Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338

A user disrupting by nominating all of the articles that I have worked on for WP:AFD

A user Justinm1978 is disrupting the encyclopedia by nominating all of the articles that I have worked on for AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nellie_Pratt_Russell and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myra_Hemmings, see User:Miranda/header. He did not tell me that he was going to nominate the articles for AFD, as seen per the guidelines. Is this stalking? Miranda 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is disruption especially since an AFD is a discussion; articles will be kept if they meet the criteria for inclusion. Taking a brief look at your header, Lucy Diggs Slowe and Elma Lewis weren't nominated, probably some others too (I didn't check) so it's not all the articles. I doubt it is stalking; he could have come across Category:Alpha Kappa Alpha Founders which contains those articles and it is unlikely that a user would stalk another for no reason, it's usually as a result of a prior dispute (unless there has been a prior dispute?). James086^{Talk | Email} 11:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to the author is the decent thing to do upon nominating massive number of their articles for deletion, but maybe I'm behind the times. El_C 11:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it's a bit rude not to, but I don't think that constitutes disruption unless Justinm1978 was trying to do it without Miranda noticing. However I think it's assuming bad faith to call nominating articles which Miranda has worked on for Afd disruption. If there is evidence that Justinm1978 did this to irritate or anger Miranda then it would be disruption, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just created Lucy Diggs Slowe, when I just noticed that all of the articles related to Delta Sigma Theta and Alpha Kappa Alpha founders were up for deletion. See this, as well as this made by his IP. After I removed the PRODS, he said "Please address issues instead of reverting. Miranda 11:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any stalking or distribution. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have reverted your removal of the Prods (he seems to have been warned about this) and could have been more courteous, but it appears that he genuinely feels the subjects aren't notable. Is there any previous history that would indicate he has a bad-faith reason for nominating the articles? Shell ^babelfish 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The AFD has been closed as no consensus on the block nomination. This is a good move and will allow discussion on the articles individually. I know Miranda has put many hours into these articles and the block nom of them must be troubling. Justinm1978 showed a poor understanding here and that has been duly noted by others at his talk page. -JodyB _talk 12:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I have an opportunity to respond to this rather hurtful accusation Miranda has levied against me? If so, please direct your attention to these links:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray O. Wyland
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Reed Horton

Which were nominated by Miranda for deletion solely because I made the deletion nominations on articles she worked on. In addition, prior to opening this complaint here, she initiated this discussion, which was moved to the AfD talk page because it was harmful to reaching consensus. Additionally, she is continuing to push her POV and be disruptive on another series of articles I nominated for deletion due to non-notability, as shown here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myra Hemmings

There, she is making threats of me making a point when I'm not; accusing me of WP:BITE even though she clearly bit a new user who disagreed with her before; claiming I am "pushing for Alpha Phi Omega" over other organizations, even though my comment was that I'd be ok with a merge if they are not found to be notable: [1] [2]; I also have no control over if the articles were speedy kept or not, in fact the reason they were speedy kept was given by an admin as them being clearly bad faith noms; in addition, her comments on all of these articles show to me a clear sense of ownership, as anybody who makes a change she does not agree with is immediately warned that they are vandalizing in addition to her commends on the AfD's that go along the lines of "I put a lot of work into this". The accusation given of Miranda of this being race-related are horribly misplaced, and I strongly encourage her to retract those unless she has some serious, strong evidence of such.

As for her accusations that I'm out to "nominated NPHC founders for deletion", she should note that the two links she references ([3] and [4] are not me trying to censor wikipedia. The first is actually an article created by me that I was intending to send the Alpha Phi Alpha founders and Alpha Kappa Alpha founders into. The second is me referencing that intention.

I would like to note that while I am being accused of being disruptive, I do find her abuse toward me and anybody who disagrees with her (see previous bite as mentioned above) to be disruptive in itself. I personally do not care how long you have been contributing to the project, how many articles you have written, etc. That does not give you a pass on respecting others, nor does it make your contributions more valid than mine or anybody else's. I agree she has made some great contributions, but not everything is notable. I do not think everything is notable, hence the AfD to allow the community to decide. I will be resubmitting them all individually, as recommended in the AfD, and let the community sort it out. If they are notable, the community will agree as such, and I will be satisfied. If they are not notable, then they will be deleted. Either way, I'm ok with the result. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, sorry you feel this way, but you have been in two previous cases, like mediation cases regarding determining if an organization is "social" or service see example edit summary, one without an edit summary as well as taking out "incorporated" in articles regarding sororities and fraternities (see this discussion as well) (edit without a summary). Me warning about WP:3RR is seen here, he responds with this and after I reverted his edit, he reinserts and accuses me of a personal attack. Most of his mainspace edits consist of reverting and POV pushing. He did this as well with his IP address to notable individuals. He also has submitted in the past a CU case to people who revert to certain revisions, thus assuming bad faith. I would like to see what the community would think about editing restrictions for Justin, because I think that 1.) most of his contributions are disruptive in nature and 2.) his POV pushing is causing stress for some editors who want to add to the encyclopedia, specifically for those belonging into a sorority/fraternity or want to know more about sorority/fraternity life. Also, he did not notify me that he was going to nominate for deletion these articles. I had to find out on my own. Miranda 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Upsetting posts

Resolved

I recently placed a speedy deletion tag on the userpage of Ipernar (talk · contribs). (diff) He later posted this message on my talk page, which I removed. Today he put this on my talk page. What am I supposed to do?--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Blocked by Nick. —Animum (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I'm not and admin, but I would imagine there is nothing they can do at this point, unless he continues to harass you, which is what he is doing. Guess I was wrong. I've left him this note anyways, but I guess he was blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not being stalked, and please do not use such hyperbole for what was actually a polite exchange; it trivialises serious problems. You were being proselytised. You went to his talk page and asked him what he meant, and he answered your question. While I quite agree the messages were out of keeping with appropriate user behaviour, there were no threats to you (not even a "you're going to Hell if you don't accept Jesus as your saviour") and the user wasn't following your every edit or contacting you outside of Wikipedia or demonstrating that he was trying to find your RL identity. Let's save the "stalking" word for situations where people are actually at risk of harm, please. Risker (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, those posts were upsetting, and I'm sure you would have found them just as upsetting if they were on you're tlak page--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, however it hardly qualifies as "stalking", I'm afraid. Best thing to do is revert and ignore, really - Alison ^❤ 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock war on Afghanistan-related articles

We need as many uninvolved admins as possible keeping an eye on more or less all Afghanistan-related articles. There's a never-ending sock war going on there. We had three or four main native contributors to Afghanistan topics, all involved in an ethnic dispute between Pashtuns and Tajiks. All of them are now banned (most notably User:NisarKand, User:Tajik and most recently User:Beh-nam; see also section #User:Beh-nam above). All three of them are socking, all the time. My estimate is that some 75% of all edits to all Afghanistan-related articles we've seen in the last few months have come from banned socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam never made any socks during the last two years. And neither did Tajik. User: Thatcher131 banned Tajik for being Tajik-Professor but right now it is determined that he was not Tajik-Professor (see his checkuser page). Then when Beh-nam started asking questions about this Thatcher started feeling the heat. Also Beh-nam did a checkuser on Thatcher's friend, and Thatcher's friend was proven by checkuser to use sockpuppets. Thatcher excused his own friend, but then he banned Beh-nam and accused him of proxy'ing for user: Tajik. Thatcher is a corrupt admin and protects his friends and all those that support Pan-Turkism across Wikipedia and finds ways to ban anyone who might be a threat to his friends or Pan-Turkism on Wikipedia. Beh-nam has sent man emails complaing about this to ArbCom, they are ignored.

Yes NisarKand has made dozens and dozens of sockpuppets. And they were all ignored. When Beh-nam reports them he got banned several times for "harrasing". This made his block log look bad and now Thathcer is using that as even more justification ot get Beh-nam band. Beh-nam reverts vandlism, what happens? He gets blocked. Beh-nam reports sockpuppets? What happens? He gets blocked. Beh-nam reports sockpuppets of friends of Admins? What happens? He gets banned and then his previous block get is used against him.

User: Tajik, was one of the finest editors here, check his awards. I asked for help to you and others to help unban him but you just ignored. There are very few people with as much knowledge and references as him, and not many of them would volunteer their time. Without him all Afghanistan related articles are going no where. I think Wikipedia should take the responsibility and investigate the Admin user: Thatcher131 and his bans of user: Tajik and then user: Beh-nam. user: NisarKand though is another story, he was banned for several long racist rants so he should remain banned. Tajik and Beh-nam however were banned mainly just because Thatcher131 had a problem with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.216.199 (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards != good editor. We determine good editors by the quality of their edits. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) And he's been community banned, so he's pretty much out of luck, unless he can find an admin willing to unblock. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He made three articles Featured status and helped more articles get to Good status. So how's that not a good editor? He's only banned because Thatcher felt Pan-Turkism on Wikipedia threatened by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Resolved

 – Both users blocked 24 hrs slakr^\ talk /

There appears to be an edit war going on at Dan Debicella between User:Ratsofftoya and User:64.148.1.113‎. I have warned both. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well they're both at 7 reverts now, including alternate IP reverts, and both have reverted after receiving their warnings. It concerns me, though, that both versions are completely unsourced. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reported this to WP:AN3. Hopefully they'll start talking when they return from their (presumed) blocks, or just stay away from that article. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Angie Y.

Angie constantly causes problems, usually relating to her POV edits. Back in May, User:TTN merged the episodes articles relating to Code Lyoko, and Angie's behavior due to this cause an RfC. After that, Angie made a variety of edits, some of which were POV. For example, something like this or various edits here, many of which have caused edit wars (mainly on articles relating to Code Lyoko with User:Someguy0830). angie also will occasionally make edits that re original research. Many users (including me and User:JetLover) have tried to talk to her and stop her from making these edits. We have given her many links to helpful pages, but she continues these edits. It seems as though she is not listening, even if she claims that she is not ignoring us. And just today, she added "finally" to an article in a context that would show that she is on one side (the character's), and not a neutral one. JetLover said he would post here if this continues, however he is not here, so I have done that for him Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute to me. Follow the dispute resolution process (WP:DR). What are you asking admins to do? Allege a specific policy violation that admins can act on. Avruch^Talk 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not about content, but conduct. Would an RfC be more appropriate? Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can even open an RFC on a user. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2007 (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.

Fasach Nua disrupting IfD

Resolved

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

{{resolved}} How is this resolved? First, one of the user whom it's about places the resolve tag, which is a no-no. Second, the user filing the complaint which this complaint is about somewhat fractured the discussion as a result of this, erm, tagged resolution by starting a subsection, and then you ask him whether "we really need a seperate thread for this?" Well, you give him the impression that this notice he started has been 'resolved' (read: closed) after three responses. Appearances and decorum count, even in this busy bd. Ad. I don't think you correctly linked to the deleted image (you later restored). El_C 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) is being disruptive in this IfD discussion. He nominated it as soon as I uploaded it after the prior image was deleted, restored by me (my mistake) and susequently speedied after it became clear that no sensible discussion was possible during that image's extended IfD. Now he nominated Image:DW Fear Her.jpg for the same reason; being "decorative", which is a misnomer. Now he actively disrupts it by pasting one of my arguments into the image's fair use rational, which I reverted (but it's back again, guess who...) This is a bad faith nomination, and this behaviour is disruptive. I would like it speedy closed and Fasach Nua warned. — Edokter • Talk • 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though I, along with Edokter, am a member of the Doctor Who Wikiproject, I've closed it as disruptive. Will ^(talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will. If any of us stepped out of bound, review is welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I try not to use this forum, as I think generally most things can be handled without admin intervention, but could someone take an objective look into these three edits [5] [6] [7] by this user, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do we really need a seperate thread for this?
2. Stop being disruptive.

Thanks, Will ^(talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a separate thread is necessary to discuss a non-admin [8] closing Admin incident and speedily closing discussions on blatant fair use violations, it is quite a separate issue from a user's right to object to the use of inappropriate images Fasach Nua (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I personally see nothing wrong with Will's actions. He knows what he is doing. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I also took issues with Neutralhomer placing resolve tags on notices involving himself, but I'm pretty certain (though not positive) I'm not confusing him with Sceptre in this extension. El_C 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Spectre was once an admin, IIRC, so he knows what he's doing. I'd be more concerned if it were a beginner to Wikipedia closing discussions. However, if the filer is being disruptive with requests then there is every right to close requests by that filer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Always look at the substance. Being a veteran is no indication of being correct. That approach tends towards elitism. El_C 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First is was "decorative", now "blatant fiar use violation"? There is consensus on Wikipedia to allow screenshots, provided it be kept to a minimum (meaning one fair use image per article). However you somehow seem on a crusade to have this particular article get rid of it's screenshot. First with a CSD G4 nomination, now for being "decorative", which is an argument only used for overuse of images on a single page. Both nominations were baseless, and the second one in particular was onle made to make a point. There is nothing wrong with using a single screenshot on an episode article; in fact it is common practice. Then you became disruptive, taunting me into using my "admin powers" when you full know well that I can't, and won't. Fortunately, I'm not the only admin. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If I knew anything about the situation beyond screamsheet knowledge, I'd know what to look for in Fasach's contribs. What I'm getting is that someone has a grudge against an image and wants it gone, and has failed in his attempts to do so (because there was no foundation for his attempts), and is backlashing against the user who closed the second discussion as bad-faith. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that this article was fine without this image a couple of hours ago, and now suddenly it is necessary to include it in order to explain some unknown "key element of the plot", yet the uploader justifies it elsewhere on the grounds that "Every Doctor Who episode has a screenshot". I find it unfortunate that User:Sceptre doesen't consider that it is legitimate to discuss if the use of this image is necessary or in wiolation of WP:FU. I would have been happier if an actual admin or someone outside the relevant wikiproject who doesn't have a vested interest took these actions. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have done the same, Fasach, if the nom was disruptive. Asking the other parent to abide a bad-faith nomination doesn't work. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Was the nomination disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I read there and at the image description page, yes. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit what I did at the image page was a bit cheeky, and I probably shouldn't have done it, but was the nomination itself disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(On an aside should we switch this to a talk page?) Fasach Nua (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It appeared to be. I also see no reason why the image should be deleted from the page - its fair-use rationale for the article it's in is legitimate, it's irreproducible, and everything else for the image is in order. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that it is there for any reason beyond decoration, I dont believe it in anyway enhances the explanation of the plot, (I can't even see where it is referenced), but I'll leave well alone Fasach Nua (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but is anyone is actually looking at the diffs cited here, before seemingly automatically not-siding with the person with the red-link for a user name whom most of us don't know? Possibly, so I'll start (looking at the diffs): how is citing Wikipedia as a reference makes sense? ^[9] Naturally, it makes more sense to nominate a whole subsets of images for deletion, but to the argument that "Every Doctor Who episode has a screenshot" which is stated in the ref, I say 'every Family Guy episode had a screenshot,' why do we let copyrights paranoia win there and not elsewhere? They should have lost elsewhere, too. There has to be something rational behind why-this-not-that, no? (rhetorical: the answer is no, fair use is entirely arbitrary fiefdoms!) As for closing noticeboards threads that pertain to himself,^[10] regardless of how valid these may be, I had already cautioned Sceptre against doing this. So, that's not a good sign. I guess the most annoying thing for an admin reviewing this is that the original authors of this thread (not the subsection), both here and on the IfD, are just giving us enough background. Would it kill them to give us a link or two, or a sentence or two? Just let us know, then, why do you feel it's POINTy, what are the immediate antecedents behind it? El_C 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to get sucked into this, I suspect the combativeness arises out of this discussion Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_28#Image:Fear_Her.jpg, there was also a slight disagreement over a fair use image with this uses at [11] [12], beyond that I don't know much more Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You are already sucked in, if fact, you started it. The original image is deleted; that should have made everyone happy. But when I uploaded an improved image, with a proper rationale, you nominated it immediately for reasons I can only guess. Your understanding of fair use needs work. You keep removing images from pages, while the images have perfectly good rationales. You still have not properly adressed what is wrong with the fair use rationales provided; you just keep yelling "blatant fair use violation". So unless you can actually provide some valid reasoning, I suggest you refrain from further disrupting Wikipedia. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, let IfDs run their course; speedily or otherwise, let an uninvolved admin handle it. El_C 15:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of Tom Baker, the "perfectly good rationale" as you put it appears to be no rationale at all Image:Bakert.jpg, I would dispute whether no rationale is perfectly good!

