I'm sorry to see this issue causing him such upset. ElKevbo, I suggest that when someone is clearly upset and frustrated because their article work hasn't been appreciated, calling it silly won't help calm the situation. I don't know what to do to help, I wish I did, but I'm sorry to see this happening. I hope others will stay calm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Labeling this as silly is being quite generous and nice. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought my only comment in this thread was directed at Smith Jones, but apparently I'm mistaken... Avruch ^T 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since my opinion is being bandied about anyway, here it is: this and the adjacent edit from ThuranX are completely inappropriate and could justify a block, certainly a warning. David's conduct was not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins, but it does appear from the above comments that he recognizes this. On the other hand, bad behavior doesn't excuse bad behavior. I suggest, ThuranX, that you take a step back from this article and get some perspective. Work on something else, take a quick Wikibreak, and come back hopefully willing and able to move beyond this episode. Avruch ^T 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I was asked to read this, I can see that per this, and Emperor's comments at the Hulk page, it's all MY fault. I"m beyond frustrated with this, I'm just sick. All these people who talk about how good an editor I am, and my 'reputation' are clearly mistaken. My editing fails a GA it passed, because David Fuchs said so, and was so bad he overrode consensus to do it his way. He IGNORED CONSENSUS. No one's said anythign about that. He's STILL ignoring consensus, making edits to the page. SO my editing can't be good at all.

As for my reputation, I don't know who any of these people claiming to know my reputation are; and cannot recall working with any on any article or talk page, so I can only conclude that either they're thinking about someone else, or my name comes up in off wiki places without my knowledge. As far as I've ever seen, my reputation is that I'm one of the pro-vandalism cabal who hate MONGO and who never edit, just lay in wait to pounce on him, and I got away with it once. That's the rep I know I have here. So... to those discussing me elsewhere, either link me so I can see what's being said behind my back, or stop talking and figure out who you're really thinking of.

I can't be clear enough in my frustrations. David Fuchs broke three major rules, and at best it's been said "not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins" and "Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing". No one has seen anything wrong with his actions. No one has said 'David Fuchs broke rules in ways that get most editors warned or blocked. That he's an admin and knows better makes this worse in my eyes; Admins are supposed to model the best behavior. When three different people revert you, use the talk. When you're invited to use the talk, be civil. He wasn't civil. I ignored it and he was incivil again. And again. I'm tired of writing up the summary, because the events are clear. Only when it was clear that post facto he had 'consensus by absence of objection' did I change and fall in line. I acted in the best spirit of Wikipedia to clean up the things he said were wrong, like a false rating. And I got in MORE trouble for that, with people accusing me of point violations and disruption. And I still don't get it. If people get away with doing wrong, what other choice do I have? Keep fighting him? He was given a pass on his actions here. If I had kept fighting him, I would've been blocked. Instead, I'm in trouble for accepting that I lost and doing the right thing by making the new consensus an actual consensus. And still editors say 'go use the talk page and build a consensus'. But HOW???? David Fuchs said on the talk page that trying to build consensus gets in the way of him fixing the article. How much clearer can it be that the ONLY choice is to accept and abide, because fighting him hurts Wikipedia. No one has addressed this. I've heard lots of 'Cool off' comments, but not one 'David Fuchs fucked up' comment. Why is that? I really am thoroughly confused at this point, and I'm also insulted by the lies that I ignored his apologies. He never apologized. Never. Instead, he went from 'get out of my way' to 'I already said sorry, so get out of my way!', without the intermediate 'sorry'. Then he characterizes me in all sorts of bad ways, after I did what he said, I got on his side to fix the article. There seems to be no pleasing him. I don't even want to try anymore. If you all knew some of the things I've gone through because of Wikipedia... Ask User:Newyorkbrad. He knows I've gone through the kind of Wikipedia stuff that permanently chases off editors, and I fought and stuck around through it. But this imbalance between David Fuchs' actions and mine, and the reception of both has broken my desire to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. To see an editor come in, ignore consensus, build his own false consensus and act on it till by repetition it seems to become real, and then blame those who stood up for the real, existing consensus as ruining articles? It's too much to see that go unchallenged by anyone but me. I'm sorry, but I really just don't want to do this anymore, because the unfairness there is too much to carry and keep looking at pages here. I look at any page on my watchlist, and wonder... how long till I do some amazing digging, and someone completely ignores my work and the work of the others who help, and just BOLDLY upends the article? David Fuchs never even bothered to look at the article's history, to see why the Characterization replaced a long fannishly written and mostly uncited Character History. He blanked out the sources I tracked down. I did everything 'by the book'. Look at my Sandbox and its' talk page for just SOME of what I did with others to make this article good., I may have done the typing and research, but I made sure to get input from many others over and over. David Fuchs didn't bother to ask, or look into ANY of this. If any editor really intends to rewrite an article from scratch, as He has stated is his intent, they should learn to check what's gone before. As an admin, he should already know this. But instead, he acted in the worst possible manner as far as cooperation goes, but no one seems to care. It's too much for me to respect this process anymore, because after all this, someone who doesn't respect the process can just undo it. had he come to the talk after being invited and put a list of things he's like to change, I'd have worked with him. Hulk as FA before the movie comes out would be great. But on the very first thing I offered up for consensus, his response was a POINT violating edit and summary.

Did I go to far in my recent edits? Perhaps. But when you see the rules broken over and over, and see an admin getting a pass, what else can happen? I shouldn't have called him a fucking idiot. Fucking jerk, maybe, but not fucking idiot. At least that would've been more specific about his actions and attitudes instead of his intellect. But I'm not apologizing for my fixing of the article status, because the rules say whenever someone disagrees with a GA rating, it loses the GA by nothing more than saying 'this article isn't GA'. Because David Fuchs said it never met the standard, that's him effectively failing it at the time of the nomination. I fixed the rating to meet that. And as to my supposed childishness, well, no. What I did was make it crystal clear that I was trying to accept his supposed Consensus. He didn't have it, still doesn't, but he's gotten away with it, none the less. That leaves me feeling hollow defeat, and I don't like feeling that whenever I look at wikipedia. I really don't think that anything but leaving is right for me now. Anyways, I tried to write one "calm" version of my feelings, since no one thinks my other statements were me being serious. It's not fair, and that's that. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I'm sorry if I confused things by trying to help out. It took me all day to track down a very old post, and to realize that I had mixed you up with TheronJ. My apologies for the confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I am unsure how you construed my comments to mean I am saying it is your fault. What I'm aiming at is a "no blame" approach on the talk page so we can actually work towards improving the article and getting it back on track for GA.

There are problems on both sides but the talk page there is not the best arena for people to air their grievances in such a manner (as it is derailing the whole effort). If you have problems with another editor (whether they are an admin or not) is to get more input (from, for example the Comic Project and/or other editors) and here as a last resort. There is nothing that isn't fixable but you need to stay civil and not take this so personally so we can sort this out. (Emperor (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

There's no way to talk it out. I tried. I tried that first, and I tried it again and again, and so far, not one person has said David Fuchs did anything wrong. Not one. Fuchs hasn't apologized. He went from saying he didn't have to, to saying he already did. No one cares about that. Just that I keep demanding some action, and all I get is 'go take a wikibreak, ThuranX'. Well, hell no. If you all thought a wikibreak was so badly needed, I'd have been blocked. But instead, you're all hoping I'll shut up and go away, and NOT get David Fuchs a clear rebuke. Why? I think it's cause he's short list for ArbCom replacements, and there's a sense of duty to protect him. Well it does no good for the project to get someone like him, who acts without consensus and without apology when wrong, on Arbcom. He doesn't read things through or do research, he steps in, makes a determination, and attacks others. That's not who we want for Arbcom. Not one person here or on the article talk has said one thing about his behavior beyond 'maybe we should think about if he did something wrong', but everyone here is absolutely sure that I'm to blame for all of this. On the talk page, Emperor called for ME to leave it but not David Fuchs, saying all the regular active editors should walk away. IN other words, get out of David Fuchs' way, he can save the article. That's how you blamed me for all of it, Emperor. IF that's how it goes, that community consensus is that regular editors should jsut get out of the way when some new editor runs ramshod all over their work, without discussion of finding consensus, then fine. Community ban me and be done with it. But David Fuchs will just do it again and again until someone makes him accept that he did something WRONG. How many editors are you willing to lose before you make him accountable for his actions? ThuranX (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to totally agree with you. There are quite a few admins who are railroding regular dedicated editors without investigating the whole issue. I do not know if there is a hidden agenda behind this. Are they trying to score points to be advanced? It may sure seem like so. We are losing one edito after another. Even good dedicated admins are living. The Undertoe left, Michael is on protes strike. What is going on here? Have we become so vindictive and venomous that we are blind and not thinking about the project as a whole but as advancment of our own interest? I see this as WP:COI. If an admin wants to be an admin just to have power over other users that admin may need to be desysosped for the interest of Wikipedia project. Igor Berger (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting what I said - I didn't say for you to stop - I said ALL active editors had to take a step back. There was an edit war over that page just staying this side of WP:3RR and it needed to stop. I also think you either need to be civil or take a break as could very easily get yourself blocked and I for one want to try and get this resolved without that. None of this is saying he is right and you are wrong - it is rarely that simple. It is about getting the right result for the article. (Emperor (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

No, I'm sorry. It's about David Fuchs' behavior being examined carefully. I waited for Black Kite to look into this more (he didn't) I had hoped Avruch would look more closely at what he'd said, and what he was supporting (Not sure if he did or not, so far he seems fine with all David Fuchs' behaviors). I waited on the talk page, but got more insulted. So I gave up. I did what David Fuchs wanted. It cost the article its GA status, one which took two months of hard work to earn. This, surprisingly, was where people noticed. And what did they notice? Not that David Fuchs had revoked status, not that he'd gamed, ignored, and broken rules, but that I was following consensus in a way they didn't like. Not one said hey, there's consensus that this article is good, no... Not one person spoke up to complain about David Fuchs. Just about me. It's hypocritical, and i hate it. Why is he immune from examination? Why is it suddenly only about MY behavior, and the good of the article, and not about his persistent behaviors that got the ball rolling here? ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't called for a Desysoping, just a formal rebuke and an apology. I'm not getting either though. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that ThuranX has been acting incivil in this matter. It's twice that he's calling editors interferring or comment unneeded.[17][18]

Moreover, he unilaterally blanked the GAR page for Hulk [19] after PeterSymonds requested for review. Now to be fair, I believe that David Fuchs does not need to "bold delist" this article. David should have given an "on hold for 7 days before delist" approach. This approach would have prevented such drama. The so-called "bold delist" is only for those that fails obviously (e.g. completely no reference or the article is only 10 sentence long) but misunderstood by most in the community. So after some consideration, the April issue of GA newsletter will cover the aspect of "bold delist". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I did the delisting, not David Fuchs. David Fuchs instead failed the article after it had passed GA. He gave no specifics, and had already gamed 3RR, been incivil and so on. I can't help but note that every bit of this entire situation has been David Fuchs doing wrong, then the entire thing twisting back at me being the only one in the wrong. Why isn't his gaming of 3RR, his refusal thrice over to initiate talk proceedings (One, before his massive blanking first edit, two and three before each revert), and his incivility when I very nicely asked him to the talk, and his further incivility when I replied to him more than once. Only after all that, after I brought it here where it was largely ignored (Black Kite never got back to it, Avruch effectively negated Smith Jones' comment and subtly supported David Fuchs), did I concede and initiate the pursuit of David Fuchs new consensus, one instituted by nothing more than his adamant refusal to follow policies. Only once I went in that direction did anyoen take notice of the situation, and then, only to complain about my actions. I followed every step Wikipedia has, only to have the entire system of polciy and recourse fail. Amazing that it works so well now that it's not an admin on the hot seat, eh? ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres‎

User:Galassi has created Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres, containing largely the same information as the deleted Known victims of the Babi Yar massacres‎. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a memorial, and Galassi is getting pretty upset about it, making threatening comments and now canvassing other users for assistance. See also the Talk:Babi Yar page for relevant discussion. This appears to be a contentious issue in general, so some input from other admins would be helpful. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the author is getting upset. "Memorial" is not a valid speedy reason per WP:CSD, and it should go to PROD or AfD instead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment on his talk page about his incivility. I'll wait to see how he responds and if nothing else, it should go through a full AFD. I suspect it'll be a "voting" nightmare but this will give everyone a chance to discuss it. The article could be done {Category:Lists of victims), but it's style is just wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone else could list it that would be great -- someone's head might explode otherwise. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article for Prod under the condition that it is a replica of a previously deleted article. However, if the user removes the tag and you feel strongly about it, bring it to AfD and make your case. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod. Again, the previous deletion was a violation of WP:NOT which is not a speedy reason. At noted on the talk page, there are other lists of victims out there, so there is a possible precedent. If it were an AFD, I might reconsider, but the article's still very new. Whew, this is moving fast! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised it was speedy deleted under WP:NOT/memorial. The nominator and the deleting admin obviously worked too hastily. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, around and around we go! On to the AFD! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, "memorial" is not a CSD reason - but "recreation of deleted material" is. Was the new article sufficiently different? If not it have been best to keep the speedy and let people try DRV; it could have been explained there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. Only recreation of susbtantially the same article after an AfD that does not address the reason for deletion. Logically, if the original speedy was correct and the new article doesn't address the reason, then it's speedyable under the same reason as the first, no need to introduce the question of procedure. If the original speedy was wrongly done, or the new article overcomes the objection, then it's a completely new ballgame and the original speedy doesn't establish any precedent. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this yesterday. The article is a POV fork of Babi Yar, an attempt to get a named list of Ukrainian nationalists killed at Babi Yar into an article. (The 60,000 Jews massacred there are, for the most part, forever anonymous). There is barely an attempt at answering questions of notability, eg "Numerous other less prominent writers, such as..." followed by a list of nine names. Currently listed at WP:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry/abuse on Council on American-Islamic Relations 2

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Possible_sockpuppetry.2Fabuse_on_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations I did not get a response. Why was this archived away? M1rth (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A bot archives things immediately. See "If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet some of the archived threads have posts dated today. I suggest Misza be asked about his bot but meanwhile M1rth, suggest you copy the thread back here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying below: M1rth (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When I click "first entry in the "Open cases" section at WP:SPP, I don't have that, but I'm curious why no one has even bother to post a comment on the user talk pages. Why not at least give them the basic warning templates, point them to the talk page, something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a short semi-protection on the article and see if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the protection's over and it seems calm. Actually the wording they were fighting about seems to have gone their way. Another example of why incivility can be counter-productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange behaviour at an article

