Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule

Esteemed collegues:

If you examine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_chess&action=history

You will see that InfoCheck has repeatedly, much more often than thrice, inserted a link in the "See Also" section, despite the consense to leave this link off of the Gothic Chess page. This user is insisting that a chess variant that he devised is very similar to the game of Gothic Chess which has been in existance for seven years. He is therefore requesting links back to his personal home pages, his personal PDF files, and his personal analysis, none of which has undergone the peer review process common in academic circles. Gothic Chess has been so scrutinized, and has been published, in both hardback textbooks and other periodicals dealing with Artificial Intelligence. References of these published works are provided on the Gothic Chess page.

The user InfoCheck repeatedly imposes his own links, vioating neutral point of view, and violating the 3 revert rule as previously mentioned. Judge not only the history of posts, judge the two games for yourself:

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Gothic Chess of which a great deal of material has been published.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Optimized Chess which has no followers aside from its creator.

It is obvious that:

1. Only the kings are in the same place, on the f1/f8 squares. This is the only similarity between the two games.

2. The Queen in "optimized chess" starts on the wrong color (White Queens are always on light squares, Black Queen are always on dark squares.)

3. The Knights and Rooks in "optimized chess" have exchanged places, not even on the same relative squares as regular 8x8 chess.

4. The Bishops in "optimized chess" can't reach the "long diagonals" (a1-h8 via being placed on b2, or j1-c8 via being placed on i2.) Placing Bishops on long diagonals is a very common motiff that chess players strive to do fairly often, and Gothic Chess players enjoy it as well.

5. The Bishop on the Queen's side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

6. The Bishop on the Kings side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

With so many obvious differences, myself and several others feel this user InfoCheck is doing nothing constructive. He is just trying to publicize a game of no interest at the expense of detracting from the Gothic Chess article.

I recommend him for banning for the 24 hour period for all of the aforementioned reasons.

ChessHistorian 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"You and several others" refers to a gang of Gothic Chess fans, about three editors here. At least equally many neutral editors are for the inclusion of the Optimized Chess link. You yourself have been violating the three revert rule at least equally much as InfoCheck. You even just deleted InfoCheck's arguments for inclusion from the talk page (accidentally, I'm sure), without an explanation. Luckily I have just restored them. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're calling the inventor of the game a fan? You're calling only one of four people in the world who won a game against the inventor (who has over a 96% win ratio) a fan? You're calling me, a reporter for two city newspapers a fan? It would be more correct to say that 2 biased, anti-Gothic Chess people, with no interest in the game, no talent for playing the game, are just trying to detract from it by playing the role of spoilers. Well, guess what? We're sick of your illogical remarks. We're sick of you sub-standard, low-achievers claiming superiority over a published artificial intelliegence researcher who has several college degrees. You can't just insert meaningless links to a well constructed page and say they belong there. That other variant is complete crap. You were asked to find ONE PHOTOGRAPH of anybody playing that game, and you couldn't do it. So drop it. Go somewhere else. You're not wanted on the Gothic Chess page. You're not needed. You're statements are biased, inaccurate, and ludicrous. But we gave you your voice, however wrong it is, you have said what you needed to say, and the the people have spoken. They said get your links off of that page. So do it.

ChessHistorian 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a noticeboard for violations of the three revert rule right here. We also have article talk pages for content discussions. This is not the place for either, and I also strongly encourage both of you to review the guidelines on civil discussion and personal attacks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Protected Gothic chess: Enough edit-warring. Discuss things on the talkpage, wait for this to expire, or visit WP:RFPP [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC))" Please note that The Wrong Version of this article has been protected. Please do not request unprotection on my talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if chesshistorian is claiming to be the inventor of gothic chess or not, but that rant above with all the NPA and CIV vios seems to also be admission of a CoI. Anyone else reading it that way, or is it just late and I'm tired? ThuranX 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ChessHistorian is not the inventor of Gothic Chess, User:GothicChessInventor is. (PS. I decrypted the bunch of acronyms that you just threw in by adding links to them, hope you don't mind. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. Thanks for the clarification. ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I am the inventor of Gothic Chess. I got a call at about 4 AM from a Gothic Chess player from Australia letting me know what was going on at the Gothic Chess page regarding these edit wars. While I did appreciate his diligence, this is not how I would like to be informed when the Gothic Chess page is being vandalized by other variant authors. ChessHistorian is a newspaper reporter from the Baltimore Sun who interviewed me a few weeks ago when the game of checkers was announced as being solved. If you perform this google search you can find him:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Ed+Trice%22+%22Baltimore+Sun%22&btnG=Search

Anyway, it looks to me like the correct version of the page is protected now. Thank you for this.

If I may shed some light on this from my own observations: Gothic Chess is a very popular chess variant that tens of thousands of people play. Other variants are virtually unknown. Sometimes a person that creates a new chess variant tries to force a "piggy back" association with another variant as a means to try and "trick" people into thinking it is played much more widely than it really is. This is clearly the case here. InfoCheck is the one who is trying to mislead Wikipedia readers with his announcement of an implicit strategic alignment between my game and his.

Objectively speaking, and as cited above, of the 10 pieces in the back row of each games' setup, only the Kings are in the same location.

The games are completely different. There is no reason to have his variant mentioned on the Gothic Chess page.

Furthermore, whereas I have gone through the recalcitrant process of obtaining a patent on my game (due to its uniqueness and the potential desire for many other chess manufactures to try and get a hold of it) and had several scientific periodicals print my published analysis of artifical intelligence papers that I had written on this (and other) subjects, the person known as InfoCheck has merely created a PDF file that he has on his website, and he continues to claim that his information is more accurate, "better", more realistic, etc., than my own. When I offered to submit his paper for him to the artificial researchers I know that would review it, he then reverts his claims, and stop spewing forth his ill-found rhetoric.

So we have a clear case of InfoCheck just looking for a soapbox on which to stand and say a great deal of things that are untrue, unproven, and just plain unfactual.

He is using Wikipedia as a means to broadcast this misinformation, the highest form of treason.

The administrators have the power to positively impact the material presented herein. I have a great deal of respect for your constant vigilence in countering page vandalism. I urge you to support ChessHistorian and understand some of his retaliatory remarks are just a function of his own weariness in dealing with InfoCheck. We have people on three continents agreeing that the material submitted by InfoCheck just does not belong. We also have people who are jealous of the popularity of Gothic Chess and try to do anything to detract from it. I do not understand these people. Just by reading their comments on the History page, you can see they are nothing more than unsupported conjecture that has no basis. As one of the Gothic Chess supporters summarized:

You can call a cat a fish, but it will not swim.

That is their case in microcosm: They furnish false statements without any backup. It is as if they are trying to tell Wikipedia Administrators that cats have gills and live in the water.

In closing, InfoCheck violated several Wikipedia policies, and should be dealt with accordingly. The people whose comments on the History page are nothing more than ignoratio elenchi will be easy for the administrators to find. I know you will do the right thing and take the appropriate actions.

I thank you for your time.

Inventor of Gothic Chess, Ed Trice

GothicChessInventor 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. (by the way, I didn't do anything to protect the page, as yout talk page note seems to suggest.) Now that we've got someone claiming to be the inventor, who claims to have a clear view of the situation, I guess the only thing left to do is validate his identity to support his claims, then edit the page accordingly? thoughts? Have I oversimplified? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my position that I was baited into violating the 3-revert rule by a small gang of editors on the Gothic Chess page who were repeatedly throwing-out Optimized Chess which is indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant. These few people are zealots (not merely players) who are extremely prejudicial and unfair to other chess variants. It is significant that in tandem with this malicious action against me, a malicious attempt to have Optimized Chess, despite its established significance, thrown-out of Wikipedia is also underway.

All of these acts are financially-motivated to prevent a free game of excellent quality Optimized Chess from being available to people on Wikipedia who casually look at a commercial product Gothic Chess. This agenda violates the charter of Wikipedia to the extreme. To be sure, you are being lied to on a large scale in every paragraph by the opposition on this issue. You must spend some time and effort to discern exactly how and when.

The bizarre edit history and talk page entries at Gothic Chess and Ed Trice as well as Optimized Chess and Embassy Chess say much more than I can concisely about what honest editors go thru daily in fighting-off the actions of dishonest editors. This is where to begin to investigate in order to discover the truth.

Frankly, I am unconcerned about being blocked for a time if Wikipedia administrators are locked-in by the rules regardless of the circumstances. I did what I had to under difficult, stressful, unjust conditions. However, I am certain that I am normally a responsible, conscientious editor who acts constructively and should not be blocked. My edit history proves that.

--InfoCheck

ThuranX (and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia admins), please do not make up your mind on this issue based on what is said on this page only. Fully read Talk:Gothic chess starting from, say, the Number of example games section. Then see how User:Oli Filth was attacked using a mediation request which was correctly denied by the medcab people and then rightly deemed as ridiculous and pointless by a neutral third party, User:Boricuaeddie. I know all that is a lot of reading but I find it necessary to understand the extent this edit war has gone to. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Please check your facts before making claims such as this. Firstly, I did not deny that request; the people at WP:MEDCAB did. Secondly, I did not attack Oli Filth. In fact, I agreed with him. Thirdly, it was ridiculous. The first party wanted to "ban" the other from editing the article; that's ridiculous. Therefore, creating a request for mediation because of this is pointless. Please assume good faith, man. --Boricuaeddie 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see we have some misunderstandings here. I admit I thought you denied the request, sorry for that. I did not say you attacked Oli Filth (and of course everyone knows you didn't), I just said he was attacked. I'm with you here, I think your judgement that the case was ridiculous is completely right. I also agreed with Oli Filth, I only used your comment to bring up the other point of view to this whole mishmash of an edit war. See, I said that the case was judged as ridiculous by a neutral third party. My point is that if a neutral party judges it as ridiculous, it must be ridiculous. If one of the involved parties would've judged it ridiculous, there would obviously be a conflict of interests and it wouldn't mean much. I've now reworded the message above to avoid any further misunderstandings. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Boricuaeddie 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

InfoCheck clouds the issue. The point is, that the chess variant does not belong on the Gothic Chess page. Of the 20 pieces that are not pawns, only 2 are configured identically. The claims being made that is is a "indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant" are absurd. With only a 10% correlation of the pieces matching where they are placed, how can it possibly be related? Despite several authors asking this same question, no satisfactory answer was ever given. There is a reason for this: The games are not related at all.

We have asked the "supporters" of this extremely unusal variant to show us one picture of someone playing the game. None have been provided.

That speaks to the issue. Over 50,000 Gothic Chess sets have been sold since the year 2000. There are thousands of archived games on the GothicChess.com website (for example here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/all-players-games.php ). There is a free program for downloading at http://www.GothicChess.com/vortex.zip that destroys every other program and player on the planet.

There are photos such as this one:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/GCACheck.gif

..showing someone being paid $5000 back in the year 2000 for winning a big tournament that was played at the Marshall Chess Club in New York. There are boards and pieces for sale on the website. The inventor went to Iceland to meet Bobby Fischer shown here: http://www.gothicchess.com/iceland_news.html

In short: Gothic Chess is not just an enterprise, it is a thriving one.

If the game that InfoCheck claims is better than Gothic Chess, how come he can't show one picture of one person playing the game? And, if his game is so much better, why wouldn't the "lowly" Gothic Chess people actively seek to have their game linked to his?

It is plain to see that the reverse is being sought. InfoCheck is desparately trying to attach his game to Gothic Chess and thereby "prove" something. I have no idea what that is. All I know is, that game he is trying to promote is worthless, nobody plays it, there is no dedicated website for it, there are no example games of it, there is just one PDF file where he claims it is the best thing out there.

You have to call it like you see it. That other variant has no followers. Even the game's creator has no photograph of him playing it since he can't get one other person to play it with him!

Compare that to Gothic Chess where they raised $15,000,000 last summer had the interest of Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer to play a match.

I ask you: How can anyone be fooled by the nonsense of InfoCheck ??

ChessHistorian 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ChessHistorian- If you successfully raised $15 million US, then why was the tournament that would have immortalized Gothic Chess cancelled?

Wikipedia administrator(s)- Can you imagine what it is like to deal with this caliber of nonsense upon several Wikipedia pages nonstop?

--InfoCheck

I can answer this question. First off, ChessHistorian is just a newspaper reporter. He had nothing to do with raising any money for the match. He knew nothing about Ed Trice until the game of checker was solved. Secondly, Anatoly Karpov signed the agreement to play as shown here http://www.gothicchess.com/images/Karpov_Signature.jpg so the match was underway. Thirdly, if you read their blog at http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/ you will have all of your questions answered in time. It was a very long process to get this match put together, over two years. The short answer why it came undone: Fischer wouldn't sign anything, typical Bobby. That's all. Trice and Fischer have had contact since the match fell apart. He was there to wish Fischer a happy 64th birhday for example.

GothicEnthusiast 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GothicEnthusiast- While The Gothic Chess Federation was trying to make this event materialize, I read information provided by Ed Trice that Susan Polgar was lined-up as an alternate in case either Karpov or Fischer backed-out. So, what happened?

--InfoCheck

You read only what you want to read, that's the problem. Susan Polgar was not the replacement if Fischer did not sign the contract. If Fischer did not sign the contract, there was no match. Susan Polgar was the replacement if Fischer signed the contract, the match was in place, and Fischer never showed up.

GothicEnthusiast 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ChessHistorian, the relationship has been explained to you a few times, the latest time probably being shown in this diff. Of course, you later deleted the explanation, which could be why you have the mental image that no one has explained it to you. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation is a mess. There's definitely a highly involved, tighly agreeing group working the gothic chess pages. I'm concerned by things like [[1]] this, where the owner/creator/promoter advocates letting him have more control of the images released about his own prouct. The talk page at gothic chess reads to me as thick with CoI, and not particularly willing to listen to new ideas from outside their group. Are these two ugly cousins closely related enough to be on each other's pages? Sure looks like it to me. SHould they be on each other's pages? either all of the Capablanca chess variants can cross-link freely as appropriate by article, or none of them should, instead referring readers to a list of Capablanca Chess variants. As it is unneccesarily cumbersome to avoid referencing other variants, I'd say let them be discussed freely. That a group works together to block edits ot the page by spreading their reverts around isn't ethical, it's an end run around the 3RR. When the talk page is likewise a bullying ground for a few closely aligned thinkers, it's even tougher. I don't think the 3RR Violation is blockable at this point (preventative, not punative; and editor in discussion regarding issue), I think the editor in violation should've brought the whole mess to one of WIkipedia's resources for assistance before. Probably not AN or AN/I, but maybe help desk or village pump. It's tough to hlp edit when you're hitting serious, and CoI-based, resistance. ThuranX 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX I looked at [[2]] and I just don't understand the concern. What was so morally indefensible about that discussion? It's just people chatting about an image of a board. And what is "thick with Col"?? I don't understand this terminology.

By the way, many of the people you say are "unwilling to listen" are more than willing to listen. But there is nothing of substance being offered, and the people to whom this is demonstrated do not furnish backup for the things they're trying to add to the page. For example, that one nuisance who insists on claiming his chess variant belongs there.

Why does it belong?

He claims it is similar to Gothic Chess. He, the person who made it, the person was has a POV.

The following people did not merely say "it should not belong", they offered reasons:

ChessHistorian a reporter for the Baltimore Sun

Andreas Kaufmann a highly skilled variant player from Germany who is 1 of only 4 people to have defeated the game's inventor

GothicEnthusiast myself, a strong Gothic Chess player as you can see from here http://www.gothicchesslive.com/one-players-games.php?id=174 I am just one rung below Bobby Fischer on the site, which you can see sorted by rating here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/players-games.php

GothicChessInventor who published several important papers in artifical intelligence, helped solve the game of checkers (see http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ ), who invented the game of Gothic Chess, and who understands the game and those that are similar to it more than anybody in the world.

Please note:

All of us agree that Embassy Chess belongs on there, as does Capablanca Random Chess. All of us agree that the other variant DOES NOT belong there, for the numerous reasons cited here and on the Talk page of Gothic Chess.

That other variant is a Capablanca Random Chess variant. It has no bearing, similarity, or likeness to Gothic Chess.

All of the other ranting and raving is moot. It's not the same. It doesn't belong.