If you want my objection to the other image then it is 3A, "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary". I do not believe that the Fear Her article necessitates this image, I can see no contribution beyond asthetics! I think this is the wrong forum to discusss this and I think the idl should have been left open! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking at the Image:Bakert.jpg page again, it explicitly forbids its usage in that article, and in my opinion, that is as far as you are going to get from a "perfectly good rationale" Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've let this go off topic, however summing this up my Wikipedia:Disruptive editing consisted of:

• Removing a fair use image from an article, when the image had no rationale for inclusion there Image:Bakert.jpg
• Listing a previously deleted image for deletion, as the user was circumventing policy, and unwilling to go to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Listing a FU image at idl as I did not feel it was necessary Image:DW Fear Her.jpg, as it wasn't necessitated a few hours prior Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the completely disruptive edit to the image page. Will ^(talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I made this edit [13], which was virtually identical to yours [14] Fasach Nua (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake - I was looking at the diffs, I closed the IfD, and must've edited your revision to remove the tag. Will ^(talk) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Last warning

Fasach Nua, your disruptive behaviour stops now. If you see an error in a fair use rationale, you either explain what the error is, or better yet, fix it yourself. Reasons like "unnecessary", "decorative" and "blatant fair use violation" are not valid reasons for removal/nomination. Simply removing the image (as you did with Tom Baker) and nominating images for deletion without valid reasoning only demonstrates that your intentions are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. You will be blocked if you continue this fruitless crusade. — Edokter • Talk • 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a blockable offecene to follow WP policy, and I would strongly suggest you should consider going down the route of WP:CIVIL. You are just engaging in trolling, the Tom Baker image was removed as it is WP policy not to use fair use images without fair use rationales. If you are opposed to this policy I would suggest you get this changed, rather than attacking and threating me for following it. If you do not accepect article 3A WP:FU as valid, it may be an idea to get that policy altered aswell, rather than degenerating to arguemts above or such nonsence as [15]. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a point with the Tom Baker image, although a case may be made for #1 (not 3a) saying that, while it is a living person, any picture taken these days will not be representative of Baker during his acting career. However, you're not strictly following policy on the Fear Her image. For example, NFCC #8, which appears to be the reason you're opposing this image - the image is significant to the subject of the article (the episode, entire premise of the plot), while the image would be better at describing the child's drawings than a full paragraph of text. Will ^(talk) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you misundersand the case for the Tom Baker was there was not a rationale given on the image page

The reason I am opposing Fear Her image is 3A it is not nessicary, and as you say it 'can be described using text, which would suggest that there is a free alternative to this image! Fasach Nua (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries, IIRC, are derivative works. I could equally argue that the image is necessary to describe the child's powers while not delving into too much detail in the plot summary. Will ^(talk) 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice to thrash this out on an idl discussion, it is unfortunate that debate on this issue has been deemed disruptive :-( Fasach Nua (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think an admin should not throw round threats like that, and I would suggest you consider you consider your position as a WP administrator Fasach Nua (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is right "It is not a blockable offecene to follow WP policy", however his actions can be easily perceived as being disruptive trying to prove a point which may be blockable, regardless if the image is being used in a "decorative" manner. As a matter of fact having at least a image appears to be part of the manual of style that deals with television episodes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the "the manual of style that deals with television episodes"? I can't find it on the mail WP:MOS page Fasach Nua (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are seriously suggesting that removing a fair use image from an article, for which a usage rational has not been supplied, and to not use this image has consistantly been the consensus of the editors of this article, qualies as WP:POINT, and any editor removing such an image should be blocked? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the Fear Her image, not the Baker image. Will ^(talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The warning was issued after the edit to the baker image, that is why I am being threatened with a block, I have not edited the Fear her image since the discussion closed, and I have already said that I will not edit it, [[16]] Fasach Nua (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, I'm saying that the obvious disruption you caused here [17] can easily be perceived as a violation of WP:POINT. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it probably was a violation WP:Point, I have already said I shouldnt have done that, [[18]], and why I havent pursued it, however, is a block threat on the grounds of the Tom Baker edit justifiable, and at the risk of getting on topic was the idl disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides (repeatedly) removing the image from Tom Baker, you had another choice: How abaout adding a fair use rational. That would have been a constructive edit. And where is this consensus that you speak of? I see nothing about the image on the Tom baker talk page. Point is: using fair use images is not a sin, so you should not go raging around trying to get them removed whereever possible. Fixing any fair use issues is just as good, if not better approach to 'following policy'. — Edokter • Talk • 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with adding a fair use rationale is there is none for the prurposes it was being used for, the image page itself says "images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project", the purpose Sceptre used it for in the same article was an entirely different matter, to which I have no objections!

I think your knowlede of Fair use is poor, and "trying to get them removed whereever possible" as you state it is actually what you should be doing, the policy clearly states "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.".

At the risk of going on topic how was the ifd disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasach Nua is making a valid point about overuse of fair-use images. Our policy is to reduce them. Fasach Nua is perfectly entitled to challenge the use of images that he considers purely decorative or otherwise unsuitable under our strict non-free content criteria. People don't get blocked for this. The "warning" above, and from an admin apparently involved in the article dispute, is bogus. I'm not seeing anything disruptive here, and if anybody actually blocks him I hereby state my intention of considering an immediate unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Overuse? There was only one image being used (in both cases). If Fasach has a valid point, it is is responsibility to explain what is wrong, instead of revert warring and yelling "decorative" and "blatant violation". It wasn't until warned that he actually did explain the problem.

One final word... This fair-use paranoia has to stop. We alrady dealt with actual overuse of fair use images in episode/character list pages. Let's not let this progress to all fair use images that are actually used within policy. If I see another single image being removed form a single page, it better be done with a very well defined reason. Otherwise, Wikipeida as a whole should just ban fair use images alltogether. — Edokter • Talk • 13:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So looking over the history of Tom Baker

Fasach Nua :remove fair use image without rationale

Edokter :Undid revision 176126907 by Fasach Nua (talk) Nonsense

Fasach Nua  :(Undid revision 176217604 by Edokter (tak)

Edokter :Extensive fair use rationale provided on image page.

Fasach Nua :Undid revision 176568796 by Edokter (talk), No fair use rational given on image page

Edokter :Undid revision 176594356 by Fasach Nua (talk) This has got to stop!)

This was followed by a block warning above made by Edokter

What is your interpretation of "remove fair use image without rationale"?

What is your interpretation of "No fair use rational given on image page"?

At the risk of going on topic how was the ifd disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would contend that this is a bad faith complaint, and more about User:Edokter frustration at their own inability to comprahend basic WP policy. This complaint is distruptive and as User:Edokter cannot defend or is unwilling to defend the original image usage under criteria 3A has chosen to attack me in the hope of distracting from the ifd thread, and is trying to bully me away from looking at FU issues on his particular wikiproject Fasach Nua (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well. To go to the root of the problem:

• This was your disruptive edit in the IfD.
• Please define "decorative" in ralation to WP:NFCC. — Edokter • Talk • 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the 4 possible definintions listed at WP:DISRUPT, which does my behaviour fall into?

For the 5th time in this thread a FU image used for only decorative purposes is a violation of 3A. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If an argument presented in an ifd debate to keep an image is valid there, why is it not valid in the fair use rationale, surely they should be one and the same? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first.
• I cannot find "decorative" in that policy either. But if you refer to "necessary", that is left for intepretation by the community on a case by case basis.
• No they are not. IfD is a discussion internal to the Wikipedia community. A FU rationale is a legal communiqué toward the copyrightholder. — Edokter • Talk • 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

3A says "minimal usage", and would normally only be called, for example, if six fair use images were used on a single episode page. A single screenshot relevant to the plot is allowed under the TV MoS. If you're objecting to the use of the image, the word "decorative" applies to places where images are used but not explained fully (e.g. lists of episodes or discographies as identification aids only). Will ^(talk) 15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So my disruptive bahviour is "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.".

• This continuious editing is two edits
• This extended time is eight minutes
• The opposition from one or more other editors is one unexplained undo from yourself, for unkown reason?

Sorry I misread that

• This continuious editing is one edit
• This extended time is no time
• The opposition from one or more other editors is one unexplained undo from yourself, for unkown reason?

You have not left this to the community to decide, you have stifled discussion on this issue and got a fellow wikiproject member to close the discussion early, and you are now engaging in harassment by engaging in this ridiculous this incident complaint.

On the issue of ifd, the only valid consideration for keeping a FU image is the merits of its usage rationale, any other considerations are irrelevant and shouldn't be presented Fasach Nua (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I did not get enyone to do anything. Second, IfD is used for discussion wether images are kept or not, and includes much more aspects then just the fair use rationale; even free images are discussed at IfD. This demonstrates that you have the wrong idea of IfD.

Lastly... I am quite done here. If you feel the IfD on Image:DW Fear Her.jpg was closed improperly, take it to deletion review. Discussion regarding the fair use of Image:Bakert.jpg should go to fair use review. This is obvioulsy going nowhere, so this discussion is closed. — Edokter • Talk • 15:37, 10 December 2007 (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.

Keepscases speaks

Resolved

 – Davnel03 16:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry my contributions have led to such a discussion here. Now that my block has expired, I'd like to say my piece.

I *still* feel that my block was unfounded. I believe that those who have blocked me, or have supported my block, cannot possibly be assuming good faith.

Just to make sure everything is clear, I'll post my "offending" text here in its entirety.

Starts now: You may be interested to know

I think Sarah is a lovely name, and you should be proud that you own it on Wikipedia. That said, I have dated four Sarah's. The first one broke up with me because she was a lesbian. The second one broke up with me to become a stripper. The third one broke up with me because, after a long night of drinking, I left the toilet seat up!! She kicked me out of her house and made me drive home drunk, for that! The fourth one, I don't honestly have anything bad to say about, but after one date she did decide she didn't want to see me any more.

I just felt compelled to tell you all that.

That is what I left for Sarah.

I have been accused of "sexual harassment". This disturbs me. Exactly what is considered "harassment"? Certainly, leaving numerous messages for someone could be construed as "harassment"...but I left exactly one. Certainly, messages including graphic or personal content could be...but mine contained no such thing. I have had an interesting history dating Sarah's, and I thought this user might be interested to hear about it. That's it. I would be very interested to hear how exactly my comment could be construed as "sexual harassment". My personal opinion is that the user who blocked me was way too eager to find a reason to do such a thing...and there are apparently numerous similar issues in his past. ANYWAY, the point is, I have never, nor will ever, have any desire nor intention to harass someone.

All that said, I truly have no desire to be blocked from Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia to be an invaluable resource, and an analysis of my edits will show I've never done anything to this encyclopedia that wasn't in good faith.

Despite the fact that there are many editors (who have contacted me privately, or have publically stated they enjoy what I do) who appreciate me...as I've said, I have no desire for another block. So, I'd just ask that you really try to Assume Good Faith...and if you can't, please let me know, hopefully we can work it out without any more drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter can be summed up fairly succinctly; your personal life has zero consideration regarding your editing the encyclopedia. Your real life interactions with people with the name Sarah is uninteresting in the context of contributing except that it provides an indication why you have directed your interest toward an editor who uses that name. It would be best if you don't (and hadn't) allowed your personal experiences dictate how you contribute. I strongly suggest that you put this incident behind you, not interact with editors based on similarity to people from your own life, and not seek to explain your actions in the context of your own experiences - It is not relevant . Please note that AGF works both ways, so please believe me when I say that it is your actions that were the problem and not the reaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I just hope nobody calls me a sexual harasser when I give out 8 of March carnations to female editors.... Zocky | picture popups 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block was only partially about Sarah. It was also about the unfunny comments you added to RfA which were sexually harrasing. While I would not have blocked you for the Sarah comments alone, coupled with those at RfA you were asking for trouble. Heed LessHeard vanU's comments seriously. - JodyB _talk 14:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU's comments explained nothing about "sexual harassment," and I find it difficult to believe that a single comment that some feel to be "uninteresting" or "irrelevant" is grounds for a block.

I'll acknowledge that a couple of my RfA comments have been viewed as inappropriate, and for that I have served my time. But the "sexual harassment" label is still extreme and undeserved. I assure you, if I wanted to harass people on Wikipedia, which I don't, I could certainly do it more effectively than asking a user named "Keith D" if he plans on editing Wikipedia in the nude. Keepscases (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will explain the sexual aspect of the situation - you noted that you had "dated" four females who had the name Sarah, two of whom you comment on in a manner indicative of a sexual identity. I have no desire to know what you mean by "dating" as far as romantic activity is concerned - and the recipient would also not know that either - but at least one individual is indicated as having been in a relationship with you. Therein is the sexual implication of your unsolicited post.

Unsolicited posts to anothers talkpage regarding the correspondees personal life is considered a poor idea, especially if there has no prior interaction between the parties. I think the only policy I can point toward is WP:NOT#... a social networking... site, which is more directed at consenting parties, but it is indicative of a general disapproval of excessive personal detail being used in communications. Is it harassment? Well, substitute Sarah with "Jew/Black/Bleeding Heart Liberal" and imagine the offense that may be felt by any editor who self identifies with the first two labels (obviously, the Bleeding Heart Liberal is bound to believe that you are perfectly within your rights to express yourself as you wish in whatever medium you choose - but then we are a bunch of pinko woosies...) if they were to receive an email regarding your past experiences of other members of that minority. Hmmm? I hope you can see that your approaches, no matter how innocent in intent, may be the cause of discomfort to another member of the community - and that is the bottom line.

I hope I have clarified my earlier comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You've clarified your comments, but while I'll admit to a few of my own comments perhaps being "inappropriate", I will not, and will never, acknowledge *anything* resembling "sexual harassment". I mean, if I were to tell someone here that "I am the father of two wonderful children," that has "sexual implication" as well. It's just not fair to stretch things that far. Keepscases (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Keepscases, imagine that you were being interviewed for a new job or perhaps a promotion, and then after several ordinary questions, you were suddenly asked "Do you find these women nice to look at?". This is very much like what you did on an RfA, where you asked the candidate (quoted verbatim) "Do you find these men nice to look at?". This wasn't a matter of asking the candidate if she would verify an external source. In this context, the question was completely inappropriate, and yes, even sexually harassing. Keep in mind that because you're asking the question on the RfA, you're putting pressure on the candidate to react, either by choosing to answer the question in some way or to ignore it. Your question introduced an element of sexuality that doesn't belong in an RfA. Inappropriate sexual content + pressure on the candidate = sexual harassment. --Kyoko 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the nub of the problem; you do not consider what you said - skimping over your sexual relationship history (and there is no other history given) with persons named Sarah, to a user named Sarah - as being sexual harassment, but the community considers that it may be so. It ain't about you, it's about the community and what is considered acceptable practice. If you and the community agree to differ then fine, but if you want to continue to act as you have previously because of your perceptions of your actions then you may have to consider that this community is not the place to do it. Really. Wikipedia welcomes and wants anything you can offer us in the way of article contributions, improvements to the running of the site, and all those mundane tasks that help build the encyclopedia, but we don't wish to have editors writing (unbidden) on the talkpages of other contributors in a manner that may be considered worrisome or inappropriately. While this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, this isn't the website that invites people to leave possibly disturbing comments on other contributors pages. To use your own example, no, I wouldn't consider placing the message of me being the father of two wonderful children (which happens to be true) on some stangers talkpage, because it may be inappropriate. Is it an example of sexual harassment? It could be considered so if the individual is gay. I don't do it (and I doubt if I could see any instance where it might be germane to some (psuedo)anonymous editor) and I suggest you don't either. Please, just edit the encyclopedia and only exchange familiar posts with people with whom you have first established a (cyber) relationship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A question: Keepscases, would you consider asking a bank clerk such a question when you were paying in cash at the bank? If a delivery person turned up at your front door asking for your signature for a package, would you ask them? If the checkout staff at your local supermarket had a badge with the name "Sarah" would you apropos of nothing tell them your "Sarahs I have known" story? You seem to think such behaviour is appropriate, so if not, why not? Tonywalton ^Talk 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And for $DEITY's sake, no more dating lesbians and leaving the toilet seat up. Dating Strippers is okay though! --WebHamster 14:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm all for the toaster idea. --WebHamster 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So am I allowed to respond to User:WebHamster with information about my personal life? I'm not being argumentative; this is a sincere question. I have a very hard time believing that personal information/thoughts on non-encyclopedia pages are grounds for blocking. Keepscases (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keepscases: imagine how you would feel if someone left the paragraph that you wrote on Sarah's page, only with your real name instead of Sarah's. At the very least, I believe that you would have an odd impression of the writer, and you would wonder what the person's intentions were.