A bunch of accounts suddenly started messing with the John Brooke-Little article. What should be done with those accounts? Gimmetrow 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First protect then warn. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange that they're so close together; looks coordinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 6 accounts in 7 minutes, and two sets of two names are connected. All but one account looks like a single-edit throwaway. Should these be considered socks, if so of who, and should they be blocked for a single edit? Gimmetrow 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's plausible it is a coordinated attack, but we should wait before going for a block. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Very weird. My hunch is that there are two friends working together to do this; it seems unlikely that one person would be able to log in, open an article, edit it, log out, and repeat this process over and over, that many times, in so few minutes. But I suppose it's possible. The "Hiderek" name suggests to me that the editor is probably not named Derek and that if there are indeed two vandals, Derek is his/her partner in Wikicrime. Jonneroo (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody sticking goatse on articles should be indef. blocked until they explain and promise not to do it again. Corvus cornix_talk 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest protection but I'd rather these guys come out and get themselves blocked. If it goes too fast, lock it down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User creation log. Gimmetrow 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Puppets all indefinitely blocked. I left the puppeter unblocked for now, but anyone else in the mood can go ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and block the puppeter now; he/she is vandalizing again and was given a final warning yesterday. Jonneroo (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow just did; thank you. Jonneroo (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. He came by my talk page to remind me himself. If the article starts up again, I'd recommend a checkuser to flush the whole mess out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the known accounts involved, only hiderek is not blocked. I'll keep an eye on it. Gimmetrow 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

removing other editors comments from AFD

Resolved

 – AfD close, editor warned about policy

I'd like to report well... me. I removed this comment from the AFD (which is going to get closed as SNOW) of Norman Bettison (head of West Yorkshire Police). As many of you will be aware, media sources in the UK have covered the fact that he is unhappy with the article (see here and here),and some of his staff have been in touch with us to try and work something out and deal with his concerns. I have therefore removed the comment (but left the !vote!) on the basis that a) it's a basis breach of BLP and b) it's very counter-productive when we have the media watching the article and related activity. Am I wrong in my actions in this matter (I'm asking for admin input because removal of comments at afd can get quite heated) --Fredrick day (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very rarely are comments allowed to be refactored. Either they may be struck out or in this case, a note should be inserted that a BLP violation was removed and the original vote can be viewed in the history. Also it may be a good idea to leave a short note on the user's talk page as well that AFD comments are to be made free of personal attacks/BLP violations before reporting it on places like ANI. As far as your last concern, no you were not wrong however, I would strongly recommend leaving a note on that user's vote due to refactoring the user's comment. Hope that answers your questions.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 11:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did leave the !vote in but will follow your suggestion, I left a comment about the removal on the user's page. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You were correct, Fredrick day; and it's not uncommon for inappropriate comments to be deleted (even in AfDs). It would be tactful to note your removal by adding <attack removed> and a relevant diff. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

editor has returned and has reverted back in his personal attack which is in breach of our BLP policies - please see here. While I'd rather not get into an edit war, I also rather that the press coverage of this matter does not extend to how we let people take such pot-shots at living figures. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• AFD has now been closed anyway, so this should not recur, but I have reminded this editor of the importance of core policy. I will be keeping an eye on his edits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Need a range block done

Resolved

 – See below. — E ^talk 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been reverting this user all day and they just seem to keep changing their IP. Because I'm not familiar with range blocking, can I get someone to block the range of these IPs.

• 64.228.128.71 (User talk:64.228.128.71)
• 64.228.130.220 (User talk:64.228.130.220)

So its from 64.228.*.*. Thank you in advance, — E ^talk 13:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we're dealing with a lot less than 64.228.*.*. I think that 64.228.128.0-64.228.131.255 should be enough. And a range block over 2 IP addresses is a bit excessive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct CIDR range is 64.228.128.0/22. — Werdna talk 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since others might also wonder, here's some info to help. You may wish to block the IP range, or semi-protect the pages. Since I assume you know how to do the latter, here's some quick tips on the former:

If you visit http://arin.net and enter the first IP, you'll find that's part of an ISP range covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. In fact this covers both IPs in question. [if the ISP wasn't in that part of the world, it would mention RIPE or APNIC or such - links are on the bottom, again you paste the IP into their website to see what they say]. You can then check quickly what CIDR range this would be, at this calculator for example. Enter the lower IP and choose a number of bits in the drop-down box. See what range that covers. By trial and error, you'll find that 22 bits covers it, and the CIDR box on the right will then show 64.228.128.0/22 as covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. This would be the range you block. You'd remember not to block IPs too long, since every user on that range would be affected.

Hope that helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This works better for me: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=64.228.128.71 — pick the most specific range, and look under 'CIDR'. — Werdna talk 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, you may wish to minimize the collateral damage, and then you may need to chain together a few blocks. For example, the suggestion at WP:ANI#Notice of range block. In that case, however, the original blocking admin had good reason to block the entire 65,536 range. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've blocked the range for 8 days. — E ^talk 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You all should make some notes at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks for future reference. Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All you lazy slow-pokes like me can use rangeblock-calculator. It even tells you what ranges are safe to block without major collateral damage. Maxim_(talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. The rangeblock calculator is magic. Natalie (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shweet. Then again, it will put those of us who used the old-fashioned method out of business and make us look really dumb :) -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Old talk page comments and notices

So I came across Talk:Jr. Food Mart and Talk:Jitney Jungle - both of which are Mississippi-founded companies.

1. Jr. Food Mart had 2 Fair Use Image notices for 2 different images, both images of which have been deleted. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those Fair Use Image notices. User:Tkynerd has reverted me each time, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag.
2. Jitney Jungle has 2 comments from July 2006, both by the same user, Tkynerd and 2 comments from 2007, one by Tkynerd in July and one by an IP in September. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those old comments. Tkynerd reverted me twice, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag. To satisfy him by not deleting the old comments again, I created an archive and moved them there. He has taken them back out of the archive and put them back on the talk page.

Would someone handle this matter and let me know what the policy is on old comments and deleted image notices for images that have been deleted. I called myself doing the right thing but since Tkynerd wants to edit war over it, I'd like to get some admin takes on this. If I'm wrong, say so. If he's wrong, please tell him to leave it alone. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why remove comments? It's bound to antagonize users. Apologise, restore them and the tag with it. Write a brief line of apology on their user pages, and they may accept your tag. The thing is, the discussion about the images or other issues may seem resolved at the moment, but having the discussion on the talk page may stop a user new to the page from restoring them. See what I mean? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just comments, notices too, as you see a difference. There's no need to remove talk page comments, unless they're abusive. You could archive I suppose, but you may as well keep them there to stop other users recreating and/or using the pics. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing personal information as punishment, sockpuppeting, POV pushing, edit warring, single purpose harassment accounts

Resolved

 – Dealing with this at WP:SSP. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:This was recently archived without resolution or comment. If there is some problem with it, please let me know. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a block on Willdakunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and suspected sockpuppets for habitual edit warring and per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information" (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta).

This user was previously blocked 1 in the Nhguardian incarnation for edit warring with Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and for related 3RR process disruption; in fact, this user's entire purpose here on Wikipedia seems aimed at disrupting the edits of that user. See edit histories of socks for details. Commonality of edit history and talk page rhetoric is blatantly apparent. This has been ongoing for many months now with small periods of inactivity between.

User engages in exposing of personal information of other users as punishment for disagreeing with him, here most recently on my talk page as Willdakunta 2, here as Isp 71.168.80.203 3 here as Nhguardian, 4, and here as Isp 71.181.68.181 5.

Suspected sockpuppets

NHguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.68.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.168.80.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.62.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
47.234.0.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.48.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(Note: User has been simultaneously reported on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets) for sockpuppetry.

Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked him to stop, and discuss what he was doing.

Resolved

 – Routine content dispute, no need for admin action

I asked another wikipedian who had made several dozen large excisions I considered controversial, and poorly explained to stop, and discuss the issues with me.

They did leave a couple of comments. But, within 25 minutes, they continued with the same kind of edits. As of right now they made six further similar excisions.

Is this OK? Isn't this a breach of WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground?

Now maybe his or her point is completely correct? Maybe if we had a real discussion, at the end I would say openly acknowledge I was convinced that their position was correct, and I had been wrong. But a reasonable request to pause for discussion shouldn't just be blown off, should it? Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific. Exactly who did exactly what on exactly which article? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple articles about Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees contain boilerplate relating to the legal background of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards. These two administrative procedures of Guantanamo also have their own articles. In many cases the boilerplate appears to be padding introduced to bulk out the article. The boilerplate doesn't relate specifically to the article subject in such cases, as the subject is the detainee name per the article title, not the detention procedures. I am replacing the boilerplated text with links to the articles that discuss the procedures. I see this as a cleanup issue. I have attempted to explain my viewpoint to User: Geo Swan, and await any justification he might offer for keeping such misplaced boilerplate in several tens if not hundreds of articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:DMcMPO11AAUK writes that he or she "...await[s] any justification he might offer...". That is the point of my query. User:DMcMPO11AAUK is not waiting. He or she plunged right back into these excisions, without providing the time for a reply. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for adminstrator action here. Please discuss on the relevant talk pages, or pursue dispute resolution. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal claim

A new user claims ownership of a nickname on the Eli Manning pass to David Tyree page, his claim is here [20]. Redrocket (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Borders on WP:LEGAL. If it continues issue a warning and point him/her/them in the direction of the link. Legal concerns should be further resolved before such comments are made. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done but he is definately trolling see his deleted edits. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, that sort of phrase wouldn't be automatically trademarkable, nothing is showing on the US trademark office as being a trademark anything along those lines, and there's no such lawyer cropping up on Google searches. All in all, probably a load of old tosh. _GB^T/C 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm now I don't mind a little sillyness but revert warring isn't on. I've indefblocked the sock, reverted all edits and protected Eli Manning pass to David Tyree for a bit to put a stop to it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if a generic phrase like that could be trademarked, which is doubtful, there is no reason wikipedia couldn't freely refer to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And in case you didn't guess, Google reveals no connection whatsoever between that phrase and anyone named "Leone". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Trademark just prevents companies from selling a product under the trademarked name - it certainly doesn't prevent people from writing about and referring to something by its trademarked name. Otherwise, we couldn't have an article called Coca-Cola. Natalie (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, my searching returns nothing - seems like prime evidence that this is an elaborate hoax, and certainly sanctionable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That attorney's name sounds awfully familiar... maybe another threat in the past has used that "lawyer" as a front? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The attorney does not show up in Martindale-Hubbel, but there are 60 trademark applications filed in her name, the last in 2005 I think. Some other info re. attorneys at the address given in the message but out of BLP concerns I won't go into detail, because there's no sense dragging them into this if they aren't involved. Wikidemo (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned user back again with sock puppet

Resolved

 – Blocked

Cody Finke is Back! Codyfinke10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other aliases:

• Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 March 2008

• Blocked indef. per ban. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fred Hollows

Please semi-protect Fred Hollows --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct place to make these request is requests for page protection; I'm not going to protect it because there's minimal edit warring or vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"See you in court soon enough gentlemen as this now has become personal attacks, slander, harassment." - sounds like a legal threat to me!

Resolved

 – Comrade blocked indef; IP blocked 1 week -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[21] purportedly from Comraderedoctober --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

definitely a violation of WP:LEGAL. i think that thea admins will be by here to take this guy down. usually we get a lot of these things but the people who mkake them never actually bother to do anything because they dont know that they know that they ahve no legal defenses imaginabile for what they do here. Smith Jones (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC2)) Blocking -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, do not block. The threat was made by an IP a few weeks ago, and there is no explicit connection between the IP and the account. At least, I haven't seen one yet. —Kurykh 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP's talk page (User talk:76.122.45.99) has a tag that states that it is indeed Comraderedoctober. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the IP static or dynamic? In any case, we can't block IPs indef. —Kurykh 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Oh wait, you were blocking the account. Never mind. —Kurykh 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet touched the IP. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a week. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Smith-Jones, with "legal threats" it's never a matter of "[they] never actually bother to [sue us]", but rather "they were blatantly trolling from the get-go". — CharlotteWebb 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Banning a persistent vandal/harasser

Could I ask an admin to add Mr. 72.76 to Wikipedia:List of banned users, so that I won't feel quite so controversial when I revert his contributions on sight? He's still up to his antics, and, according to this ANI thread, the vote to ban him by the community seems unanimous. A range block, apparently, is far more tricky, but at least let's ban the user, if not the IP range.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. This situation needs more admin attention. R. Baley (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, apparently he's used a lot of different IPs. Useight (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for the record a list (comprehensive? I doubt it) can be found at this link. R. Baley (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion log

I speedily deleted Eric crespo using twinkle, but there's nothing in the deletion log. Is this some kind of software glitch? Spellcast (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed deleted edits on Klenow today but that also lacks/ed a deletion log. Viridae^Talk 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

However I am assuming that is something to do with the deleted edits being from 2004. Viridae^Talk 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I wonder if there's any successful blocks lacking a block log. Maybe WP:VPT is more appropriate for this. Spellcast (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Super-spam?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the Superman music page, a red-link editor has taken a fair amount of time to add track listings for an 8-volume CD collection of soundtracks from the Christopher Reeve films. I have several issues with this, and I would like for someone who understands the rules better than I do to comment on it:

• The editor is the producer of the CD as well as the author of the information he posted, as he made the point of saying and which started some frustrating dialoge: [22]
• Despite his denial of shameless self-promotion, he has made a point of it being a limited edition, so we had better order it before they run out. [23]
• It's not actually available yet, although it will be "imminently" and they are taking orders.
• It's not going to be in real stores at all.