Where does it belong? On the Capablanca Random Chess page. It is a CRC variant by the author's own admissions.

Let it stay there, where it belongs.

GothicEnthusiast 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. The inventor of the game is advocating that HE be in control of the images used in the article. HE regularly monitors and edits the product for his own page. HE states that HE will take the pictures to be used, and so on. This is a CoI, a Conflict of Interest, in which a person with significant financial and commercial interest in the article is shaping the way it is written, to the level where other people's contributions are being critiqued one by one and reviewed like this is an advertisement. Finally, as described above, There is the Set of Chess. there is subset, chess variants, subset Capablanca Variants, subset Gothic, Subsets Embassy and capablanca Random. As Capablanca random is a subset of Gothic as you describe, and Optimized is a subset of Capablance random, then the subset of optimized Chess is also a subset of gothic. don't see why it wouldn't belong. ThuranX 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed Trice is not saying any of those things that you mentioned. You are obviously misreading the thread. He asked people which images they liked. In effect, he called for a vote. When there was an agreement, he said he would put the image up on Wikipedia. Have you ever communicated directly with him? I have. He said he only looks at the page when he gets calls from concerned people or if he is "emailed to death" (his words) by Gothic Chess players who see something awry. Your hierarchy of sets and subsets seems off. It should be something like this

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Chess Inspired Variants (This is Gothic Chess, Capablanca Random Chess, and others)

At which point we have other branches at this level, and also below the level

Chess

All Chess Variants

Gothic Chess

Embassy Chess (Embassy was invented as a means to circumvent the Gothic Chess patent only, so it "springs from" Gothic, even though, otherwise, it would be at the same level if it was invented stand alone)

Another path would be

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Random Chess

Optimized Chess (this descends from CRC and neither Gothic nor Embassy, because Gothic pre-existed Embassy, Optimized Chess is very different from both Gothic and Embassy, and Optimized Chess came after CRC, and one can only say that Optimized Chess looks like an ordinary, random, CRC creation.)

For the above reasons, from a historical perspective (of which I am very aware) the sets you mention are not 100% reflecting the accuracy of the variants' respective chronologies.

ChessHistorian 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the subsets in terms of chronolgies, but nice attempt to recast my commentary. have to be bluntly honest here. This tactic which I've noted in the talk page there, and the AN/I here is to come back with a variant move on any ideas proposed. I address admissions of how the games evolved relative to each other, you reply that my list doesn't go chronologically, which I never implied it had. Not really an endearing behavior, but I've noticed this sort of You're talking about A, so I'll put you on the defensive by interpreting and responding to B.

To all interested parties, a related AfD is found here, regarding the Optimized Chess article, and in the discussions, the future of many, if not all of these minutely differentiated variations on the theme. ThuranX 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX how is it that this statement:

Finally, it is so well designed, it is one of only two Capablanca chess variants that has been awarded with a fault-free rating via the select CRC analysis tool.

Has you completely fooled? The guy who invented the CRC analysis tool nominated his own game for the "fault free" award. Optimized Chess has been nominated for deletion. Nobody plays the game. Not even the guy who invented it. as stated repeatedly, there is not one photograph of one person playing one game of it.

ChessHistorian 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, this condescending 'oh, look at this buffoon who's trying to get involved, yet cannot possibly be smart enough to paly OUR chess much less see that we are clearly so right nad the other so clearly wrong' attitude is getting insulting. I'm reading quite clearly. You don't like him or his game. I get it. IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid reason for much of anything here on Wikipedia. He plays his own game, I've yet to hear or see proof he doesn't, so don't use hyperbole. Second, there's no photo of Bigfoot, yet wikipedia has an article. So, we don't have a picture to go with the article isn't a reason. Ultimately, this comes down to ' I made my game, and Iwill protect my right to advertise it on wikipedia', 'We support his right to protect his advertisement on wikipedia', and 'we all don't want that guy diluting our profit margin by adding HIS info on HIS game to our advertisement on wikipedia.'. I'm really tired of this. It's quite apparent that Ed Trice is protecting his product's article on Wikipedia, to maximize his profit. that's a Conflict of Interest. It's apparent that the chess reporter for the Baltimore Sun is going to stick up for his reporting and subject of his article in a way that's frankly bizarre, and should probably be brought to the attention of his editors. That may well be another COI. So two guys with COI problems against a guy who's also talkin about HIS game. I'm done trying to sort this mess of COI out, let an admin block all of you. ThuranX 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX your reaction is that of someone who lost a debate by a huge margin, then you just attempt a smear campaign. You overlooked something huge. The guy who nominated his own game with 0 followers for the "fault-free" award that he created is enough to embarrass anyone. Trust me, I know why you are ashamed of yourself for supporting the wrong side of the debate. Perception of condescension when there is none is a sign of an insecure person. The people who are posting remarks about the legitmacy of Gothic Chess are giants in the field of artificial intelligence, successful business owners, strong chess players, and computer science wizards. There is only 1 person backing the absurd variant trying to get his little link on the Gothic Chess page, and that is the person who invented it. There are no reasons to have that ridiculous game on the Gothic Chess page. The game isn't even played by anyone, including that game's inventor! You would think if he game is "so worthy" he could at least show someone playing it. Just one person.

The fact that nobody plays Optimized Chess is proof that is was just designed on paper. That game does not exist in the real world.

Look, we're all for it having its own little page somewhere. That's fine. Just don't say it belongs on the Gothic Chess page when that is just an absurd point of view.

I am also surprised that so many of these Wikipedia editors have such thin skins. Someone refutes your arguments, and refutes them thoroughly, and you go sulk, or try and rally support in numbers to oppose the people who are in the know about something. So what if you never wrote a computer program. So what if you never met former World Chess Champions or played games of your own variant with them and are photographed with them and had a multi-million dollar match arranged. When these topics arise, just respectfully acknowledge that maybe the posters who are supplying material to Wikipedia might know a little bit more than you on the subject.

If Wikipedia editing becomes a clique that is politically motivated to retaliate because someone who is more knowledgeable in some area rebukes someone within your circle of friends, it won't last. OK, people should use more moderate tones when offering feedback, but you more experienced writers should no better than to just gang up on these "know-it-alls".

Gothic Chess's page does not suffer from any Conflict of Interest posts. It suffers from detractors posting baiting attacks waiting for the supports to retaliate, then the baiters say "Look what they said, look what they said."

Special interest in the Senate is what killed Rome. Rome was big. Wikipedia is big. How widespread is the special interest? Time will tell.

GothicEnthusiast 05:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help dealing with disambig image, FUR

user:The Matrix Prime continues to revert Optimus Prime (disambiguation) to include an Image:Allops.JPG. The two posts to the talk page are, first, me asking TMP (or anyone) to provide an explanation for how a collage of a dozen+ characters helps someone who hits that disambig. page choose between the three listed there and, second, a summary for RfC that's not been responded to. Additionally, the image -- which TMP uploaded -- does not have a FUR for use on the disambig page, only the main character article (where it is not included). I've tried engaging this editor repeatedly on his talk page,[3][4][5][6][7] pointed him toward relevant policies regarding images on disambig pages and the need for FUR on all non-free images, and suggested an alternative home for his image (i.e. on the Optimus Prime page, for which the FUR applies). However, other than an early initial exchange,[8][9][10] his responses have been confined to his reverting[11][12] edit summaries, when he includes them, that (to use the most recent example) assert that the "picture is self-explanitory as is the fair-use rational". Some of the diffs above are me trying to explain that there is no such thing as a "self-explanatory" FUR, and I disagree with his assertion earlier in the edit summary that the image's presence "has already been discussed".
Anyhow, as I mentioned, the RfC has not been Ced upon. I have become frustrated trying to explain the fair-use policy -- and, in other circumstances I'd be happy to write the missing FUR myself, but I really don't think the image should be on the page. Anyone out there with more experience have any particular pointers? I'm almost to the point of nixing the disambig page and just adding some seealso's to the top of Optimus Prime, but I think that might just be me being spiteful, esp. after a similar move AfDing a List of... over which TMP and I had similar back-and-forth about "implied fair-use rationales". Anyhow. Help? --EEMeltonIV 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. Since disambiguation pages aren't actually articles, fair use images shouldn't be used because of WP:NFCC #8 & #9. A fair use rationale for usage in a disambiguation would have to explain exactly why a copyrighted image is necessary, but that would be impossible because disambigs, by their very definition, already offer a GFDL text explanation of the information provided by said image. The logical conclusion, with respect to policy, would be to disallow Image:Allops.JPG. If TMP wishes to use the image, he will have to gain consensus for it at WT:NFC. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree over your opinion that this is an "interesting situation." Why does a disambiguation page need an illustration at all? Only after someone explains why one is needed for a specific disambig page (I won't deny that it is possible that one could need an image, but I'd insist on a plausible explanation first) do we reach the paradox you are fascinated by. -- llywrch 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). I can't really think of any reason to illustrate a disambig unless it serves to, well, differentiate between closely linked but distinct ideas. However this reasoning isn't even applicable to the Optimus Prime disambig. I guess my fascination was more with how no current policy (aside from common sense) addresses the feasibility of using fair use claims to illustrate disambig pages in articlespace. Maybe WP:NFCC#9 should include an explicit restriction on usage in disambigs to avoid similar conflicts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede that's a good example justifying having an image on a disambig page -- & your reasoning for it is spot on. It does appear that you & I agree that using a Fair Use image on a disambig page has two hurdles before it: convincing enough people that an image is needed in the first place, & that a Fair Use image is the best choice available. Also, seeing how the whole Fair Use/No Unfree Content dispute has been so bitter lately, I'd lean towards putting emphasis on that first justification so we don't further stoke the fires of that dispute. -- llywrch 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, TMP restored the image and added multiple bluelinks to the disambig items, although the disambig MOS (to which I've provided links on his talk page; I can dig up diffs if you'd like) pretty clearly discourages that. I previously provided a link here on his talk page, and after reverting the disambig page to the last version by user:Anetode, once again asked him to abide be policy, guidelines and consensus. This is getting annoying -- I'm sounding like a broken record, and he's shown minimal interest in engaging in discussion beyond edit summaries (when he uses them at all). --EEMeltonIV 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TMP's addition of this image is purely decorative and so far everyone else disagrees with such usage. There's no need for administrative intervention yet, but if and when the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Adding disambigs to NFCC#9 resolves into a decision, then there will be a clear policy against using copyrighted images on disambigs. Until then, I'd like to try to encourage TMP to enter in discussion either at WT:NFC or the Optimus disambig talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats - please banhammer

Resolved

editor blocked for legal threat

Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has not retracted the threats after being informed (in reply to such threats) in accordance with WP:NLT. See [13]. MER-C 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked, that diff was definitely a legal threat. Please feel free to unblock or pursue a different course, I don't want to interfere with any official action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I support keeping this one blocked, all his other edits were disruptive anyway. I have redacted the personal attacks and threats.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this vandal anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --BOT2008BOT 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu has nothing to do with this... please don't crosspost your report into other threads.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef ban evasion?

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

Strongly appears to be a sock of User:Jacksbernstein, who was indef-banned for legal threats on Richard Rossi, and who made identical edits. THF 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation Front (Macedonia)

I think, there is a problem with cleaning of sourced info and political propaganda from a user "Revisionist"! Jingby 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I need help and administrative mediation in resolving the problem with vandalism by user Лилјак and some others who are constantly vandalising and spaming all articles related with Macedonia. The article that I wrote National Liberation Front (Macedonia), was moved several times, and Nazi propagandist pictures were being imputed. Also there was constant three-revert rule violation on the article National Liberation Front (Macedonia) by users Jingby and 124.168.106.129. Needed administrative mediation. Revizionist 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte thread

• Comment, complaint frivolously posted by Bonapate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed. See hre for details. --Irpen 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BOT2008BOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a single-purpose sock used to solicit a block[14]. No comment on Anonimu's actions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite block of Anonimu, 100% and more. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Best give Anonimu another block, he's just not getting it. reverting good faith edits as vandalistic, calling a non-banned editor banned, pot calling kettle black, and what appears to be OWNership on Nicolae Ceauşescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't think there'd be any loss in an indef-block, though. Will ^(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant the SPA that reported this. With regards to the account being reported (User:Anonimu) I haven't seen any change in his behavior whatsoever. Continued edit warring, false "rv vandal" edit summaries, ownership of articles, etc... I support any action any admin wants to take including an indefinite block if that is deemed necessary.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I tried to remove all edits by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted multiple times through several proxies. Sorry, if I missed any. see this for more. --Irpen 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pionier

Hello, I am reporting this case as I am tied up and cannot keep an eye on him. He is an extremely persistent vandal originating from Lithuanian Wikipedia, where he was blocked for personal attacks, distruptive editing, POV pushing, and absolute refusal to engage in productive discussions. He used to edit via multiple IPs on en wiki, usually to vandalize userpages of Lithuanian editors primarily active on lt wiki (see history of user:Windom, his favorite, user:Knutux, etc.) This week he moved to make massive edits on variety of biographies: adding Category:People of the KGB to people related to Venona project, {{soviet-stub}} to all people born in the Soviet Union, Category:Jewish atheists to randomized selection of articles on Jewish personalities, etc. While not something "horribly" bad that someone else would notice from first sight, it is sneaky, distruptive, unsourced and in many cases offensive. I have indef blocked the first known user account. Yesterday I bloked two of his IPs for 24 hour period. Can someone please go over and revert user:Pioner contributions and keep an eye on those articles? Thanks. Renata 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back most of the contributions.-Wafulz 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, he's back.. Special:Contributions/87.74.46.129 Thanks. --Katoa 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Racially offensive words

User:Matthew has been continually adding the word Jebus to show his disgust at something over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK). I initially removed the word and placed a warning on his talk page, both of these edits were reverted-[15][16]. The user has continually re-added the word-[17][18] and has accused me of "trolling" for adding warnings to his talk page-[19]. Thanks, Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What "race" or racial characteristic does "Jebus" make reference to ? --Fredrick day 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think he should be blocked for at least a week until it calms down. He seems to of removed the warnings off his talkpage. Davnel03 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebus on Wikipedia. We're all in trouble if that's racially offensive. Furrfu. THF 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's a perfectly cromulent word. Will ^(talk) 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Right... it's a Simpsons joke. I've no idea in what context Matthew (talk · contribs) was attempting to use it there, but honestly I don't see how it is offensive, particularly since it is linked for meaning. It isn't offensive, just pointless... though no more pointless than the edit war over it that is now happening at that FA request. Don't make me embiggin the both of you.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be offensive to people with bright yellow skin and/or giant blue hair. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now that I know that it's related to the Simpsons (!!!) I don't think a block is required. Davnel03 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of context here as I'm familiar with the article being argued over... Matthew (talk · contribs) has been constantly counter-productive and patronising on that particular FAC page. Whilst this particular flare-up might not be anything to worry about, the overall situation definitely needs some intervention. Seaserpent85 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I alluded to above... the edit warring and removal of comments by editors that I see going on at the FAC page is a far bigger deal than "Jebus".--Isotope23 ^talk 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't block him. Just slap the Sejebus out of him. Baseball Bugs 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. He's engaging in Wikiality. I thought that was just a joke used to incite vandalism. MessedRocker (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Jebus" is a classical minced oath: [20]. Digwuren 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Para