I looked at your comments on the RfAs, and I agree that they shouldn't have been made. There was another RfA in which you asked the candidate "if she found these men nice to look at". That question has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's suitability to be an admin. It's an inappropriate question, and could be considered sexual harassment. Even if you don't mean any harm, if other people are telling you that your behaviour is inappropriate, you should heed their words and stop. --Kyoko 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree regarding whether my question had anything to do with the user's suitability to be an admin. She declined to look at a non-Wikipedia website? I don't believe users unwilling to check outside sources should be made administrators. I will take more care in what I contribute in the future, but "sexual harassment" is really not a term that should be thrown around lightly. Keepscases (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How's "just plain creepy and wrong" sound? Because that's the first phrase that pops into my head when I read your comments - Alison ^❤ 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - your RFA questions are either inappropriate or just downright creepy as mentioned above. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already promised to take more care with my contributions from now on. That is all I can do. I am truly sorry if my questions and comments were interpreted negatively by some, but I still maintain that I meant no harm, and that an indefinite block was undeserved. Keepscases (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI an "indefinite" block is entirely the appropriate response to problems regarding an editors behaviour - it can be lifted immediately the problem is resolved, be it minutes, days, months or never. It is not possible for a blocking admin to say that the behaviour in question will cease after 24 hours or 1 week and set a tariff accordingly. Blocks are preventative, and the indef block is often the best prevention possible because it relies on the blockee being the major part of the solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sohailsyte and User:Sohailstyle

Resolved

 – Sohailsyte blocked, impersonation. Cheers, Davnel03 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sohailsyte (ends with "syte") has a short history of contributions. Much of his activity has consisted of leaving (and replacing) insulting and threatening messages to myself and one other user. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

In these messages, Sohailsyte "manually" signs them as "User:Sohailstyle" (ends with "style"). Hence the responses to Sohailsyte (yte) have gone to Sohailstyle (yle)'s talk page. I'm not sure if these two users are the same person, though it appears they are, and I have no idea what the point of this misdirection is.

One certain fact is that User:Sohailsyte's contributions to Wikipedia consist mainly of leaving threatening, insulting and entirely unprovoked messages on user's talk pages.

RedSpruce (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

lost password?ThuranX (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that User:Sohailsyte is a hoax, as evidenced by User:Sohailstyle's later question to Zora [24]. The threatening comments by the probable hoaxer seem quite out of character. Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoax or not, this looks like a clear violation of WP:UN#Inappropriate_usernames as it is a Confusing username mak[ing] it unduly difficult to identify users by their username. The fact that the two userpages at Sohailsyte and Sohailstyle doesn't help either and may not be coincidence; I think syte is a straight copy of style. At the very least that list of "articles started" on syte is a complete hoax (unless Special:Contributions/Sohailsyte has gone haywire). In fact the edit history of Sohailsyte is interesting - they started with a copy of User:Sohailstyle's talkpage by mistake. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like clear impersonation. I've notified -syte of this thread, to allow them a chance to explain. —Random832 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sohailsyte blocked for impersonation. Any forthcoming explanation will be found on the user's talk page; that is, assuming any explanation is forthcoming. —Kurykh 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case undiscussed unblocks

Unresolved

 – Topic currently unresolved. Discussion continues on subpage --slakr^\ talk / 11:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved topic over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. Davnel03

I guess undiscussed, unilateral acts are the new way to go. El_C 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you do something about your sig, it is extremely distracting. El_C 11:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

El_C, I haven't been following the conversation, but I dunno if he meant anything by it. Honestly, I was about to do the same thing, because this page is already huge, and it was slowing my browser down :P Anyway, cheers. :) --slakr^\ talk / 11:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't implying he was doing anything more than very brightly {{resolving}} yet another ANI thread, but 50k isn't that much and usually folks ask if they should move threads to ANsub-pages. Dosen't matter. Out of sight is good, I suppose. El_C 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the top of the page: When moving very long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "Davnel03"; this prevents premature archiving.. That's why I did it. The discussion was getting quite long, so I think it would be for the best if it was moved to a subpage. Cheers, Davnel03 11:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, 50K is not very long by the standards of this board, but whatever. It probably outlived its usefulness, anyway. El_C 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Added an {{Unresolved}} to further emphasize the point. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 11:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the split. Its a lot easier to watch now, this page is very active and its hard to find points of interest.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Davnel03 page move is a great strategy to stop arguing on WP:ANI. It does lessen dreaded "wikidrama". But on the other hand, I am concerned that moving active arguments maybe an effective way to quiet dissent and pardon bad behavior. T (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Splitting a topic to a new page does reduce its visibility on one hand. On the other, however, it makes it easier to address new problems as they arise while allowing the editors interested in the topic to follow the discussion more easily. If too many edits are occurring on this page due to that one particular topic, edit conflicts pose a practicality concern for dealing with and resolving the rest of the problems already listed or attempting to be listed on this page. Couple that with a constantly long page to begin with, it becomes a serious issue of accessibility. --slakr^\ talk / 08:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jtrainor

Resolved

 – Davnel03 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

---

Is this an attack page? Corvus cornix_talk 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm deja vu. I seem to remember this coming up on here before, although i've no idea when, and looking at his/her talk its come up on there a couple of times, and since at least one ANI discusion that i can remember, plus those on his talk page, its unlikely he's gonna change it. As for whether of not i could be construed as an attack, that quite difficult. Perhaps if User:MER-C and User:A Man In Black could be asked if they find it offensive--Jac16888 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)"Category:FYAD" does not strike me as something that's appropriate for a userpage. sh¤y 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What's FYAD? Corvus cornix_talk 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[25]? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Urban dictionary it's either stands for Fuck You And Die, or it's a cool place to hang out, either way, neither is a personal attack. However, saying that certain editors, and administators no less, should not be able to use the edit button, is commenting on the contributor and not the content. Whether or not it's a personal attack, ignore that fact, it is a clear intent to draw attention to himself that he dislikes those editors and thats not what the userpage is supposed to be used for. I'm removing it. — Save_Us_229 05:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did this need to be an ANI thread? Afterall, this is not the wikipedia complaints department. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly normal concern to bring to AN/I. — Save_Us_229 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because its commonly done does not make it the proper venue. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Name a better venue. — Save_Us_229 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know how this goes. The user will revert the page, and people will stand around and do exactly nothing about it. Oddly, we've tried taking this to MFD before, and been told that wasn't the right venue either. With all due respect, sometimes our bureaucracy here makes former communist nations look like well-oiled machines of government. If it's inappropriate, remove it, and if he revert wars, as he's done, bring it here to see the user blocked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For a case of incivility? WP:WQA. Or perhaps reopen the discussion on the user's talk page. It seems the former discussion of this went stale there and noone bothered to discuss this with him again before trying to escalate this into an "incident". I can't see a reason to claim this as an incident that needs admin intervention until the user does something needing intervention, ie. edit wars over the removal. Dispute resolution IS a good thing, we should try it before bring people to "court". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FYAD is a forum on the Somethingawful forums, and with regards to the two users listed, I have stated that if they complain (they havn't), they'll be removed. There, problem resolved. How about you go fix up something that's actually a problem now instead of harrassing me? And you are quite correct that I will revert any specious edits to my user page. Jtrainor (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As expected

Jtrainor decided to travel down the road of revert land and reinsert the personal attacks [26] only for User:Betacommand2 (Betacommand's vandalism reverting account) to remove the personal attacks again [27] Will someone please speak to Jtrainor about why the personal attacks are inappropriate? He seems to think that because he says the users haven't complained about it yet that personal attacks can stay and that removing the personal attacks is vandalism. — Save_Us_229 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I typed above? Jtrainor (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read this, this or this? Your userspace is not a place to post scrutiny on other editors making personal attacks, period. It doesn't matter whether they love it or hate it. Personal attacks are not something that the userspace is intended use is for. — Save_Us_229 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack, but an opinion. Anyways, I posted to those two users' talk pages asking if they care to give a specific yes/no answer instead of an implied one. Should they say they don't care, it stays. In the meantime I have requested protection of my user page to prevent vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

... which I have declined. I see no vandalism here, nor does WP:PROT cover this - Alison ^❤ 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And you were also advised to read WP:NPA and WP:UP. I suggest you do that because you don't seem to understand. It don't matter what they say or word it, they are personal attacks as you are commenting on the contributors and not the content, and that is not allowed, period. Do you understand? — Save_Us_229 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give notice here that I will continue to revert my page within the limits of 3RR until I hear back from AMIB and MER-C, at which time the page will be updated accordingly. I view your edits of my user page as vandalism and violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. The fact that you have ignored everything I've even said here also shows that you've clearly made up your mind about this. Jtrainor (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I wouldn't see you being unblocked if someone were to report you for 3RR on your own userpage. There are several editors who have told you that the material is inappropriate. The administrator above said it was not vandalism and good-faith contributions cannot be treated as vandalism, so your point is moot. You claim to be upholding WP:CIVIL, yet you violate it along with assume good faith and no personal attacks and our userpage guidelines at the same time. If I were you I would wise up and not persist in engaging in a revert war with several editors placing contentious material on your userpage. — Save_Us_229 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is no 3RR as regards personal attacks. Personal attacks are not permitted, period (I realise that I am repeating what has already been written). If you disagree that they are personal attacks you are permitted to question and promote their validity, but they must first be removed. You have no "right" to post material that others have determined are personal attacks. Reposting such content may attract sanctions. I haven't seen the comments referred to, but felt I should warn you that you are possibly violating policy by retaining the content when asked not to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Save Us 229 is wikistalking jtrainor. I request admin intervention. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution link and commenting where relevant isn't wikistalking. I suggest you never leave me a message like on my talk like that anymore. — Save_Us_229 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Or what? Are you threatening me, Save Us 229? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Making a mere suggestion is all. — Save_Us_229 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but following someone around and being an <personal attack removed> to them is. I too can call a spade a spade. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't learned anything from this thread about personal attacks, have you? Calling a spade a spade doesn't mean you can make personal attacks. Now if you don't mind, this discussion is closed. — Save_Us_229 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to refactor your threat, <personal attack removed>. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And as I said, there is no threat. But if it will make you happy.. — Save_Us_229 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Having heard back from AMIB and MER-C, that stuff will stay gone. The whole rest of you may feel free to fly away and bother someone else now.

It does not escape my notice that suddenly people are just happening to start harrassing me after I post an unpopular opinion on the village pump. Well, have fun watching me, because despite what some might say about me, I do actually like contributing here, when people arn't screwing around with me, at least. Jtrainor (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2007 (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.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soulgany101

Resolved

 – Davnel03 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

---

I think I'd better post this here too. This editor has made repeated efforts to set up articles to promote a non-notable agenda as mainstream psychology. When one article is AFD'd or has his agenda excluded by consensus he tries to create another one, however with Cassandra complex (psychology) he has crossed the line into creating a sockpuppet account and using it in conjunction with at least two IPs to circumvent 3RR and hold the links he wishes to promote against all comers. He is also repeatedly blanking the Sockpuppet tag from User Talk:Goddessculture. I can't do a thing with him, I have tried.--Zeraeph (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There were also these edits, although they might be good. I have no idea what that article is about, anyway, so I can't judge. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The IPs don't all resolved to the same city (or even province), but this just screams COI/meatpuppet army. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you check here on this geographic locator you will see they are all the same town/city http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm (I won't name it) --Zeraeph (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He has now performed his 4th revert to User Talk:Goddessculture as his reversions are to blank warning templates, is that 3RR? There seems to be a serious element of WP:POINT at play here too. My honest impression is that he is of the opinion that he is a law unto himself here. --Zeraeph (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that one cannot remove warnings and tags from their own user pages? Actually, all I know of is this, which says the opposite. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already a sock puppet report; why here as well? Zeraeph called me and many others sockpuppets in the past, never retracted the accusation although proven glaringly wrong by Checkuser, and has a history of forum shopping. I can't believe I have to go look for the diffs yet again; I may as well store them in favorite places, because the pattern repeats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi. There was also a previous incident at alexithymia, August 17 2007, where Zeraeph massively revert warred in a blanking frenzy, removing text that was well referenced by Soulgany101. They had asked me to mediate, and I saw no problem with Soulgany's edits. Strangely, although the article was protected by an admin, no one was blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are totally misrepresenting your own knowledge of that incident, I removed text in good faith that appeared to be effectively uncited because the citation format had been changed to one I did not recognise (see these first edits AND the edit summaries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexithymia&diff=151732345&oldid=151729783 ). At the time I had just crashed my car and was in shock, something of which you were fully aware. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlexithymia&diff=151788842&oldid=151725166 ) --Zeraeph (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I feel that you are stalking and bullying me for no valid reason at this stage. I feel that you wish to make it impossible for me to participate fully in Wikipedia on equal terms with other editors. Please stop it. You have just accused another editor of stalking you for about 100th of what you have just done to me here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=176913918&oldid=176913493). I would also like to point out that, as you now know, I was correct in requesting Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi as that editor turned out to be exactly the person I assumed them to be. Let's either take this to arbcom once and for all, or you leave me in peace --Zeraeph (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your reference to A_Kiwi, out of curiosity? Additionally, I think the AN/I post is irrelevant given the sockpuppet report. A checkuser clears it up if the evidence of sockpuppetry warrants it, but it isn't for AN/I as far as I can tell. Avruch^Talk 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch, I was on my way to bed and the problem seemed to be escalating. I was also concerned by the blanking of the sockpuppet tags. I had asked the User:Soulgany101 to clarify his identity and he made no move to do so. As for the situation with User:A_Kiwi, User:SandyGeorgia is now fully aware that I was 100% correct to be concerned about the identity and intentions of User:A_Kiwi in relation to myself, which is all that needs saying at this, much later, time. I made the mistake of assuming that User:SandyGeorgia was a manifestation of the same person because her behavior and attitude to me was so similar, a coincidence for which I am hardly responsible, though I have, of course apologised for my assumptions, I do not think I deserve to be bullied off Wikipedia by User:SandyGeorgia for more than a year later because of it.

I barely participate here at all now because of this. I just watch a couple of articles for vandalism and SPAM/self promotion that I am familiar with. I happened to see User:Soulgany creating an article on his favorite topic using 2 IP and a new identity, so I tried to apply policy. I do not think this warrants an ad hoc personal attack relating to irrelevant issues from over a year ago from User:SandyGeorgia --Zeraeph (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Look folks, this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. I'm Soulgany101 and now Goddessculture. I am a novice on Wikipedia having only started editing this year. After a somewhat blundering beginning I thought it might be good to choose myself a new username and start afresh. In my complete ignorance of WP policies I literally thought I could have as many usernames as I wanted, and chose Goddessculture as my new account. I assumed that old accounts would just become obselete and could be deleted with a button push, but soon found out that any account I started remained in place, and this is what confused Zeraeph. I also became lazy with logging in a few times which added to Z's suspicion. I may have been ignorant and dense, but let me assure you my aim was not to multiple-vote or to deceive, although I thought the anonymity of not logging in was kinda good.

I have put a "disused" statement on previous account, which I trust is clear. I will also make every effort to log in each time so as not to create confusion. (I might add that a few times after I have logged-in I am again unlogged in as little as ten minutes due to some glitch in the system, though this is only occasionally).

You live and learn. From this point forward I'll use only the Goddessculture account, and no other.

For the record, although this has resulted from my mistakes, I also am quite certain that Zeraeph dislikes my approach to certain subjects and would be more than happy to find any technicality which would remove me from the WP system, and to use plenty of hyperbole to achieve that end.

I hope that clears things up a bit. Goddessculture (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Soulgany101&diff=176891914&oldid=176761060 (and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cassandra_complex_%28psychology%29&diff=176890923&oldid=176879058 which you have already seen) . I admit I dislike your approach to certain subjects, I also dislike your tendency to use anon IPs without identifying yourself and your attempts at promoting specific non-notable agenda (and if you can get User:SandyGeorgia to establish that your favorite agenda are notable and encyclopaedic, with proper citations, up to the standard she demands from others, fine, I will accept them, but NOT based on self published websites!). I have no particular problem with your other edits and have never wished or attempted to have you removed from the WP system. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (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.

Image fix

Resolved

 – Fixed. Davnel03 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would an admin fix this please. Someone vandalised the image and I tried to roll it back to the original but apparently rollback doesn't work with images as it does with articles. It needs to go back to the original image. -- ALLSTARecho 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Who thought that putting animated gifs in a stub notice was a good idea?Geni 17:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's beside the point... -- ALLSTARecho 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The image has already been reverted. hwoever I find it's authorship claim questionable.Geni 17:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It rolled back Allstarecho, refresh your browser. — Save_Us_229 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I did refresh but apparently not. -- ALLSTARecho 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot malfunctioning?