So I'm seeing self-promotion as well as original research. What say y'all to this? Is this all proper, or should it be reverted? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He added a great deal of valuable information, cleaning up the entire article. Any consideration of WP:COI problems, if found, should be careful to only pare dow nthat which is a true conflict ,and not the entire series of edits. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To clear up a few issues with the above: 1) COI issues are for the sake of keeping it /neutral/, not keeping it off. 2) So, it's limited, so what? Countless items go in and out of print all the time. 3) It's available, and in fact has started shipping 4) What's a 'real' store? Again, countless items can't be bought offline. WHY does that matter? 5) It's NOT original research, it's research. Yes, the person who added it happened to do the 'original' research, but once it's been published, it's perfectly valid for use on WP (at least according to all rules I've read). It shouldn't make a difference who adds the info. Yes, any 'shameless self promotion' should be deleted, but if there's any, it's maybe a few unnessesary mentions of the set itself, and certainly not all the factual info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Every word that red-link has written, in both the articles and the talk pages, has been for the express purpose of drumming up sales. The external links he added amount to testimonials for his product. The page is now essentially a protracted advertisement for his product. All of that supposed to be against wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are refering to Film Score Monthly could it be that they hold an exclusive license to the Superman score? Sorry I do not know enough about the industry, but if you look on Ford article you will find links to different Ford model cars. Igor Berger (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They probably do. I can get a Ford without buying it over the internet, sight unseen, and having to depend on testimonials that the one writing the article has cited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all part of the game and the marketing machine. I am sure if you go to Star Trek, Marvel comics, etc. you will find the same patern. Igor Berger (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. I can see exactly what they're up to. I wasn't born yesterday, I can see a sales pitch a mile away. And they are welcome to do it on pages where it's OK. It's not supposed to be OK on wikipedia. I'm just trying to get an admin to comment on it, yea or nay, as opposed to unilaterally doing a complete rollback of that red-link's self-serving entries. I've asked several admins already, but apparently they have larger issues, since they won't answer the question. That's why I posted here, hoping someone would think this might have some importance. Wikipedia is not supposed to be amazon.com. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This diff shows all the efforts by the editor in question. Among them, I see the questionable track listing, which can be argued as promotional, since it details a product morethan the actual subject, but I also see extensive editing to expand on the topic, including the addition of years, names, musical techniques and rhythms used, detailed explanations of the various musical themes and so on. I note the linked inclusion of the record company name, but I checked, and this editor apparently hasn't touched that article, at least not in the past 50 edits, which go back a few months. This seems to be a case of the expert coming here and pouring out a great deal of knowledge which otherwise would only be available to 3000 folks(or less), and doing so freely with his time. That a portion of his edits seem to have a level of COI (and not an outright totality) can be discussed, but Baseball Bugs needs to AGF here. He keeps levelling accusations, but the editor in question uses the talk page and seems to want to fix the problems. This needs a careful looking at, not broad accusations of malfeasance. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One point to remember is that track listings are pretty much the standard on WP. I certainly see no reason not to have them in this case -- as you can see, they were there before on the page for other releses. And again, I'll point out, that just because something happens to have a KNOWN (and I stress known) limited run doesn't mean we can discount it. I guarantee that many book sources used in WP have sold well under 3000 copies before they went OOP. And in this case...it may not even be that limited. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not about track listings being accurate or not. That's a diversionary argument. Every word that red-link user entered in both the article and in his comments on the subject have to do with selling his product. In fact, I was "assuming good faith" until he went onto the talk page and laid down the sales pitch. He is also the author of the book he's quoting. Does that book have verifiable citations in it? As far as "giving freely of his time", well, he's the producer, so it's in his best interest to promote the product and bring money in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I can't get a straight answer from anyone, I have decided to invoke the "be bold" rule and have reverted to February 23, the day before the red-link began laying the groundwork for using wikipedia to sell his product. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As expected, there is now an edit war initiated on that page. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS??? Is it valid to use one's own book as a source? Is it valid to use wikipedia as an agent for selling one's own products, including the book that's being used as the source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The obvious answer to your question is "No, it is not alright to use Wikipedia to sell one's own book." You have been asked to remove the content that appears to be promoting the book. You have also been shown that some of the user's edits have absolutely nothing to do with his book. The phrase that comes to mind has something to do with baby and bathwater. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My test is whether or not I can tell what they're trying to sell by reading the page. I can't. Add reliably sourced material to an article, which happens to be sourced to a book you wrote is a very mild conflict of interest, and the promotional aspect is very minor. I can't see any promotional tone in the article as it stands. A good litmus test would be "Would an unrelated editor, with the same resource, add similar material in a similar tone." The answer here is yes. --Haemo (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

By adding the track listings of his own CD's to the article, he is trying to pique interest. He coveniently adds external links with testimonials. Then you look into buying it and find that this "major release" is limited to 3,000 sets of CD's. Then you go, "Oh, I better get one before they run out!" That's what's going on here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What's actually going on here, and what you're ignoring now, is that unrelated editors (as Haemo pointed out above) have evaluated the listings and added them on their own - regardless of the claim you made on the article talk page that anyone disagreeing with you was trying to sell products along with the original editor you disagreed with, this information was going to get added to the article eventually. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I fully intended to go back and re-add legimitate edits NOT made by that one red-link who's trying to sell his CD's here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. No one else finds the sum of his edits to be wholly bad; many find nothing wrong, and a few find some parts questionable. However, it has been pointed out (either here or o nteh article talk) that CD track listings are commonly found throughout wikipedia. A track listing for a holistic collection of Superman music is better off at an article which examines, in depth, the music, than at a separate page, which would certainly be SPAM or COI or both. However, the editor, to my eyes added one section of potential COI, the track listings for a collection he helped produce. given that there's precedence, and that he added a wealth of good fact to flesh out the meat of the article, I cannot support any injunction against the editor, nor any removals on the page. He made an article that if I'd found it before, I'd have thought "this is a thin article with lots of spec and maybeish based writing", into an article that makes me think about the production of the scores and music for the various media themselves. I only considered the marketing because I read it with an eye towards that. While he did add the name of the company releasing the compilation a few times, that company has an article he didn't work on. This is a non-issue to me, and your continued intractability on the matter makes this become a waste of time, too.. ThuranX (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And your blindness to what that guy is up to is extraordinarily frustrating. It's supposed to be against the rules to use wikipedia to sell stuff. If "consensus" overrides that rule, then it's hopeless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep acting like he added a great big section that screams "BUY MY CD NOW!!!" - but that's not what happened. He added factual listings of a released product that would have been added anyway by other editors as it directly relates to the page question - he also fleshed out other sections, without editorializing or specifically pimping the CD he contributed to. I think you need to step back here, as your insults and snipes at anyone who disagrees with you (and you do appear to be alone in this) is getting tiresome. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what? You're right. I'm blind to what's going on on Wikipedia. I can't see that when editors work hard, its' meant to be ripped to shreds and insulted at length. Now that I know that such attacks and hostility are the new normal, I can see it all clearly. Anyways, this was the last thing I was involved in before retiring anyways, given how my own dissatisfaction with the project and unilateralism has grown. This is just another thread of the same 'only I can see what's going on and save the article' attitude that's driven me to leave, only this one's grounded in paranoia and hubris, not just hubris. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The guy produces a CD and a book about the CD's; he posts information from his own products in the article; he posts links that amount to testimonials for his products; he makes a point on the talk page of saying that he produced the CD and that it's a limited quantity so you better get 'em while they're available. Original research, spam, huckstering. And that whole scenario is perfectly OK with everyone. I am very impressed. NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion, even on the talk page, about how it's in limited quantity should be removed immediately. I agree with Bugs that this is ridiculous to allow, but consensus seems to be against you, sorry. Frankly, the whole article needs serious sources. There's way too much OR about what the music includes, means, and is generally about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus overrides the rules? That is not at all encouraging. But you've given one glimmer of hope, which is to remove anything that smacks of "selling it". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you're already working on it. I modified the external links to remove the obvious self-promotion there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent). Baseball bugs has now begun engaging in edit wars to remove all the material, first by hitting the 3RR cap on wholesale reversion, and now, in tandem with Ricky81632, by cutting it back one edit at a time. The blanking vandalism goes so far as to remove two sources erroneously put under External Links, including a press release and an interview with the producers. This level of contentious behavior in contravention of Consensus and policy is clearly the new vogue on Wikipedia, and I understand that administrative fiat permits the institution of new consensus by simply being an admin and saying so, but under wikipedia's old rules, he should be blocked for WP:POINT and BLANKING violations, and probably a 3RR skirting. ThuranX (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Those press releases were intended specifically to hype the product. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Look. can you not see that consensus is against you? that many people find the musical information he added valuable? That many find that since many articles about Music have track listings, that at most, this particular set's listings should be dropped, but that a wholesale revert is flat out wrong? He added immense amounts of genuine fact to the article, and not all of it needs to be reverted to 'fix' the COI you perceive? You propose a 100% reversion, but that's flat out stupid. Reverting the addition of dates, titles, and names which were previously speculative or less specific would be a value loss, not a value add. As the community doesn't see a COI here like you do, I suggest you either accept and move on, or consider it a Content Dispute and head to RfC or Arbcom. I also note your don't deny any of the policy troubles I noted above. Consider those before committing more. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the article lately? Another editor already reverted everything I had reverted, and he along with yet another editor are trying to weed the hype out of the article. Since you won the revert war, those two have now done more work on that weeding effort than I have. Go talk to them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the user you're complaining about acting "in tandem", who I never heard of until yesterday, Ricky81682, is an admin, and I expect admins to know the rules. So I appreciate his looking into this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't mean anything. Admins don't have rules. And whether it's coordinated or just observation and a mutual thinking ,working to undo all the work added is NOT the way to go. He added real facts. Not all of it's self-promotion. You assert that 100% is promotion, which can only mean that you think that the very act of contributing is a means of him seditiously attempting to gain our good will to get us to buy his stuff. That's absurd. He confirmed or added dates that were previously questioned. He added names of people who helped make the music. He added musical structure information. Everything he's added has been systematically removed or Fact tagged. It is a horrible violation of AGF, an overly broad interpretation of COI and OWN, it's incivil, and it's BITEy. I think it is wrong, but you DO have an admin on your side, and I can attest from personal experience, admins don't follow rules, and get away with that regularly.

You need to clearly address how provide names of those who worked on the production of the music for hte films, and dates of events, and musical structure information constittue an attempt to sell the material. I really think your attitude is 'he worked on that, thus anythign he dos has to be a sell' even if he were ONLY on the talk page and doing grammatical edits. You really seem to say 'anythign he does which improves the page may have a net result of earning him profit eventually, even indirectly, and thus it's all bad. Had he not done anything but grammatical changes, but put the CD set on the net, and people came here first to learn more abotu the production of various superman themes and music, and reading the article, bought the product, you give off that you'd feel you'd be justified in asserting he, even in that circumstance, had a COI and should be blanket reverted. You really are just pushing him off the project, not helping anyone. ThuranX (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to take the blinders off and realize that the red-link user's purpose was entirely self-promotional. And stop already with the "assume good faith" lecture. His own words confirm it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, as far as "driving him off the project", the only articles he has modified are those directly connected with promoting his product. The only "project" he's on is to sell his 3,000 CD's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have never provided a link which shows his express intent to be to hype his product. You have, however, made glue for days. There are at least three editors who aren't you OR mxscore who feel he HAS contributed valuable information. There are editors who feel he is NOT thoroughly self-serving. EVEN if self-serving were a part of his motivation, does that mean the project should throw it all out on some ridiculous principled stand that we would rather go blind than wear glasses? We can remove, after discussion and consensus, anything which gets too close to, or crosses, the line. If editor-based consensus and policy are not acceptable, then call in an administrator. They can make any rules they want. ThuranX (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your change of "written" to "wrtten" is another rule you care nothing about. You are not allowed to change others' comments. I say again, every word he has posted in that article has to do with selling his product. Period. Frequent mentions of who produced it and stuff on the talk pages about how it's a limited edition. That's called a "sales pitch". "Consensus" does not allow violation of the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a typo. I bumped the pageup key, and must've tapped the delete as well. I didn't notice that I'd accidentally taken out one letter two screens up. Why don't you go ask for a fucking block against me for it? Go on. It'll hide the fact that I've hit the nail on the head: You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and you know it, and you LIKE it. You're here ONLY because you refuse to back down from your position, and you're too embarrassed to reverse course now. Just shut the hell up, let this thread go into archive ,and move on. You have yet to provide any rationale for your opinion other than that anyone who has any interest in anything is suffering COI. Many, or most, if not all editors here write about what interests them. Many work in the fields they write about. Expert writiing is a contentious area, but it gets handled case by case. You're not thinking about it like that. You just want a community ban on the guy and a wholesale revert, and you REALLY have NOT explained why you're acting this way at all. You just keep saying 'he's selling stuff, so I can and msut wholesale 100% revert'. YOu can't defend against the examples given above, and haven't tried. Below, a fourth (or is it more now?) editor adds his thoughts opposing your wholesale reverts and finding value added by the edits of MXScore. Please catch on. You are trying to not just IAR but B(reak)AR, when BRD is in play, and CONSENSUS is against you. Since you don't care about that, though, I'd be glad to recommend to you some admins who have community support for the power to ignore consensus and substitute their own consensus. They'd be glad to help you out. ThuranX (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look (as a non-involved non-admin) at what User:Baseball Bugs reverted, and frankly while most of the text might be unreferenced, and possibly original research, it was not blatantly promotional or in need of such a wholesale reversion. Sure, you can't just come on to Wikipedia and add "Buy my CD!" to an article. But if you improve an article, and in doing so make people want to buy the product related to it, then what's the problem? By the same token, if an Apple employee were to go and add some decent content to Criticism of Microsoft, it's still decent content. I'd advise Bugs to take a deep breath, talk with the other user to work towards providing some sources for the article (presumably, being associated with the subject he'd know where to look for them), and preferably stop referring to him as a "redlink" or "redlinked user", because the way the term's being used looks to me to be perjorative, ad hominem, and bordering on incivility and/or personal attack. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this. You've had enough of a venue here, and no one sees a problem that's actionable by admins. If you want a more extensive discussion, dispute resolution is down the hall. --Haemo (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user worked on this one topic for a few days, not heard from before or since. His sole purpose in wikipedia was to promote his CD's. The typical red-link user has a single purpose on wikipedia. Often it's vandalism. Sometimes it's to focus on a specific article for a specific purpose, as with this case. Some red-link users are that way just because they don't choose to create a user page. There are even some admins with red-link user pages. That's the exceptional case. Generally, a red-link is here for a narrow purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New user User:Tom.mevlie