Paradisal (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks, as reported here previously. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an administrator matter only as far as noting that whenever Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is involved in anything that requires admin attention, the admin needs to have the patience to go through the entirety of the issue, including the repetitive bludgeoning. I don't think that's what's happened in the {{coord}} modification proposal so far for example, as it's still on hold because of the bludgeoning, despite the supporting majority. On this accusation here, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence#Andy_Mabbett_twists_WP_policies_for_his_own_ends highlights this NPA-yelling-behaviour quite well. The arbitration committee has found his behaviour disruptive at least once already, and soon yet again. Everything on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition_of_disruptive_editing_and_editors indeed matches, in addition to referring to a crank. How clearly does it need to be pointed out before it sinks in? Must you bark every time someone brings it up, instead of accepting that that's how the Wikipedia community sees your actions, and try to change? --Para 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how right you are, I don't see how calling someone a loudmouth or a crank is either productive or compliant with WP:CIVIL. If the other editor is as disruptive as you say, then getting into a mudfight with him only makes it harder to recognize his wrongdoing. The fact that an editor has been in arbitration does not make him an outlaw for whom collaboration guidelines don't apply. Please be civil, avoid personal attacks, and use DR. Instead of calling someone a loudmouth or a crank, use DR and diffs to demonstrate improper crankocity. And be patient; it looks from the arb that he'll be banned for a year shortly. THF 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It only repeats what others have said before, in the same sense if not in those exact words. It is not a personal attack when disruptive behaviour is pointed out, especially when it's exact repetition of previously noted behaviour, and when it's someone with whom arbcom enforcement has already taken place and failed. Though I have lately just ignored most everything this particular editor has had to say and am not interested in mudfights, when someone brings up an issue where the resolution is blocked because of a loudmouth stalling things by making admins ignore not only him but everyone else in the discussion, I won't hesitate pointing that out and hopefully get some new views, dependless on which side they end up on. Formal dispute resolution and other remedies would come in due time, but in the discussions I've been involved in, that time hasn't come yet. I can't think of many things more unpleasant than going through anyone's correspondence with this particular editor, so I will not get personally involved with anything related to looking for diffs unless absolutely necessary. It is much easier copying diffs from others, who have for example noted that as a year's ban already failed as a remedy, another might not be effective, especially when the user has admitted[21][22] to using sockpuppets during his previous blocks. Be on the lookout for more socks. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, you are a liar. I have admitted no such thing. Will an admin please take action over this wholly unwarranted accusation? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para's incivility continues. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, just stop stalking Andy's contribs, whether or not a ban is inevitable. Will ^(talk) 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't help that he does his damaging edits in areas I'm involved in. It's impossible to be patient and just watch the damage being done until the ban is effective. I could perhaps reconsider some actions if you point out what could be seen as stalking. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominating {{kml}} nine minutes after creation. Will ^(talk) 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's part of a WP:GEO project to reduce the number of geographical coordinate templates, and another to work on GeoTemplate design instead of forking other alternatives. That's standard procedure for cleaning out the cruft from Wikipedia, not stalking. But while we're on the kml topic, shouldn't good admins close deletion nominations with a reason that can be later used as a precedent? Such a long discussion did no good with this non-result. --Para 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the nomination, I'm talking about the timeframe. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, consider that you (and others) are guilty of the same behaviours which Andy is being blocked for. He has been around longer and edited more and thus has racked up a longer list of enemies and conflicts... but that doesn't make him 'worse' than the people he is fighting with when they stoop to name calling, accusations, threats, stalking, harassment, et cetera. You note that Andy was blocked for an extended period once before... it is worth considering that several of the people he was in conflict with there eventually ended up being blocked themselves. As my parents used to say ad nauseum, "It takes two to argue". If you were behaving in a reasonable and impartial manner this mess simply couldn't exist. You help to make it what it is... and if you don't change that then sooner or later it will be a problem for you too. --CBD 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama disambiguation

I think this mess needs to be looked at by admins. At least six editors have said that they think Obama should continue to redirect to Barack Obama, and Barack Obama should have a pointer to Obama (disambiguation), with reasoned arguments given - including that the FA Barack Obama has been among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia in recent months, and is likely what people are looking for when they type in "Obama". The other opinion is that he is an unimportant "minor" American politician who is unknown in the rest of the world, that Wikipiedia is not a "tool of the USA" , and that the other uses of Obama are as well known - particularly the Prime minister of Equatorial Guinea who may or may not actually even be known as Obama - so they want Obama to go to the dab page. Other pages, like Chirac, Trudeau, Yeltsin use the same approach as Obama → Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the page has been changed back and forth and we're not getting anywhere. Tvoz |talk 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? This might appear to a suspicious mind to be canvassing... --ElKevbo 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, ElKevbo? Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, try not being suspicious then. I'm asking for some neutral help in sorting out a mess. If I were canvassing, I might not post it on an admin board, you know? Duh. Tvoz |talk 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that this could have all been handled much tidier. The initial change of Obama as a disambig page to Obama (disambiguation) occurred in Decmeber, 2006. That was reverted and re-reverted several times between then and May 2007, *:when I started to get involved. Due to the number of re- and re-reverts, it seemed like something which needed to be addressed in a requested move, since there were some feelings about the default link. Until a rational discussion could be held, I have been trying to keep the pages at their original locations (pre 12/2006; and, a majority of the time since then — where Obama was (or redirected to) the disambig page). For some reason, the proper move request was never brought up at WP:RM, and yesterday, *: shit hit the fan when a hybrid move was brought there. Despite the six editors mentioned above, a thorough reading of the talk page will reveal that more than six appear to favor the Obama as disambig: Neier, SRMach5B, SNPBrown, Midemer, Nihonjoe, Chrishomingtang, Endroit, and John_Smith's. So, I agree that something should be done. My opinion is that the "something" should be to restore Obama as a disambig page, and if someone wants to change it to a redirect, then the proper WP:RM procedures to move Obama to Obama (disambiguation) can be followed. Neier 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing holy or sacred about the state of a page ten months ago. Reverting that far back simply on grounds of "that's the way it was 10 months ago" makes no sense whatsoever. Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the point. The status quo is that Obama is a disambig page. At various times, against process you and others have tried a controversial move without discussion and this has usually been reverted within several days. If and when a consensus is reached to change Obama into a redirect then this becomes the new status quo. Until then, it is wikipedia policy that controversial moves require discussion and editors oppose to the controvesial move are quite correct in reversing controversial moves that take place without discussion Nil Einne 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally misunderstood the situation but after more careful reading I think I now know what's been going on. Also I have never been involved in this move discussion before this AFAIK. I support Neier here. From what I can tell, the current mess is mostly the fault of Tvoz and others who support Obama as a redirect to Barack Obama. Obama started as a redirect to the city in Japan. When Barack Obama became popular, it was turned into a disambig for Barack Obama the US Senator and the Japanese city. Mostly the status quo has been Obama as a disambig since then. At various times, without discussion editors have gone agaisnt the status quo and turned Obama into a redirect. It should be quite clear to them that this is a controversial move as their move is usually reverted. Nevertheless, they have never started a move proposal in accordance with policy for controversial moves. Neier who supports the status quo finally took the situation into hand and protected the status quo while initiating a move proposal. However those who were opposed to the status quo refused to participate in this discussion so it was ended early. It is unfortunate that editors, particular those opposed to the status quo keep ignoring policy and trying a controversial move without discusion & refuse to take part when discussion is attempted. I have reverted to the status quo for now Nil Einne 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The status quo is opposed by a majority of editors. Contrary to the claims of "lack of discussion", in fact, the editors who want the page to redirect are giving reasons and explanations for their position, while the small minority that is enforcing the previous status quo is enforcing it wilthout giving any valid reason other than that it was the status quo. —Lowellian (reply) 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I again ask: Why is this being discussed here? What admin actions are being requested? This appears to be a run-of-the-mill content dispute as far as I can tell. --ElKevbo 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I've recused myself and stopped watching the pages. I also closed my attempt at coming to a consensus there as Italiavivi completely destroyed any sense of anyone being able to figure out what was going on. I'm sick of the bad-faith assumptions on the part of Italiavivi (right from the beginning, I might add). I have better things to do with my time then repeating myself over and over and over again to someone who refuses to even pay attention to anything I write other than to read more into my comments and actions than is actually there. So, have fun, all. Maybe I'll check back on it in a few months. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Nil Einne, I'm afraid you do not have it quite right. And I don't see how this was my fault. Here are the facts, taken from the Barack Obama page of which I am one of the editors. I did a monthly check of the page status to see what in fact the status quo has been:

• December 2, 2006 tag says "Obama" redirects here. This article is about the United States Senator. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• December 2, 2006 tag is changed to "Obama" redirects here. This article is about the United States Senator. For the city in Japan, see Obama, Fukui.

• January 1, 2007 tag says “Obama" redirects here. For the city in Japan, see Obama, Fukui.

• February 1, 2007 tag says “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• March 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• April 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• until April 10, 2007 when, without any edit summary or explanation on talk, SRMach5B removed the redirect tag, but apparently did not change the redirect itself

• I replaced the tag, same day, because the redirect was still in place from Obama to Barack Obama, as it had been for months, and I saw no reason, and none was given, to have removed the correct tag.

• May 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• June 1, 2007 same tag

• until June 17, 2007 when the tag is removed again, with an edit summary pointing to this cryptic exchange on the admin's talk page - no indication or explanation on Barack Obama as far as I recall
  • Please go read again what I wrote there. All I did was move Obama (disambiguation) to Obama, which had been redirecting to Obama (disambiguation) at the point at which I moved it. Can you really not see why I did that? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But Obama was redirecting to Barack Obama prior to that - as of June 1 it still was, I believe. So who changed that, and with whose agreement? I am not seeing it in the history. Tvoz |talk 06:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• And apparently on June 17 admin Nihonjoe made this change without consensus or discussion, and without WP:RM as far as I know.

Since then, there has been a lot of back and forth. But to characterize Neier's changes in any way as a return to the status quo is incorrect, in my opinion. The status quo, from the perspective of the Barack Obama page, was that Obama redirected to Barack Obama, with a pointer there to Obama (disambiguation). It seems to me that more of an attempt to discuss this should have been made before making the June 17 change - and then when comments were posted on the Dab talk page disagreeing with it, they should have been considered, not ignored. And as far as I know there was no RM initiated by Neier or Nihonjoe. So why blame me?

And ElKevbo, this is not a content dispute at all. I brought this here because I felt we needed some objective administrators to look at it - Nihonjoe was involved in the dispute and his recusal is a good idea, I think. When no progress is being made on a problem, I think that asking for help is a good thing. If it bothers you, maybe you should stop reading it.

Meanwhile, I hope someone will take the time to actually look at what went on here and suggest some action. Tvoz |talk 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to keep this off of AN/I, I have corrected some of the mistakes above on the talk page of the article. Basically, there seems to be a disjoint between what the Barack Obama article said about Obama, and what the Obama article actually contained. For much of the time above, Obama was a disambig page, even though the Barack article said that it was redirecting to Barack. More details are on the talk page, if anyone still cares at this point. Neier 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it, Neier, if you wouldn't dismiss my request here for an admin to take a look at this. As you know, you were one of the people who removed the redirect to Barack Obama with no comprehensible edit summary or discussion, and without following through on Barack Obama by removing the redirect tag and telling the editors what and why you did it - all appearances were that the redirect from Obama → Barack Obama was in place. So if there was a "disjoint" it was because those changes were done in a stealth manner, not out front for editors to consider. We had no opportunity to discuss and you had no consensus for your unilateral change, and you still have no consensus. So, I think administrative intervention is called for. Tvoz |talk 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

QuakeSim

I am a new user here at wikipedia and have been wanting to create an article about the NASA QuakeSim project. My complaint is about user:Ryulong who has been giving me reasons for deleting my article that I do not see as a problem regarding the QuakeSim article I had posted. I am an employee that works with the project and together with a group of fellow employees we created a document we would like to post on wikipedia as an article about QuakeSim. My complaint about user Ryulong is that he seems to present reasons for deleting the QuakeSim article that do not really have to do with the article. He mentions there are no secondary resources other than the quakesim.org and nasa site but there are and all the links provided there are to allow for people to obtain more information. When I presented him with this information that there are secondary resources he brought up the idea that the fact that I am an employee and writing the article on my own project has to do with the CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES that wikipedia.org has. This is when I felt a complaint was necessary because I felt insulted. My entire purpose for this article is to inform the public about the NASA QUAKESIM PROJECT. Nowhere in the article is there any signs showing or implying that I was doing this for personal benefit and personal promotion. I am not advertising nor am I asking for donations. I am merely providing information and resources for the QUAKESIM project and other geological information. Why I feel insulted is that user RYULONG, I feel, deleted the article without taking a couple minutes to read it and realize that the article's purpose is to inform the public and does not break any rules or policies presented by wikipedia.org. Also, user Ryulong never actually told me how I should fix the article content so that the "problems" he found would be corrected. I do not appreciate the difficult time I am having with this article because of USER RYULONG's comments and actions on the article. Please look into this matter because I want to be able to post the article without having to worry about it being deleted. I will be more than happy to send the content over and fix any problems it might have. I understand user Ryulong is trying to do that but the problems he is presenting do not make sense to me and it seems as though he does not want to help me in solving them so that I can post the article.

QuakeSim 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize this in less than 200 words. Admins are loathe to read long passages. —Kurykh 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My summary: QuakeSim is a NASA project. This NASA employee made an article about it which Ryulong deleted, citing conflict-of-interest and notability issues, and User:QuakeSim disagrees with the validity of these reasons. Personally it sounds okay to me; if some other editors joined in we could get rid of the COI problem, and surely NASA projects are notable. --Masamage ♫ 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't say "tl;dr" here. I will say that if Ryulong and you are having a disagreement on if the content belongs on Wikipedia or not, that you're having a dispute. Disputes are handled using Dispute Resolution, not asking admins to sort out your problems for you. If you insist on having an admin resolve the dispute between you two, then I'd point out that Ryulong is, in fact, one of our hard-working volunteer admins, and I doubt you'd appreciate it if he ruled in his own favor.

Your best bet is to simply follow the same dispute resolution procedures that everyone else has to follow. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedural issues aside, I'll just chime in and say that QuakeSim definitely is notable. I'm not in that exact field but I'm somewhat familiar with it. Raymond Arritt 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the editor is a new at this, I'd say he's done well to get this far without finding his account blocked. Sorting out the dispute resolution is pushing the bounds of reasonableness. I've reviewed the article. It needs work, but that's nothing new. The organization is notable. The topic is notable. The project is leading-edge applied science. The information is sourced. As a result, I've restored the article. Rklawton 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've procedurally nominated it at AFD. I have no objection to it being speedy closed if a sufficient consensus of those just showing up elect to keep it, but let's not edit or wheel-war over this thing, please.--Chaser - T 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call! --Masamage ♫ 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what is going to happen now? I know my article is back up but there is still a chance of being deleted. I did have a dispute that needed ot be resolved but the reason I brought it to this discussion is because I did not like the way things were presented to me by the user. I understand there is another place for dispute resolutions but I felt I needed to bring it to this discussion for the reason mentioned earlier. I apologize for any inconveniences. I was not happy with the way things were presented to me and frustrated with the fact that my article was deleted and I was not told exactly why it was deleted and how to fix it so that it is not deleted again. Please update me on the status of the article and what I need to fix since one of the above users mentioned there is some work that needs to be done. Thank You. QuakeSim 01:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This incident is an example of how WP:COI violates the "comment on content, not contributor" principle. If the content is really bad, there is no need to call a COI. The Behnam 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely to be deleted; it's already got a lot of 'keep' votes. The nomination was just made in order to collect those votes so that we could be sure there was a consensus to keep the thing. --Masamage ♫

For those just reading, the nomination resulted in speedy keep. The Behnam 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

COI should not be used for deletion. That's a major misconception that should be nailed. Charles Matthews 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 (talk · contribs) odd behavior

Since Matt57's participation in Elonka's recent RfA he seems to have become obsessed. First, he added articles about her ancestors to his user page calling it "Articles to clean up for Elonka" [23]. Today he's been going through some of those articles stubbifying them with claims of OR and the inability to verify references that do not host an online copy (newspapers from the 1940's so this is hardly surprising). Despite several other editors trying to reason with him and even cleaning up the articles and providing inline citations for clarity [24] he continued to revert. He's now created the sock User:MiiMiiM to continue reverting, especially since he'd reached 3 reverts on Antoni Dunin. It very telling that this new account responds "I can and I will" to me asking Matt not to remove references just because they don't have an online source (old Detroit News, New York Times etc.) [25].