Resolved

 – Edits rolled back. Davnel03 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me the bot shouldn't be changing articles from looking like this to looking like this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He's replacing Template:POV with Template:POV-statement which is a different template; somebody block him temporarily and rollback all of his recent edits. <eleland/talkedits> 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot an contacted the operator about it - it needed to be stopped quickly as it was starting to make secondary edits to some pages meaning rollback won't work on them all. Give me 5 mins and I'll start rolling back. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, people! You don't need to block AWB-based bots in order to stop them. Simple talk page post is enough. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's faster to simply block the bot than it is to check to see if a talkpage message will stop it, then block the bot if it didn't. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've rolled back all the edits that are obvious, the rest are mixed in with other edits so I can't go blind reverting. Not really sure what else to do unless we just blind revert all of SmackBots edits for today..... Ryan Postlethwaite 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comic Guaranty LLC

Resolved

 – Username blocked. Davnel03 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this? Look at the history. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As Jasonewert was clearly here to simply attack a person names Jason Ewert [28] [29] he has been username blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate block of Ethajak

Anthony.bradbury recently placed a block against Ethajak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "vandalism". The term "vandalism", as defined in Wikipedia's vandalism policy, refers to "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and expressly provides that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Nowhere are putative violations of WP:NOT#CENSORED defined as "vandalism" in the vandalism policy. Moreover, it is obvious from an examination of Ethajak's edits that he was engaged in a content dispute over Erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not a deliberate effort to harm Wikipedia, as the term vandalism implies. The characterization of Ethajak edits as vandalism, in warnings on his talk page, and in his block log, reflects a failure to assume good faith. Moreover, by blocking a user whose content edits he has reverted, Anthony.bradbury has blocked a user with whom he is engaged in a content dispute. I ask that this inappropriate block be removed. I further note that Ethajak's unblock request was recently declined on the grounds that while Ethajak's edits weren't actually vandalism, he was "edit warring to push... [his] personal POV... [He] wildly breached WP:3RR and never even attempted to garner consensus on the talk page as... [he] continued warring." While I concede that Ethajak's edit warring was disruptive, as a new user possibly unframiliar with Wikipedia policy, Ethajak should have been informed of the relevent policy and asked to stop edit warring, being blocked only if he continued. The false accusations of vandalism against Ethajak likely inflamed the situation, and consituted a serious violation of WP:BITE. Morever, even if Ethajak were to be blocked for edit warring, he shouldn't have been blocked by an administrator who was reverting his edits [30]. John254 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to AGF on a user who uploads not one but three pictures of penises on account creation. Will ^(talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethajak uploaded the diagrams to replace a photograph in Erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It appears to be insinuated that he uploaded "three pictures of penises" for the purpose of defacing pages with them, which is clearly not the case. John254 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethajak was informed several times that his edits weren't appreciated. Edit warring without discussion after other editors have reverted and voiced their complaints is no less blockable than vandalism. At worst, Bradbury chose an incomplete block explanation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK, administrators must not block users who they are edit warring against, as Anthony.bradbury was. Moreover, the unjustified vandalism warnings placed on Ethajak's talk pages do not constitute acceptable communication concerning Wikipedia's policy against edit warring. John254 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He was not involved in an edit war. The revert and the block came within one minute of eachother. It was functionally no different from blocking then reverting. So no, no. And the first warning said it all. Like I said before, that he saw (or ignored entirely) the message, and kept on reverting is what was unacceptable in his behavior. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When one reverts edits in a content dispute, one becomes involved in said content dispute, and ineligible to employ one's administrative tools therein. Furthermore, template:uw-notcensored1 was inappropriate in this situation, as WP:NOT#CENSORED only provides that sexually explicit material may be included in relevant articles, not that it must, actual inclusion be decided on the basis of editorial discretion -- i.e., a content dispute. Ethajak should have been politely informed of Wikipedia's policy against edit warring, and blocked by an uninvolved administrator only if he continued -- not falsely accused of vandalism, and blocked for such by an administrator who reverted one of his edits. John254 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the diagrams he personally released into the public domain...aren't his. See here. IrishGuy ^talk 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of image licensing tags isn't necessarily vandalism -- it could simply be a mistake by a new user. John254 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um no. The images had the artist signature removed and then a gray filter to make it look different. It was a blatant copyright infringement. IrishGuy ^talk 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptre, hard to AGF and the block appears to be valid. The images all appear to be the same except the first upload is in color. All of them are of penile implants apparently from this site (copy/vio) [31].--Sandahl 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism defines only "repeated uploading of copyrighted material" after being warned as vandalism: "Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user." Perhaps we could assume good faith at least to the extent that the vandalism policy does. John254 23:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is assuming good faith and then there is ignoring the obvious. When someone takes an image from online and uploads it to Wikipedia...but then a few minutes later uploads a "new" version that has removed the artist signature and converted it to black and white thrn that user knew exactly what he was doing. He was violating copyright and trying to hide it. IrishGuy ^talk 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user really were "violating copyright and trying to hide it", then it would have been far more effective for him to simply modify the photograph before performing any uploads. Moreover, he wouldn't have provided explicit credit to the copyright holder of the image, and specifically stated that the image was edited, as he did here. Ethajak should have been encouraged to contribute in a more productive manner, and blocked by an uninvolved administrator only if he continued making disruptive edits, not falsely accused of vandalism. John254 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "interpretation" involved here as far as use of images on WP is concerned. He placed a copyright image on WP and that is not permitted. He has tampered with it by removing a signature and the colour attributes. He certified that he is the copyright holder of the image here [32], which is quite untrue. The image will be deleted for copyright infringement. Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(The image was deleted while I posted the above.) Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the alleged 3RR from Anthony. If anything, Ethajak was being disruptive for warring with censoring and copyrighted images. bibliomaniac15 00:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no attempt to notify Ethajak of Wikipedia's copyright or edit warring policies before he was blocked. Not informing new editors of the actual objections to their edits, then incorrectly accusing them of vandalism, and blocking them on that basis encourages potentially productive new editors to leave. The guideline please do not bite the newcomers was designed as a caution against situations such as this. John254 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact and was never meant to be. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that WP:AGF is "a suicide pact". I'm claiming that editors should not be blocked for vandalism unless it is evident that their contributions are clearly such. The insinuation that asking Ethajak not to engage in edit warring, and not to upload copyright violations, before he was blocked, would somehow amount to Wikipedia's "suicide" is without merit. John254 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He was warned twice about replacing one of the thumbnail images with his own plagiarised image. He was told about wikipedia censorship policy and warned that he could be blocked. Yet he took absolutely no notice of the two warnings and continued with the insertion of his image. That seems to be deliberate vandalism. Mathsci (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's circular logic. The placement of a template:uw-vandalism4 warning [33] assumes that Ethajak's contributions were vandalism prior to the warning; if they weren't, then the warning was invalid, and his continued edits after receiving an invalid warning don't imply anything. The template:Uw-notcensored1 warning was likewise invalid -- it is intended to be used where users blank sexually explicit content without explanation, or with a frivolous explanation; as explained above, a genuine dispute over whether any given image should be included is a content dispute, not vandalism. Ethajak should have been informed about the actual legitimate objections to his edits. John254 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not circular logic at all. The two unheeded warnings were quite clear. [34] Are you suggesting that first time users are allowed to ignore all warnings, even when there are messages flashing up in front of them? Mathsci (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, contrary to your initial statement, neither warning was from Anthony.bradbury. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship referred to his removal of an image, just in case you hadn't worked that out. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim that the vandalism warnings were issued by Anthony.bradbury, though this may have been mistakenly implied by context in which the warnings were described. Nor am I "suggesting that first time users are allowed to ignore all warnings, even when there are messages flashing up in front of them". I am, however, asserting that new users cannot be expected utilize telepathy to ascertain the intentions of the users issuing warnings. They cannot be expected to understand that a "stop vandalizing" warning actually means "stop edit warring", or that a "not censored" warning actually means "don't upload copyright violations". Unless, of course, we assume that any good faith user who received a template:uw-vandalism4 warning would be so insulted that would leave Wikipedia immediately. John254 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent for sanity) If a user (newbie or otherwise) can't associate his revert war with the bright new message bar and harsh warnings, he probably intends to edit war regardless. Were little slip ups made on his inevitable path to being block? Maybe a nicer, personalized message would have done better than templates. But at this point you have to simply ignore the rules and consider, will anything good come from unblocking this user? Why not let him cool down from his edit war over the course of his block. If he wants to continue this tomorrow, he can start a discussion somewhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If personalized messages weren't going to be written, then template:uw-3rr and template:uw-copyright would have provided adequate warning. There is a reason, after all, why we have warning templates customized to various situations, instead of a general warning along the lines of {{warning|We don't like your edits. Don't continue making edits we don't like, or you will be blocked.}} Furthermore, if Ethajak were going to be blocked without effective warning for edit warring and copyright violations, his block log should at least reflect that fact, rather than containing an unjustified use of the term "vandalism", which effectively accuses Ethajak of being amongst the lowest of scum on Wikipedia. John254 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me also observe that I wasn't aware of Ethajak's copyright violations when I first made this report, and, in all likelihood, neither was the blocking administrator -- I don't believe that Anthony.bradbury would have blocked Ethajak for "vandalism" through copyright violations, but wouldn't have deleted the copyvio images (the images were initially deleted at least 12 minutes after the block, by a different administrator, characterizing the images as vandalism, not copyright violations). What we are faced with, here, is a situation in which any replacement of sexually explicit material with less explicit material is being treating as vandalism, not a content dispute. WP:NOT#CENSORED notwithstanding, I believe that this reflects a failure to assume good faith (note that even many indisputable fundamental policy violations, such WP:NPOV violations and the insertion of original research, are not inherently treated as vandalism.) Of course, the applicability of WP:NOT#CENSORED to this situation is doubtful, as the policy provides that "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content", not that they must. John254 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

that sort of attempt to evade not censored can & does happen, but I do not see this as an instance of it. DGG (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was engaging in edit-warring to include a copyrighted diagram of a penile implant, violating not only the 3RR, but our image use policies as well. Enforcing policy by reverting the insertion of an improperly-licenced image does not prohibit that administrator from further enforcing policy by means of blocking. FCYTravis (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greatsoul

Resolved

 – User warned. Davnel03 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Soul (talk · contribs) has continuously inserted libelous statements onto Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other articles, in a probable violation of WP:3rr as well. He has utilized a sockpuppet, Special:Contributions/70.171.63.3.

• 12-07T11:30:41
• 12-08T11:27:59
• 12-08T15:35:46
• Not a revert, but slanderous
• 12-09T09:33:30

The user has done this on a couple other pages as well, all unsourced and has been warned not to engage in this editing. This seems to be a vandal only account.Bakaman 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatant violations of WP:NPOV accompanied by no discussion can be dealt with the same as trivial vandalism, using the appropriate warning templates and report to WP:AIV if necessary. I have left Great Soul such a warning. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help with editor removing fact tags

Resolved

 – Davnel03 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

An editor on one of the article's I've been working has twice removed a {{fact}} tag I placed on an article less than 24hours ago (Dec 9, 14:12).

The first time the editor removed the tagDec 9, 23:35, they tried to provide an extended argument to prove that this statement was true and so didn't need a fact tag. I explained that according to WP:V the burden of proof was on the provider of the uncited claim, and that she would either have to change the substance of the claim or add a citation. I also referred her to WP:V and WP:NOR. I then restored the {{fact}} tag.

The editor then rephrased it making a minor rewording (effectively changing "X unanimously does" to "no X does not") and then removed the fact tag(Dec 10, 00:28). I suppose she might have misunderstood what it meant to change the content of the claim. I'd like at least to assume good faith and suppose she had. In any case, the claim still needs a citation so I replaced the {{fact}} tag.

Further complicating the situation is that the editor in question is removing fact tags on an article that she herself nominated for AfD. The AfD has expressed concerns about sourcability of the article so those fact tags are absolutely necessary for us to keep track of which claims still need sourcing and which do not. In effect the editor, intentionally or unintentionally is sabataging attempts to repair the article.

I'm not sure what to do next. I'm hoping she'll refrain from removing the fact tag again. On the other hand I'm not sure what to do if she does. Its important that these fact tags stay in place, but I certainly don't want myself blocked for undoing someone's edits 3X. I'm not at all experienced in these situations. Help needed. Thanks in advance. Egfrank (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting previous comments. What a mess that AfD is. I've voted, so don't take my advice is neutral necessarily (nor am I an admin) but my advice would be to refrain from edit-warring over fact inserts until the AfD is sorted out. Once its decided if the article will survive or not, then an RfC on the enormous number of issues and warring POVs might be appropriate. Avruch^Talk 01:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You sum it up well. There are so things that need fixing that I think we can let this one sentence ride for now. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch, except that i think a RfC might produce yet more of a mess even afterwards, and we should better hope for a fresh start. DGG (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2007 (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.

Stalking?

Resolved

 – Davnel03 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

When looking, for other good reasons, at SandyGeorgia's edit history, I found the name of an article she had commented on the day before interesting, and commented on a related AfD, here. I have now received a warning claiming that this one occurence, on one article, is Wikistalking. This seems to me a much tighter definition than the "following a user around Wikipedia" that WP:STALK uses; it has been combined with an undiscussed revert of a copyedit, here.

If it is consensus that this was stalking, I will apologize; if so, I suggest that WP:STALK be reworded; but I don't think this was, or can have been, the intent. Good editors visit interesting articles which I did not know existed; and I came here to look at interesting articles. I trust, on the other hand, that this is not an effort to use admin powers to gain an edge in a wording discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The timing (unclear why you say "the day before")

• 17:49, December 7, 2007 I post to the AfD in question, as shown in your diff above.
• 18:30, December 7, 2007 You edit FAR instructions
• 18:31, December 7, 2007 I revert vague and redundant changes, request talk page discussion
• 18:55, December 7, 2007 You re-instate without discussion. This is edit warring, as you are well aware of the spirit of WP:3RR. You also label my revert a "personal attack".
• 19:09, December 7, 2007 You post to FAR talk after having made the edit twice without discussion and without waiting for any other editor to opine (as you know, Marskell is Raul's proxy at WP:FAR).
  • Sorry, Sandy, I compose slowly; that's how long it took me to write the comments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• 20:00, December 7, 2007, is the end of a several-post exchange at the FAR-instructions talk page
• 20:07, December 7, 2007, after the FAR-instructions exchange, you post to an Afd in a subject area you have never before frequented, and admit that you went there because you saw it in my edit history.

I don't recall ever seeing you before at Hugo Chavez or Venezuelan-related articles. Since you have had other disputes with me, there is reason for concern that you follow my contribs to an AfD in a topic area I frequent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, all contributions to an AfD discussion are welcomed. The history is there on the AfD for the closing admin to see. Trust them to take it into account if need be. Posting annotated timelines is not really going to help. Comment on the comments by the editor, not on the editor. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I put up the timing because I thought his reference to "the day before" strange, since it was immediate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe what initially drew my attention was this edit; I got to the AFD through several pages, but saw no reason to act until I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, I wouldn't view that as stalking. I agree that you need more than one such incident of "following" for it to become stalking. I often follow up things I notice while reading other people's talk pages after leaving them a note. Looking through someone's contribs is also OK (that's why we have contribs logs), but following up on something seen there is slightly more "following" than seeing an interesting discussion on their talk page. I also think Marskell and SandyGeorgia need to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where have I or Marskell been uncalm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where you said "there is reason for concern". If you really think this is a problem, keep an eye on it and then come back later with more evidence. A single incident like this doesn't constitute stalking, in my view. If you could show a series of such incidents, and consistent opposition to your comments, then it might be different. Marskell has been decidedly less calm than you though, I'll give you that. (striking through after talk page discussion - I accept Marskell was only being acerbic here Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)) To be fair, I also think Septentrionalis didn't need to drag this over to ANI. You, Marskell and Septentrionalis are all experienced editors and should try harder to work together. I suspect the real issue is at WP:FAR, and that the AfD and stalking accusations are just a sideshow resulting from tensions at that page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I brought it here because I really wanted to know if this were a general understanding I had missed out on; WT:STALK might have done equally well, now that I think of it, but it didn't occur to me. I thank you all for your comments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone gets their contributions history looked at and their talk pages watchlisted once in awhile. As long as you're not making a point of following any other editors around all the time, then I wouldn't worry about any well-intentioned warning. ➪HiDrNick! 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And further, helpful peering over someone's shoulder and helping them out is, well, helpful. Though there are certain personality types that bridle if you do this, and it is best to back off at that point. I've always welcomed people popping into a conversation out of the blue. It reminds me that there are always more people reading and watching than you think. Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I notice four reverts by Septentrionalis and three by Marskell in the history of the FAR page. You should both be more careful, lest ye fall afoul of 3RR. I agree with Carcharoth that there is no evidence of stalking in the above diffs. More than participating in an AfD that you've contributed to is required to violate WP:STALK. The FA official types have (from what I've read, which is not authoritative) facilitator authority over the process, not the rules. These are open to discussion and modification like anything else, and the deputies and delegates should be diplomatic about relatively minor edits. Avruch^Talk 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

it's generally good to have new eyes on a disputed subject. And we want to encourage participation in AfD. DGG (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If anybody wants to comment on the wording of {{FAR-instructions}} or the general question of FAR standards, new voices are always welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PMA entered a separate dispute within minutes of disputing with Sandy on the template. C'mon. My second link was perfectly calm and an accurate summary. Marskell (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to the chorus: it's not stalking. It's commonplace to see an odd or curious-sounding edit, check contribs, and wonder what the item on the list there means. In fact, it's one of the things that Wikipedia is set up to encourage. It's how we make friends, as well as enemies. Clicking on contribs is normal. Stalking is different. Those who silently track every edit to build black books are stalking. Those who go to follow every edit with a contradiction are stalking. Those who watchlist talk pages of "enemies" so that they can be there to exploit any controversy are stalking. I should know, having been the victim of all three of these in the past. It's also a form of stalking, incidentally, to look for users leaving and then nominating all of their articles for AfD or FAR. Geogre (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, if someone you had disputed with in the past showed up on an AfD, or any forum, to offer you "helpful advice" minutes after a separate dispute, would you take it as good faith? I think not—I think you would reasonably conclude that it was an attempt to escalate. I would not have linked to STALK had it been two editors who'd never encountered one another previously. But PMA has been disrupting various instruction pages for months (see revision history of MoS and WIAFA, for instance). He was initially reverted because he had garnered zero comments on making changes. It's not the first time.