Resolved

User:Tom.mevlie caught out using a sock puppet to "prove" his point and blocked.--VS ^talk 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. And this was the user's first post. I have left a message on the user's talk page - however, I feel this behaviour is so strong that it is unlikely that the user would enjoy being a Wiki editor, and it might be in the best interests of all if this user was encouraged to disengage from the project at the earliest opportunity. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Although I may be somewhat biased in my favour, a better way than straight out banning me, would possibly put me on a probationary period, or look at some of my other posts, all of which, were, in my view, productive and helpful to each of the causes in which i donated my opinions to. But the descision rests with the administrators, not with me. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor has made some good contributions, including creating the Woodstock Nation (novel) article. I would counsel some consideration of WP:BITE, even in light of the above incidents.скоморохъ 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has apologised to the people he attacked, which we can take at face value. A block now would be punitive, so it would be best if he got on with editing, with a stern note warning that deviation from "productive and helpful" in this manner again will lead to a block to prevent disruption in future. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll oversight his contributions and pull him aside if this happens again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit less inclined to assume good faith given that as near as I can tell I had never interacted with the editor prior to his leaving this message on my talk page. (It seems he must have encountered my name when placing this edit, unless he knew me in another life.) His first edit was vandalism; within minutes of his first edit, he's requesting an assessment from a wikiproject, and then he's off to village pump proposals? Unusual, for a new contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, his above comment implies he knows the difference between a block and ban. That's peculiar for a new editor. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I thought it was very clear that he's just here to troll. But the evidence is circumstantial, so we can only give him the usual miles and miles of rope before we escort him of the premises. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite true. :) I'd support the warning, pending further disruptive editing or more substantive evidence of puppetry. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The remarks I left on the Depiction of Muhammad discussion were purely to prove a point, and to gesticulate the fact that we shouldn't depict muhammad, lest someone get offended. Although, i am not the first person to talk to about offending people. Moonriddengirl is correct. I have never met her before, nor had any prior contact, i wrote on her page to see what i could get away with, but also to show that, although wikipedia states that there should be no line drawn between admin and non admin users, it still is rampant amongst the community, i am not trying to shift the blame from me to her, i am merely stating my rationale for saying what i said, and again, i am sorry to anyone who i offended. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I think there may have been better ways to learn about the community than by posting the comment you made to Moonriddengirl. It may be difficult for some to assume good faith in your edits when you admit to having ulterior motives in making them. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tom.mevlie, I suggest you review the WP:POINT guideline. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course you are correct, but may i say, that i have apologised for my actions, and i have tried to make up for it by posting well in all of my recent posts, i think what people should do, is instead of looking at the mistakes of people, you should look at where they did okay.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that you are mistaken if you think that a message like that would have been acceptable on the page of any user, administrator or not. While the first line of defense against incivility is to ignore it or to provide better counter-examples, there is a distinction between petty incivility and gross incivility. Please note that WP:NPA indicates "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored". As for considering your recent posts, I suspect that posts made four hours ago still technically fit within the definition of "recent". :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Good idea. Tom.mevlie, I suggest that to restore the karmic balance, that you and I each go out and find 3 users we've never interacted with before, and give them purely positive praise for something good they've done, without any ifs, ands, buts, or negative comments around the same time. Is it a deal? --Coppertwig (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry I do not get it. You are abusive, insulting, and vulgar to a person who you never dealt with before? Just out of a blue you picked her to experiment? What are we lab rats? What is going to be your next experiment? By your own admission, it is not like you got angry at someone for doing something you did not like and in anger say crap to them. Man I would not want you around! Why are you here? Igor Berger (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I have only been here six weeks, so I am hardly an expert, but his case smacks of vandalism, trolling, and/or sockpuppetry. I would allow him some rope if that is what Wikipedia policy implies should be done, but I would shorten his leash. My two cents' worth (before adjusting for inflation). Jonneroo (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Abysmal behaviour - and I do not believe this user is "new". I submit in agreement with my colleagues above that at the very least a final warning posted to his page with detail in the edit summary - for tracking purposes if it is deleted. I will be happy to post that warning myself should that be the outcome of this discussion - and quite frankly I think that it should have commenced with such a warning (or if an admin has spotted it first with an immediate short block) rather than to belabour the point here.--VS ^talk 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• As an obviously interested party, I'm inclined to agree. There are two possibilities here. If this individual is to be taken at his word, he launched a vicious, sexist attack against a stranger to prove a point. Note that his apology for this assault is rather tepidly phrased towards the language use, when according to his own statement above, the entire personal attack was unwarranted. Given his pattern of editing, he is far more likely a sock puppet. In either case, the likelihood of future misbehavior seems high, and a clear warning seems best for the sake of the community. (Note that there is absolutely no requirement for us to assume good faith here now that he has admitted to intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. (See WP:AGF.) Civility in handling misbehavior is mandatory; naivety is not.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this right: I can call someone a fucking whore, a stupid bitch, a cunt, and escape action, but if I choose a username that an admin doesn't like I get blocked? Dan Beale-Cocks 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my point a bit - username blocks seem to be handed out a lot more readily than other blocks. Good faith editors who chose a marginal username ("confusing"??) face blocking. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Given what we are discussing, that was probably the wrong thing to say, and as this whole discussion stem from swearing to prove a point, i'm guessing that someone will probably report you.. Tom.mevlie (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And here we see that Tom.mevlie clearly does not understand why he was reported. To try to make it clearer - I can fucking swear all I like, what I'm not allowed to do is make personal attacks to other editors, even if that attack has no swearing. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You can swear all you like can you? Well then, maybe out of context swearing should be banned, i say out of context meaning not related to an article, like that of Cunt.Tom.mevlie (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia does have a code of conduct. Wikipedia:Civility is policy, though somewhat flawed in enforcement in that it largely depends on voluntary compliance and does not offer easy recourse to individuals who are treated with incivility. Even so, personal attacks are not allowed, whether they arise from disputes or experiments. Even isolated personal attacks may lead to blocking in extreme cases. If you had said that to another editor and I had seen it, I would have immediately issued you a final warning. Blocking is not punitive, but it can be instructive: as set out at the blocking policy, two of its four purposes are to encourage rapid understanding that behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated and to encourage working more productively and congenially within community norms. If you behave in this way again, blocking may well be necessary, whether to make those points or simply to protect the community against inappropriate behavior. While your attack was launched against me, given your own admission here at AN/I that we had never previously interacted, I do not consider that I am in any more conflict of interest cautioning you than I would be handling any random vandal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• All right enough is enough - I just removed some a new editor's (user:I.want.to.tellyou attempt to make a point. Tom I am coming to your page to give you a final warning - I trust you will take it in the spirit that it is meant to be taken - that is Personal Attacks will lead to blocking. Okay?--VS ^talk 05:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay - final/only warning posted with comments in the edit summary linked to this thread. Now could another admin please close this discussion.--VS ^talk 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Postscript - please see [this edit] and this user's blocking - which now means I will close this discussion.--VS ^talk 05:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Discussions aren't closed. While it should be noted that Tom.mevile is I.want.to.tellyou here, and then we should decide what to do as the autoblock will not necessarily stick permanently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, we have a sock farm here. Check out

• I.just.saw.a.face. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Teg.kcab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 165.228.1.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

...For a start. There may be more. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay - but I suggest let's deal with him quickly as a sock-puppeteer and close this magnet.--VS ^talk 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why bother with closing this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • From my perspective the commencing reason for the thread has been dealt with. Why keep it? - we are just feeding the troll by keeping it - and he has stated that it was his intention to get us to talk and talk and talk (read the post by I.want.to.tellyou. (Mind you I won't die in a ditch over the answer one way or another)--VS ^talk 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • A sockpuppet case has now been opened. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nigahiga

Resolved

 – page salted, Tiptoety ^talk 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't see a section on WP:RPP suitable for this particular request - it's a request that the space be salted once the article is deleted. It seems to be quite a popular page for reloading. -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because they have a very popular Youtube thing going on. I believe we had a similar thing going on with Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Screw the rules, the glass is dirty! Will ^(talk) 12:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Active Vandal

Resolved

 – User blocked.

74.210.57.209 - block ASAP -- SECisek (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:AIV. John Reaves 07:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I was. Never the less, somebody saw my request here and shut him down. -- SECisek (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks/vandalism

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 month. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little fed up with attacks from User_talk:194.189.32.65, four in the past hour ([24], [25], [26] and [27]). The use has a decent block record, but keeps deleting warnings. Can someone else ask him to desist? Many thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Repeat vandal and troll with no useful contributions recently.--Doc^g 10:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Request sanity check

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Edit warrior. Am I going insane? Has wikipedia changed in some way, and have I managed to miss the memo?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of attempts to add stuff - sanger's quote, extra formatting - and a consistent theme to keep it simple and direct, with other versions at most on a sub-page (which are the edits and reverts by multiple users you're seeing).

Any use? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many attempts to insert the "nervous and depressed" wording, or other newly-coined wordings, on the page, but consensus seems to favour the twelvewordversion, at this time. So, tends to be a lot of reverting. Situation normal, pretty much, nothing to be seen here. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that there might not be consensus, and that the perception is bent by edit warriors. Hence the sanity check. --Kim Bruning (talk)

I suspect that there is a pretty strong consensus, but I can sympathize if Kim feels that the principle is being given short shrift. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point of order - is it really reasonable to describe the "nervous and depressed" version as "newly-coined"? —Random832 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that he meant 'or other wordings which are newly-coined'. I read it that way, at the least, and I'm inclined to question the sufficiency of the twelve word version. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute - no need for admin. action, then. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a content dispute with edit warring result in full protection until said dispute is resolved? FunPika 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which means the edit-warrior wins. We covered that ground sometime last month ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does seem to be a catch-22. Either the version stays as is (purported consensus) or is locked down as is (forced status quo consensus version). Either way, no changes can be made. I actually liked the version with the the longer explanation below, because some editors really don't get 'IAR' means IAR only when it actually helps the project, and vandalism doesn't fall under IAR. I think such a version would be great. The notebook handwritten version is clever,because using a photo of a policy is ignorign the rules, so... it's spiralling in cleverly, but that doesn't avoid the very confusion i remarked on above, so it's not the kind of change we need. That said, there is an admin there with Draconian OWN problems. However, per the new admin standard, admins operate under continual IAR, so that's acceptable now. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well put. This is why I've stated that there's no difference between page protection and knee-jerk reverting to the same version - both have the same effect, that edits cannot be made without prior talk page discussion and consensus. And if you've seen that talk page recently, you'll understand how impossible that is. - Chardish (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that i agree that there is any problem of OWNership, at Ignore all rules. Most edits, even if they seem interesting, do not take, and there are lots more than one editor who reverts back to the 12word version.

I like to look at these interesting proposals, but, if possibly dozens of editors are ready to revert to a stable version, that is in no way edit-warring, in my opinion. I see the page has been protected, yet again, but there is scant evidence of "recent" edit-warring. That is OK, I guess, but progress on the page was being achieved, and the discussion reasonably fruitful. There is also Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Workshop, where more radical experiments can be, and are being made.

I reckon the page protection could be lifted, safely. I do not know who requested it. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would lay most of the blame for the page being protected on a certain User who appears to want to WP:OWN the page, and that user's unsuitable edits being reverted, and then whined about on the discussion page, I think. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Newby - you're getting confused. Mishandling of content is routinely an admin issue. But only when there is an actual problem. That's what this thread is discussing - if there is one. It's arbitration that routinely does not handle "content disputes". As for this page... if there is a dispute then maybe a talk page "straw poll" (if that's not already been done) to see what kind of views come up and see what basis of concern exists? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The confusion might stem from advice to the contrary at the top of the page, as well as frequent admonitions that admins have no particular status in a content dispute and can typically intervene with an admin action only as a response to conduct. Avruch ^T 17:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i was confused, and still do not know what to do. Some fresh eyes at Ignore all rules would certainly help, at the moment the issue seems to be being avoided, basically two users, each of whom MAY have WP:OWN problems, but civility is getting in the way of addressing the problem, which actually stems back to at least July 2007. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible pointy moves by newer editor

Resolved

Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) seems to be a newer editor and has moved several articles effectively wiping out histories. I recall there being a splice help page for such concerns but would appreciate an outside editor's take on this and bringing up the issue as I have had previous dialog and I doubt much I present would be received well. Also any suggestions for restoring the lost histories would be nice. Benjiboi 03:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen; methinks there should really be a shorter title for these things. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPLICE :P seicer | talk | contribs 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for cut-and-paste repairs which is a whopping 3 characters shorter, or something.  :-/ x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I've also added a link to the splice disamb page. Benjiboi 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor keeps adding to AfD

There's an AfD for Ase Card, which is here. User:Blazetrackz keeps adding more and more comments onto the page. There's no specific warning for this, and I guess he or she is allowed to keep adding, but isn't there some point where it's just redundant? Should anything be done? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it. The closing editor should know how to weight the comments in the discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the number of comments by Blazetracks to be excessive. Some of them are replies to other comments. As the page now stands, there are I think five comments by Blazetracks, one of which is a primary comment, three of which are currently formatted as replies to that primary comment, and one of which is formatted as a reply to a comment by someone else. However, as I've noted on that page, I object to the deletion of one of Blazetracks' comments, calling it "vandalism", (although the comment was improperly formatted), and I object to the moving of one of Blazetracks' comments from where it appeared to be a reply to the comment immediately above it, to somewhere else on the page (although again it had been improperly formatted). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So I saw. I restored the comments. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I use is that editors can comment, debate, and reply at their pleasure, so long as they do so in a manner and to a degree that does not prevent further debate. Replies, even multiple replies, are OK. Long, rambling diatribes, extraneous section headings, and comments about the nominator and not the merits of the nomination's claims are all removable - and, even then, they should go to the talk page of the AfD, unless clearly personal attacks or trolling. But, in many cases, it's a discretionary thing. If comments are unhelpful, but don't damage the debate, I'll see them kept more often than not - as noted above, the closing admin can discount such comments as needed. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll keep that in mind for next time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You might like to welcome the new editor to Wikipedia, and gently point them to the five pillars etc. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that he's simply engaging in discussion; it's natural that in a vote people make only one expression of opinion, whereas in a discussion they respond to others' points-of-view. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I figure that if someone considers a vote invalid for some reason, they usually indent it and put a comment underneath stating why it's invalid (e.g. sockpuppet). I don't think they should delete it except in extreme cases, and then probably a note should be left where the comment was, stating that something had been deleted. If comments are moved to the talk page because they're too long, irrelevant or whatever, I think a note should be placed where the comments were, stating that some comments have been moved there. If someone formats their comment inappropriately, I think it's OK to indent it to the right level or whatever; it's probably not necessary to write something on the page explaining that one has done that -- in that case probably the edit summary is enough. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Birth certificate