I've been involved reverting his actions and cleaning up the articles, so I don't want to block him myself. Can someone take a look and help out please? He's feeling that everyone who's tried to talk to him so far is biased, so perhaps an uninvolved party can try reasoning with him before this gets further out of hand? Shell ^babelfish 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort this out. Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stopped editing at 03:33 today, then MiiMiiM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was born at 03:37 and immediately began editing the same articles. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked two socks and the main account for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a few ofthe articles to before Matt57/MiiMiiM's edits, per multiple editors (across all pages) assertions that citation, not inline citation, nor online citation, is what is needed. since all articles seem mostly sourced, the use of a few cite needed tags is probably what is in order for contested areas, not rampant blankings... ThuranX 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first edits of User:MiiMiis suggest that Matt57 may have been set up by one of our resident banned jokesters: this is hardly a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now semi-protected affected articles and unblocked Matt57 until the checkuser comes back. There's a credible claim that Matt didn't create the other accounts.--Chaser - T 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I stand by my reverts though, as they address the underlying problem, that Matt57 seems to be 'after' Elonka, regardless of the actual policies about citation, which will continue to be problematic, regardless of sock activity and frame-ups. that issue should still be resolved. ThuranX 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a growing issue here aside from this sockpuppetry. I would appreciate an uninvolved admin reviewing Matt57's recent behaviour regarding Elonka and articles connected to her. He seems to be alone in the approach he is taking to those articles, and willing to edit war with the numerous editors who have reverted him. In my opinion, at best he's being obstinate and heavy handed, at worse the narrow minded focus on an editor he has been in conflict with is amounting to harassment. WjBscribe 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those "sockpuppets" seem like sure set-ups, but in any case Matt's conduct falls quite soundly into his pattern of wikistalking editors that he has had content disputes with (he stalked me, SlimVirgin, and others). Essentially he has been wikistalking Elonka because she disagreed with including unnecessary (but offensive to some Muslims) pictures of Mohammad in some article. Aggressive opposition at her RfA can be expected, but going on to tear apart articles about her relations and herself is just going way too far. It is hard to assume good faith considering the previous incidents. This is definitely the most severe case of wikistalking I have seen from this editor, and it is quite disappointing that he has done this even after being warned after his past violation [26]. Editors are supposed to cut down on such behavior after receiving a community warning instead of stepping it up a notch. The Behnam 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So... week long block for him to cool off and evaluate if he really wants to continue to work on Wikipedia? If it's so upseetting to him to work with some editors, he needs to figure out his feelings on the project. ThuranX 06:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate response to an editor who continues such misconduct even after a stern warning. He needs to learn that he must show respect for other editors, even if he disagrees with them, if he wants to volunteer here. I've tried to think of some sort of creative alternative, such as a topical ban on anything Dunin-related, but I fear that would be more of a treatment than a cure. A traditional block seems the best next step towards a cure in this situation. The warning (the first step) was ignored. Anyway, I'll stop here and leave it to the admins to decide what is the best approach. Thanks in advance for any attempts to deal with this problem. Regards, The Behnam 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A week is way to harsh. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 is a smart fellow who, I believe, has no intention operating outside of the law, so to speak. As far as I can discern, he believes he is doing the right thing by challenging what he sees as vanity material. Though for my part I assume that Elonka should have made a fine adminstrator (and perhaps will be one not too long from today,) there may be some merit to what Matt57 is doing, even if and though it is socially ill-advised - everyone is feeling bad for Elonka, Matt57 was pretty rough on her during the RfA, and now he's after "her articles"…but then the acceptance of that last connection sort of admits that there might be the very same problem here that Matt57 is perceiving. I suggest instead an RfC or similar mode of discussion on this issue, either of Matt57's behavior, or the Dunin articles, or both.

COI concerns played a significant role in the RfA, and nearly led me to oppose. The problem isn't going away on its own, and, though I see the social problem, I'm tempted to credit him for taking the initiative to bringing it to the fore. Sympathy over a narrowly-failed (and socked to significant effect) RfA isn't a good reason to maintain material in mainspace, actuall, and, given the tone of this thread, I don't think that it can reasonably be denied that this plays a role here. If Matt57 is said to be harassing Elonka, we should be able to show this without reference to the "Elonka articles" [sic.] (though naturally were he adding negative material, this would be a different story, per WP:BLP.)Proabivouac 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I admire the impartiality of this analysis, it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor. The answer, I think, was that Matt had been rejecting feedback from a variety of people who were attempting to counsel him. There are better ways to resolve an issue than the methods he tried, and both the timing and specificity suggest he was personalizing a dispute rather than acting upon principle. (Caveats: I conominated Elonka's RFA and disagree with Matt's policy interpretation on Muhammad images). It's also important to bear in mind that one editor's attribution of a set of biographies as the "Elonka articles" doesn't mean she's violating any guideline or policy; she hasn't edited those pages in over a year. I don't think Matt's acting in genuine bad faith, yet one thing that makes this difficult is that an editor who did act in bad faith would choose precisely this strategy to undermine her. She's damned if she does edit, damned if she doesn't, and the community's attention gets focused around the proposal that she's doing something wrong. She can't help that she's descended from European nobility any more than I can change being descended from a long line of beer drinking peasants. The latter heritage appears to be an advantage at this site. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"...it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor." No, and I don't find your analysis completely convincing. There seems to be an ironic asymmetry in the assumption of good faith we extend to new and to established users. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Proabivouac's take on the situation, but I'd like to point out that Matt was also removing third-party sources like the New York Times because he couldn't read it online. Had he researched the references and removed any unsourced material (even if that material was only sourced to elonka.com), I would be more inclined to support his actions, however, this behavior steps a bit past the bounds of dealing with supposed COI issues. Choosing to edit war with multiple editors on multiple articles even while discussions and cleanup of the articles was ongoing wasn't the best course of action, but if he's agreed to stop the disruption and engage in discussion again, there shouldn't be any reason to punitively block him. Shell ^babelfish 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

"Matt was also removing third-party sources like the New York Times because he couldn't read it online."

I'm not certain which diffs you refer to here, but if he did so, that's pushing it too far: we cite books all the time.Proabivouac 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, if you're talking about this diff, that NYT article 1) is from Elonka.com 2) says nothing whatsoever about Stanley Dunin. Matt57 is right: that's spam.Proabivouac 04:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I came across Matt57 quite recently on an unrelated matter. My final conclusion was that he needed to learn how to relate to other people. He gave me orders as to what to AfD, then orders as to what to do with the time I spend online, and folllowed this up by accusing me of lying, quite out of the blue (at which I finally flipped). I was not surprised to see this thread, the message of which seems to be that Matt57 needs to learn the meaning of the word tact. Wikipedia is a project where we simply have to be able to work with each other, at least from time to time. Moreschi ^Talk 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Probivouac: I had no idea about the RfA stuff till I read through this. I watch AN/I as a nosy non-admin. My biggest concerns with this report were the sock use, which has been resolved, at least as relates to Matt57's actions, though who's trying to 'get' Matt57 needs resolution), and the BLP/citation issue. Matt57's refusal to listen regarding both inline and on-line citation requirements for articles, and that you don't need either, so long as you have good citation is a problem to me. Then, in reading through all this stuff, and seeing that he's established a category of articles to 'get', all of which connect directly to an editor with whom he's got an aze to grind, all looks bad. I have NO clue, nor do I really feel like looking back through archives and histories to figure it all out. All I see is:

There is an editor who maintains a list of articles related to another editor, with whome the first has big problems. He regularly blanks vast portions of the articles on that list claiming they lack citation. His interpretation of lack of citation is a lack of inline citations, and/or an inability to instantly verify citations via internet links.

As such, I see a personal conflict affecting Wikipedia articles. I see blanking vandalism. (Not in the first edit, but in the reversions to blanked versions after he's been counseled.) And I see deliberate ostrich behavior regarding policy (citation). All three are problems which can result in blocks. All three together from an established editor is significantly block-worthy. If a week is too harsh, 72 hours. But to let this pass is farcical. And citing that time has passed while this was debated isn't fair either. I agree that discussion eliminated a major concern, sock puppetry. but the rest is clearly Matt57's own actions, for which he should recieve consequences, and quickly. ThuranX 14:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, please lay off your stalking allegations off me. If I talk to an editor about something, that doesnt mean I'm stalking them. Elonka's unreferenced articles have been a pain for her as well as for everyone else who sees them as "vanispam". I'm dealing with this now. Whats the big deal? You dont need to jump in at every excuse to try to get me blocked. I havent even talked to you in a long time so I dont know where that came from. Maybe you have me on your watchlist or something. Stop harrassing me now and try to forget about me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, you might want to address the other issues raised in this thread.Proabivouac 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok about the Elonka articles? 500 friends of Elonka keep blind reverting me on her family articles, where I put in OR tags, or deleted OR. I contacted Elonka and for a week, she did not respond to my question to her of what she thought about her family articles affair. So I went and started an RfC yesterday. Sounds reasonable, right? She finally responded to something I asked her on her so I'm going to deal with all that. I dont know what big deal is here. People need to stop rushing in to "defend" their friend's family articles. If it was any other article no one would have cared. What Elonka did was a gross violiation of COI and its all still there and probably will remain there and will remain a problem for her. All I'm doing is making sure everything unreferenced goes away. If Antoni Dunin passes the test and remains the same after my investigations, I'll forget about all the other articles. Everything sounds reasonable here. As for my taking out NY Times references, I have never taken out any referenced statements. I've been fair and asked people for 3rd party opinions including the RfC, so I dont know why people are making a big deal out of this. I'm doing my best to be impartial and apply policies fairly, while people on the other hand are being defensive and jumping in to bring back unreferenced text and COI problems - who's wrong me or them? Again, there's no big deal now, inspite of 500 people jumping on me. If Antoni Dunin passes the test, I'll leave the other articles alone. If it doesnt, even then I'll leave the other articles alone, becuase I'll have proven my point that this was stuff that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia and as many people have said, it was all vanispam. If everything comes out referenced and strong in the end, ofcourse I'll accept that it belongs here. And I dont want to go on 20 pages about what I'm doing at Elonka's articles. If you want to discuss something, use the talk pages of the articles. Any other issues to respond to? And if all I wanted to do is edit war at Elonka's articles, I would still be doing it. Why am I not, people? Does the fact that I've asked for 3rd party opinions tell you anything? Please, calm down on this Elonka affair now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you want to discuss something, use the talk pages of the articles."

Good advice. Looking at the relevant talk pages, I see nothing but Matt57 waiting to talk to the rest of the editors in this thread.Proabivouac 04:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just taken a closer look at Stanley Dunin, I've made a few changes myself. Here are the diffs.[27][28][29]

Also, I've posted on talk, in case anyone would like to respond.[30]

Several cites which mention Stanley Dunin not at all, another praiseful article which is about Elonka Dunin, mentioning Stanley only in passing…Proabivouac 04:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro's edits better demonstrate how Matt57 could have handled this situation; removing truly dubious sources, noting it on talk, and then waiting, instead of rampant blanking. ThuranX 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RfCU

Note: Cheszmastre (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who created Matt57's sockpuppet page, is likely a sockpuppet of User:His excellency.Proabivouac 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre is clearly His excellency. I have indefinitely blocked the account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom harrison. Meanwhile, the checkuser is back: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matt57Proabivouac 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad that part's settled. Now about Matt 57's own questionable actions and edits? ThuranX 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, that banned trolls are successfully tricking us into blocking established editors is hardly a trivial matter; indeed, if the first post herein is any guide, that is why this thread was opened to begin with.Proabivouac 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from Chezmastre confirmed to be from banned User:Kirbytime. As the other socks are CU-confirmed as His excellency, and Chezmastre's edit pattern is obviously reminiscent of His excellency, I'm not certain if this means that CM was Kirbytime the whole time impersonating His excellency, or if His excellency handed him the account mid-stream (why not, it's blocked?) Either way, we are looking at a coordinated attack on Matt57 from two banned trolls.Proabivouac 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro, I wasn't being dismissive of the frameing up of Matt57 by two banned users; I meant hat since this AN/I report dealt with two allegations: the overreaction to the Dunin articles, and their connection to Elonka, and the possible use of Socks to support such edits, and since one hd been proven to NOT be Matt57, we should now focus here on that part which applied to Matt57, as other processes were now dealing with the other part. having proved it's not Matt57's own actions, we'd divorced the socks from the tendetious, and I wanted to focus on the tendentious. I had little doubt that the RFCU would be followed up by appropriate blocks and that a note of the attacks on Matt57 would be noted. AN/I's thorough in that way most of the time. that's all I meant by that, not that I thought that problem was neglible, but that I thought it was being handled, and we should turn our focus to the other part which DID relate to Matt57. that's all. ThuranX 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Continous anti-german POV pushing by Rex Germanus

Rex Germanus is displaying a strong anti-German POV in his edits, using edit summaries like "germanic europeans? Where are we, the fuehrer bunker?"[31], removing german related content from articles without any explanation[32], adding a bias to existing article [33] [34], moving articles with german words without comment [35], tedious editing (for example see the discussion on his talkpage regarding Wiener Wurst/Würst/Würstchen) and generally painting Germans and German related things in the worst possible light, especially if WW 2 is involved. To sum it up, Rex is strong pushing an anti-German POV on most (if not all) article he edits - somewhat understandable considering the history of Germany and the Netherlands in WW2 - but not acceptable. 84.145.203.241 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I was going to just warn him (her), but he's got a block log as long as my arm for past similar offenses. A month's R&R for now but looks like he's barreling headlong toward an indefblock. Raymond Arritt 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for a whole month with as rationale "persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc" seems however a bit too harsh for this incident, the more so as the block reason (persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc) does not match the notice (anti German pov pushing) Arnoutf 10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth coming from an anon, I revoke my call for a shorter sentence, seeing the way he doesn't learn from anything and keeps being uncivil. Also, the probation thing. 82.157.149.162 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Arnout.

• Jumping from an intended warning to a 1 month block because previous blocks exist seems indeed to be a weird leap.
• An R&R block (Rest and Recuperation I presume) is certainly not going to be used as such by this user (see his sandbox article while previously blocked).

Let me clarify that by "R&R" I meant giving everyone else a rest from his behavior. Apologies for the unclear wording. Raymond Arritt 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually looking at the difs provided by the IP, though the edit summaries are far from tactful, I don’t see blockable issues with the edits themselves at all. --Van helsing 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

• Why wasn’t Rex notified of this ANI post, or invited to comment on it?
• See defense by Rex on his talk page
• What happened to the "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"? Despite Rex’s history, if 84.145.203.241 has an issue with another user, why wasn’t (s)he advised to follow the WP:DR steps first, for instance: talk with the user, which I can’t see ever happened. --Van helsing 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is on parole and probation following an Arbitration case. He has 'already been through the full dispute resolution process. This noticeboard or WP:AE are appropriate places to ask that the remedies in the Arbitration case be enforced. Thatcher131 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be confused here a bit, but I probably have missed where 84.145.203.241 has asked "that the remedies in the Arbitration case be enforced". I’m particularly missing any reference in 84.145.203.241’s complain that has anything to do with the remedies devised for Rex, things like one revert per page per week or edit warring. As far as I can tell 84.145.203.241 states his/her opinion that Rex has a POV problem, which if true, is certainly unfortunate but not addressed in the arbitration case remedies.

I also think it is an unwise idea to skip the steps of the dispute resolution process because one of the parties already went true it once. Especially when that party is actually the initiator of going through that process, and the new other party is an "unknown history" dynamic IP, unrelated to the original dispute. Not advising the IP to use WP:DR, but instead advising Rex then again to go through RFC or third opinion when he feels provoked, seems... odd.

Retroactively finding a new potential breach of Rex’ parole to validate the block; not related to, but initiated by the post of 84.145.203.241, doesn’t seem to address 84.145.203.241’s issue above. A "didn’t-he-do-something-wrong-anyway" edit history search, finding a new breach that actually doesn’t seem to be one, is going to irritate Rex. Helped of course by his "fans", Rex uses the unblock tag too often, upon which his talkpage is protected as well; his question unanswered. Yes, it has been thoroughly dealt with now.

Though I feel often uncomfortable with Rex’ edits, I feel uncomfortable with this block as well. I know Rex has a lot of blocks, I also know Rex is a knowledgeable encyclopedic writer, more often right than wrong, and I fear the actions of his "opponents" have insufficiently been taken into account when Rex collected those blocks. --Van helsing 09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is already on probation and parole for one year

As some people who do not know his history seem to believe that Rex is an "innocent newcomer" or similar, I have to point out once again that according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz, Rex was placed on Probation and on revert parole for one year last November. According to "After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year", he should not be blocked for only a month, as he has been blocked 6 times since been put on probation/parole.