I have no idea who's doing the nominating on the two you're referring to at FAR. Perhaps it is bad faith, but you should contact the nominators directly about their motives. Or tell me or Joel, if you seem some coordinated attempt to bring down an editor on FAR. Marskell (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is innocent, however, I also wouldn't say that it's stalking. It may indeed be conflict escalation, but we water down "stalking" to meaningless when we use it to cover everything from "attempting to frustrate someone" to "deciding to pursue a policy disagreement." Suppose that I see that user:Bobo has posted that there is a "semi-policy" he just wrote blocking all people who compare others to Hitler. Well, that's wrong. I might tangle on the project page, but then I might go to the edits to see if Bobo has been trying to implement this. Is that stalking or cleaning up? In other words, we can't say that this is stalking by itself. If there is no legitimacy to the actions, then they should be easy to bat away. If it's a repeated phenomenon, it crosses into harassment. If it's one... meh. As for history of disrupting the policy pages, that begs the question. I don't like hearing "ban 'em to hell" talk being offered to the "noticeboard culture" of AN/I over a single nomination. (And I wouldn't think the FAR nomination of the Lisbon Earthquake were ganging up on the departed, had it not been followed by the user's other FA today.) Geogre (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not innocent but not stalking is fair enough. I linked in part because the wording gets to the point well: "the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I wasn't meaning to suggest a block or ban on anybody, to be sure; it just seemed an extremely unhealthy move. And the fact remains that Pma doesn't attempt to initiate any discussion before making instruction changes of the sort in question.

FAR, hm. You've explicitly accused User:Rodw of bad faith on the second nomination. That is unfair without evidence of coordination. (This particular topic should migrate somewhere else.) Marskell (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2007 (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.

Re: Protection of China and Names of China

Due to persistent abuse of sockpuppets by Peter zhou (talk · contribs)/JackyAustine (talk · contribs), the articles China and Names of China have been full protected to prevent further disruptions by this long term abuser. If there are any sysops that disagree with my actions, I am willing to discuss, and I would not oppose any reversal of or amendment to my actions. nat.utoronto 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest lowering the protection on China. It is far too high profile an article to have on indefinite full protection IMO. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

we need to do more then semi-protect, as they are not anons--and the abuse has been continuous for over a month. DGG (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't the users be blocked instead? Same result with minimal disruption for the rest of us? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing that for the last month, and frankly, it does not stop this guy. and the fact that he works on several ranges and probably switches to a new address ever couple of hours, I would say that full protection is the most effective way of preventing PZ/JA from using his socks to disrupt these two articles. nat.utoronto 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Braun

User:Shrinertim see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Shrinertim all this user's edits have been to repeadetly vandalize the Timothy Braun article can this user be banned? --Java7837 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No. On a lot of the edits, the user does not appear to be vandalizing. He appears to be trying to make good faith edits. Have a little patience with new users, please. Also, nobody even told the user what the problems were with his/her edits. I've added a welcome note with some information for the user. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is not doing good faith edits look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Braun&diff=176919875&oldid=176911517 ( I had to remove much of this user's vandalism twice already) --Java7837 (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These don't really look like good faith edits, I would concur with that. 1) Has the user been warned 2) Have they been given the opportunity to edit past the warning 3) Has this been tried at WP:AIV? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett

I've been keeping an eye on the discussion at Talk:Gary Weiss over the 24 hours due to a high incidence of edit warring and personal attacks on those trying to enforce the standards there. After seeing take a turn for the worse (starting with this and this) I issued several mild NPA warnings [35][36][37] One particularly biting comment from G-Dett about an admin I removed. Sadly, G-Dett has taken to making threats in response. If someone wants to talk some sense into G-Dett it would be better than what will happen when the drama machine kicks into high gear. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Readers may note that FeloniousMonk's interpretation of events is not universally accepted. It would be interesting to discover what someone with no prior involvement in these discussions (or others involving the same participants) would make of the matter. CJCurrie (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Responsible readers can read the diffs for themselves and make their own conclusions and act accordingly. They'll also recognize attempts to poison the well here for what they are. Instead of implying that I'm less than neutral, which is not the case, why did you not disclose that you've had a personal axe to grind with me for at least 18 months? Please don't let your personal grudge against me disrupt the project by enabling NPA violators. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a "holier than thou" attitude is likely to persuade responsible readers of the validity of one's position. CJCurrie (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother denying that you've done exactly this sort of poisoning of the well to me many times here before. I've the diffs if you've forgotten. Don't waste our time and yours. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that casting doubt on a self-serving interpretation of events can be said to constitute "well-poisoning". Btw, should I interpret your remarks here as intimidation? CJCurrie (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any self-serving remarks from you will continue to be seen for what they are as long as you continue your peevish attempts to undermine me in matters which you have no interest. Such things are part of the cost of conducting admin business. I've been trolled by better. How about trying to help minimize disruption to the community rather than settling old scores? FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Readers should be aware that FeloniousMonk has consistently accused me of trying to "settle old scores" on every single occasion that I've criticized his actions in the last year or so. I continue to hope that he'll eventually desist with such ad hominem attacks, and engage with me on the level of rational argumentation. CJCurrie (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, the fact that you have to say every single occasion kinda proves his point exactly. You seem to be critical of any action, regardless of whether or not his behavior is inappropriate. Perhaps disengaging would be appropriate after a year of this? Shell ^babelfish 06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you might reach this conclusion, but I'm afraid it's not accurate. I've sometimes criticized FeloniousMonk for bringing forward questionable interpretations of events, for acting in questionable ways, and for making statements that could easily be interpreted as intimidation. He's invariably dismissed all of this as "trolling" or "settling old scores". I'm prepared to stand by my comments on each occasion, just as I'll stand by my comments here.

Btw, in case my previous remarks made it appear that I was compulsively seeking out controversy with FM, I should clarify that I can probably count on one hand the times I've interacted with him in the last year. CJCurrie (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in my eyes the "turn for the worse" began when this innocuous question [38] was met with accusations of "deliberate disruption," "bad faith," hounding, harassing, etc. I suggest interested admins follow the entire exchange. I suggest they also follow Felonious' link above to a "threat" of mine, so that they can discover for themselves that it doesn't exist.--G-Dett (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Admin privileges or no, I suggest you back off." Since the unwritten or unspoken clause is usually "or else..." it's an implied threat in my experience. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Or else what? What exactly did you imagine I was threatening you with? Or did your imagination supply the first part of the unspoken, unwritten phrase only to then languidly trail off, while your fingers went to work typing an AN/I report?--G-Dett (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Drama, personal attacks, vexatious litigation; there's a history of all from the regular of those articles. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a regular of "those articles," I have never engaged in "vexatious litigation," and most relevantly here, I didn't issue any "threat." Whatsoever. In future, don't attribute statements to editors that you imagine, in flights of extrapolative fancy, they might have meant to say but didn't. Don't do that anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially not, for G-d's sake, on an AN/I noticeboard.--G-Dett (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding [39] the last part of that edit was clearly a personal attack and is unexcusable, but I'm puzzled as to why the first piece which was not a personal attack was removed. I'd suggest everyone on the page calm down. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The original poster here gave a very selective, one-sided overview of the situation, where in fact several people on "his side" have made personal attacks: Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 Diff4 *Dan T.* (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant to point out here that Dtobias has a dog in this race, being one of those who's comment's I've called out as being disruptive [40] and who is editorially-aligned with G-Dett. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtobias and I have never collaborated together on any article. I don't know what "alignment" you think you're talking about; I can only imagine it's like the unspoken, unwritten "threat" you daydreamed up and then attributed to me in your initial report above.--G-Dett (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett has a history of being less than civil. See also the talk page for Battle of Jenin. Or hell, check out her contribs, I'm sure the edit summary incivility will be easily seen, she's anything but subtle. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So does FeloniousMonk; here he dismisses a user-conduct RFC as "useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with." (sounds like a threat to me!), and last year, here, he said that "What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue", when it was actually him that was participating in bullying and intimidation of an editor who had raised a valid point about an image's copyright status. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're admiting you're party to a group of editors from WikipediaReview who oppose SlimVirgin. Thanks for making this point for us. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing another case in point of how you label people's affiliations rather than logically refute their positions. *Dan T.* (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You brought up the issues in an attempt to disparage, so expect to get called on your poor behavior as well. Shell ^babelfish 06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusing others of intimidation sounds pretty hollow coming from the group that _actually_ has power around here to back up their/your threats.—Random832 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)I didn't see the timestamps. It's at least possible that the "political landscape" was sufficiently different in 2006 that my comment wouldn't be valid, so I'm retracting it. —Random832 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference in giving ones opinion on an RFC where people are requested to give honest testimony and a persistant pattern of abusive behavior that has no sign of stopping. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• My take -- everyone is being a bit uncivil, but its not rising to the level of personal attacks. I don't believe that comment needed to be edited as it was a comment on meta-issues not an attack. I also do not believe that G-Detts comment was a threat - it appears to be nothing more than a request to disengage. Everyone involved needs to cool down a bit; it looks like mediation might be helpful since it doesn't appear that you're going to resolve this amongst yourselves. Shell ^babelfish 06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Monk's contention that edit warring is going on isn't true, the article was fully protected by JzG three days ago. Anyway, Jimbo has just weighed in on the issue and seems to be making a fairly honest effort to help resolve the situation there. So I think this discussion can return to the Weiss talk page. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, as a major bone of contention in the deleted discussion was, "Why is the Register an acceptable source on the Patrick M. Byrne article, but not Gary Weiss at all?" I asked on the Talk page, and no one answered. Some random IP removed the first Register link from the Byrne page, I just removed the second. As the Register is reporting on the same conflict, it would be a violation of NPOV from what I'm seeing to allow a harsh Register view of Byrne to be published, but to somehow omit the same on Weiss. NPOV doesn't play favorites, even with alleged scumbags. Given that there is little support for Register as a source for anything Weiss/Overstock related, those stories shouldn't be referenced in either article. Lawrence Cohen 07:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, the Register was not being used as a source on the Byrne page. It was listed under external links. Is this how it was being used on the other page? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't being used as a source, why did the link belong on a page not otherwise related to the register? the external linking guideline would seem to say not to include it. —Random832 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hell if I know. Just correcting the obvious mistake by Mr. Cohen. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Babakexorramdin

This user has been making inappropriate comments on the talkpage of Azerbaijani Jews.

He started off by arbitrarily adding comments about the accepted Azeri word for Jew being in fact derogatory [41]. He specifically mentioned that in Azerbaijan "a derogatory term is used" to refer to Jews, whereas in Iran (a comment that just came out of nowhere) they use names that are not derogatory.

He continued his allegations on the talkpage [42] by calling the government of Azerbaijan "panturkists" and accusing it of discriminating against all minority groups. He kept making references to Iran and the Persian language, as if Iran's political and social system and their advantages had anything to do with the article. Notice that he did not cite a source to back up his claims that the Azeri word for Jew is derogatory. Another edit of similar content [43] literally states that "Iranians are more respectful towards their religious minorities than the Panturkists from republic of Azerbaijan". As you see, a source on the derogatory nature of the Azeri word for Jew is yet to be cited on his part. After an adequate response to such disrespectful behaviour[44], this user left a comment in Azeri [45], which translates as: "Who is Pan-power, me or you? If you are sick (ill, mentally disturbed), don't post. It doesn't matter at all, whether you are Iranian, or Turkish, or Mongol, or Indian, or Chinese, the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan used to be within Iran.". Right after I expanded the introduction of the article [46], he started a new thread [47] saying it was "weak of you to first oppose me then take my words and add Yahudi to it", even though I did not abandon my original argument and he had not actually had those "words" (i.e. no signs of sources) in any of his messages. They displayed criticism of Azerbaijan and its people, followed by personal attacks, rather than being an actual input aimed at improving the quality of the article. Parishan (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember posting about this user here before: [48] Looks like not much changed in his behavior since then. Incivility, unsourced POV claims, etc. Grandmaster (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I tell someone not to post on my talk page?

Resolved

 – Answer: Yes! :) Davnel03 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Answered - cool!

Says User:BrownHairedGirl: "Norton, which bit of "stay off my talk page" is that you are unable to comprehend? Let me spell it out more simply: "do not post on my talk page again"."

So, open question: Can I tell people not to post on my talk page? If so, that sounds really cool. If not, then that was very rude of BHG. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you can tell people not to post on your talk page. And people may ignore your telling. And you people may go deeply into bickering and wasting each other time. Before posting on someone's page please ask yourself what is your purpose of posting in user talk page and how, in your opinon the user will react? (Hint: if you are saying something nasty, don't expect agreement.) I am sure other people will tell you something else. Please keep in mind two major goals of wikipedia: (1) creating encyclopedia and (2) doing this in cooperation. (Hint #2: To start a cooperation, you have to start with asking questions, not with accusations.) If you fail to cooperate with somebody for whatever reason, the wikipedia way of dispute resolution is to involve more people in the discussion. `'Míkka>t 09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can tell people, but don't be surprised if they don't listen. Its unlikely that anything good will come out of telling them to stay off your page and if they don't, its also unlikely that you can do anything about it (unless they are making clear personal attacks or something similar). Generally, ignoring their posts is a much better way of distancing yourself from an unproductive discussion. Shell ^babelfish 10:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you may, and yes it does have some force. It depends upon why they're posting. You can decide not to discuss things with a person, to not have general conversation, but you may not refuse to get official warnings and the like. If I have to give you a 3RR warning, you can't tell me not to post to your talk page, because that's where such things go. If, on the other hand, I'm not done arguing with you from our time on talk:Fubar, then you can tell me that you find my posts harassing. In that case, I really should leave you be. If I don't, then that's evidence of escalation of dispute. User talk pages are for calling upon one another, discussing our conduct, etc., so long as these are germane. "You're a poopyhead" isn't something I have to hear. "I see you're still a poopyhead!" is something that crosses over to harassment. In other words, the answer is "it depends." It's going to have to be determined by the participants and the content. Geogre (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Guroadrunner (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2007 (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.