This issue has come up before, and although it is basically an edit war, it doesn't belong on the 3RR page as it is not only two users involved. It seems to be a community issue. On the article Birth certificate, there is an image of the alleged birth certificate of a Russian porn star. Although I have previously voiced my opinion on the matter, I have stayed out of the edit warring that has been going on over the last few weeks. The image is being constantly removed and then put back. In my opinion, it contributes very little to the article and is basically some free promotion for the said porn star. I request that an admin step in to end this edit warring. See discussion at talk page. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see how it qualifies as "free promotion". The caption does not even state whose birth certificate it is. That article hasn't been edited since the 29th. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But you can see that warring has been going on. There needs to be a final consensus as to whether or not the image is allowed, so that the image can be removed or left alone once and for all. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a content issue that needs to be discussed on the Birth certificate page, not here. Horologium (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed. It appears that a general consensus has been reached, but is being ignored and is ineffective without admin intervention. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: This is related to the entry Banning a persistent vandal/harasser above; see the IP list link provided by R. Baley. The person whose passport this was has been at the center of a controversy across several articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, all I can see is a persistent IP agitating for the removal of the image, which I've no doubt is related to the edit-war on a different article. The image should stay unless a better free version is sourced; it's very difficult to get free images of birth certificates, for obvious reasons. Black Kite 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Black Kite's evaluation. I also don't see any talk page consensus which Rhythmnation2004 feels exists here. Metros (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the agitation is so transparent that I knew exactly which image was being fussed over by simple mention of "Birth Certificate". There is still no reason to remove that image. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP editor at the center of this is community-banned (although I'm not sure how that will be accomplished) this will be a non-issue. All of the edit-warring is the result of his bizarre crusade against the subject of the article. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk page clearly shows the arguments against the image, and I agree. The article discusses nothing of Soviet birth certificates, so a picture of one surely has no place in the article. Furthermore, free images -are- available for birth certificates, which is why there already three existing images in the article. The Soviet birth certificate image is superfluous, unnecessary, and contributes very little, if anything, to the article. That alone justifies its permanent removal. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Costa_Rica_Real_Estate_Jack

Apparently a commercial user of no good intent, he repeatedly creates content on his user page, containing links to http://sceneryincostarica.blogspot.com and, then creates external links in Costa Rica to point to them. Kww (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The underlying IP is now getting in on the act. Probably the simple product of him not being logged in, but it might be worth keeping an eye on. --jonny-mt 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Shaunwhim2

Besides having gotten his User and Talk pages in an absolute Page Move mess about a week ago, Shaunwhim2 (talk · contribs) keeps adding the fair use image Image:The Mouth of Sauron.jpg to his Talk page. I have removed it three times now. And now I see it's on his User page too...Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the headache here, CC, and thanks for the heads up. (Don't go all 3RR about it though:-) This particular user is on my watchlist now, and I'll be adding my own $.02 to his talkpage shortly. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Just a notification of an incident involving the article Jimmy Wales. I removed what seemed to me to be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (if not indeed WP:BLP), only to be reverted several times by user RFerreira. This user either did not explain the reversions or tried to conceal them with other edits, or used specious reasoning and accusations. See the following sequence of edits: me, him, me, him, me, him. This user then left a comment on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. The article on Jimmy Wales has now been protected by user Doc glasgow, which seems like a justified solution at this stage, so the issue may be resolved in the short term. However I felt it still worth notifying this forum about the matter. The same issue may well arise at Rachel Marsden, and protection may be a good idea there also. BCST2001 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For all those who care, some background. Rachel Marsden was fully protected an hour ago. Woody (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was more like 10 minutes ago, here, but yes. I don't believe your link in the interests of "some background" really needed to be included here. BCST2001 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I love my TARDIS. Nick (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are now protected. And I suggest they remain so until a genuine consensus can be reached on the talk pages of what if anything should be added that complies with BLP UNDUE RS etc.--Doc^g 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BCST2001, Why did you edit war with the user, rather than starting a talk page discussion, or getting others to revert the user, thus demonstrating consensus? You win content disputes more easily that way, you know. Making the same edit repeatedly and helping to trigger protection is the hard way to get things done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this story is gaining traction in the mainstream media. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Even though Rachel Marsden is now protected, user Nyttend added controversial material to the article with this edit here. It was then pointed out to him by another user that the article was protected and that he ought to self-revert (see here). Nyttend, however, indicated that he would not self-revert as he considered it censorship, but that he would not re-introduce the material if another editor removed his edit (see here). I therefore request that an administrator revert Nyttend's edit and restore the article to its protected version. BCST2001 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what's controversial about that edit; it states the facts succinctly and well-sourced without going into controversial details. krimpet✽ 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you examine Talk:Rachel Marsden and Talk:Jimmy Wales, you will see that the material is controversial. Furthermore, it is not clear that the edit "states the facts succinctly": the use of the word "furor" seems pretty overblown to me. But more importantly, an administrator ought not add material to an article which has just been protected, and which was protected precisely to prevent problems which the material he has added has caused and is likely to continue to cause. BCST2001 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ BCST2001 (talk · contribs), specifically that the page was protected and this sort of change may or may not be appropriate, but it should first be discussed in a new section on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was protected precisely due to edit warring over inclusion of material related to the controversy. And Nyttend is the second admin to try to add a plausible and underplayed sentence since the protection. The first sentence isn't there... because another admin took it out. Edit warring on protected pages is just poor form. Since this page is basically always protected, I think Nyttend didn't realize why the page was protected. Nyttend told me on my talk page that he doesn't intend to remove it himself, but also that he wouldn't edit war if someone else did. GRBerry 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• groans* Why is it that we always have some controversy around February or March? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum

This user is adding POV-style edits for a site that is supposed to be an official one for the actor, but is a blogspot. The way they describe it comes across as advertising. As can be seen from their talk page, this has been going on for a while, and reasoning doesn't appear to help. I don't want to get into an edit-war over this, and didn't know where else to report this, so I thought I'd try here. Thanks, and here's hoping. -Ebyabe (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP 74.xx.xx.xx claims persistently blocked

74.15.4.18 posted to me (see User talk:Davidruben#Account blocking) that repeadly now blocked following a good faith edit to List of medical abbreviations (this one) that I had reverted (I gave no direct warning nor any block for this). However presumably if blocked as a range block, would not then have been able to send me the query to my talk page as Special:Contributions/74.13.81.92. Is there/was there any sort of range block at 74.xx.xx.xx, and if so, how does one find out to confirm or unblock for a anon editor (obvious if a fixed IP, one just goes to User:IP and looks at block log) ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rangeblock helper doesn't show any block that would apply to that IP. Evil saltine (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, not seeing the block either. Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If he's blocked, he can't edit your talk page. Its that simple. Is he using an IP address to avoid another block? Or is he being confused between a page protection and a block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies (and for the Rangeblock helper link) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the IP is trying to either create a page or edit a semi-protected page. —Travis^talk 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

8HRE (talk · contribs)

Any chance that this guy is a sockpuppet or troll? I've discussed the user's activities with Masamage, a sysop, but we couldn't really find this to be 100% accurate. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All edits are nonsense or vandalism, but a warning wasn't left until very recently so I'd leave it for now unless he continues. Evil saltine (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think if this were the case, the edits would be more sophisticated. I see a young person experimenting, even to the point of nominating himself for adminship, and I have deleted his RfA (since it was malformed anyway) and advised him to edit constructively for a while. However, I will be keeping an eye on the situation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Korean War

Resolved

I noticed there's a semi-protection icon on the page yet anon. users are having edit wars. Is the page really protected or someone forgot to remove that padlock?--Cahk (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the padlock, since protection expired March 1. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 02:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous and Obscene Threat on Talk Page

Hi, I'm not sure how to properly deal with this, but an anonymous user (IP address) left a threatening message on my Talk Page [[28]]. I'd appreciate any advice on how to precede and/or take it completely seriously. Thanks. Zidel333 (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You could tell them to talk to your attorney, Helen Waite. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Or you could go to that ID's "contributions" page and click on "whois" on the bottom, which tells you where the internet service provider is based. In this case, it's Belgrade, Serbia. Don't tell us where you live, just ask yourself if that location is close enough to pose any threat to you. Regardless, an admin should, at the very least, block that IP address for awhile and give you some proper advice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. I was a little taken aback by the vulgarity of the comment, and will be deleting it from my Discussion page post haste. Zidel333 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably just an empty threat, but if you do live near/in Belgrade, Serbia, you can never be too careful. Useight (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - He was blocked by East718. Useight (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Spy89

Resolved

 – user blocked 24 hours for 3RR vios--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This user is continuosly reverting my edits, without bothering to see the results. He has been sufficently warned [29] [30] and duly reported on [31]. He is constantly vandalising my edits.[32]

He also appears to have sock-puppet acounts User:ReadandWrite123 Ajjay (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked'em... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuous incivility by User:Imbris

Constant & repeated incivility and semi-personal attacks from this user, despite warned repeatedly on his talk page.

• Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro's Crnojevic Family. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda. Please take this matter under consideration because this is a blatant hoax."
• Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda."
• [33] Where are your sources, in some medieval festivals perhaps. An for that matter unsupstaniated material is unencyclopaedical."
• Here: "Easy, isn't the flag yellow with red eagle or you are changing your mind very quickly. Today you say that it is red flag with a white eagle and tomorow you will realize that either hadn't even existed)"
• Here: "but cannot stand your clear fabricizations."
• here: "Stop your deliberate disinformation crusade,"
• Here: "to bad yours is so negative and greaterxxxxxxx".
• here: "Stop your POV pushing and greaterxxxx politics".

It has been very difficult to communicate with this user. After I cited sources for several facts he held questionable, he aggressively responded and accused me without basis that I am a falsifier of history. He demanded scanned pages of sources. After I indulged his demands and scanned them, uploading them to his talk page, he started to accuse the sources themselves for falsifying history, as he did here: "Is it some picture-book for 3rd graders. It is most clear that you and Nikola have different souces, his low-res part of that map looks very much different. Also the page you scanned looks not-clear and funny like it was manipulated. I am not accusing you but the author who clearly manipulated with the image." He also accused the even-uploaded books as irrelevant for being "3rd-grade alike" and complained that my scans were poor and barely viewable.

I don't want to seem wrong out of this - but I need a 3rd hand opinion. Am I doing anything wrong? How to stop this continuous impoliteness, incivility and lack of any constructiveness? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire ordeal came to be when Pax uploaded a file without sources on February 28 this year.

I found this to be somewhat strange because on commons user must fill the chart (a small table with sources and other data).

Then I decided to seak deletion and claimed OR and UE which were misinterpreted by Pax.

It is not sourcing when someone shows you a one detail that is unrecognizable. The source Pax provided is a very strange picture-book that offers no factography in a form of citations and quotes from documents and older publications.

Because we are dealing with a middle age topic and because one might say that even Flag of Denmark as the oldest if from a 1600s (legends from 1200s) but sources from 1600s. I have everyright to be suspicious.

What should I said to myself when Pax constantly changes every word that I contribute to his POV. Everyone has a POV. I offered him my collaboration and sources about the Constitional matter of passing the Law with simple majority.

Will write some more fact soon.

Imbris (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a picture-book, and more why very strange? :) I am writing here about your personal insults and the opinion of others. Are you trying to justify incivility? Let me also remind you that here you have claimed: "Your tactics is to ask eveyone about the nationality and claim that have something against you personally." Could you please back up these claims? Thanks, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First I must say that in this discussion I am not neutral. Because of different thinking (and editing) PaxEquilibrium and I are having agreement that he will not edit Croatia related articles and I will not edit Serbia related articles so we are having only few points of dispute. One of this points is article Podgorica Assembly where Pax are deleting, reverting any version of article which is not saying that Montenegro is and has always been Serbian land.

Because Pax has used example to show Imbris in bad light I will show similar example from talk page of Podgorica Assembly:

My comment:"Book writen in reference (by Pax) is speaking about Serbian agents which are working on Montenegro territory for union between state from 1866. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"The link is not necessary a reference, I myself put the external links to every single source"

My comment:"Similar to that books from reference in article are speaking how serbian military has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military and royal family before election has ended. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"It may be written, however carefully because the statement itself is biased" (it is not writen)

My comment:"Writing in article that parliament has voted under serbian military "protection" is not allowed"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"What does that precisely mean?"

My comment:"About slaughter (of Montenegrins by Serbian forces) read you can read Tribune of 1 september 1919"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"That is a journalist article, normally far-fetched - but killings did occur, and they were indeed horrible. According to some (possible overestimates, but still), almost 3,000 Montenegrins died in the tiny civil war. But the Serbian Army itself, had little or none at all part in that conflict." (it is not in article)

Point of this example is to see that Pax is not neutral editor which is showing data from neutral books. It is not possible to trust his books when even he is not accepting data from his obscure books if they are having bad data for his line of thinking.--Rjecina (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate what you're trying to point out and what is the relevance of this post? If discussion regarding those precise posts is needed, I will be more than willing to start it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree because edits in this section are another example of PaxEquilibrium editorial style. He has moved my comments from section Continuous incivility by User:Imbris to another section so that 2 cases are seen separately but they are connected or better to say I have writen comments about Pax editorial style so that administrator can better understand situation between Pax and Imbris. Only possible mistake of user:Imbris is that he has lost nerve during "discussion" and provocations of User:PaxEquilibrium because of his insistance that only he know true history of Montenegro and only his "sources" are right sources.--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

..because I have no idea what this has to do with Imbris... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words it's a content dispute over which sources you guys can agree are acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we are discussing that - the problem is in Imbris' pick of choice and personal attacks. I have no problem in continuing the discussion with him at all and it will be useful to the Wikipedia, but only if he stops attacking other users. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

During last hour or something more I add Pax has been talking on talk page. In that difference between 2 of us has become clear. In looking historical events I look only legal arguments (I really try to do only that). He is looking all picture. My and Pax discusson in article Podgorica Assembly will end with RFC. I will win in similar way in which I have been "winner" in RFC if Jasenovac has been Holocaust extermination camp. With that discussion about article will be closed.