Since June, Rex was reported several times at ANI by several users. He got away several times, like at Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot, Rex Germanus, and Rex Germanus. In Rex Germanus user page he finally got blocked for two weeks in July. Among the first things he did after his return was stalking me [36], a habit he continued [37]. Rex Germanus' anti-German stance shows in many instances, e.g. when removing [38] the section explaining the name of the American Gesundheit! Institute. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't specifically endorse blocks for "POV pushing", however, Rex has violated his 1 revert per week parole on at least two articles (moving Ethnic Germans to German Diaspora and on Dutch (ethnic group). A month block is appropriate per the previous record of blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz. Thatcher131 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think most of his blocks were deserved but this one seems a bit over the top. Also note that between March and the July block (which was also on a relatively minor issue compared to some of his previous blocks) he has been editing without problems. While the parole allows for a full month block, I wonder whether the punishment is not unreasonably harsh for a relaively minor breach of conduct (see reported case above), even for someone with Rex history. Arnoutf 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 3 articles he has been editing within the last two weeks and found violations of his revert parole on two of the three. If he feels he is being provoked he should attempt to address content disputes through RFC, third opinion, or by contacting the various Wikiprojects that have tagged these articles. (Frankly, if the Wikiprojects do not exist to provide expert and experienced help and guidance on the articles within their claimed "sphere", then what the heck are they good for, but that's a side issue.) A minimum of two weeks is called for as Rex has repeatedly shown that he does not or can not work collaboratively. (And that does not even address the "fuhrer" comment.) Thatcher131 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for the block was along the lines of Thatcher131. In addition to the incivility and the "fuhrer" edit summary, Rex had deleted plainly factual material from articles, such as statements that certain languages were Germanic. I'm not sure whether that's called borderline vandalism or hyperaggressive POV-pushing; either way, it's destructive to the articles and to goodwill between editors. His history shows he is unwilling or unable to modify this behavior despite blocks and parole. I'll agree to reduction of the block if that's community consensus. But how long are we willing to tolerate this behavior and the poisonous atmosphere it creates before we say "enough"? Raymond Arritt 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the use Germanic can have nasty Nazi ideological connotation in any but old history and linguistic situations. But your answer is for the rest fair enough. Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I say "enough", and I'm sure there are many others who would agree. I've got the impression some already have left Wikipedia, or (try to) stay away from articles "owned" by Rex. See User:Ulritz or User:Kingjeff, or the IP accused by Rex in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. I've repeatedly paused to edit, or tried to ignore Rex's edits on my watchlist, but he follows me around, even to Piotrus' RfA. User:Molobo has been blocked for a year, how many lives and second chances does Rex get? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another case of incivility: [39] , and more in the history of that page, against kingjeff. 82.157.149.162 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Kingjeff and (especially) Ulritz have been reprimanded for luring Rex into edit warring (in the Ulritz - Rex case arbcom put slightly more of the blame to Ulritz, and recent edits of Kingjeff on Rex talk page are pretty unfair). Please do not use these editors as facts in a case against Rex. He makes enemies I grant you (Matthead probably being one of them), but it takes two sides to engage in a conflict. I have had my problems with Rex but not more than with some other editors; remaining civil and consistently discussing actions has solved these (although with a lot of effort). Rex behaviour is at its worst when other editors respond in kind to his actions sending page into a spiralling edit war; but even then it takes two to Tango. Many of the sentiments aired here (not by the blocking admins btw) seem to be those of Rex old enemies, kicking while down (also the reason why I defend him here, to prevent an unchallenged view of his enemies going on record). Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody persuade User:Digwuren to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

I was trying to explain to User:Digwuren that it is uncivil to revert good faith edits of established user's with the edit summaries like that or that or to remove sourced info like that with the only explanation: "removing someditor's propaganda". I guess I failed. Since I have a few editorial conflicts with the user he might assume bad faith from my part.

It also seem to be a recurring problem. Recently he was blocked for a week for incivility then unblocked with the summary having consulted blocking admin, this user is unblocked to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY. reblock if user abuses this trust. I do not see much of a participation in the RfC mentioned, but see other admins complaining about false vandal accusations as well as him been just under the 3RR limit on a number of articles. Can some neutral admin do something about him? Alex Bakharev 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I request that any admin evaluating this, would take a deep hard look into matters before deciding. Alex is rather biased in this matter...--Alexia Death 06:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex is not truthful either, claiming Digwuren was blocked for one week for "incivility", he has never been blocked for incivility as the block log indicates:[40]. Martintg 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for "tendentious editing and edit warring" which for all intents and purposes is the same thing in the context. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The task is hopeless. Only the community block will solve the problem. Especially as there are scores of meatpuppets ("Tartu University accounts") who support Digwuren's tendentious activities and effectively encourage his disruptive behaviour in the project. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I second an opinion about hopelessness of the task but, being relatively newbie to wikipedia, am not sure what community block means. From technical viewpoint, I (very weakly)support an idea that any edit from Tartu Uni IP address (or even from any user who ever used Tartu Uni's IP) must be scrutinized closely, as this group has well proven track of disruptive behaviour. But I don't put much faith in the technical measures here. Group's insistence on presenting any Estonia-related viewpoint only through eyes of Estonian commentators (as in [41] and [42] and [43]) speaks for it's organic inability to grasp the very concept of difference in opinions. And I believe that student (or former student) of Tartu University can google "proxy server"RJ CG 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Alex's request, this user is constantly disrupting a whole segment of WP. I suggest some uninvolved admins look into this matter closer. Besides, Deskana unblocked him only "to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY." and adding that one should "reblock if user abuses this trust" (see unblock summary). I believe it is the case here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That condition of the block expired along with the initial block that was for two weeks, leaving one week under this condition. Digwuren may be a bit strong at times but so are the opponents. The admin ruling on this better be neutral...--Alexia Death 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Opponents?" Gee whiz, but I thought we were all fellow editors. If you come here to fight your opponents, then you're coming here for the wrong reason. Uninvolved admins have investigated, and they blocked. This is a repeat of previous bad behavior. Geogre 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, three uninvolved administrators have blocked this account in the past, and all three did so for the same issues: such zeal to a particularly contentious and controversial point of view that it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Given the number of people blocking, this may be best handled at Community Blocks than AN/I. It would be good, though, to hear from Deskana and FassalF. Geogre 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must note that Alex's report is a bit exaggerated. I don't see clear signs of incivility but instead i do see that those edits summaries as signs of non-stop disruptive editing. It seems that Digwuren hasn't learned anything from previous blocks.

I must also note that during his block period back on July, my connected laptop faced intrusion attempts from Tallinn (i'm keeping more details to myself). If any admin (preferably an uninvolved admin) would like to see this evidence s/he'd just drop me an email. Note also that i haven't even intended to talk about this incident as i considered it part of "Digwuren being mad about being blocked" but now i see that Digwuren is still using questionable tactics to deal w/ situations here.

Alexia! Opponents? No, please have a look at WP:BATTLE. Digwuren, you stop that behavior of calling others vandals immediately or you'll find yourself on the bench again. I am afraid this time it would be hard to swallow. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of some estonian trying to hack you for the block are very strong and shouldn't be thrown around so easily. Suva 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

IF your'e having a dispute with someone, that someone is your OPPONENT. Whats wrong with that? In every debate there are opponents. I don't understand what it has to do with WP:BATTLE.--Alexia Death the Grey 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to tell you about the exact location of the intruder? No, i am sorry. I told you above that any admin is free to pursue this and verify it. I've got all the supported material. I've also told you that i had no intention to talk about this. So what do you mean by so easily? Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I want to know the exact location of intruder. AFAIK most other editors except me are located in Tartu, and I don't remember trying to intrude anyones laptop at that period of time. Also, this kind of accusation would leave pretty bad mark on someones reputation. And I don't want my and other honest editors reputation to be touched for something we haven't done. Suva 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. And, as for what Ghirla so endearingly calls us "Tartu University accounts" (always failing to give any proof whatsoever... but that is his tactic to make others look bad, I guess), I think I am the only user out of those who has a Tallinn IP occasionally.

As for Digwuren, considering what he has been forced to go though by these single-purpose POV-pushers... you really cannot condemn him. Sure, his edit summaries could be much more civil - that has been told to him repeatedly. I recommend an admin to make a clear warning about those - and then follow his edit summaries for a month, blocking or warning him as needed. Other then that, I see no difference in comparison with RJ CG behavior - except that Digwuren is not blindly pushing his personal POV, but attempts to show facts/arguments from both sides. Sander Säde 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. I've told you above that i've got all the supported material. I am telling you again that these are secondary things to me. What i believe is that repetitive and disruptive editing means a block. Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yawwn... Should I respond with accusation of POV-pushing too? Probably I should, at least in order to prevent any future occurence of banning on the grounds so unique and laughable some completely unrelated wikipedian ridiculed them on my talk page [44]? But this is so booring, to go through the same song in the millionth time. Instead I'll try once more to summarize my view on a possible resolution of this mess. Let's agree that we all have our POVs and we're not in a totalitarian country, where having a POV is a crime. Let's also agree that my POV may be different from yours, which is OK. I also understand that such topic as Estonia's role in WWII (fight for independence, unlike in let's say, Poland, was so interwoven with collaboration that same event can be viewed as either freedom fighting or quislingism, so to speak) is controversial by it's nature. Therefore I propose to let both POVs co-exist in an article. For example, Estonians want to commemorate Erna? Fine. But let's add the Russian position here without pro-Estonian edits. If the Russian arguments are laughable and controversy artificial, it will be evident. If they have merits, they will be assessed as such. But it is up to reader to decide. Wikipedia is neither Russian nor Estonian propaganda tool. I believe this approach (imperfectly) works for articles dealing with a Middle Eastern conflict, why shouldn't it here.RJ CG 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the recent appearance of Ptrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an SPA solely devoted to support Digwuren in edit wars. --Irpen 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Do I understand correctly that I have somehow stepped over a certain invisible border, questioning some topics or edits from people, which or who are obviously not to be questioned? My apologies for my appearance (like I see, that is considered really bad) and having opinions that are considered not acceptable. Thank you. Ptrt 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to your edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptrt]. 1st hit [45] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 2nd hit [46] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 3rd and 4th [47] hits - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 5th and 6th hits [48] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. All edits are reverts of my edits. Then one unrelated edit, bunch of reverts to protect Digwuren in an edit disputes and flurry of activity here. Grand total of not acting as stalker of yours truly and Digwuren's supporter - one. Don't you see a trend yourself? RJ CG 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Before continuing here, I'd still would like at least one of the accusers be bold enough and state clearly, what have I done wrong? Disagreeing with their views (what coincidentally did look like supporting their arch-enemy, the dreaded Digwuren)? I was thinking that Wikipedia was more about content then social network, so I have not thought very much about supporting (or confronting) of other users, it's more about their edits and content they create.
Irpen, I presume that you would like to include also me in your RfAr (as my name appears there) - but then I have to politely ask you to change the name of your case to reflect more that it's really about. This could be disappointment for you, but I'm not from Tartu, I'm never studied at Tartu University, I have never belonged to any Korp! and (last but not least) have never met nor communicated otherwise with users who seem to share these constant accusations (what is interesting: always from one certain group of users, with strikingly similar thinking and world view), almost always for "not writing like we'd like it" (sorry, but that's the only common enough reason I could find). Ptrt 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And the immediate appearance of this "new" account here should be noted too. --Irpen 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. My mistake that before starting active participation, I took some time to discover where different topics are discussed. And I'm really sorry about having found this handy watchlist thing, I now see that using something like that is also considered bad. I'll try to avoid anything like this in future. Ptrt 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Case submitted to ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Digwuren and Tartu based accounts. --Irpen 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, but I'm afraid that it's going to be low yield. The Community board may still be the best venue, given how every single person who looks seems to get sprayed with a face full of venom. Geogre 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kappa (talk · contribs) AFD/DRV disruption

Kappa (talk · contribs) seems to have a history of incivility and edit warring, based on his user talk page and contribution history. Last week, he was given a final warning for incivil remarks, harassment, and personal attacks, although he wasn't blocked. However, lately he has been disrupting several "List of X" AFDs in response to my nominating List of Rajputs for AFD - while constantly baiting myself and others on that AFD, he proceeded to PROD List of Latvians, disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs (see these particularly incivil remarks). Not to mention he's been going around to lists and posting messages saying that they'll be "next" (he has repeatedly been accusing people in these AFDs of having an agenda).

This all comes on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, which I deleted and he recreated three times, though the article was later restored after a DRV he thoroughly disrupted by attacking users endorsing the G4 speedy deletions of his recreations: [49], [50], [51], [52]. I would say Kappa deserves to be blocked for some length of time, possibly for as long as a week or two. This behavior cannot continue, and he's had a chance. --Coredesat 08:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not actually blocked yet. I'd like to know if I can go let the editors of List of Greeks etc know that List of Poles is up for deletion, or if that would be disruption of the process. Kappa 09:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the behaviour at DRV merits a block. Kappa doesn't really have a "history of incivility of edit warring", but he is one of the most principled supporters of inclusionism, which is probably not a very fun position to have in the current AFD climate. Kappa, whenever you feel frustration about the victory of the deletionists, please try not to vent that frustration by trolling or by violations of WP:POINT. Accusing other editors of having an agenda is not likely going to help your cause. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kappa, you know better. Take a break if you need it, but you do need to dial down the hostility and incivility you've been showing around AFD recently. Dragons flight 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please! "Deletionist" and "inclusionist?" Sheesh. I do not agree with Kappa. I have pretty much never agreed with Kappa. There is no "history of incivility" stuff, though. There is/are national issues at war surrounding the Polish editors, and who is at fault or how it can be settled is not an appropriate topic here. No, no blocking of Kappa. Geogre 13:25, 14 August 200:7 (UTC)

"You bastards" is civil? Wow, news to me. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if they killed Kenny. >Radiant< 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that calling something "shitty" or "POV deletionist bullshit", saying that "civility is more than you deserve", and accusing editors of "lacking the ability to grasp the problem" qualifies as incivility. --Coredesat 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Given my rounds of AfD and DRV, I do entreat Kappa to be more civil in discussion. Incivility and ad hominem arguments (I have seen quite a few of them) only serve to weaken your case. —Kurykh 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on, folks. "Civility?" Really? That's the problem? Sticks and stones are no longer the only ones capable of breaking bones, but words can always hurt, too? I thought both of you were well above that. I'm not saying that to be contentious, either, because Kappa has been nasty to me, too. It's just that there is a big difference between "getting called names" and "history of incivility requiring a block." The first? Fine. The second? Nah. I'm not in favor of using, "He's a potty mouth" as a reason for blocking people. Disrupting proceedings is much more of an occasion -- warring, stalking, vote busing, all the other glorious garbage -- those are reasons for blocking, because they're preventative blocks. Saving people from reading mean words isn't so much a good rationale, in my mind.

Again, I do not like Kappa. I have no real use for Kappa. I have disagreed with virtually every motion he has ever made at Wikipedia, and I think people who are in accord with him are making the encyclopedia more like Everything2 than a useful website. Don't read this as anything other than an objection on principle to seeking blocks over bad words and bringing up past disagreements as evidence that a person is somehow worthy of a block.

Also, I reiterate my first objection: "deletionist" and "inclusionist" are meaningless terms. The very invocation of them is intellectually crippled. (E.g. I'd call myself an elitist, not a deletionist, and a happy elitist at that.) Geogre 03:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be hard pressed to find an instance where I've ever agreed with anything Kappa (talk · contribs) has stated at XFD discussions (at least in regards to arguments about keeping or deleting articles. That said, I have not frequented XFDs in a while, but when I did I don't recall Kappa (talk · contribs) being enormously incivil; less stringent about what we should actually be covering here perhaps, but not incivil. Of course some of the quotes above exhibits less than ideal discourse, but I'd agree with Geogre; no block needed at this time though I'd caution Kappa (talk · contribs) to try and reign it in a bit even when he gets heated over an XFD debate.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Having only recently become acquainted with Kappa, I'm afraid I'd have to agree with those who believe him to be rather incivil as of late. However, I feel it prudent to mention that he's also been somewhat Jekyll-Hyde. For example:

• Kappa was quite civil for the most part during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian women (2nd nomination).

• However, as pointed out, Kappa did a complete 180 and started attacking editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs.