Lonnie Frisbee talk page assistance please

I'd like to ask for outside assistance as User:71.238.68.127 has a history of deleting items they don't like and adding in items that myslef and others have seen as POV. I just reverted a deletion of a part of sourced quote then saw that they had posted this lengthy piece on the talk page which frankly I feel should be deleted and possibly reworded if they can remove the personal accusations. In the past they have posted extremely long passages and myself and other editors have worked to remain constructive and address their concerns. I think in this case it might be helpful to have another voice weigh in as I'm a bit frustrated going through the same conversation again and generally being accused of wrong-doing, etc. Benjiboi 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Penis vandalism yet again

Resolved

 – Vandal blocked. Davnel03 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just encountered a penis vandalism, which is visible at e.g. Vlade Divac page, but doesn't seem to originate there, but in some sub-template. I also see it in {{MedalTableTop}}. 147.91.173.31 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you tried with medal tabletop didn't work with Vlade... still thereEpthorn (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, and blocked by David D. — Edokter • Talk • 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A gentle touch of (semi-)protection to medal templates should reduce the possibility of a later reocurrence. 147.91.173.31 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual vandalism was done in Template:MedalSport. It took me some time to track it down. The vandal is blocked, so there is no need to protect. — Edokter • Talk • 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thing happen to my user page just now.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

Resolved

 – Article protected. Davnel03 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is unergoing a number adjustment not based on sources. Margins off by ~10 Million people are being introduced. I have reverted Babakexorramdin's number alterations twice so far. User reverts w/o providing sources. Infobox's margin of error is 100 million people which is also a seperate problem. Given this is a featured article this should be fixed as soon as possible. -- Cat ^chi? 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected it for a week, which should stop the edit warring for a week. If verified figures can't be produced for this article, which is meant to be an example of our best work, I suggest they be removed entirely. Neıl ☎ 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous User deleting sourced content

I am having a problem with an anonymous user at the Physical therapy article. He says "Revert to previous version. The addition of PT and Science is biased and not balanced - well referenced or not. It belongs in an article on evidenced based medicine or the like." The material he is removing is well sourced from peer-review journals. I believe the material was removed 2 times by the same person but am not sure. The IPs are different but from the same geographic area. You guidance would be appreciated. He left a note on the talk page after his second deletion. I warned the first time and sent him a welcome message at his first IP address User:24.63.148.5 and a message at User talk:24.63.148.5. --Anthon01 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. You might want to start with the dispute resolution process. If it turns out it is the same user and you cannot agree, you could request a third opinion, for instance, on whether or not the material violates neutrality. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Handling new editors (follow-up to Metsguy234 section)

Unresolved

 – I cannot see any sort of resolution to this discussion yet, and am therefore requesting more opinion. Cheers, Davnel03 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Personally, I think this is all off-topic for ANI. Just mark as resolved and suggest continuing at Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers or User talk:Metsguy234. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Suggest continuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers or User talk:Metsguy234. Davnel03 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This section split off by me from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Metsguy234 as it is veering from the topic and that section can usefully be archived now to reduce the size of ANI. Header created by me. Initial post by Hu12 was originally in response to the 18:06, 6 December post from Franamax. Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly Metsguy234's last contribution was speedy deleted as spam.--Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly because it was spam or because it wasn't? Obviously I think it was a genuine contribution from a baseball fan. I had advised them to merge that content to the article about the company, and I've also pointed this out to the editor who placed the speedy tag at their editor review. They've acknowledged that talking to the author first might have been a better idea before placing the speedy tag. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For gawd's sake, so much drama - I have to agree with Carcharoth in this instance. Let's jump back a couple of years to about July 2005. A new IP address rocked up on the article for a large Australian university and made a rather large edit. It was clearly in breach of WP:COI - its IP traced back to the university, and the edit summary even boldly stated it. The edit itself was also in complete violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR - its author hadn't yet got around to discovering these, although was literate with good grammar and had been a web designer in a past life so Wiki markup wasn't so remarkably incomprehensible. Couple of days later, the same IP makes a substantive alteration to a rival university, pretty much destroying the original article and all but copying their own university's page over it except for changing the names, making various fixes etc. I'm fairly certain that if that was seen today it would have gotten banned right off the mark for vandalism or possibly even sockpuppetry of some hitherto-unknown troubled user who had some interest in higher education in Australia. I mean, the grammar was good, this IP editor knew how to wikilink, and he even used an edit summary. That IP was actually me, and 9 months later I registered an account, and a further 12 months later became an admin. Some users have much less even starts - especially the younger ones, who initially do things they would later look back to regret, sometimes even acquire a block history along the way, and then work with others and become productive, helpful contributors who are an asset to the sub-projects they belong to. Let's not get battle hardened and think everyone we deal with who we can't immediately classify must be a sock or a troll - I have a watchlist with 3,500 items on it and am pleased to see how many IP-address changes and new-user changes are beneficial or at least intended to be (usually correcting my infobox errors, actually - it's like *click diff* "d'oh!" on my part some mornings.) Orderinchaos 07:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So what are you saying here OiC? Rewind back to that time, without all you know now, to when you were a brash young turk. What would have been the best "battle hardened" approach to you then? (It sounds like you were unrestrained by anyone at the time) If Carch had put a strong warning on your talk, would you have accepted that and changed your ways, or would you have fought back, sure of your own invincibility? If you'd got blocked for a day or a week, how would you have reacted? Sit through it and carefully consider, or seethe with injustice and thoughts of revenge? And if it was an indef block, what then? Would you have walked away in disgust or emotional shock, or would you do more research ('cause we all know you were addicted after your second edit or so :), think harder and come back better?

There is something to be said for an indefinite block - it can end at any time, all it takes is for the user to figure out what the problem is and frame the atonement properly, which any number of people can help with, like Carch helped Metsguy (with a typo). It seems to me that a definite block might actually be more likely to be observed to completion by other admins and allowed to expire in due course. And maybe like in real life, if you serve your whole jail sentence, you don't have to deal with counselling, rehab, parole, probation - you just get back out on the street, alone again. If people know it will end at some definite time, might they not be less likely to extend a hand? I do think Carch is right in the broad sense, but put yourself back into the skin that was you - would he have been right then also?

Also, Metsguy first article getting speedily deleted - well now, that is the true Welcome to wikipedia now, isn't it? Franamax (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there was another, earlier attempt at an article. But that looked to me like experimentation, and took place many months ago (followed by a Sandbox edit). This was a better attempt at an article, but really, this is very off-topic for ANI. No administrator actions needed. What is needed is for admins (and other editors) to help out when they see a new user in need of help. As far as the degree of handling (stern, kind, helpful), that depends on the user in question. There is a degree of self-selection, in that those unsuitable for Wikipedia may be the ones that give up and walk away, but people should be given several chances early in their Wikipedia editing history, along with appropriate guidance and warnings, giving them time to learn about Wikipedia and how it works. But really, this needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers. Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I've gone wrong then because I signed up to WikiHow and invited Metsguy to come over, read and give his comments and experience. I thought it was still a relevant incident. So both he and I have learned a(nother) lesson. Sorry. Franamax (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

About the first two contributions to the Berenstain Bears articles- I was at a friend's house and we were bored- so we stupidly chose to vandalize a page. It was a bad decision, and I really regret it now. About the comment from Neil that I had made no good edits- Yes, I know most of my edits were small- but it's not easy to find mistakes in a community of millions upon millions of people- so I corrected whatever typo I could see. Metsguy234 (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbuckner

Resolved

 – Davnel03 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I've blocked Dbuckner (talk · contribs) indefinitely as he's made a legal threat against FT2 by stating that he's contacted animal welfare officials about his conduct on Wikipedia[49]. I've made it clear to him that the minute he retracts this, I am willing to unblock his account. I hope this is just a momentary lapse of judgement and he'll soon be back to editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like he is willing to retract the threat. — Save_Us_229 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if he makes it clear that he no longer plans to take this off wiki in any context, then I'll unblock right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear. — Save_Us_229 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And I unblocked just after he stated it. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He quit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup - [50]. Neil ☎ 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He seemed to have made this intention clear before the block. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which leads me to wonder why he was so keen to be unblocked. If I was leaving the wikipedia, I wouldn't worry so much about whether I got blocked. He also seemed to claim he was editing from an IP on WP:IP [51]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

← His blog that was linked says he's taking a break. So he may or may not be back. He probably wants the unblock so that he can come back if he is so inclined. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Dbuckner indefinitely. In an email to me he makes it clear that he has in fact carried out the threat he purported to withdrawn and has posted what interpret as a vicious personal attack with serious legal consequences to a number of what he termed "activist websites". Given that this has gone beyond what can be dealt with on-wiki, I am emailing the Foundation with a summary of events for their review. WjBscribe 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I received a similar email last night. I support leaving this situation in WJBscribe's hands unless the Foundation staff takes it over from him. My assessment is that well intended but poorly judged comments yesterday pushed the dispute off-site, and we may well have lost one or more productive editors here. I think the damage is likely to be most limited if only one person manages the situation than if several of us are getting in each others way. GRBerry 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN#Outside influence, I agree with WJBscribe's decision. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with GRBerry's comments and have confidence in WJBscribe's efforts to limit the damage. Moral of all this is think before you type, internet comments are immortal. Alice.S 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WJ was right to block. The use of external activist sites and threats of legal action is in my mind an attempt to sway arbcom elections and an act of harassment. 1 != 2 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Throw it at the Office and let them handle it from here. Totally endorse block and totally caution against unblock. Daniel 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you see? This person may get into real life legal issues with the foundation. That's why you gotta be careful what you say on-wiki - you never know who's watching and what actions'll be taken. Block endorsed, as well as ban. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Contacting animal rights organization is hardly a legal threat. This escalated from a concerned user using unmeasured words to a total break of trust. I haven't seen all of it, so I can't say who was in the right, but I can say that Ryan's intervention on WJB's page was harmful, not helpful. Please be more careful next time. Zocky | picture popups 07:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Zocky, have you seen the policy link I provided? This action was explicitly and immediately bannable. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with that. Note that this started with an on-wiki smear campaign by Dbuckner, to generate moral panic against FT2. Taking it to outside organizations after being told to stop is really not a good thing. >Radiant< 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Secret has gone around striking through all Dbuckner's votes in the election. Was this decided somewhere or can anyone undo it? He was an editor in good standing when he voted, and the reasons for the block are unrelated to the votes she has struck through. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Removing votes per WP:ILIKEIT, is it? Undo by all means, Slim. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

This isn't WP:IDONTLIKE it, WP:AGF, I never dealt with that user before, I noticed that he was blocked indef, and I discounted the vote, last year elections were the same thing, in which a couple of users blocked indef votes were crossed out. Anyways he was disrupting the elections and that was the main reason he was blocked, lets see community consensus before we undo each other. Secret ^account 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undone it. As I said elsewhere, Secret, it would be like you voting in a real-life election, getting arrested for shoplifting on the way home, and election officials grabbing your voting slip out of the ballot box as something unworthy. If he was in good standing when he voted, and his loss of that standing is unrelated to those votes, there can't be any reason to strike the votes out. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the people volunteering to clerk the elections asked me about those votes at the time. My opinion was that they should stay - the most problematic one was that of FT2 but Dbuckner struck that one himself. The others were cast by him when a user in good standing and are unrelated to the issue that resulted in my having to take the action I did (and then refer the matter to Jimbo). My only concern is that votes in this election don't have the finality of those posted through a ballot box - users are free to change their mind until voting closes. Dbuckner being unable to edit is unable to withdraw the support of those candidates in the same manner as anyone else. Though he could email me if he finds this situation problematically - he has shown no reluctance to contact me so far... WjBscribe 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As said, I have no opinion on whether he's right about FT2, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that WJBscribe blocked him unfairly. I was just pointing out that intervening with accusations of harassment and threats of block on another admin's talk page while an excited user is trying to talk to that admin tends to escalate conflicts. That's all. Zocky | picture popups 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. We had the exact same issue last year. "Should a banned user's votes be stricken even if he wasn't banned until AFTER he made those votes?" The answer should be an obvious "no", because bans aren't retroactive, and it shouldn't be possible to influence elections by banning users. >Radiant< 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The conclusion in Radiant's post is the same as that in our general policy for banning. Only edits made after the banning are subject to reversal. People get confused about this because the edits by sockpuppets created after the ban and identified after a while are reversible, but that is because those edits occurred after the user was banned, not because we go back and reverse all edits by a user who is later banned. GRBerry 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Users Otolemur crassicaudatus and Ghanadar galpa

Unresolved

 – User seems to have apologised on his talkpage, yet there seems to be some disagreement on WP:DICK underneath. More opinion warranted. Cheers, Davnel03 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk: Otolemur crassicaudatus appears to be repeatedly attacking Ghanadar galpa. See here and here. This seems to centre around this AfD, which is proposing the deletion of an article created by Otolemur crassicaudatus about crime against tourists in India. It should be noted that Otolemur crassicaudatus is arguing very heavily for the article to be kept - take a look for yourself. I cannot say whether Ghanadar galpa is innocent, as I haven't had time to look at a number of the diffs cited by Otolemur crassicaudatus, but looking at just one diff (here), there doesn't seem to be any particular provokation. It would be great if an admin could investigate this fully, and take appropriate actions. Cheers, _TheIslander 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[52] seems pretty provocative, well into the range of violating WP:DICK. That's Ghandard galpa's very first post on the AfD, so he came to the AfD for the point of posting that message about OC, not to discuss the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OC has created a large number of these articles that serve little purpose but to bash India. WP:DICK is irrelevant.Bakaman 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Like many editors, OC has produced articles towards their interests and POV. Unlike many editors, however, OC has made articles on viable subjects and done a passable job at creating and sourcing them. Crime against foreigners in India is a perfectly viable subject and a well-cited article, if still far from being a good article--but again, how many articles created on such topics by one editor are really good articles?

WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK have no exceptions. It's not appropriate to come into an AfD and attack an editor, whether or not you disagree with their POV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK is not a policy, and OC certainly has no problems acting in a rude, uncouth, and pugnacious manner.Bakaman 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bakasuprman here, Prosfilaes. While you may be right that it has no exceptions, it is also unenforcable. However, WP:NPA may be what you want to cite. -- llywrch (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

regional power article.

The regional power article has been protected because of an edit war. I would ask you to please review the history of this article, to see how this problem started. Argentina has been listed as a regional power for months. I included it several months ago, after finding reliable and objetive external sources that backed up its inclusion, and after a respectful discussion with other wikipedians. You can check that by checking the history and talk page of the article. A couple weeks ago, this user Kardark started removing Argentina for no apparent reason. He just said that "it was not a regional power", without any sources to back that up. I reverted his changes since they were of a vandalistic nature, and I also looked for two more external sources stating that Argentina is a regional power, bringing the total up to four. But he wouldnt care, he would keep removing Argentina without a valid justification, and in order to do that he would sometimes use his username and sometimes just an IP address. Because of this, he was warned. You can check his talk page history to confirm that. Of course, I would keep reverting his changes. For this, he started calling me a "fanatic" and a "troll". The truth is, he is removing sourced information because of his personal opinion. He has not given any solid argument to counter the four external sources cited in the article. I dont think thats OK. And what he has done now is, removing Argentina once again and then protecting the Article, so it cant be included. Everything I explained to you can be checked by looking at the history of the article. Please assist. Aletano (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

the protection seems to have been placed by an uninvolved admin, not by Kardark, (who is not an admin and thus unable to place protection on an article.)DGG (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. Why I am trying to report is:

First, he has changed the article and asked for protection inmediately then, (20 minutes later) that way his changes cannot be reverted. I think that page protection should keep the status quo until concensus is reached instead of protecting the change he wants to introduce (the removal of a country).