We are not having content dispute about sources because he is refusing even his sources if they are not showing right picture. Let say for example I am using like source this Chicago Tribune from 1919. Pax is saying this source is bad, but I am having books which are showing this event. After reading his books I start to add information from pages 50-52 in article. Answer on that from Pax is:"This part of book is not good source". This situation for me is frustrating because he is refusing even his sources. For me this is POV editing.--Rjecina (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...and the relevance of that in here is..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is that I can understand if user Imbris has lost nerve after PaxEquilibrium provocations. Because of provocations it is not possible to block Imbris and not block PaxEquilibrium. Now I will his edits of last few days which are in my thinking provocations. He has agreeded on my talk page that we look legal arguments about Podgorica assembly [34] . After I have added on talk page legal arguments why Podgorica Assembly has been against law his answer has been in my personal thinking typical Greater Serbian bullshit [35]. Best example of that are his words:

"But Rjecina, if that were true, the Kingdom of Montenegro would've been accepted into the League of Nations (which it wasn't), and not the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes."

Maybe I am reading this wrong because he is saying that only members of League of Nations are internationaly recognized states. In this logic Soviet Union, USA, Germany, Mexico, Ethiopia ... are not states in 1919 !!! If I do not understand that this is provocation like many other "younger" editors in response I will maybe write my real thinking about his edits.--Rjecina (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Stewart

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Stewart has been generally disruptive for a sustained period, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see if you think action needs to be taken. The user has been blocked before for these edits ([36], [37]), and recently did a similar thing here and here, suggesting the user has not learned from their block. User has also been warned for biting the newcomers, violating NPOV and attacking other editors (as seen here). User:Charles Stewart has also previously changed all instances of the word "Honour" to "Honor" on that article ([38]) and then made a WP:POINTy edit after being informed of Wikipedia's policies of regional variations of English ([39]). Finally, today he posted four items to WP:ITN/C, which, having made several edits to that page before, he knows full well don't fulfil the criteria, and then proceeded to delete opposing edits by another user and then changed the same user's comments to make it appear as if they had supported the suggestion. Thanks for your attention. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Absolutely unacceptable abuse of other editors and manipulation of process. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put the indif block template in his userpage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At what point did he think moving another user's userpage to "User:Gigantic Cunt Douche Faggot Bitch" would be acceptable? Deary me. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• He may have started using the account Kate Flanagan (talk · contribs) given a recent pagemove by that account. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  Also indef blocked (doesn't even matter if it's a sock or not). Neıl ☎ 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I think I'm in an edit war...

Resolved

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...which is very much unlike me, but here goes. Over time, several individuals have added a section to the article Caillou about a supposed "controversy", which apparently manifests itself in an online petition stating that the show should be taken off the air because the main character is "whiny" and a "bad example". An IP has joined the debate recently, and seems determined to have this information included. At first the users included this info with no sources at all; this IP, at least, is sourcing (a fact which I acknowledged the first time I mentioned it on the userpage--at least they're TRYING) but the sources are user-posted reviews and blogs which don't, IMHO, meet WP:VER in any way. [40] I tried to be polite [41], but the user is apparently outraged that I would demand such rigid sourcing--and is now accusing me of ad-hominem attacks, which I don't believe I've made. [42]. Am I being unreasonable in saying that these sources don't meet WP:VER? Gladys J Cortez 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE applies here also. Evil saltine (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm striving for absolute clarity here, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what you mean by that?? I'm trying to make sure I understand the relevant policies, and to be honest I'm not sure if I'm on the right side of WP:UNDUE--it's a minority viewpoint, but does that argue for or against its inclusion??? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that no reliable sources exist supports exclusion, just like the example given where the Flat Earth viewpoint is not mentioned in the article Earth. Evil saltine (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm tempted to semi-protect the page, this user is reverting explained policy based removal citing "vandalism", the only reason that is holding me back is the fact that I don't want to engage in a conflict of interest since I already removed the section twice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 week. After that expires, let me (or ANI) know if the IP continues. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was once the target of an uncivil editor who kept calling me more and names that were spelled the same and had different meanings. Yes, you guessed it... the dreaded Add Homonym attack. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(cue the crickets)... :) Gladys J Cortez 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That'll be the day. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of arbcom in content dispute

It appears to me that User:Fennessy is using the fact an issue has been disputed in an arbcom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, namely use of the Ulster Banner, to justify reverting me on Template:Bus transport in the United Kingdom, which arbcom decisions are not used for. In fact it appears that is all he is logging in for at the moment, in an apparent attempt to go slow to avoid 3RR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you explain clearly and fully the arguments for the version you support at Template talk:Bus transport in the United Kingdom, and discuss the matter with anyone who replies there. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to 'The Troubles'. You can try engaging on the talk page, though I am doubtful about your chances of success. The cynic in me also says that by posting what was previously a quite obscure page on ANI, you might have ensured that the problem never gets sorted out (though the pragmatist in me asks if the flags are really necessary at all on that template). Black Kite 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting again, help please

E.O. Green School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a tragic in-school shooting incident involving 1 or 1 year old victims and suspects. An editor or possibly more than one keeps adding the suspects name, which is covered in RS. However, from the Corey Delaney (that Aussie party teen) deletions I was under the impression that minors' names are left out, generally, in presumption in favor of privacy. Editors have sought help on both the help and BLP boards but the article still seems to include the teen suspects name. Even if that teen is responsible for murder shouldn't we at least wait for the trial? And then come to a consensus on this? Benjiboi 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting problem, but what administrator action do you seek in this issue? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is rather clear to me; until such time as a minor suspect is convicted, it's not appropriate to name them in an article. I've removed the name, according to the Privacy of Names section, I'll note so on the talk page, and will keep an eye on the article. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also left a note on the editor's page explaining my reasoning, and I notice the page has been protected by other admins in the interval. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, usual routes of dialog and BLP noticeboard didn't seem to be getting a minor's name removed. As a involved editor I didn't feel I was going to get much traction and I felt wikipedia was in a gray area in a current high-profile murder case involving minors. Benjiboi 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It admittedly is a gray area, and my move may not have been uncontroversial. I prefer to err on the side of caution, however, and it would appear I am not the only one who had that concern. — Coren ^(talk) 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A brief review of the sources, and of the wider internet sources shows this news article which states the arrested suspect has been charged as an adult, which frees up legitimate journalistic avenues to reveal the name of the suspect. Suspect's name is widely available on the internet, on blogs, activist sites and news articles. As such, I think there's nothing to stop us. The horse left the barn ,the genie's out the cork's not going back in, etc., etc. on the aphorisms. I don't think it's as gray as suggested. Example: when they thought he DC Sniper was a kid, they didn't say name, when they got more info, they released. Were this the day of the event, I'd back BLP, but there are sources from days and weeks later still publishing the identity. Why wouldn't we be able to, so long as we cite it all and examine sources carefully? BLP doesn't preclude negative information. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum Re:BLP section 'privacy of names'. Section states if the name is NOT widely disseminated. There are a number of papers on the net from all over the nation covering the story, so while there is one event, this is a widely notable event, combining hate crimes and school shootings, a veritable bonanza for our tragedy driven, opportunistic, and atavistic Mainstream media. In other words, the person's name is just about every place people might seek out for information BUT us, and while 'everyone else is doing it' is not always an excuse for an action, in this case, it does make us simply look lax. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll again point out we deleted Corey Delaney, wrongly, IMHO, because he was a minor associated with one news event and we didn't want to saddle that poor kid with a wikipedia article for one event that would likely haunt him and he would regret the whole affair. Nevermind that Coery has since gone on to turn that scarring event into a career and his name has gotten more coverage than many of our BLPs. As this article has a minor as a suspect pending trial seems like we shouldn't convict him in the worldwide encyclopedia quite yet. Benjiboi 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

His name is obviously public domain. It's in the USAToday article. [43] Given the Florida Wendy's shooting [44] it's probably already yesterday's news. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Benji, no one is convicting the suspect here, simply reporting using verifiable sources, none of which can report he's convicted in a trial yet to be held. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As others have said, the name is widely disseminated and obviously relevant to the article. WP:BLP mentions nothing about minors or waiting until a conviction. I recommend that the page be unprotected (as far as BLP is concerned) and the name be allowed to stay. Evil saltine (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the sources already referenced in the article contain the name. Evil saltine (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do. It's not trying to suppress anything, but to avoid bringing undue prominence to the name. Seriously, what does the article gain by mentioning the name of a suspect? — Coren ^(talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of the suspect is a relevant piece of information, just as it would be for any other crime. The name is already prominent; what Wikipedia does won't change that. Besides, it's not as if this person is getting his own article. Evil saltine (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) This minor is involved in a murder trial, even if ultimately tried as an adult. Once the trial and appeals are over I would support a discussion to whether or not to include the information but an encyclopedic article can be written fully with the absence of the alleged shooter's name and those reading will fully be able to understand the content. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and we are also not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes. We are here to write encyclopedic articles not to hang crimes on a young person on the world's encyclopedia for whatever reason. "Cover the event, not the person." Benjiboi 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, he is a part of the event. I don't understand your assertion that publishing his name would be tabloid-like, given the many reputable organizations that have already done so. We are not "hanging a crime" on anyone, just reporting the facts, namely that he is a suspect. Evil saltine (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's very clear that those who support censoring the name aren't citing BLP anymore, just their own idea of what is moral or encyclopedic. Since BLP is no longer involved, I don't see how page protection is justified. Evil saltine (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there was edit-warring.--Doc^g 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is not the reason the template says it was protected - it says it was due to BLP. The response to edit warring is to lock the page on a preferred version (misquoting BLP) for a week? Sorry, but no. The page needs unprotecting. Neıl ☎ 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason not to name the arrested 14-year-old, as it's public domain knowledge. The statement that wikipedia is "not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes" is not a rules-based argument, it's a feeling-based argument. It also makes no logical sense. Wikpedia isn't swaying anything. It's reporting public information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

User:Stone put to sky was recently blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[45] Unfortunately, this seems to have little effect and he now continues to make personal attacks: "You really need to get out more."[46], "you are either lying or just phonetically-challenged"[47].Ultramarine (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note asking Stone put to sky (talk · contribs) to calm down a little, but neither of the above diffs are especially terrible, so I don't think it needs any more than that at the moment. If he carries on, please leave another note on this board, however. Neıl ☎ 13:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User: PunjabiConviction

Resolved

 – sock blocked

User:AjayKumarMehta User:99.238.149.188 User:Spy89 Looks like sock puppet. constantly reverting my edits.[48]. Was banned asUser:Spy89, but now is operating under User: PunjabiConviction. Harrasing me on my talk page.[49]. What should i do? Leave wiki! Can't administrators help me!Ajjay (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as a block-avoiding sock. Black Kite 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:168.170.197.10

Could some admin have a closer look at this IP-address? It looks like a continuous flow of disruption and vandalism.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.03.2008 13:57

That IP originates at a school (see the talk page) and, to me, the vandalism doesn’t look persistent enough to warrant a block at this time. —Travis^talk 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass/drive-by de-proddings by User:Pixelface

Today I noticed that an obscure article I had prodded due to a lack of reliable sources, Omega (1987 computer game), was de-prodded by a user indicating that "discussion on the talk page has indicated there might be some controversy over its deletion." Excited at the prospect that there might have been some discussion on the topic, I rushed over to the talk page only to find that, no, the only discussion was by me and by someone else who explicitly said they weren't challenging the prod.

I then looked at his contributions, and saw that he removed the prod template from about 20 other articles, most of which he has had no involvement in. I undid the edit and asked Pixelface to clarify what he meant. He then re-de-prodded, and said "Sorry, I misread, I'm contesting the prod" (with no indication of why).