• Kappa then became civil during his contributions to our list guidelines debate (even if his response to the invitation was decidedly less than civil), but then turned right around and nominated a list for deletion based on grounds he had decried during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs - possibly to make a WP:POINT.

I wonder - are we dealing with more than one person using Kappa's name? Is there maybe a deeper problem? I'll be honest, I can't figure the guy out. Sidatio 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I rather had the impression that Kappa was just very disenchanted with wikipedia at the moment and this behaviour is probably a function of that. What concerns me most is that Kappa is being very intolerant of inexperienced editors and this has to stop. To an extent established editors have to accept thet xFD discussions can get very heated but new users stumbling into discussions must always be treated with respect and calm explanations rather then profanity and anger otherwise they can get driven away. Kappa needs to stop this side of their contributions immediately otherwise they probably cannot continue to contribute. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC). This is what I'm on about. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That warning's actually why I came here in the first place. It's clear that Kappa has no intent to stop his behavior, although he does act civil from time to time. --Coredesat 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte thread repetition

• Trolling by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted throug an open proxy . --Irpen 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user had been screwing around with Anonimu's user page and talk page and then made that comment signing with an IP address that isn't correct. I gave him/her a 24 hour block. IrishGuy ^talk 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this settles it. --Irpen 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spot of trouble with User:Tmayes1999

Tim ( Tmayes1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ) has escalated a problem with his formatting and choice of comment locations to vandalism of my userpage. Diff: [53]

See also the edit histories of User talk:Tmayes1999 and Talk:Fat Man for other disruption.

I just had to sit on my hand and not block him on discovering his vandalism of my userpage, as I am anything but uninvolved and impartial at the moment, but I would like some uninvolved admin reviews. Georgewilliamherbert 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did have a look, and noted your comments regarding cross posting, non signing, etc, in regard to his experience. Do you contend his edits are wilfully disruptive, or that he is unwilling/unable to properly use WP rules/guidelines? I would also ask if you feel his article edits (I am no expert) have any validity - inappropriate placing notwithstanding - or are as poorly conceived as his communications? I am trying to find out if this is a well meaning if misguided contributor or a plain or garden vandal.

Fellow admins (or other party), please feel free to act upon any reply - I am going to bed in a few minutes. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim's had an account for a number of years now. He was the subject of a prior Arbcom case that was waived off when he went idle, as I understand it, but he has come back a couple of times with the same edit pattern.

This time he seems to be improving a bit over time. Georgewilliamherbert 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User Page move.

Resolved

My user page (user:nate1481) has been moved to Mov4 tried to fix it and messed up could I have some help please, --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. violet/riga (t) 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing questions being blanked at Crockspot's RfA

Resolved

Would someone please have a look at this?[54][55] If that isn't RfA misconduct I don't know what is. ←Ben^B4 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the disturbing questions, or of the blanking of them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he was complaining about the blanking. But they came back and were rephrased in a less personal-attacky way, and seem to be sticking now without being deleted again. Georgewilliamherbert 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears the blanking is the problem, rather than the questions, given BenB4's comments on the RfA. Nick 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He's replied to the questions. ←Ben^B4 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Can somebody please take care of this? It's been sitting untouched for an hour. (I'm also wondering why Image:I15storm3.jpg or another photo wasn't added, but there might be a reason for that.) --NE2 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Leo III

User:Leo III has been posting copyrighted material into several articles (see [56] as an example, taken from [57]. They claim that they are the copyright holder, but it seems doubtfull. Can someone investigate, as I'm not really sure else I can do other than continuing to revert the changes. Markh 11:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate "user name change"

Phbasketball6 (talk · contribs) moved his user page and user talk page to User:Phfootball6 on October 31, 2006 citing that he wished to change the sport in his user name. His proper user page (the basketball one) has existed as a redirect to the football page since that day. His talk page was a redirect up until the 2nd of February when a bot notified him of an image proper and removed the redirect in the process. So right now he has two active user talk pages and one redirect to the other user name. This, however, is inappropriate as it was a self-fulfilled username change and it was never done through the bureaucrat system.

I left the user a note about this several days ago but he seems to have ignored it based on his numerous edits since then. How should this be handled now? I gave him suggestions on what to do but it doesn't appear like it got through to him. Metros 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why he can't register a new account and start using that one, as long as he's honest about it. >Radiant< 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the thing...he hasn't. There is no Phfootball6 (talk · contribs). There's just a guy who has parked his user page and user talk page there. Metros 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to leave him a note and recommend that he register an account. No issues with this so long as he is honest. I don't really think there is anything an administrator can do here. Best regards, Navou ^banter 13:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Metros is correct, though, that he can't leave things as he has done. We can, should, and must delete his parked page, if he doesn't establish a new account with the proper name, and Metros is right to warn/exhort him. Perhaps in two to three days, if he hasn't made the move legitimate, place a CSD tag on the moved user page. It shouldn't come down to that, of course, but it is what would happen if he doesn't get the new account. Geogre 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at here, I guess I didn't state it well enough. In theory, I could have deleted it right away under WP:CSD#U2 as a non-existent user but the fact that he's an established user and that there was substantive conversations on his new user talk page made me go through this process of trying to talk to him then bringing it here after no response. Metros 13:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good... I left a note. Navou ^banter 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose that a Rouge Bureaucrat would perform a username change treating this behavior as a de facto request....? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a possibility except the user might not realized that his username has been changed and will get frustrated when he can't log in under his normal user name. Metros 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to be renamed, he should at least register the new name (or someone could register it and send him the password). As it is now, someone could sign up for that name and he would have no recourse ... which is probably not what he wants. --B 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the userpage back to the proper place, and I will be move protecting the page and user talk, and deleting the parked page as there's no user by that name (as well as merging talk page history).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User

Resolved

TimDuncanSupportsTRNC (talk · contribs) is a obvious sock of a banned editor: [58] --Vonones 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User Megaman89

Resolved

I need some administrator intervention with Megaman89. He has mysteriously shown up in the last week or so and started repeating contentious edits from previous banned user(s). For example he made this edit on George Pendle which is the same as this edit by banned user User talk:FoolsRushIn, and this one on Charles Manson which is the same as this one by FoolsRushIn. He is uncivil as you can see on his talk page and for some reason likes to make personal attacks as seen here. Thank you for your time. --Chuck Sirloin 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User violated the 3RR rule, was reported and is now crying. Bah. Megaman89 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Megaman89 is now blocked for 48 hours for his incivility. If he continues, he's going to get longer and longer blocks it appears. Metros 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note this nonsense [59] here too, which of course, gets emails the foundation from the subject. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I reverted that trolling as soon as I saw it. I've now indef'd Megaman89 per this cute edit as a sock of FoolsRushIn (talk · contribs).--Isotope23 ^talk 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed this is User:ColScott as well. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated

Not exactly an incident, but this page has not been used for a while and seems to just be sitting there for no reason. Is anything going to be done with it? Davnel03 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – User retracted legal threat, duly unblocked. Silly flap over - and I will continue to do exactly this for legal threats in future. Moreschi ^Talk 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Vinay Jha has apparently had enough of the content dispute at Talk:Rigveda and is now threatening User:Dbachmann with a libel suit:[60] Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If Vinjay Jha doesn't apologise, a indef block is needed. Davnel03 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef until he retracts that. Moreschi ^Talk 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

wow, that was quick. Actually, I would have thought it appropriate to inform him of WP:LEGAL first. This is a very confused editor. His behaviour has been deteriorating the more he found that rambling and random complaints didn't get him his way, and the legal threat is just the latest iteration of that process. This user would need a patient mentor, otherwise we're just looking at a protracted and frustrating waste of time for him and others with a zero result. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He should know better than not to legally threaten others. Davnel03 15:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

that was a great sentence, Davnel03. Are you a lawyer by any chance? (don't sue me :op) dab (𒁳) 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not actually. I don't even have a job, I still go to secondary school (as says my template on my userpage!). But it's true - he should know better than try to legally threaten others. Davnel03 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Without any comment on the issue of his conflict with dab, I must say that this block by Moreschi is hasty and uncalled for. The user is new and obviously doesnt know about WP:LEGAL. All that it would have taken was to have perhaps reverted his comments and let him know politely not to do it again. While we require that users warned first even for WP:3RR, its galling that admins can throw their weight around for WP:LEGAL without even letting the editor know! Also a legal threat isnt exactly a threat of physical harm or something... it is at best, stupid. I request that the block be undone, Moreschi apologise for biting and that Vinay be asked to apologize to dab and retract the legal threat. What purpose is this gratuitous block supposed to serve, other than leave a newbie trying to find his feet here more confused and more angry. (I am sure, he's at the moment he's wondering how the hell he can apologise when he's blocked! I am not sure that he even knows that he can edit his own page when he's blocked). Since when did blocks get punitive, anyway? Sarvagnya 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was leaving the user a warning, in hopes that he would retract the threat before getting blocked, but my warning edit conflicted with the block notice. I doubt serious would have come from warning the editor and giving him a short time to retract the threat, but there's also not much harm in blocking him until the threat is retracted. I think swift blocks are customary for legal threats. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be customary in case of editors who've been here a while or who you would reasonably be sure are aware of the policy. Unlike other policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc., WP:LEGAL isnt exactly an 'intuitive' or 'commonsense' policy and I dont think there's any way a newbie can know without being pointed to it. this is also not something that comes up on talk pages all too often and it is bad faith to assume that a newbie should be aware of this policy. I request that the block be undone immediately and also that the blocking admin apologise to him. Not just the block, but even the message that he/she has left on Vinay's page reeks of arrogance. Sarvagnya 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, the reason why I suggested indef block is because I threatened Yamla legally, which got me indef blocked. I apologised several months later, and my block was lifted. I think that this user should apologise for his actions because behaviour like that should not, no matter what, be tolerated here on Wikipedia. Why should us editors have to put up with things like that? If he apologises, block lifted, if he refuses to apologise, he should stay indef blocked. Davnel03 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And so of course another wikinoob must be tortured the same way. Moreschi's judgment is clouded, as has been suggested before by other admins. I do not believe his actions were correct, and am beginning to see that his understanding of WP:BLOCK is especially poor.Bakaman 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All he has to do is retract the legal threat, and he will be unblocked with no further penalties - and we can forget about all this. Simple as that. It is common practice to block indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding. Really, all he has to do is apologise (and yes, he should know better, it is common sense not to threaten your fellow editors with lawsuits). Moreschi ^Talk 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If all he has to do is apologise and retract, then all you had to do was point him to the policy and tell him to apologise and retract. You dont block someone simply because you can block. That would be the bullying you accuse the newbie of. Sarvagnya 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. We don't tolerate legal threats, ever, from anyone. That's probably the worst form of user conduct there is on-wiki. Note: we're currently discussing this via email, and I believe the "you are blocked" templates make it quite clear you can edit your own talk page, but I think he wants to resolve this privately. Hopefully this can be sorted amicably. Moreschi ^Talk 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We dont tolerate legal threats. We dont tolerate vandalism either. Or personal attacks. Or incivility. Or 3RR. or a host of other things. But even rank vandals get warnings before being blocked for the offence. Vios of 3RR, NPA, CIVIL all invite warnings first and then blocks. What makes you think WP:LEGAL ought to be different? Read up WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK first. Sarvagnya 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In no other case will the block be instantly undone if the user retracts. Legal threats are different. Moreschi ^Talk 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. I've seen 3RR blocks being undone after editors promised to stay away from the article for a day or two. In any case, which part of you didnt need to block are you having difficulty understanding? What makes you think he wouldnt have apologised and retracted if you had simply asked him to do so (instead of blocking)? You owe the well intentioned newbie editor an apology. Sarvagnya 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well-intentioned? I think I'll reserve my own judgment on that. Amongst other things, this user recently compared Dbachmann to Hitler (or, certainly, that's how it came across). When users make unambiguous legal threats (if you revert me, I'll sue you), they are blocked indefinitely. It's as simple as that: we cannot permit free editing of Wikipedia to be impaired. Moreover, "if you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." That's not hard to understand. If he retracts (which, if you give us a few matters to discuss this via email, I'm quite sure he will) I will happily unblock, and make it quite clear this is an editor in good standing with no stain on his character. Moreschi ^Talk 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking in this case seems like a fairly sensible option, in all fairness. The user can be prevented from making further legal threats whilst the whole policy about making legal threats is explained to the user. Nick 18:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. No Legal Threats, is a 100% clear policy. It is to protect users from receiving or being placed into fear from these threats, and to block the editor, at a minimum, until that threat is resolved. If the user makes the threat, they have already violated the principle behind the rule, as well as the rule itself. It's that simple. I support Moreschi's block, and I would have done the same.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is absolutely nothing wrong about Moreschi's block. However, Dbachmann doesn't seem to want this user blocked. His judgement should be weighed duly because he is here to build an encyclopedia more than anybody else discussing here. Those poodles of Mimsy clucking here, they are best left unanswered. Vikatovski 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think legal threats are highly disruptive, and blocking users for making them is justifiable. However since the user was probably unaware of WP:LEGAL, I think giving him a second chance may be appropriate. Therefore I have posted a block review request on the users page. If he is unblocked, I hope that he realizes that such behavior is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Abecedare 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary, he's just retracted the threat to me via email. Will now unblock. Thank you all for remaining ever so calm. Moreschi ^Talk 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Baoli notes

I am still not sure if this belongs here, but the page Baoli notes appears to be sheer nonsense with an image that is a potential copyright violation; however, any tags placed on the page are immediately removed by User:Baolim (see his talk page). I have tried replacing the tags but I fear I may have violated 3RR. Eran of Arcadia 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the Baoli notes. Lets wait a few day to clear the copyright status of the image Alex Bakharev 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Sicily

After I made some good faith restoration of deleted info on the page, I removed a section that violated copyright from http://www.bestofsicily.com/food.htm [61] and http://www.bestofsicily.com/wine.htm [62]. After which, Scipio3000 reverted, in spite of this promise he made during a previous incident [63]. He also left this response on my talk page [64]. Edward321 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and the response on his ttalk page was asking him to discuss our problems like others have told me to do, because this is the 3rd time I have had a problem with him..thats all I did I asked him to work on this together and come to a resolution he refuses to do so and instead goes out of his way to undo all my work or find the tiniest fault with what I am doing and reports me, he is constantly harrassing me! Please help me!(Scipio3000 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

NOT true, me and 2 others of Sicilian descent approved these changes we have been working on this all night and I did not get to that citation yet! I added over 10 pics and 5 new sections on the Sicily page yesterday alone. I needed a break and fell asleep before I got to do it last night, I was going to do it today, but he has vandalised the page so bad, sections are gone and others are merged, IT IS A MESS..After all this work! And he never consulted any of us. Please check the cuisine section and you will see the damage he has done! Edward321 has relentlessy attacked me constantly he thwarts everything I am trying to do..I reported him on Sunday for erasing only the sentence I worked on in the "Italian People" page, he deleted my exact line and only my line. He has no knowledge on Sicilain history nor is he sicilian, he never made any contributions to the Italian or Sicilian page before this and now the only thing he deletes is what I am doing! The page is now so messed up after what he did that the whole sport section is gone and two of the sub-sections on the cuisine are gone along with the mafia heading which now merges with my cuisine section...I spent HOURS doing this last night and had approval from 2 other Sicilians working on this. I have tried on 3 occasions to contact Edward321 and resolve our difference he refuses! I got blocked for doing at lot less than that please check the page it is now a mess!!(Scipio3000 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Do not copy text from other websites unless these other websites clearly say their text was in the public domain, or licensed under the GFDL. You are violating the copyright of www.bestofsicily.com. Adding the site as a source doesn't help much; you're copying way too much to claim "fair use" as a short quotation, and the context doesn't call for such quoting anyway. What you are doing is not acceptable at Wikipedia.