Second, I was hoping you would review the history of the article and take some intervention regarding the following: That user engaged in vandalism (unjustified deletion of sourced material), personal attacks on my user page that I had to remove, and terms violation by using sometimes his IP and sometimes his User Name to avoid detection and the to avoid the 3RR rule. Aletano (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for admin intervention. Updating to avoid archive. Aletano (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear cut personal attack by User:Kmweber

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2

Resolved

 – Consensus is no violation of NPA occurred. Davnel03 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Well known at WP:RFA for his stock opposition to self nominated RfA's, Kurt has stepped it up a gear with (in my view) a clear attack on two admins [53]. I've asked him to strike it [54], but he's presumably off-line. I've resisted blocking for this, but I'm extremly irked by it, to say the least. Other input would be appreciated. Full conversation is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PrestonH#Oppose Pedro :  Chat  14:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For Kmweber, There were a great many other ways to express that sentiment without breaching WP:NPA. "I'm not satisfied with those users' work as admins", for example, or "Those users don't embody what I think an admin should be" would be milder versions. In context, "The age of those admins concerns me as well" would be a much better version. The language used, in this case, is undiplomatic at best, and a personal attack at worst. Concerning. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a personal remark and a not-so-positive opinion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear personal attack - to say someone is "poor" at something is pretty harsh in my view. Redrocketboy 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He's entitled to his opinion. I wouldn't describe it as a personal attack - he's attacking their work as administrators. Just because it is critical doesn't make it an attack, or a personal one. Avruch^Talk 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a clear calculated attack, and it's obvious he has no idea who those admins are, as they are two of the best. Redrocketboy 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it's hard to assume good faith when it comes to this because of his RfA choices, but I'm not sure we should assume it's a 'clear calculated attack' and that it's 'obvious' he doesn't know who they are. You may think they're two of the best, but that shouldn't preclude him from disagreeing. Epthorn (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Attacking someone's competence to do something is quite obviously personal - if that's not a personal attack, I'd hate to see one that is. He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, as wrong as it may be - per NPA he's just not entitled to post it on Wikipedia. BLACKKITE 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to go off-line, so can't provide further input. I think I was tempted to block because of my own personal irritation at the comment, and that's a very good reason not to block. It would be vindictive not preventative. Hopefully he'll log on and just remove it. Hopefully. Pedro :  Chat  14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest Pedro, you have prejudiced any action taken by opening with "Well known at WP:RFA for his stock opposition to self nominated RfA's, Kurt has stepped it up a gear..." There are ways to report such incidents without appearing to be trying to cast someone in a bad light. I also note that you have said: "I'm extremly irked by it, to say the least". I'm glad you refrained from taking action this time, but please, a word of advice to you and others - don't take admin actions, like blocking, in the heat of the moment. As you've said, if you find yourself upset, angry, incense, livid, or whatever, that is sign enough that you may not be not calm and objective enough to make a sensible decision, so passing it over to others to make a decision is best. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point, Carcharoth. Luckily Pedro did not block, as there's disagreement here, but still, Weber should strike it, imho. Redrocketboy 14:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Undiplomatic... but I'm not sure it warranted quite the quick response right to here. I have to say, as rude as it may seem, questioning one's abilities as an editor and admin should probably not be considered attacks as it would castrate much of the RfA process, would it not? If people simply take issue with the way in which he said it... well, unhelpful...? Yes; but I'm not sure the meaning would have been any different had he said "I'm not satisfied with those users' work as admins" as suggested above. I just don't see it as such a strong attack as do some others here, I suppose. Epthorn (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't believe he introduced them into the conversation. Had he done so I think it would have been more egregious. He was responding to someone else's point. Epthorn (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Undiplomatic?? No - it was a personal attack. Don't make excuses for him. It isn't a one-off: Kurt has been repeatedly warned about his disruptive behaviour at RFA, and has already been blocked for it once, he really does need to be aware that he is inviting another, longer, block with such antics. BLACKKITE 14:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite- do you think that telling me not to "make excuses" for him is going to convince me here? Incidentally, while I don't agree with his views, consensus did not seem to favor that block, if you look at the rfc which can be found here. Epthorn (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that he should be blocked for this, only made aware that this was similar behaviour for which he was previously blocked (and was unblocked after he agreed to cut out the disruption) BLACKKITE 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus on that RfC seems to indicate that the community favors MORE honest voting and the exchange of opinions on RfA. We definitely should not discourage or cultivate a culture of fear of retribution to those who are willing to speak up, even against admins and when their opinions differ from the norm. (Not in the articles, of course, but in things like RfA or RfArb and the noticeboards.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like where you're going with this. If you're insinuating that it's alright to launch personal attacks on other editors in certain areas of Wikipedia, then you are dead flat wrong. BLACKKITE 15:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus, at this time, is that no personal attack is found here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to your previous point. But having just read your userpage and talkpage history, I don't think I'll bother carrying on this obviously pointless conversation. BLACKKITE 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't do anything right around here. Forget it. I couldn't care less. Someone else can try and uphold some standards. I can't be bothered. Pedro :  Chat  14:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Being able to speak openly should be guaranteed on a page which opens after the link prompts you to "voice your opinion". Mr. Weber has a strong opinion and voiced it. Nothing to see here. (Besides, that's got to be the weakest possible attack ever complained about.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well if you think that, it must be alright then. Obviously, I have walked into an AN/I in an alternate universe where WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been replaced with WP:ABUSEISFINE. On a more serious point, if mild incvility is OK, where is the point at which it doesn't become OK?BLACKKITE 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He may be wrong but that doesn't make it a personal attack. In the context of a discussion about the ability of minors to be administrators, he expressed his opinion that they are poor administrators. Not knowing them at all, I couldn't comment on whether he is correct or not - but he didn't attack them in the context of a content dispute, and it certainly wasn't an egregious assault on their character. Avruch^Talk 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think he could have made his point in much better ways, without coming close to crossing the line into personal attacks. It should be noted, as well, that - whether it was his intent or not - the comment did end up disrupting the RfA, if only briefly, by causing a reaction. The user has been cautioned against disruption at RfA, which may have influenced the reaction to the comment. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he should be cautioned and probably should have thought about his statement before making it (I don't know if he did). Luckily, as has been established, disruption at a RfA isn't as bad as on the mainspace, and the crat would probably disregard his statement. Epthorn (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I often disagree with Kurt's RFA views, but I still can't find a way that this is an attack. He opined that young admins don't work well, someone mentioned two they thought did good work and Kurt followed by disagreeing. He didn't call them stupid or use profanity or even say Ni at them. We all appear to disagree with his opinion, but we'd be insane to start calling criticism of an admin's performance an attack of some kind. Shell ^babelfish 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. We're allowed to say someone is doing a bad job. Now, we shouldn't go around saying it for no good reason, of course. Anyone thinking about blocking for this, please don't. Friday (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the difference right there. "I do not think that X is doing a good job as an admin; my reasoning is .....(reasons)" is generally OK, but a flat "X is the worst admin on Wikipedia" is a personal attack, IMO. BLACKKITE 15:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting Kmweber's comments. It is disruptive and unhelpful. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, subject to certain limitations; and there seems to be a consensus among users that the concerned user was not uncivil. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He has said it for no good reason though... he hasn't provided any reasoning. I doubt he even knows the admins in question. Redrocketboy 15:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He had just as much reason to say it as the person who brought them up originally. His opinion of youthful admins is that they do a poor job. RfA is where you share your opinion on how well someone will do as an admin, based on whatever criteria you give. His was youth. He had a good reason to support his contention that youthful admins do a poor job when his opinion was challenged. Had he been more forthcoming in giving his reasons why he feels that way we'd probably not be having this discussion at all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So? If you really care to know his opinions, ask him on his talk page. I've never known him to be shy about clarifying his opinions when asked. Just please don't disrupt the RFA over it, and there's no reason to bring it here. Friday (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

-So people are allowed to bring up two admins by name to praise them and use them as a reason to support young admins but then any dissent and attempt to counter that must be away from the RfA? That seems a little unfair. Someone tried to refute his argument by using two examples- if you want to prevent him from responding to that he might as well be banned.(this is not directed at Friday. Well, at first it was, but then I realized who he was responding to. It gets tough to keep track...Epthorn (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

I agree. Once the discussion has gone off-topic (from the user in question), people should be allowed to respond in like manner. Really, the whole discussion on ages should have taken place at WT:RFA. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed it isn't a personal attack. All he said was that some people are poor admins, and that isn't a personal attack any more than "you don't write very good prose" is a personal attack. This is not to say that Kurt's well-known behavior at RFA is not disruptive, which I believe it is. This one comment, however, is not the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :: Note that he's either asleep or playing it cool by avoiding this entire mess and thereby will claim that his one sentence did not justify it... Epthorn (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try and second-guess motivations and future comments. It makes it harder for him to say that or anything else. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He's very much awake, he was discussing it on the #wikipedia IRC channel earlier. Redrocketboy 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

-Fair enough. I do find it at least slightly odd that the disruption here doesn't involve the person who is accused of being the disrupter. Statement above struckout, regardless of the truth of the matter. Epthorn (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than come and deal with this every time someone tries browbeat and threaten me into changing my mind. Given the frequency with with this occurs, it appears that this is all that it is; there appears to be a pattern of simply trying to make it so that disagreeing with you is not worth my time. I'm not going to let you get away with it. This is all I will say here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that he's not over the line of WP:NPA or WP:CIV in this particular case. He's allowed to hold opinions on the performance of admins and other editors, and RfA does seem to be a reasonable forum to express those opinions.

That said, it also isn't a personal attack for me to note that in general Kmweber's comments at RfA are seldom (if ever) helpful to the process; I base that assessment on their inherent assumptions of bad faith, their lack of evidentiary support (through diffs or reasoned argument), and their inflammatory tone. I believe that unless and until Kmweber moves to correct these deficiencies, his comments will continue to be a net negative at RfA, generating only heat and not light. I hope that at some point he chooses to express himself with more nuance and detail, but it is a faint hope at best, given that he has been asked to do so on many previous occasions.

Finally, it is not a personal attack for me to note that I am quite sure that the 'crats are aware of Kmweber's unique approach to 'contributing' to RfA, and I am quite comfortable assuming that they give his comments about as much care and thought as Kmweber himself does. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A nice assessment, ToaT. I think it would be best if, like the bureaucrats, everyone ignored Weber's opinions, unless of course they add something relevant to the discussion instead of irritating and causing all this drama, Redrocketboy 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A user above says Attacking someone's competence to do something is quite obviously personal - if that's not a personal attack, I'd hate to see one that is. He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, as wrong as it may be - per NPA he's just not entitled to post it on Wikipedia. Does this mean that we are no longer allowed to criticise admins whom we perceive to be incompetent? DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He's bluntly said they are poor admins, with no thought or research to who those admins actually are. Perhaps if Weber could tell what he finds so wrong with them, then we'd be better off. Redrocketboy 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(Comment restored after Epthorn removed it for whatever reason) Stating an opinion that a user is a poor administrator is not a personal attack. By that loopy reasoning we would have to block everyone who opposes in an RFA. Neıl ☎ 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I have no idea how that happened. Epthorn (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm registering a strong objection here, both to Pedro's initial "Well known at WP:RFA for his stock opposition to self nominated RfA's" and Ten of all Trades' "in general Kmweber's comments at RfA are seldom (if ever) helpful to the process". In the RfA in question, Kmweber's comment was the following:

  "I can't support this user. Users with editing patterns such as <NAME> (lots of vandal-fighting and copyediting; little in the way of actual new content) tend to develop a fortress mentality that is not a desirable trait in an administrator. While the kind of work <NAME> does is necessary, and I have no problem in general with those who do mainly that, I don't want them being administrators." (name removed)

  This, to me, is a clear and well-reasoned oppose. It may be a touch too generalised for some people's liking, but that's always been a problem at RfA, and not one restricted to Kurt. There are other clear and well-reasoned comments I could point to as well. I've noticed Kurt's behaviour at RfA is slowly changing and improving, and it appears to me that some people aren't giving him the chance to change and may be holding a grudge of some sort. Kurt is sometimes still a bit prickly and forthright, but please don't hold him to impossibly high standards because of past behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this incident, but if people are looking at a pattern of personal attacks by Kmbeber, you may want to take this into account. It's from April and it was offwiki, but it may nevertheless paint a picture. [55] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 10 December 2007 (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.

User:Fixthepedia

Resolved

Per description on #wikipedia, Fixthepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to fallen into the wrong end of the machine.

As the user has outlined, he was banned on the basis on another user's assertion that he is a sockpuppet of FixtheBorder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The two accounts have edited the same article, which appears to have provoked the assumption of synonymity.

Further, Fixthepedia asked for unblock, but because he didn't provide a proper rationale for unblocking has been now blocked for editing his own userpage as well, and thus of having a chance to properly phrase his unblock request.

NB: I'm just forwarding the complaint as described on IRC. It seems strange that Fixthepedia would take so much trouble to insist that he isn't Fixtheborder; after all Fixtheborder hasn't been blocked, and if they were identical, Fixthepedia wouldn't have anything to gain by taking the trouble. I have advised him to ask for username change should he be unblocked.

-- Fullstop (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There were 5 turned-down unblock requests, and the checkuser was pretty definitive the two accounts are the same person. FixtheBorder (talk · contribs) is often-blocked, and is so at the moment for a month (see [56]) - did you even bother to check? Neıl ☎ 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did actually check. 16:24, 10 December 2007 appears to have been after I checked. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, FixTheBorder got blocked at 15:24, after Yamla turned down the request I posted after talking with the user in IRC for some time. So FixtheBorder was not blocked at the time Fixthepedia asked for unblocking. Did you even bother to check? ;) Anyway, as the unblock request on his talk page says, his contribs don't look particularly problematic, nor that similar to FixtheBorder's, he has a plausible explanation for the positive checkuser result, and he says he's been editing from a different location from last 3 days, so a checkuser could easily establish if he's telling the truth. Zocky | picture popups 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if there is evidence that its strong enought to actually open this case again it should be presented, this case seems like it was done by following the duck test, he may be trying to game us by editing from a different PC and trying to get that established by a new CU. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, (so Yamla's comment) the checkuser wasn't just based on similarity of edits, but a real checkuser that determined that they are from the same IP range as well. Thats pretty conclusive IMO. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Fullstop, from that exact 1 hour difference between the time you quote and the time Zocky quotes, I wonder if your account didn't pick up the end of Daylight Saving where you are. I noticed just after the end of October here in the UK that some times were showing as UTC/GMT and some as BST (GMT+1), which confused me for a while. "my preferences/Date and time/Timezone/" was the key. If I'm teaching my granny to suck eggs here, apologies! Tonywalton ^Talk 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear whether the checkuser established that they both edited from the same IP range in the last 3 days, or at some point in the past. His explanation is at least plausible, and unless somebody can find something actually wrong with his contributions, I don't see why we wouldn't believe him. After all, in an open system like Wikipedia, there's no way to tell for certain who is using how many accounts. We should care about the edits, not about the identity and motives of users. Zocky | picture popups 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He is editing the same articles, from the same IP range, with virtually the same username. What other kinds of evidence is it possible for us to have? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the same IP range. The same IP. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How hard is it to understand? The name can easily be a coincidence, and he says he edited from a dorm where 6000 other people live. And there's an easy way to check if he's telling the truth. Even if he is the same person with split personality or whatever, this account has done nothing wrong, and has contributed constructive edits. Why in the world would we want to prevent him from making the encyclopedia better? Zocky | picture popups 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any harm in requesting an additional CU. Since there are no disruptive edits, unless he was trying to fabricate a consensus using a sockpuppet (which hasn't been alleged, but is possible) if the new CU shows him to be editing from somewhere other than FixtheBorder today (since both are editing) he could be unblocked until he actually does something wrong. Avruch^Talk 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Qualify: No disruptive edits on User:Fixthepedia - clearly history of disruptive editing and personal attacks on the other one. Difference is telling, perhaps. Avruch^Talk 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New CU? Sure, that's easy. It's not exactly difficult to access from two different ISPs or IPs simultaneously; for example, someone might log in with one machine on a dorm's network, and another machine dialing up. CU cannot prove innocence. The previous results are not erased by the current results, and the previous results showed they were most likely the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Penis Image

Resolved

 – Reverted. Davnel03 20:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this report from WP:AN, since it involves vandalism. I have every faith that this is the same issue as the (resolved) penis vandalism discussed above, but can't verify whether it's fixed or not since I am at work. The report follows. Thanks, and I apologize if it's already taken care of. I've indicated at WP:AN that the issue is under review. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at this page Juan Manuel López (boxer)‎ and fix whatever the hell is happening there? to be precise I'm getting a image of someone's "package" over the article, superimposed if you will and the addition of such a image is not present in the article's history so I guess a hacker is messing with the page. 24.139.156.65 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The medal template was vandalized. It should be fixed now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! A bit of staightforward penis vandalism. Business as usual after the drama? Too much to hope for, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate loser

Resolved

 – Page deleted Tiptoety (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would some one please delete this page, there are multiple users using it for the purpose of only vandalism, and continually removing the speedy tag. I can hardly keep up with the reverting. I would normally just let it run its course and get deleted the correct way, but this one needs to be deleted now. Thanks! Tiptoety (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted and salted, thanks for the notification. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John on another delete rampage