Look. I know that the prod template says that anyone can "challenge" a prod, but it seems a bit WP:POINTY to do mass, drive-by de-proddings of articles that not only aren't you willing to contribute to, but you probably don't even know what they're about when you remove the template. That doesn't seem like good faith behavior to me. Am I off base here? Can I get some third-party input? Nandesuka (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The PROD system does rather leave itself open to this kind of abuse. For the moment I'd make an AFD for the article you wanted deleted (a discussion can't hurt, anyway) and hopefully an admin will come along to warn him against this kind of behaviour. Naerii (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely POINT. I'd re-add the prods. Will ^(talk) 13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over the prods isn't a good idea. Let's wait until there's more discussion. Naerii (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka, when I looked at Talk:Omega (1987 computer game), I glanced at "contesting at this time" and that's why I initally removed the {{prod}} tag. I can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason. If there is really consensus to delete the article, that will be evident during the AFD process. Discussion never hurt anything. --Pixelface (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are contesting a prod because you misread the words "not contesting the PROD at this time" as "contesting the PROD at this time"? You're serious? This isn't a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixel, what is your reasoning for removing all those other prods? Naerii (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I noted it in my edit summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this require any admin intervention? Take the article to AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are abusing the PROD process does. Naerii (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not abusing the PROD process. If I think a deletion may be controversial, I'm allowed to remove the template. If the person who placed the prod tag wants the article deleted, they can list it for AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can removed prod tags from as many articles as they want for any reason and they are not required to provide that reason. If you still want it deleted, afd it. Viridae^Talk 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not quite accurate. Bad-faith wholesale removal of PRODs has been successfully challenged at AN/I with reversal and warnings. I was involved in one such, as a matter of fact, when someone started going alphabetically through the PRODs and dePRODding them, hitting one I had placed. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe pixelface was well within their rights to remove the prod from this article. There are reference on the article and discussion on the talk page. There is significant room to allow that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I reviewed the article and it's references and beleive the correct action is to take it to afd. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My remark was meant to address the comment that PROD tags can be removed for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Taken too literally, the rule invites miscreants to game the system, or inhibits the less-experienced user from seeking relief for a bad-faith removal. In this instance, bad-faith does not apply, so AfD would be, as you say, the proper resolution. -- Michael Devore (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also important to note that on 18:27, 26 February 2008 this article was not a candidate for the Prod by Nandesuka Diff, as Nandesuka had removed a prod from the article in July 2007 Diff which per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion made WP:AFD the only avenue for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Pixelface's recent untaggings, they don't seem to have been unconsidered or random. He usually addresses the reason for detagging in his edit summary: "removed prod template, Wikipedia has articles on many upcoming films and the director's blog indicates it's in production", "removed prod template, the news article and entry at Gamespot are valid sources", "removed prod template, comments on the talk page indicate deletion may be controversial". This is good, thoughtful work, and not in any way bad editing. "Proposed deletion" is only for deletions that aren't at all controversial. Pixelface's removal of a prod template doesn't imply that the article mustn't be deleted, but that it is more appropriate to discuss before deleting. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue here isn't that specific article -- I think we can all agree that reasonable people can disagree on one article. I specifically have a problem with the drive-by nature of it. Some of Pixelface's objections indeed seem appropriate, and others do not. When I spot checked several of the "comments on the talk page indicate..." claims, I noticed that there were, in several cases, no such comments at all. In other cases, he indicated that deletion "may be controversial", and again there is no indication on the article talk pages or that edit summary that it is controversial. Any edit may be controversial. That's not an adequate rational to unprod in bulk, in my opinion. That's what concerns me here: unprodding for the sake of unprodding, rather than because of any good faith rationale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The way Prod was set up, it's enough that the person removing the tag thinks deletion may be controversial. Pixelface and I have occasionally (more often than that, truth to tell) had disagreements, but I don't think his honesty is in doubt. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that when I first removed the prod from the Omega (1987 computer game) article, I hadn't had any sleep in quite a while. I had just removed a prod and used the edit summary "removed prod template, comments on the talk page indicate deletion may be controversial" and when I saw the talk page of the article (with Nandesuka saying the game was just as notable as another game, or maybe not?) and glancing at the word "contesting", I pasted in the edit summary I had just used. I was tired. I wasn't unprodding for the sake of unprodding. I unprod when I think the matter deserves wider discussion (or when a subject obviously has third-party sources like Sacred Underworld or Blinx 2: Masters of Time and Space). The {{prod}} template is only for deletions that would be totally uncontroversial, like for example How to write an APA Methods Section. --Pixelface (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• While myself and Pixelface don't agree on much, most of these de-proddings look reasonable to me; I have re-added one though, because the article is a duplicate of another. Black Kite 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed that one to a redirect. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• It can probably be deleted under CSD/R3 actually - no-one is going to type that in as a search term. Black Kite 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the actual article title is even less likely to be used as a search term... — Edokter • Talk • 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• That article has incoming links, though. The other is an orphan. Black Kite 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The traffic stats suggests the other does get a few hits per day, makes no difference to me if it stays or goes. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• *shrug* leave it. Redirects are cheap. Black Kite 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we recognize this as the bad-faith harassment that it is? The Prod polioy page says quite plainly If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Nandesuka (who, not coincidentally has been on the other side of the TV episode/character controversy from Pixelface) violated that policy, and filed a phony charge against Pixelface. This sort of thing happens fairly regularly to people who argue convincingly against deletions, and certainly should raise sock/meatpuppetry questions.. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning "sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry questions" is getting into pretty serious territory...please be sure you can back that up before suggesting it. Jonneroo (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The prod take removals all seem to have had reasonable explanations at least in the edit summary. This ANI complaint against an established editor does rather reflect on the person placing the complaint. DGG (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the PROD removal was reasonable, Nandesuka is an established editor who has been here since 2005. By accusing them of sock or meatpuppetry you merely make yourself look completely ridiculous. Black Kite 14:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Pixelface has acted in good faith and correctly removed the prods. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuous incivility by User:Imbris

Constant & repeated incivility and semi-personal attacks from this user, despite warned repeatedly on his talk page.

• Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro's Crnojevic Family. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda. Please take this matter under consideration because this is a blatant hoax."
• Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda."
• [50] Where are your sources, in some medieval festivals perhaps. An for that matter unsupstaniated material is unencyclopaedical."
• Here: "Easy, isn't the flag yellow with red eagle or you are changing your mind very quickly. Today you say that it is red flag with a white eagle and tomorow you will realize that either hadn't even existed)"
• Here: "but cannot stand your clear fabricizations."
• here: "Stop your deliberate disinformation crusade,"
• Here: "to bad yours is so negative and greaterxxxxxxx".
• here: "Stop your POV pushing and greaterxxxx politics".

It has been very difficult to communicate with this user. After I cited sources for several facts he held questionable, he aggressively responded and accused me without basis that I am a falsifier of history. He demanded scanned pages of sources. After I indulged his demands and scanned them, uploading them to his talk page, he started to accuse the sources themselves for falsifying history, as he did here: "Is it some picture-book for 3rd graders. It is most clear that you and Nikola have different souces, his low-res part of that map looks very much different. Also the page you scanned looks not-clear and funny like it was manipulated. I am not accusing you but the author who clearly manipulated with the image." He also accused the even-uploaded books as irrelevant for being "3rd-grade alike" and complained that my scans were poor and barely viewable.

I don't want to seem wrong out of this - but I need a 3rd hand opinion. Am I doing anything wrong? How to stop this continuous impoliteness, incivility and lack of any constructiveness? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire ordeal came to be when Pax uploaded a file without sources on February 28 this year.

I found this to be somewhat strange because on commons user must fill the chart (a small table with sources and other data).

Then I decided to seak deletion and claimed OR and UE which were misinterpreted by Pax.

It is not sourcing when someone shows you a one detail that is unrecognizable. The source Pax provided is a very strange picture-book that offers no factography in a form of citations and quotes from documents and older publications.

Because we are dealing with a middle age topic and because one might say that even Flag of Denmark as the oldest if from a 1600s (legends from 1200s) but sources from 1600s. I have everyright to be suspicious.

What should I said to myself when Pax constantly changes every word that I contribute to his POV. Everyone has a POV. I offered him my collaboration and sources about the Constitional matter of passing the Law with simple majority.

Will write some more fact soon.

Imbris (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a picture-book, and more why very strange? :) I am writing here about your personal insults and the opinion of others. Are you trying to justify incivility? Let me also remind you that here you have claimed: "Your tactics is to ask eveyone about the nationality and claim that have something against you personally." Could you please back up these claims? Thanks, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First I must say that in this discussion I am not neutral. Because of different thinking (and editing) PaxEquilibrium and I are having agreement that he will not edit Croatia related articles and I will not edit Serbia related articles so we are having only few points of dispute. One of this points is article Podgorica Assembly where Pax are deleting, reverting any version of article which is not saying that Montenegro is and has always been Serbian land.

Because Pax has used example to show Imbris in bad light I will show similar example from talk page of Podgorica Assembly:

My comment:"Book writen in reference (by Pax) is speaking about Serbian agents which are working on Montenegro territory for union between state from 1866. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"The link is not necessary a reference, I myself put the external links to every single source"

My comment:"Similar to that books from reference in article are speaking how serbian military has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military and royal family before election has ended. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"It may be written, however carefully because the statement itself is biased" (it is not writen)

My comment:"Writing in article that parliament has voted under serbian military "protection" is not allowed"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"What does that precisely mean?"

My comment:"About slaughter (of Montenegrins by Serbian forces) read you can read Tribune of 1 september 1919"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"That is a journalist article, normally far-fetched - but killings did occur, and they were indeed horrible. According to some (possible overestimates, but still), almost 3,000 Montenegrins died in the tiny civil war. But the Serbian Army itself, had little or none at all part in that conflict." (it is not in article)

Point of this example is to see that Pax is not neutral editor which is showing data from neutral books. It is not possible to trust his books when even he is not accepting data from his obscure books if they are having bad data for his line of thinking.--Rjecina (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate what you're trying to point out and what is the relevance of this post? If discussion regarding those precise posts is needed, I will be more than willing to start it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree because edits in this section are another example of PaxEquilibrium editorial style. He has moved my comments from section Continuous incivility by User:Imbris to another section so that 2 cases are seen separately but they are connected or better to say I have writen comments about Pax editorial style so that administrator can better understand situation between Pax and Imbris. Only possible mistake of user:Imbris is that he has lost nerve during "discussion" and provocations of User:PaxEquilibrium because of his insistance that only he know true history of Montenegro and only his "sources" are right sources.--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

..because I have no idea what this has to do with Imbris... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words it's a content dispute over which sources you guys can agree are acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we are discussing that - the problem is in Imbris' pick of choice and personal attacks. I have no problem in continuing the discussion with him at all and it will be useful to the Wikipedia, but only if he stops attacking other users. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

During last hour or something more I add Pax has been talking on talk page. In that difference between 2 of us has become clear. In looking historical events I look only legal arguments (I really try to do only that). He is looking all picture. My and Pax discusson in article Podgorica Assembly will end with RFC. I will win in similar way in which I have been "winner" in RFC if Jasenovac has been Holocaust extermination camp. With that discussion about article will be closed.

We are not having content dispute about sources because he is refusing even his sources if they are not showing right picture. Let say for example I am using like source this Chicago Tribune from 1919. Pax is saying this source is bad, but I am having books which are showing this event. After reading his books I start to add information from pages 50-52 in article. Answer on that from Pax is:"This part of book is not good source". This situation for me is frustrating because he is refusing even his sources. For me this is POV editing.--Rjecina (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...and the relevance of that in here is..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is that I can understand if user Imbris has lost nerve after PaxEquilibrium provocations. Because of provocations it is not possible to block Imbris and not block PaxEquilibrium. Now I will his edits of last few days which are in my thinking provocations. He has agreeded on my talk page that we look legal arguments about Podgorica assembly [51] . After I have added on talk page legal arguments why Podgorica Assembly has been against law his answer has been in my personal thinking typical Greater Serbian bullshit [52]. Best example of that are his words:

"But Rjecina, if that were true, the Kingdom of Montenegro would've been accepted into the League of Nations (which it wasn't), and not the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes."

Maybe I am reading this wrong because he is saying that only members of League of Nations are internationaly recognized states. In this logic Soviet Union, USA, Germany, Mexico, Ethiopia ... are not states in 1919 !!! If I do not understand that this is provocation like many other "younger" editors in response I will maybe write my real thinking about his edits.--Rjecina (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger

Resolved

User Igorberger has been asked to remove certain information from his personal business websites and he refuses. A report will be filed with the foundation to advise them of this conflict of interest issue.--VS ^talk 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

During this MFD it has become clear that User:Igorberger has advertised in his private businesses that he is supported and authenticated by the Wikipedia.org. As I am involved in the MfD and have at times asked Igorbeger to stop spamming in other areas I bring this issue to ANI for further discussion. I note that he has listed those businesses as being his on his user page so there is no "outing" of new information in this ANI.

See here for examples:

1. His business IVB solutions IT states it is a consulting company providing solutions for the diverse IT market - including Wikepedia.org [53], and
2. His business PHSDL - Project Honeypot Spam Domains List [54] - (which was his first creation on Wikipedia and is mentioned in the current MfD) states is has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org [55].

I realise of course that it is difficult for us to stop a non-wikipedia editor from making these type of "puffery" comments but I seek the community's view on what request we can gain or impose on user:Igorberger in relation these claims and the edits that he is making in these areas of interest? I close by noting that Igorberger has indicated (in the MfD) that if at ANI it is determined that my reference from PHSDL to Wikipedia is inapropreate[sic] I have no problems removing that reference (and I assume others of a similar nature).--VS ^talk 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note Igorberger has commented in relation to this ANI here and has been asked to post that comment here also.--VS ^talk 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this more of a Foundation problem than someone users can figure out? Leave it the lawyer, perhaps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes perhaps posting it to attention of the foundation is a solution.--VS ^talk 06:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor has indicated that he will remove claims on his sites that suggest or imply some kind of relationship with Wikipedia that goes beyond a normal volunteer editor relationship. I think he ought to go ahead and do this. Otherwise this should referred to the office. Sarah 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any statements that I am employeed by Wikipedia, on my Websites.I just made reference to Wikipedia because I spend tons of hours here as a volunteer editor. Igor Berger (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your site listed wikipedia under current project - I run my own consultancy business and when you list another company or legal entity you are saying something about the relationship that exists. No relationship exists between IVB solutions and wikipedia. A relationship exists between you and wikipedia but not the relationship where you claim the project as a "customer". --Fredrick day (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I nether meant to imply that there is some sort of a relationship between IVB and Wikipedia. I just wanted to say that I am participating in the project. I can add I am an editor at Wikipedia to clarify the relatioship. The whole Website is just one page and it just lists what I do. So if you think it is okay I will amend it. Igor Berger (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The site now reads "WikiPedia.org volunteer editor". If Igor is proud of his involvement here, let it be I say... no harm done, now. -- Longhair\^talk 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change so swiftly, it's much appreciated. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I did not want to make a big thing of this. I am volunteering here and I am proud of it. It actually looks better than before..:) Good Karma! Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also appreciate this change Igor and now no harm done there (as Longhair says) however could you please also adjust this other site of yours as it still says PHSDL has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org as notable ...--VS ^talk 12:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay give me a little time to think how to do it aesthetically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Igor - let me know if you need help. Would also appreciate you indicating here so that we can all close this thread off. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 12:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The second Website has been addressed here Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh, aesthetically? Is your page designed to be viewed in a 1997 time machine? ;-) Avruch ^T 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not clame to be a web designer so it is not fancy. But PHSDL is a free service that I provide to users who have problems with Zlob Trojan Malware Spam on their forums and blogs. Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It still implies a corporate relationship here, as it reads as if IVB Solutions ("we") is involved in a volunteer capacity assisting WP, rather than an individual. This implies some sort of donation of services rendered, which is misleading and self serving for the company. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - should this be taken to the wikipedia foundation office So that others are aware Igorberger has come to my talk page regarding this also. I appreciate Igor has attempted to remove the obvious or immediate concerns which as detailed above clearly linked his private companies to appear as if he was working in consultation; cooperation; or auspices of the wikipedia.org. That said Boodlesthecat's comment is well put and whilst I do not want to be the constant hammer at Igor's edits I intend to speak plainly here as follows:

1. Having thought about it I am of the opinion that Boodlestecat is correct - quite simply I can not see the ethical correctness of an editor linking his company to wikipedia as if it is the volunteer - clearly the volunteer is the individual and not the company - and therefore the link to wikipedia (not being to a personal page but to a company page) is still self-serving his business (as it was in the first instance).
2. I also have noted the change to this link which though better than before still states that Igor's Spam filter technology company PHSDL - supports Wikipedia.org To me this is also self-serving (unless of course wikipedia has authorise the statement. It especially looks that way when Igor has added the PHDSL link [[56]] about 20 times in various edits in wikipedia. Further I would caution him that whilst he states that it is a "free service" it in fact details on the website that his software is part of a a non for profit project created, developed, and administered to fight Internet Spam and his company is seeking donations at this linked site.
3. Further I can not help but feel that Igor is scratching the back/s of various business colleagues who have supported his PHDSL project (as detailed here and here). These colleagues are detailed on his company websites as Andy Beard & David Naylor and another associate Michael Gray and for each Igor is in the process of creating user pages - at least one of which has been previously AfD'd.