By all means, add a section on Sicilian cuisine, but use your own words. The adspeek you copied from that website isn't encyclopedic anyway. Lupo 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have attempted to explain the copyright issue to Scipio and I have explained that he must be more civil and not attack those who disagree with him. The edits can be changed to avoid copyvios but it could still be reverted if consensus agrees. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Scipio3000 for 72 hours for this diff] where he referred to an editor as a "White boy." I believe you will see in the context that this is an unacceptable racial swipe. I would encourage others to take a careful look at Scipio's user contributions and see all of the issues he has created. I have attempted to encourage better conduct but have obviously failed. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats on his talk page

He has now implied he's seeking legal action ([65], [66]), as ridiculous as that may sound. Someone please block indef until he retracts.--Atlan (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He does not wish to retract, by the way ([67]).--Atlan (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He only adds more and more legal nonsense on his talk page. Add to the that soapboxing about how he's blocked because of anti-Italian sentiments on Wikipedia warrants a talk page protect if you ask me, lest all these editors keep wasting their time there. It's getting out of hand.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 has also been editing my talk page as User:72.23.157.21. Mathsci 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction he put his remarks on my USER PAGE. No comment. Mathsci 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to protect the page until I saw this joyful comment. I've now fully protected the page for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully this is enough time for Scipio3000 to calm down. - auburnpilot talk

After speaking with Scipio3000 via email, I have removed the protection from his talk page. He has assured me he intends to retract any legal threats, but I am going to be away from the computer. If a retraction is made, feel free to reduce the current indef block to the original block by JodyB (talk · contribs) without contacting me. - auburnpilot talk 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit and the note AuburnPilot just left here, I have taken the liberty to reduce the block back to JodyB's 72 hour one.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Wikipedia League

Resolved

User:The_Professor_(of_Faith) is promoting the Anti-Wikipedia League which is kind of a POV pushing attack against the encyclopedia. Miranda 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked him indefinetly. No signs of good faith contributions Alex Bakharev 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Camilo Valdivieso and user Explorador 33

User talk:Explorador 33, whom I suspect to be the subject of the article Camilo Valdivieso, his own creation (and pratically single contribution), recorrently deletes the {{Autobiography}}, {{Notability}}, {{Refimprove}} and {{pov}} tags I placed in the article. He has done so in 3 acasions ([68], [69], [70]). I'm reverting once more, but I believe this needs attention from and administrator, since he will probably not rest. Thank you. The Ogre 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Warn him appropriately if he vandalises, conform with policy, particularly WP:VANDAL, and then, if he does not desist, report to WP:ANI -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I shall. Thank you. The Ogre 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot war!

Resolved

See User talk:Polbot. User:CorenSearchBot thinks User:Polbot is copying stuff from www.infoplease.com, when in fact what has happened is that both www.infoplease.com and Polbot, have copied stuff from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. What should be done here? Should User:CorenSearchBot be blocked and the tags it has put on those US Congress politician bios removed? Carcharoth 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Ignore that. According to User talk:Coren#Your bot 2, the bot has already been shut off. Carcharoth 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:R:128.40.76.3

Some (but by now means all) of the edits documented below is several months old, I mention them to illustrate the continuing nature of this user's problem behaviour.

• This editor continues to engage in disruptive sockpuppetry

For recent evidence that User:R:128.40.76.3 & User:A.J.1.5.2/User:Curious Gregor and User:Tim.Boyle/User:Mad kemist are the same editor, see the histories of the Bennelong, Bennelong Society and Bennelong Medal (currently a redirect) pages. Clearly User:R:128.40.76.3 & A.J.1.5.2 are not independent editors, while these all claim to be different individuals editing from the same machine, with similar interests note however that in the first few days following the creation of the Peter L. Hurd article that their edits are clustered within minutes. See the old Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor for evidence supporting the conclusion that Curious Gregor (now known as A.J.1.5.2), Mad kemist & ip 128.40.76.3 are the same editor (note that here ip 128.40.76.3 edits the SSP case about, about 6 months after it was closed, changing the spelling on links so that they no longer points to the AfD that sparked the case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle). This editor's sockpuppetry and protestations of innocence are disruptive, see e.g. Aug 7, Aug 9th, yesterday, & today.

• This editor impersonates academics while editing on wikipedia:

here ip 89.104.35.216 claims to be User:R:128.40.76.3, and admits to using the sock account User:Iconoclast4ever. He also states that the account Tim.Boyle is a sockpuppet of Mad kemist and an impersonation of their PhD supervisor, chemistry prof Tim Boyle (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle for more drama). In this diff [71] on the page User:Curious Gregor (which was deleted 12:14, 15 June 2007 by Phaedriel) Curious Gregor (now A.J.1.5.2) signs a self-awarded barnstar as "Greg Fu" which seems a clear attempt to impersonate MIT Chemistry Professor Greg Fu. This editor has impersonated two academics on WP, which can only discredit the project in the outside community.

• This editor creates biographies of academics in furtherance of suspect purposes

This editor created an academic biography (the deleted Timothy Boyle) which apparently made spurious claims (such as a previous career as a professional soccer player). They have also created a biography of me (now at Peter L. Hurd) presumably as a target for harassment and vandalism (e.g. [72]). This editor claims that the creation of this article is a good faith creation of a notable scientist's biography, it's hard to believe this given that he once filed a bogus SSP case against me (the now deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd, for which he was blocked [73]). It's just plain harassment.

User:Phaedriel (who is attempting wikibreak) has been dealing with this mess, it seems unkind to drag her back to WP for this nonsense. The editor does have some constructive ability in him but has, and is, sapping a considerable amount of effort from other consistently productive participants. I'll file a user conduct RfC if that's the most productive way of dealing with this clown, but I invite an admin to take some more efficient action. Pete.Hurd 17:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

just a note that regardless of the motivation in creating the bio, it survived an AfD and is not currently abusive.DGG (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (the bio on Peter Hurd, that is.)DGG (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Being honest around here seems just seems to antagonise other editors. As I have said in previous posts, we are not all the same user although you do have the grouping and socks of other users correct above. I personally have only had one sock User:Iconoclast4ever which I stoppped using immediately when I realised there was a policy violation. User:A.J.1.5.2/User:Curious Gregor are the same user which is blocked now and this user has had to create a new account (and will probably be accused of sockpuppetry when Pete see's editing similarity). User:Tim.Boyle/User:Mad kemist are the same editor, however this student was a fourth year project student who has subsequently left (at the end of the last academic year). We are/were different editors and we edit from different machines, however, we work in the same office and often ask what each other is editing at any given time. Our whole building has a common IP address 128.40.76.3. As for the protestations of innocence being disruptive, they are basically just responses in an attempt to clear the air about the circumstances I have detailed above and are no more disruptive than the unfound antagonistic comments left by Pete's insistence that we are all the same user. I fail to see how the creation of the page Peter L. Hurd is an attempt to target and harass Hurd, as the article did not contain any personal attacks and as DGG has pointed out survived an AfD. The user who impersonated Dr Boyle (Mad kemist) is no longer an editor (although that user did leave aa lot of third party collateral damage to Boyle which should be removed so it does not appear in google cached pages), and User:A.J.1.5.2/User:Curious Gregor has admitted in the past that the barnstar he awarded himself was an experiment (however it was not carried out in the sandbox). I find it quite frustrating when I am trying to become a better editor, that I am being continually harrassed. Comments such as Hurd's above calling me a clown are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK, and his supermoderation of all my edits, and the following nonsense tagging of articles by Jack Merridew such as this COI tagging[74] are starting to violate the pillars of WP such as WP:AGF, and are leaning towards WP:STALK. R:128.40.76.3 07:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous Legal Issue With Current Vandalizer

It has been brought to my attention that someone with whom I have previously won a slander/libel lawsuit from 2003 is now causing trouble on a page here. I would like to privately discuss this matter with an administrator. Can someone tell me what are the next steps?

Thank you.

GothicChessInventor 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NLT. Anything you do w/ the law needs to take place off site. If you solicit any action with that as the basis here, you will be blocked with no further warning. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to email me the details, I am willing to take a look and tell you what options (if any) you may have here. As Chairboy notes, though everyone has the right to pursue legal action, we have a strict policy against using Wikipedia to threaten legal action. Please keep that in mind. Dragons flight 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have anything to do with this would it?--Isotope23 ^talk 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a legal concern that needs to be brought up with Wikimedia, you can send it to info-en@wikimedia.org but as Dragons_flight and chairboy noted earlier, it needs to stay off Wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

noticing strong personal attacks

I came to this talk page User_talk:Mirrori1#Salaam_baradar and noticed some strong personal attacks against unknown users. It seems that the attention of an administrator is necessary. --Pejman47 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left this warning on the user's talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbie user with literally hundreds of copyvio article creations

User:NoGringo, a newish user, has clearly spent a lot of time creating several hundred articles on Telephone numbering systems, creating categories, templates, and all. However, every single last one of them that I have read through is a copyvio of http://findphonenumber.info/different_dialing_plan.htm, not to mention probably a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:NOT#INFO. Somebody please handle this whole thing, as going through and tagging all of them as db-copyvio would be a waste, rather than just having someone click the delete button.The Evil Spartan 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the end of webpage you link to, it states "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but instead that site is reusing Wikipedia content. -- JLaTondre 19:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the users contribution log. Drumpler 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but is it possible this person is simply trying to link-spam to boost his/her Page Rank? jddphd (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is page rank if you do not mind me asking --SevenOfDiamonds 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PageRank --Nethgirb 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is breaking Telephone numbering in Europe (which that website has copied) into individual articles. There is no copyvio & no link-spaming. Another site is using our content. There is no indication that he's associated with that site. -- JLaTondre 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the website posted above pretty clearly states the info is from Wikipedia, so that would indicate no copyvio.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

block evasion?

Moving this from AIV where I mistakenly put it:

Akbak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be same editor as the indef blocked 12va34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also appears to have been editing under several dynamic IPs, making identical quirky, invalid edits in evasion of the block.

For example, compare this to this and also this to this including typo.

The IPs I believe are being used by this same editor to make similar edits include:

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

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

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

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

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

75.2.220.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and probably others, fwiw. Tvoz |talk 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO edit warring

Resolved

 – editor blocked for revert-warring on multiple articles - Alison ☺ 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO edit warring/vandalizing (removing valid content) once again in the Scientology articles.

Or being about to. 2RR/3RR so far and counting.

Scientology and the legal system

David Miscavige

Scientology

The usual, he got blocked a couple of times w/o any change in behavior. Misou 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: There we go. 3RR. Anybody around here? Misou 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look and they look to be just inside 3RR. Can you provide some diffs, please or maybe file a report on WP:AN3? - Alison ☺ 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - blocked now for revert-warring on multiple articles. That guy is out of control and is completely uncommunicative - Alison ☺ 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with editor before. He's not willing to discuss any changes he makes and makes then to point towards a particular point of view which was already addressed somewhere in the article before. Uncommunicative is the word of the day. — Moe ε 00:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Misou 01:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Socks at Rfa

A number of only marginally active editors have resurfaced at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot and they all seem to have the same style. I'll list them.

• MonsterShouter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...first edit in 5 days...no edits since.
• BernardL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...first edit in two weeks...no edits since.
• Dureo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)....first edit since last Rfa participation, 11 days ago...no edits since.
• HiDrNick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)..first edit in two weeks...no edits since. If nothing else, it's pretty obvious these votes must have been spammed via email.--MONGO 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems some canvasy spam is quite different matter than sock stacking an Rfa. Is there more to it than gaps in editing, and some similar viewpoints? Or do you have other suspicions of stocking wearing by those folks? There is a lot of unpleasant behavior as part of that discussion, it's a shame to elevate the fairly polite incivility if it's not needed. --Rocksanddirt 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't request checkuser until the Rfa as ended.--MONGO 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can check me right now, I don't mind. BTW wasn't emailed about this, became aware of it because of a thread here at ANI. Adding further, this was what interested me in that RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Disturbing_questions_being_blanked_at_Crockspot.27s_RfA when you check me, realize I was in LA for a week and a half and this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_2&diff=148908475&oldid=148905292 and this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_2&diff=next&oldid=148908475 were made from there, also any other edits made around that time, prior to that and now it will mostly be my work IP, (Police department, County IT) and my home IP, Comcast. Ridiculous accusation, but I'm all for checking it out. Dureo 02:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No not ridiculous...whenever someone shows up to !vote at Rfa's or Afd's after not editing for a while it is often a red flag. Most people who participate in these things edit more regularly than you do. Thanks for clarifying you're not a sockpuppet.--MONGO 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above users are socks, but a checkuser might be performed on newly-created SPA User:MrGibblets, as his only non-userspace edits are to the RFA in question. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for MrGibblets (talk · contribs), I'm inclined to block and strike his/her comment as a thinly-veiled personal attack by an obviously disruptive sock. Thoughts? — Scientizzle 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice...WP:AGF WP:NPA such high, lofty ideas, but here on the factory floor, the sausage is made in a different way. I would suggest you keep with the subject and not launch personal attacks as to my qualification's to make a comment on this. I accuse you of disruptive behavior per WP:BITE MrGibblets 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A new user well versed in our policies? Marvelous. --Deskana (banana) 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with reading...unless it's SOP not to read the HELP link Such statement implies "assume bad faith". Lovely.MrGibblets 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[ec]A user that can properly link a picture on his/her 1st edit[75], edits an RfA on the 3rd edit and posts at ANI by the 5th edit (with a link to WP:BITE)...? I thought that referring to Crockspot as "Crackspot" was a personal attack. I now see that you're just not good at spelling. Fine. I won't block or strike your RfA comment. But I am curious about a possible checkuser (It's obvious that MrGobbles (talk · contribs) is the same editor). — Scientizzle 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Threaten,intimidate and insult. Nice to treat a newbie so well... I'm impressed.MrGibblets 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Though its never good to jump the gun, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a new user who read a policy or two before creating an account or feels like voting in a RFA. Its just a bit strange that you found this page so instantly and very easily? This isn't the page that a typical new user would want to swing around the first, second, or third day...how exactly did you decide to go to this page?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled in to it, like you would stumble in to a dance of murmurs, in a dark forest. I saw it on and thought it was interesting, so much is being made of this. Any rate, you people don't exist in the vacuum of your little world, Wikipeida exists in the greater internet and it's impact on it is as such, that it must allow outside voices in. Considering the hostility and disrespect I have received, I would have to say, so far, the critics of Wikipedia are right. Hope that answers your question.MrGibblets 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• As other people have said, this is being discussed on the mailing list, which could draw in some inactive editors. -Amarkov moo! 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

MonsterShouter has made over 50 meaningful edits scattered over the 3 months previous to this RdA, BernardL over 1500 edits, several hundred at different times in 2007, Dureo has commented on many RfAs in the last month, HiDrNick has 600 edits since April 2007 including other RfAs. They all look genuine to me. DGG (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And the opposes, other than being the solitary recent edit for each are all different in style & content, IMO. — Scientizzle 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for AGF. :) Dureo 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am wrong then...nothing suspicious here...nope, nada. All the more reason, as I have openly stated previously, that IRC and the mailing list are for those whose main effort is something other than writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that as if it's a terrible thing. My main effort is something other than writing an encyclopedia, and I'll freely admit it. I could do a lot more for the encyclopedia if I didn't care about editing being an enjoyable pasttime, but I do care about that. Frankly, very few people have devotion enough to making an encyclopedia that it's their top priority, so we really have to take what we can get.-Amarkov moo! 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My, what an astoundingly useful comment. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's pray the media didn't catch that. bibliomaniac15 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The media watches the mailing list and the comments there are often beyond the pale of what is tolerated here. Yes, if people spent less time chit-chatting on IRC and the mailing list, they could instead do what we are supposed to be doing on this website, namely, writing and editing articles, Mackensen.--MONGO 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. I'm simply puzzled how disagreement here translates into the comments you made. It seemed a complete non-sequiter to me (mind, I don't read the mailing list). Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, this isn't a mailing list or a chat room. Stay on-topic. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) ATTENTION BOT OPERATORS: Will one of you talented folks please write a bot to drop you a message on your talk page when your name is dropped on ANI, since some users seem to lack the common courtesy to take care of these niceties themselves. Call it "CalledOnTheCarpetBot" or something. I am no ones sock puppet, and resent this unfounded personal attack. There is no reason to go hurling around accusations of these sorts just because your pet candidate's RFA is tanking hard and fast. I read RFA regularly, and comment rarely, and there's no harm in that. I will not be disenfranchised just because my wikiholic score doesn't rival MONGO's. ➪HiDrNick! 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and RFCU

I've been on an extended wikibreak, since approximately the 17th of last month, and I returned to discover that I had been blocked for a week during that time, ostensibly for violating 3RR on a living person's article. After some discussion at AN/I, in which I did not participate, and of which I was unaware, that block was reduced, but not eliminated[76]. On returning I approached the admin who blocked me and asked him to clarify his reasons, while pointing out that the block was unjustified[77], as it was based on the assumption that anyone from all IPs in Harvard and Cambridge/Somerville editing an article about a prominent Harvard professor would have to be me, and, indeed, was pointless as I have been editing from New York for months. Meanwhile an RFCU was declined without giving a reason, and it seems I can't ask for it to be reopened. Basically, this means I was blocked for no reason, two weeks into a wikibreak, and I am denied a method of demonstrating that it was pointless, inaccurate and unfair. I'd just like to know if there's anything that can be done under these circumstances; I'd like to have something to point to indicating I did not abuse the system, given that block logs don't go away. This was my first block - indeed the first allegation that I violated policy of this magnitude - in my many years of editing the encyclopaedia, and I can imagine that it was no coincidence that it took place a few weeks into my vacation. Hornplease 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation certainly warrants discussion, but you should advise the administrators who were involved in the block of this thread, so that they can respond here. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I should have. Have done so now. Hornplease 03:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, you have to just move on. This is an adminstrator's board and you will likely find little support or sympathy about your block, whether it was justified or not. Even if administrator abuse is real (and I'm not saying it is abuse in your case), nothing will be done about it. In fact, it is dangerous to even comment on it because people are likely to attack me just for saying this. Keep editing. Look forward, not back. There are plenty of articles that need improvement. Stay away from bad tempered people, particularly if they are administrators, and you will do fine. Don't get hung up on freedom on speech because you can be right and still raise the wrath of angry admins. History, music, arts, entertainment, geography, science, games, etc. There are so many topics to write about and still stay away from controversy. Good luck!