Resolved

 – Blocked; supported by others. Davnel03 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester John (talk · contribs) has just been unblocked, and is immediately going through my history list deleting all content that I've added. Just over a week ago, he was at it (previous ANi report here). He received this admin warning, which was ignored. The deletions are happening right this minute. I am rushing to get some diffs together. Will post back again soon. Lester 05:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: the warning was given by Goodshoped35110s who is not an administrator. Ariel♥Gold 06:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for disruption, and he's claimed to have quit the project. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• 05:21, 9 December 2007. Article: John Brumby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reverted my additions. Prester had never been to this article before his previous revert stalking attack last week.
• 05:16, 9 December 2007 Article: John Stone (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Again, Prester John had never been to this old article until a few minutes after I added content there.
• 05:13, 9 December 2007. Article John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He deleted content I'd recently added.
• 05:11, 9 December 2007. Article: Ian Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reverted my content. Prester only arrived at this article a few minutes after I'd got there, having never been there before.Lester 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First and only additions after a 72 hour block. I suggest a good long healthy block. Might suggest longer, but Lester doesn't have a history as a saint either. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello 'Evil Sparten'. Yes, I got blocked in August for 3RR, and learned my lesson and have not repeated that. I believe Prsster John wants to hover over me deleting everything I add, hoping that I leave Wikipedia. If he had a content dispute, there are other ways Prester could have engaged the community. There were active discussions about the content in most of the above listed articles, which Prester did notjoin. This is just plain bullying.Lester 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Prester John appears to be removing properly sourced information, and he seems to possibly be stalking Lester (talk · contribs). [57][58][59][60] I recommend that somebody look at this closely and decide whether a block is warranted; I have left him a warning.[61] - Jehochman ^Talk 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Prester John is a prolific antagoniser. Repeated appeals from numerous users on many occasions have often seen him escape serious sanction by the skin his teeth (at times, on the back of shallow, quickly discarded promises to participate more responsibly next time). This latest behaviour is atrocious and, given his history, should be dealt with seriously. His toxic continuation of bad behaviour, which adds nothing to the goal of producing an encyclopedia, must be comprehensively curtailed. Escalating blocks had been previously initiated after heavily disruptive editing bouts. Suggested block level: 1 month. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that after reviewing his recent contributions it appears he is deleting well sourced content, even when his edit summary indicates a simple wording change would have resolved his issue. It also appears that the majority of these revisions are material Lester has introduced. His one other significant edit was also a reversion, however, the edit was performed by an IP not Lester. It appears Prester John may have ongoing difficult understanding that reverts are not a proper way to build the encyclopedia. Since this disruption comes immediately after coming off a block for identical reasons, I support re-blocking with a longer expiration. I agree that a month seems reasonable. Shell ^babelfish 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Being a regular around the Australian noticeboard, I must confess there have been frequent complaints of varying merit flying in both directions between Prester John and Lester. Upon review of the four edits, it would indeed seem that this behaviour is pre-meditated and deliberate, and one could certainly infer some bad faith upon the part of Prester John given his recent MfD's which resulted in his 72-hour block. However, given my previous involvement (recently closing an MfD about Prester John and his userspace), my comments should be taken with a calcuated pinch of salt and I most certainly wouldn't consider using my administrator tools in the situation. I think the most important aspect to consider here is the possible parallels between Prester John's disruptive MfD nominations which resulted in the recent block (clearly endorsed by consensus) and these removals. Daniel 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A month it is? Would someone just perform the block then? I agree whole-heartedly. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree on a month block if an admin is willing to take that bold step and actually do it. This user is far too disruptive; to start stalking editors as soon as he returns from a previous block is just plain ridiculous. — Save_Us_229 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I did it. Subject to review. Grandmasterka 09:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Lester does have a bit of a history of adding information and giving it undue prominance and putting a large amount of editorialising about it, and giving a reference that either does not support the pertinent information added, or doesn't have it at all. Rather than just blocking Prester John, Lester's edits should be more carefully analysed (which I am doing at the moment), as when you look at them, they often don't stack up (as is happening now as I go through his edits). Shot info (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Making accusations about the quality of other editors content has no place in the ANi. If you want to do that, there are places that you, or Prester John for that matter, could have taken it up for community discussion. It's not up to any single editor to stand over and follow another editor to delete content or follow them for harassment. It's not up to one editor to unilaterally block another editor by deleting or reverting. That's what this report was about. If you want to discuss the quality of content there are other places where that can be raised.Lester 01:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor's editing histories are available for all to see. I and other editors are free to point out here that perhaps the admin's block in this regard was excessive, not because that admin is necessarily incorrect but possibly did not take into account the undue weight and poorly sourced content that actually was added. After all, PJ is not incorrect with his edits, his only crime really was not discussing them initially on a talk page. Shot info (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

However such consideration suggests this was the only offence, rather than the last in a long litany of them going back more than a year and spanning at least three unrelated projects with different sets of editors. Orderinchaos 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support this block - it's overdue. Prester has a long history of incivility, revert warring, introducing POV or removing material critical of the Liberal Party of Australia, and goading others (especially Marxists and Muslims, for some odd reason) on his user page. His edits at Australian federal election, 2007 over a 24-hour period a month ago demonstrate his typical approach. The Miltopia case last month represented a shift from the very top in how Wikipedia treats and regards long-term problem editors whose actions do not benefit the project and waste hours of productive editors' time, and I don't see why this situation should be any different. (Re Lester: in my observation he is a well-meaning, good-faith editor who at times has adopted unhelpful positions, although he was always far from being the worst offender of those of an opposite POV to Prester, and has demonstrated recently that he is learning from earlier mistakes) Orderinchaos 06:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Support block. I don't know anything about Lester's history, but he can pay for sins separately. It has no bearing on the need to rein in Prester John's ongoing disruption. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment from Save Us 229

Resolved

 – Davnel03 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, this wasn't exactly resolved, just rightfully told to move elsewhere. Guroadrunner (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

---

Save_Us_229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been following around user:Jtrainor and myself. He first threatened me on this page when I request administrator intervention when I discovered he's been stalking J and asked him on his talk page not to harass the other user. Since then he's been restoring removed comments on my user talk and has restored personal attacks on this very board. Please help. The stalking and harassment needs to end. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You, of all people, complain about "stalking and harassment"? Mad world... pedro gonnet - talk - 10.12.2007 09:15

Do you have a point? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you obviously don't get what WP:POINT means. It doesn't outlaw making points, my dear, it just outlaws disrupting the encyclopedia to make them. Maybe you should read what you're citing once in a while. I'm so tired of seeing people bring up WP:POINT in whatever unrelated situation they feel like as a means of getting people to shut up. 212.219.57.59 (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really are bringing this up for no reason. Look, Jtrainor said he wasn't going to post the comment anymore, I have no grudge against him. I won't have a grudge with you for no reason. If you actually read the last few messages from your talk page, I told you this. I also told you I refractored the 'threat' if you considered it one. Please actually read what I write. I also told you following a users contributions link to discussion about the issue at hand doesn't constitute harassment or stalking. In addition to that, if you want to talk someone about personal attacks, I'm not it. — Save_Us_229 09:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't feed this one. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, because you can't possibly admit a fault of your own when you called me a wikistalking troll and a ass. 'I won't feed this one' to get a non-response from you is exactly the kind of conduct I have a problem with. — Save_Us_229 09:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) That seems to be your preferred way of ending discussions you don't like, doesn't it? pedro gonnet - talk - 10.12.2007 09:31

It beats trying to shout the other person down. Repeatedly trying to enlighten those who have shown they have no interest in listening and refuse to accept when they are wrong is pointless. I don't fight windmills. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I said you were acting like an ass to Jtrainor. Content, not contributor. Not a personal attack. Your habit of following people around and making "helpful" comments when they are unnecessary is trolling. Your continued replacement of removed comments on my talk page is harassment. Threatening me is harassment. Got it? Good. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How is refering to me being as 'ass' commenting on content and not the contributor? That is a personal attack if I've ever seen one. Jtrainor has nothing to do with this anymore, his issue is resolved. Furthurmore if you have a problem with other comments of mine somewhere else, please state it. — Save_Us_229 09:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I said that your contributions, your helpful remarks on Amib and M-ERC's user talks, were unnecessary unhelpful and stalker-like. They are both grown ups who can think for themselves and don't need you to spoonfeed them. Your response to me suggesting that following around Jtrainor like that could be seen as harassment and stalking was met with a threat "if you ever post something like that on my talk page again". Screw this. I'll just ignore you from now on. Wikibreak go. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you thought they were unnessecary, the Right Thing to do is not come to my talk page and ask me why I did that; the Wrong Thing to do is come to my talk page and accuse me of stalking and harassment. As I said, that "threat" as you call it, I already refractored, and is still refractored at this minute (and I only refractored because you said you felt threatened by it). — Save_Us_229 09:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest all involved just take a step back, as continuing to accuse each other of wikistalking, harrassment, personal attacks, trolling, whatever, is not helping the dispute at all. The whole point of bringing this here is to get an opinion from other administrators how to act on the issue, not to continue to make accusations. Spebi 09:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been done with this discussion, but it seems someone can't let it go. — Save_Us_229 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Its fucking hilarious that you chose that particular diff. Hilarious. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not hilarious at all. The purpose of this noticeboard is to allow administrators to advise other administrators and other users how to act in a particular situation or issue. From what's been said already, it doesn't look like any of you have the intention of sorting out the problem properly. Cool down, stop making comments that aren't helpful, and if you need to make a comment, think over the reactions of your comments. Spebi 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, all of you, take Spebi's good advice and cool down. Now. There are no good places for edit warring and incivility. This page is a really bad place for these things. Tonywalton ^Talk 09:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa - this isn't the best place to be airing your dirty laundry. Take everyone's advice and take a break. Shell ^babelfish 09:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so I know, does anyone else feel the same way Kyaa the Catlord does? Feel free to critique. — Save_Us_229 10:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I too noticed retaliatory or disappointing comments from Save Us. I'll be the first to admit I made a joke vote -- being cheeky -- at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Sander, but if you read the conversation under mine, you'll see the following tit-for-tat argument:

*Delete ****s don't belong on wikipedia.--Tripsones 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC) — Tripsones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Neither do you. — Save_Us_229 08:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, if that's not a failure of WP:CIVIL, then I don't know what is. I also looked into Save Us 229's edit history and noted some other uncivil comments she/he made. Guroadrunner (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're wondering what the 'censored' word was (which btw I didn't remove) it was "sluts". That was one of the editors first edits. It was obviously a single purpose account. — Save_Us_229 10:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That example is simply unfair. I believe a lot of normally civil editors would find it challenging to stay chipper after a spa insults a recently murdered young woman. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, according to his/her personal userpage, this user was known as Moe Epsilon before Noveber 2007. Guroadrunner (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2007 (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.

Fasach Nua disrupting IfD - 2

Resolved

 – Both sides resolved on ANI and dispute taken to DRV. Will ^(talk) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was this thread closed? [[62]], was it resolved, was the single edit disruptive? Should the closure have been made by the admin who was the instigator of the mallicious complaint? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Something you probably should discuss with User:Edokter. — Save_Us_229 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Does he get to decide all those things? It seems strange to report something to this forum, and also be the individual to decide the outcome! Fasach Nua (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I said to discuss it with him. — Save_Us_229 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and posed the question on the user's talk page, [[63]]

You have closed a discussion on this forum, whilst there was an ongoing debate, it is unclear if it was decided that this single edit was disruptive and whether the problem has been resolved, I would request that you state the outcome of the discussion. In closing this discussion it also appears to me that you have a conflict of interest and I would appreciate it you could also supply a reference to the policy of guidance you are working under, many thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unconvinced of the merits of this! Fasach Nua (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also put a note here, I am happier now Fasach Nua (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I closed it because the discussion was being sidetracked, and I wasn't receiving any substantial input from other admins. You should be glad... I effectively withdrew the complaint. Let's leave it that way, because I have absolutely no intention of putting any more energy into it. — Edokter • Talk • 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The ifD was closed as disruptive, if the complaint is withdrawn, then there was no disruption, and the ifD should run it's course, yes? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Go to deletion review. — Edokter • Talk • 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy enough that this had been resolved Fasach Nua (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that way. To all, I will say that I am sorry for unilaterraly undeleting the old image in the first place. I should not have done that, and will never do such a thing again. — Edokter • Talk • 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Color Me Badd vandalism

Resolved

Pplz plz bee c8rflulz uhf de vandalizms! Miranda 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Back in August, an anonymous IP altered the article to state that album sales were 32 units instead of the actual figure. It stayed tha t way until today when I reverted it. This fact is emabarassing enough (four months? Nobody noticed?) but the sad fact is that I only noticed it because of this article on the Cracked website which noted this "fact" on Wikipedia. Please try and keep an eye on this article as I'm sure due to the Cracked article it will be altered again for comedy. IrishGuy ^talk 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing you must have thought when you saw that was "I wanna fix you up". Neıl ☎ 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that was classic, Neil. Miranda 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Username complaint (moved from WP:UAA)

My name is Marius Mioc. I am from Timişoara, Romania. I am known as one of the participants at the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and as a writer of several books about the Romanian Revolution. I am a public person in Romania, I have an article about me at Romanian Wikipedia [64]. As result of my involvement in politics I have some enemies.

I saw that at English Wikipedia registered an user - User:Marius_Mioc, who claims being me! He is featuring a photo with me and is mentioning the books I wrote. However this person is not knowing well my biography, he is making some mistakes about it, he is claiming living abroad, while I still live in Romania. As I am a public person the impostor was able to find a photo with me, also is well-known the fact that I am from Timisoara. I suppose the impostor made a research in Timisoara's phonebook about me.

I deleted the userpage of this impostor, however I saw that he restored it. I am asking that an investigation should be done in order to clarify who is trying to make this identity theft. I want that userpage deleted, including the photo. I can be contacted at the e-mail [redacted]. This is a publicly known e-mail belonging to me, for example is mentioned at [65] (also is mentioned in some of my books). Thanks. Marius Mioc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.4.47 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved here, redacted email address for privacy reasons. Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bencherlite, is there any chance you can email me his email address and I'll sent him an email? I'll try and get some ID as confirmation. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I've now emailed him. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't User:Marius_Mioc be contacted and temporary blocked, pending some ID proof? That's the procedure I remember of. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Could probably use some neutral observers here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom bot?

Just to make people aware, ST47 is apparently running a bot to monitor the ArbCom elections, and in some cases votes are being removed as a result. Is it appropriate to have a bot perform such a function? I have restored EconomicsGuy's votes, as his renaming of his account does not remove his contributions from the old account. But I have not checked any other of the bot contributions. The bot owner is aware of the situation, as seen from EconomicsGuy's message to him. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the use of a bot to carry out checks, but would ask that all "lack of suffrage" votes flagged up by the bot are checked manually and indented by hand. The bot could also tally how many separate individuals have voted in these elections, and how many votes were struck due to suffrage or other reasons. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The concept is good, but it should in no way impact on the vote pages themselves. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Erk, he's running the bot on his main account, so a block if it continues to throw up false positives is not possible. Neıl ☎ 10:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is a block not possible? To detect false postives, require the bot to notify all voters whose votes are flagged up. But the actual indentation must be carried out manually. Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it would require blocking his main account (User:ST47). Okay, it's obviously technically possible, but I don't think it would be appropriate. We should never be too hasty to block, as you of course know ;) 10:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From the sound of ST47's response, the "bot" is doing nothing more than a machine check of all votes, so presumably ST47 is indenting the votes himself (possibly with script support). Someguy1221 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he seems to be blindly relying on the machine to tell him if the Supports or Opposes are allowed, and not double checking the bot's flag. I don't think WP:AGF extends to a cyberbot, particularly in an election. I would hope all !votes are double checked, and inappropriately indented votes will be reverted by ST47 ASAP. It's not fair to the candidates or those voting to have votes inappropriately discounted. Jeffpw (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

CALM DOWN, I'm not quite enough of an idiot to run this fully automatically. The bot isn't making any decisions. I plug in the user who appears to be bad, and it does my bidding. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification WRT someguy: There are two bots. One makes a list of suspect accounts, like I posted here. The other takes a single user's name and removes it from anywhere he voted. I still need to check that the user isn't, say, using a redirected userpage (User:f-m-t, User:PxMa, User:PMC) or has an alternate account (User:Save Us 229). --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Calm down" is not exactly the reply I wanted to hear. The removal of EconomicGuy's posts seems to be a contributing factor in his decision to pull back and re-evaluate his participation here, judging from his last talk page message. Discussion with him might have avoided this. I would hope you dropped a note on the other voter's pages, telling them of your indenting of their votes. Jeffpw (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been using Milestone to check edit counts for voters, and it didn't catch that the EconomicsGuy account was linked to a previous account which would have had suffrage, either. Usually, a vote is indented and followed with a note to the talk page - which would result in a "hey, I had an old account, no problem" and the votes would be restored, as you have already done. If other accounts are in a similar circumstance, then they can also be restored if there was an error. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that there would have been no outward indication that there was a previous account in EconomicsGuy's case, which would make sense given the circumstance. Until it was pointed out, there would have been no way to know - which is as it should be. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize this but it sort of goes along with assuming good faith that voters are notified. This particular ArbCom election matters greatly (and more so than previous ones) for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who have followed what has been going on for the past few months so greater care should be taken to avoid false positives. I'm satisfied with the outcome here but solely thanks to Jeff's efforts. Given that this is the ArbCom election and not merely an AfD or something simular that only a handful of people care about I think that the practice of notifying users the same way as is being done when removing invalid (or presumed invalid) votes during board elections would be a basic requirement. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism Talk Page

Please look at the talk page for the Buddhism article. It looks like one or two users have archived many very recent comments in an attempt to hide them and control the content of the page. There's also a strange comment at the bottom from an unidentified moderator stating that editors' comments will be "refractored frequently."

Frankly, I've never seen a talk page like this. LuisGomez111 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)