To conclude therefore I remain concerned by the Conflict of Interest between Igor, his companies, his edits and the Wikipedia.org. I believe the comments made earlier by Ricky81682 probably should be taken at their face value and a report made to the foundation who would I feel deal with the legal aspects of this matter. In the meantime I think at the very least that Igor should be asked to absolutely declare his conflicts of interest in relation to his editing because unfortunately, at this time, whilst I would rather be doing other wiki business I continue to remain concerned by the mix between Igor's good work and what appears to be a complex form of gaming the system. I intend to file a report with the wikipedia org unless other editors can convince me that is not appropriate - or Igor can somehow convince us that we should not.--VS ^talk 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Those user-pages (which branch off his own) seem to be sand boxed articles (as long as he actually plans to move them to article space), so some clarification needs to be asserted about what he plans to do with them (having said that, a cursory glances suggests they would all be AFD'd as soon as they arrive in article space). On the wider issue, I'll have to re-examine the sites and see what he's still saying. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The article pages that you are referring to I have started with approval of User:Jehochman This pages are notable SEO's but it is alot of work to establish notability per Wikipedia. I have asked other editors to join me with helping to build these pages. Recently one editor familiar with the SEO industry has offered to help with editing the sandboxed articles. I declair I have no conflict of intrest with relationship to these people. I get no money from them for working on their articles. Honestly I just know them from the Internet by participating on their blogs. I have learned about them from being in SEO area and I have come to respect them for their work and dedication in the field. If you wish you can contact this people and have them confirm what I am saying about my relationship with them. Igor Berger (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• VirtualSteve, I have added the PHSDL related link to about 4 articles on Wikipedia that all have relevence to Zlob Trojan Malware. I do not get any money from PHSDL and have spent a year building the project with my own time. The people who you have mentioned do not pay me anything I give them advice for free. If the community feels that my links to Wikipedia are inappropriate I have no qualms with removing them, although this is an extreme request because many editors at Wikipedia who have Websites link to Wikipedia to show they are editors here. My actual intent of linking to Wikipedia is to promote the Wikipedia project not to promote PHSDL or my one man consulting firm I try to be a good ambassador for Wikipedia telling people outside of Wikipedia how important, relevent, and educational Wikipedia is. I try to help new editors who come to Wikipedia with the syntax and policy to make their user experience enjoyable and promote the wikilove so they will stay and become good editors. I came to Wikipedia because User:Durova and User:Jehochman posted an invetation for Internet aware people to come join Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• As I said on your talk page Igor - I don't want to open up wounds but I have never seen any links like the ones you had and have now on your business pages - on other editor wikipages (where they own a business and putting the link up will equally help the editors business). I note that you are saying you don't make any money but that really isn't the issue - although your site does ask for donations and it does say it is not for profit. I am also not arguing against "wiki-love" I am asking the community whether you are breaching ethical guidelines and whether this should just go to the foundation for their people to contact your people. Can you show us/me some links similar to yours on other wikipedia websites (businesses not blogs or personal pages) because that would help us to determine this matter. --VS ^talk 11:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • VirtualSteve you need to read the donation page dontions for links I am asking that people donate a link to the PHSDL project to show their support for it. I am not asking for money! Igor Berger (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Igor I did read that page - and it asks to link to your other company http://www.travelinasia.net/ and that page clearly says Please donate to this Project Honeypot. We need all the help we can get! which to any reasonable person would suggest money $ - which in turn links to http://www.travelconnecxion.com/ which is either your company also and sells travel - or for which you are the webmaster.--VS ^talk 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, travelinasia.net is a free forum It is actually a honeypot that collects the Spam domains and puts them on PHSDL list to act as a Spam filter. travelconnecxion.com I am a Website developer for. Igor Berger (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, I am not asking for any money donations. I am asking for link to travelinasia.net forum and to PHSDL Website. Igor Berger (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look Igor I don't want to upset you but I don't care what your business interests are - I don't even care if it is free (even if I seriously doubt the veracity of your comments on wikipedia and on your websites when your websites appear very much to be asking for monetary donations - which your comments about wikipedia appear to be written so as to give some grandeur to) - what is important is that you are using Wikipedia to further your private interests. Now it wouldn't matter if you were Greenpeace, Save the Whales, Amnesty International or the United Nations - you simply can't (a) say that wikipedia is linked to your organisation in the way that you are doing unless you have the foundations permission, and (b) you can't edit articles in the way that you are doing as it is a clear breach of conflict of interest. And so my only questions at this ANI thread is do we write a report to the foundation; and how do we deal with an editor like you who seems to wish to twist and turn constantly rather than just stopping all conflict of interest and moving on to some "fair dinkum" editing. I also want to take this moment to ask you what you are going to do with the three sandbox articles you have written which also have a clear conflict of interest issue because you say they are your friends on your website where they are linked and from where you are promoting their businesses at your other website called Igor the Troll http://www.igorthetroll.com/ ? And I want to remind you that you are not answering my other legitimate question - posed implicitly by your comments above which is - can you show me other editors with business websites that are using the name of wikipedia in the way that you are? So if you can answer these questions then please come and tell us- if not then please stop posting evasive returns.--VS ^talk 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve as per request of your question on your talk page, I have no idea who links how and which sites business or not business link to Wikipedia. I offered to remove the links if determined by consesus that it should be done. As far as the articles in my sandbox you can MfD them and follow the process as per any user page. As far as you asking me should you contact the Wikimedia foundation, that is entirely your rights as an individual. A wikipedia user. And I do not get any money for PHSDL from anyone. If I wasking for money donations I would have a PayPal button to accept donations, which I clearlty do not. There is no form on the Website for submit donations. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had stumbled across Igor's page randomly, I would have concluded that he had some sort of special relationship with wikipedia. In reality, he's just another editor. One issue is, is a posting like that against wikipedia policy? I don't know, but I doubt it can be stopped, short of legal action. Another issue is, is his work in wikipedia a conflict of interest violation? Having just been through this on the Superman music page, I am convinced that wikipedia doesn't really care about conflicts of interest and that it's a waste of time to complain about it. But maybe they can prove me wrong in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, VirtualSteve asked me to come back and comment - which he might regret, based on my opinion:

• Wikipedia (the project) has no jurisdiction over the outside activities/websites of our editors unless they impact directly on other editors (and that, even, is a gray area). Igor's outside website doesn't present a conflict of interest problem - which interests are conflicting within Wikipedia?
• The only issue, and it is for Wikimedia to act on if they choose (which they never do, at this point), is whether he is making a commercial and inappropriate use of Wikimedia registered marks. Since he says he isn't being paid, I don't see how that would be the case here.
• Now, regarding posting links to his efforts in articles - that could be a problem, but unless he is spamming it the additions should be evaluated individually for appropriateness by the editors of those articles. Avruch ^T 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• No regrets at all Avruch - thanks for you time and comments. Baseball Bugs makes a further excellent comment above also and Boodlesthecat adds valuable contribution at my talk page. The combination of the comments closes this case for me - I will request from Igor that he removes the references and if he doesn't wish to then I will lodge a written report with the foundation. Thank you for your time. Best wishes --VS ^talk 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• VirtualSteve went our of his way to WP:POINT and that is not WP:AGF. I made an offer in kidness to remove all links but he kept demanding something from me and keept pointing to WP:COI which I clearly do not have. This is not the first time VirtualSteve has tried to scrutinize me. He has been doing it on many ocassion, since day one that we have met. Am I his pet project? Is he my boss and suppervisor and when he says jump I need to jump because he is an admin? If he would have come to my talk page and asked me about my Websites I would have explained and made appropreate changes when and if necessary, but he started an inflamatory and predisposed titled thread. The title of it user Jehochman has changed as to not forecast an outcome. I do not believe I neeed to change any links on my Websites, or has there been a consensus built to support that. That is for Wikimedia foundation to determine. VirtualSteve is not Wikimedia foundation, so he should stick to editing Wikipedia as our peer not try to be its Boss and Lawyer. If he wants to contact WP that is his right. Igor Berger (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you - you have made your intention to not remove the wikipedia endorsement comments on your business sites clear to me and many others. In my view wikipedia does not need editors who ride on the coat-tails of its success in the way that you are doing and I will file my report for their intention.--VS ^talk 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB

Keeps deleting opinions that are contrary to his opinion in an attempt to build a consensus. It can be seen here [57] where this opinion was deleted "J.Delany agreed to this verions [58] - I agree to this verion as well [59] 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)" his reason was vandalism and he says discussion was deleted when it was simply moved from the top to the bottom to go in chronological order(after he moved it). Also he asked for an opinion on which version is better [60] to which i was notified [61] and so was he [62] . When the third opinion came in [63] he simply ignored what the third opinion was and simply reverted the page [64]. I thought we had a compromise and would listen to the 3rd opinion, but now i'm really starting to wonder if there can be any compromise with him. Uconnstud (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I could mention the fact that he has been going to articles thru my history and stalking me commenting after me when he was never ever ever in the previous listed article at all. [65] Uconnstud (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth time this issue has been posted here in the last few days (see 1, 2, 3, in the archives). Is there any administrative action required here, or is this something that can be handled by further dispute resolution? --jonny-mt 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both editors have extensive modifications to the article in mind, and I think it's possible that there are good items in each version. I'll have a look at coming up with a third option that might serve as a compromise. The article is fully protected for a week, which I will extend if needs be. There is a third opinion, which appears to have been disregarded in favor of a renewed revert war - that third opinion is a starting point. I don't think the conduct issues here (on both sides) will be workable until the article is stable, so that's step one, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor using 150.210.176.81 IP address posted the following extremely offensive comments on my talk page and user page [66][67]. These comments included, "you are one poor sarcastic sucker! have you ever gotten laid or have you always paid for it you sonnuva bitch!". This IP is part of Baruch College, the same source for IP's used by User:Uconnstud in past comments in which he did not use his user name, see User talk:150.210.176.218 & User talk:150.210.226.6. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty funny considering that the only thing that any of those IP address and I have in common is that we've edited on the St. John's page. You do know that Baruch College has about 15,000 students. St John's has about 15,000 too. I've always used my username. You on the other hand.. are famous for not using it [68]. Its funny how we now see random IP address who are suddenly coming out of nowhere and agreeing with you. When they have no history of editing at all [69] and [70]. All supporting "option 1." Uconnstud (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:TiconderogaCCB can I ask you why you have User:Uconnstud so prominantly with a complaint against him displayed on your user page? Is it not a violation of WP:NPOV? And is baiting the user? You may or may not have a problem with this user but you should not be adverting your POV against the user on your user page. That is just asking for trouble and attack style comment from that user. If he did them or not has not be detrmined yet and it is not really relevent to my point. I would advice you to remove those proment acusation comments from your user page, and maybe then all your troubles will disappear. Next try to be cunstructive and communicative with any users on any article that you are working on. I know sometimes it may seem hard to do especially when someone may want to present their POV in a strong matter, but edit warring and grudges against each other is not productive for any one and detructs from Wikipedia projec as a whole. I hope my words will bring a bot of wisdom to the issue. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV certainly doesn't apply here. That's policy for articles, not for whatever you think of your fellow editors. Whether it is a good idea to air your grievances towards another editor on your user page, is another matter. I'd say the complaint on his user page is well withing civility and NPA bounds, but it's certainly not conducive to a good relationship between Ticonderoga and Uconnstud.--Atlan (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that notice is on my user page is because UConnstudd was reporting me to anyone who would listen and it became tedious to figure out which administrators he was trying petition to have me blocked. When this is all over, it will be removed. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Stewart

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Stewart has been generally disruptive for a sustained period, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see if you think action needs to be taken. The user has been blocked before for these edits ([71], [72]), and recently did a similar thing here and here, suggesting the user has not learned from their block. User has also been warned for biting the newcomers, violating NPOV and attacking other editors (as seen here). User:Charles Stewart has also previously changed all instances of the word "Honour" to "Honor" on that article ([73]) and then made a WP:POINTy edit after being informed of Wikipedia's policies of regional variations of English ([74]). Finally, today he posted four items to WP:ITN/C, which, having made several edits to that page before, he knows full well don't fulfil the criteria, and then proceeded to delete opposing edits by another user and then changed the same user's comments to make it appear as if they had supported the suggestion. Thanks for your attention. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Absolutely unacceptable abuse of other editors and manipulation of process. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put the indif block template in his userpage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At what point did he think moving another user's userpage to "User:Gigantic Cunt Douche Faggot Bitch" would be acceptable? Deary me. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• He may have started using the account Kate Flanagan (talk · contribs) given a recent pagemove by that account. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  Also indef blocked (doesn't even matter if it's a sock or not). Neıl ☎ 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I think I'm in an edit war...

Resolved

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...which is very much unlike me, but here goes. Over time, several individuals have added a section to the article Caillou about a supposed "controversy", which apparently manifests itself in an online petition stating that the show should be taken off the air because the main character is "whiny" and a "bad example". An IP has joined the debate recently, and seems determined to have this information included. At first the users included this info with no sources at all; this IP, at least, is sourcing (a fact which I acknowledged the first time I mentioned it on the userpage--at least they're TRYING) but the sources are user-posted reviews and blogs which don't, IMHO, meet WP:VER in any way. [75] I tried to be polite [76], but the user is apparently outraged that I would demand such rigid sourcing--and is now accusing me of ad-hominem attacks, which I don't believe I've made. [77]. Am I being unreasonable in saying that these sources don't meet WP:VER? Gladys J Cortez 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE applies here also. Evil saltine (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm striving for absolute clarity here, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what you mean by that?? I'm trying to make sure I understand the relevant policies, and to be honest I'm not sure if I'm on the right side of WP:UNDUE--it's a minority viewpoint, but does that argue for or against its inclusion??? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that no reliable sources exist supports exclusion, just like the example given where the Flat Earth viewpoint is not mentioned in the article Earth. Evil saltine (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm tempted to semi-protect the page, this user is reverting explained policy based removal citing "vandalism", the only reason that is holding me back is the fact that I don't want to engage in a conflict of interest since I already removed the section twice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 week. After that expires, let me (or ANI) know if the IP continues. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was once the target of an uncivil editor who kept calling me more and names that were spelled the same and had different meanings. Yes, you guessed it... the dreaded Add Homonym attack. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(cue the crickets)... :) Gladys J Cortez 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That'll be the day. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)