Isn't this topic ready for the "resolved" tag! Specialjane 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Err? A little difficult to move on, perhaps, given that I haven't actually discussed it properly yet. Thank you, however, for taking the trouble to give the advice, (especially since I assume it required you to set up a new account!). Hornplease 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As Hornplease suggests, Specialjane's contribution above is her first non-userpage edit ever. Newyorkbrad 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crockspot

This thing (including its talk page) is turning into a barfight. I'm not commenting on which side is right or wrong, but is there anything that can be done other than letting it burn out? Raymond Arritt 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment there anymore. If people want to equate Crockspot with Satan cause he made some shitty comments some time back on another website, that's up to them. He'll forever be branded as something he really is not, as he made clear in his commentary and responses to questions.--MONGO 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up. Self-restraint by all concerned would be a big help at this point. Raymond Arritt 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC at Criticism of the BBC

Folks from the BBC are editing the Criticism of the BBC page and removing negative stuff.

The following edits are from a BBC-registered url: [78] [79]

I used [80] to find this stuff.

Maybe the BBC should be asked not to remove negative information from pages about the BBC????? Bigglove 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have been in a Genocide dispute this user adds Turkish sources and does not want to add third party because this is OR you cannot find these absurd sayings anywhere, anyway he has attacked me constantly.

• Please don't destroy the article with your nationalist stance. [81]

• Back off troll [82]

Interestingly enough I added third party and neutral sources he refuses to comply with the rules. --Vonones 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, he removes Armenian Genocide and continues with his uncivil remarks saying the Armenian Genocide will never be true. [83] --Vonones 03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He also violated the 3RR and is being disruptive without wanting to discuss his edits; [84] --Vonones 03:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with for the 3RR and the attacks. --Golbez 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin posting real-life name and phone number.

Can I ask someone to appropriately edit this personal attack? Four polite requests on his talk page with reference to WP:HARASS have resulted only in incivil responses. Not seeking sanctions, just remedies. THF 03:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think that no one should be posting any other editor's real-life name or phone number anywhere. That invades privacy a bit too much for my tastes. If we do not respect each other's privacy, we will only wind up discouraging people from participating on this site. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That post is absolutely inappropriate, in my opinion. Oversight is really the only option on ANI, as delete/undeleting a page as large as this will cause a huge amount of server strain. Of course, since all of this is already on the 'net, you could just ignore it all together. Sean William @ 04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the editor himself has continually edited under his own name, what, exactly, is the privacy violation here? That horse was already out of the barn a long time again. And "personal attack"? Please. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a comment that comments on the editor, not the edit. So, yes, a personal attack. THF 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. That would be called an ad hominem attack. A personal attack is more strictly defined as a a comment on the editor that is derogatory. Just being pedantic... :) —Kurykh 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No one needs to go through the trouble of oversight. Redaction is sufficient. I apologize that I was naive enough to believe that one could edit a collaborative project under one's real name, but I've now had multiple instances of off-wiki harassment from wiki editors who lost content disputes with me, and have changed my username, and would simply like not to have administrators posting links to my phone number. I note that I was threatened with an indef ban when in February I inadvertently mentioned the real-life name of a user who had changed their username, so at a minimum an administrator should know better. THF 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) blocked

Per this 3RR report, I have blocked Giovanni33 for two weeks. As the reporter notes, there is no technical 3RR vio; however, Giovanni's long record of edit warring convinces me a longish block such as this is merited. In case I am wrong, I have posted this here for review. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All Giovanni33 does is edit war...how long before we can seek a community ban? He has been at 3RR at least two other times in the past couple of months...lookout for socks.--MONGO 04:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've consistently seen him hre on ANI about edit warring. —Crazytales (t.) 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur in the block. He's been blocked many times for 3RR or gaming thereof; he should know better by now. There may be other editors on that article who should be warned about edit-warring. Raymond Arritt 04:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also concur, I had no idea that his block log was so large. There is value in increasing block lengths when an editor is not getting the message. At some point we have to stop wasting time on an editor, when that time comes is up to ArbCom or via community ban...but for now Heimstern Läufer made the right choice. RxS 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is way too long, IMO! I suggest 3 days. Look who made the complaint too. Tbeatty who is guilty of censoring my proofs on the Crockspots election for admimistrator. Twice or three times he completely deleted my posts on an official board with 'BLP' claims. He is involved in a 'war' on that article, and there is no real 24 violation! If it was 4 RR in 20 hours I could understand, but to apply this penalty in this one case is unjust. IMO. Please reduce and give a warning that 24 hours doesn't really mean 24 hours. This rule is silly anyway, as it has no actual values for the hours! Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 04:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, the 3RR has always been an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is just one way to measure edit warring. Users can edit war without breaking 3RR, and when they do this long-term, they should be blocked. As for Tbeatty's faults, I'm not interested in entertaining tu quoque arguments. If indeed Tbeatty has done things worth a block, you can make a report about him. His behavior has no bearing on whether Giovanni33 should be blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has been blocked an unreal amount of times. I think that a community ban is in order. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Without casting assertions I will comment - another arch-conservative POV warrior (Pablo) asking for a ban of one of the most potent liberal POV warriors! Another comment somewhere talks about the left-right wars on Wikipedia. You better get these warriors under control! I myself withdrew from 2 or 3 (?) articles because the wars were too fierce! Bmedley Sutler 06:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no strong objections from the blocking admin, I'm going to shorten the block to two days, if by virtue of the blocking admin's own ambiguity as to this particular dispute. Also, I note that the person who reverted Giovani used "rv vandalism" as their edit summary. Thanks. El_C 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni has received multiple short blocks. Is this just going to go on forever like this, with him receiving a day or two for constant edit warring? I may not know much about this particular dispute, but I do know edit warring when I see it. Frankly, I think it's for the best that I know little about the dispute, as it leaves me more objective. I don't agree with shortening this block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, that wasn't the question. I'm not going to doubt your even-handedness at this point, but would suggest closer examination is in order when imposing blocks of such lengths on established contributors. El_C 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"That wasn't the question?" You asked if I had strong objections to shortening the block. I have said that I do. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough. I do in fact have strong objections to shortening Giovanni's block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do as well...he has been blocked more times than almost any long term editor who is still editing here. Though most are from some time ago, he has been at 3RR some many times recently, I can't even keep count.--MONGO 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, disagree strongly, would have done it. Speaking of which, I strongly object to your block (see below for details). El_C 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Heimstern and MONGO here. This block is more than appropriate and I strongly object to it being reduced. - auburnpilot talk 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It increasingly looks like this user is being ganged up on due to his politics. No warning ,no nothing. I'm going to reduce the block to a week. I think that's a fair compromise. Let me know if you're gonna wheel war over it, though, because then I won't do it. El_C 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who exactly is wheel-warring? Several editors and admins have endorsed this block, yet you seem determined to reduce it regardless. - auburnpilot talk 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to reduce it, unless someone intends to reverse me, yes. El_C 07:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you brought your block here for "review" (whatever that means to you). I have reviewed it and found it to be excessive and rather arbitrary. El_C 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the feedback. Well, you decide what you want to do. I won't make any changes to whatever you do, but I do feel that the block is justified. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else seems to feel it is justified, El_C. It seems that reduction would be the extreme position. --Tbeatty 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should extend a few blocks to the other rverting parties, then... El_C 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are edit warring consistantly and have a history of such, then I would agree.--MONGO 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One of them, Tbeatty, reverted "per talk," just as Giovani did. The other didn't even use the talk page since June, and used "rv vandalism" as an edit summary. I don't think a two-week block was justified in this case. This dosen't seem like fair interaction on the part of Honda, nor fair interpretation as well as communication on the part of the blocking admin. El_C 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the original block stands or is reduced, I am concerned that we will simply find ourselves here again, as Giovanni is clearly a prolific edit warrior. I'm wondering what other steps toward dealing with this edit warring might be taken. For example, has there ever been a user conduct RFC for him? I certainly can't find one. If not, might that be a possible step? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the threat and I stopped reverting prior to any violation and I used the talk page to justify all my edits. I also edited the talk page prior to the edits, unlike Giovanni33. If you read the report, you would see the big issue is that Giovanni33 tried to recruit additional editors to revert the page so that he wouldn't be in violation. That is gaming the system. --Tbeatty 07:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't threat, I warn. The fact is that the other person reverting to your version did not use the talk page. You, as the filer of the unorthodox 3rr report were or should have been aware of this. Yet you did not encourage that user to participate in the talk page with both of you, instead, you reported Giavani at an3. El_C 07:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What unorthodox 3RR report? He recruited people to revert for him. He said so on the talk page. I don't really give a shit about what other editors did or did not do but I did not see a violation. I reported Giovanni when he said he was recruiting people to game the system.. He was reverting at least 3 editors. If you think that's unorthodox to report, then perhaps you shouldn't be reviewing 3RR blcoks. If you had read the 3rr report as filed, you would see that was the issue. --Tbeatty 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not "give a shit," but what you should consider of interest is that I may. In answer to your question, the one that obviously did not have a 3rr violation. As for your suggestion that I refrain from reviewing 3rr reports, well at the event, I have closed many tens and no one has seen fit to take issue with my judgment. In your 3rr report you reference Giovani block log, but fail to mention that except for a quicly-lifted block in June, it has been nearly a year since anything new has appeared in said block log. El_C 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that there are plenty of editors and admins taking issue with your judgement to reduce here. And maybe if Giovanni33's 3RR reports weren't dismissed so quickly and his blocks reduced so readily, he would stop gaming the system and stop edit warring and he wouldn't have so many people adamantly in favor of such a long block. --Tbeatty 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be, aside from the cheers coming from several of his content opponents here, general ambiguity about what is actually happening now and a tendency to go by notions (such as a 2-second glance at a block log) rather than evidence. El_C 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll guess we'll have to disagree as it appears to me, Giovanni33 has one cheerleader and a lot of persons that oppose, are sympathetic to or apathetic to his particular ideology that simply see someone who edit wars and games the system in order to violate the letter and spirti of 3RR. --Tbeatty 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This mode of communication is becoming eliptical. El_C 08:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One is never enough to edit war. Except for a block in June, that was soon lifted, the last block is from September 2006, nearly a year ago. El_C 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, even a week is too much. This dosen't appear like a just block. The use of the 3rr noticeboard seems questionable as does the fact that the blocking admin consulted this, much more relevant board after issuing this irregular block. And the lack of communication by the blocking admin with Giovani also seems somewhat problematic. The reporter in this case is a longstanding content opponent. Should I go on? El_C 07:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reporters are nearly always content oppponents.Proabivouac 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm of course pointing to its longstanding nature. El_C 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni games the system by recruiting editors to continue his edit war. That was the complaint. It was not questionable. It states very clearly what the problem was. An admin reviewed it. Blocked him progressively based on his LONG history. He notified him on his talk page. There is no other notification requirements. What is problematic with that? --Tbeatty 08:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I already illustrated what is problematic with that (3rr not having been violated, other user not participating in talk page, blocklog cited but no blocks, except for the lifted one, since Sept. 2006). El_C 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni mode of operation is to edit war and push 3rr to the limit, and sometimes over. When called on for it, make excuses and blame others, and then "promise" to do better. Here he promises to limit his reverts to only 2 in the future [[85]]. Giovanni is generally a fine editor, however he is certainly a frequently flier at 3rr and edit war gaming. Dman727 07:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, except for June, there hasn't been blocks since nearly a year ago. So it looks like there's been improvement. I don't think draconian penalties for surprise-2rr are fitting, nor having 3rr as one-sided venue. For my part, I have protected the page for a few days. El_C 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be crystal here: a blocklog is not an eternally damnable record (well, except for mine!), and with a gap of a year between blocks can, the block log can instead be seen as a record of improvement. ♪Accentuate the positive,♪ and so on. El_C 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel two weeks is too long. I have had very little interaction with Giovanni. In the dispute, our views were different on the matter but I felt he tries to make his case as clear as possible and argues for it. --Aminz 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is way too long. I say three days. "Wihout casting assertions I will comment - another arch-conservative POV warrior (Tbeatty) asking for a ban of one of the most potent liberal POV warriors!" He is being ganged up for his politics! Ever since that PrisonPlanet thing some of the conservs here have been on the war-path! With this new revelation though See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA the RW Reign of Terror will be ending soon! :-) Bmedley Sutler 09:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From the record I've seen, Giovanni33 has moved from serious abuse to relative quiescence to garden-variety gaming the system. Meaning no irony, that is indeed an improvement. I'd have to agree that the ancient block log is relevant - it shows that he risks returning to old patterns - but we should acknowledge that there does indeed appear to be a long period of improved behavior. In the last interaction I had with him, he had indeed violated 3RR on Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, and self-reverted per my advice: I resolved the thread because it seemed the problem had been solved, and Giovanni33 seemed reasonable, if a little disingenuous about his supposedly naive knowledge of the rule for which he'd been blocked before. My impression was one of a person who would revert more often it if he thought he could get away with it, but was keen to stay in the good graces of the community and avoid a block. So, there is something here to work with. When I looked at the content dispute, it was impossible to really pick a side. The other editor, Ultramarine, was removing poorly-cited material, which is good, but then turned around and tried to separate this from School of the Americas, which, while I'm no leftist, struck me as a serious whitewash. I tend to disagree with Giovanni33's politics, and vaguely agree with those of his accusers, but that itself gives me pause. I don't know what to do here. As a 3rr report, it goes nowhere on its own, for there was no technical violation. I honestly haven't looked into this enough to really say what is just. My feeling is that this is an "it's about time" block supported by a lot of people who are plainly exasperated with him, and generally, a lot of people are rightly frustrated at our chronic inability to address the subjective but real problem of tendentious editing. What is missing is a serious warning that a problem was coming, instead he was let go again and again (I share responsibility for this) and now all his debts are being collected at once. Thus, two weeks seems too harsh. I think reducing the block is justified, but I'd be judicious in how much we do so. Say, to three days, with the recognition that some people are in all seriousness proposing a ban: not a good sign. Giovanni33 is advised that a non-cosmetic change in behavior is necessary, as it's the recurrance of complaints that will do him in, and we see that staying within the technical confines of the rules is not enough.Proabivouac 09:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Girls by the pool.jpg

This image was previously deleted with the explanation of "18 USC Section 2257", which I assume has to do with concern that the subjects are under 18. The image has been uploaded again. Should it be speedied? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any delete history at that name. Is the link correct? And yes, that Federal Code relates to under-18 models - Alison ☺ 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. You fixed the link. I just deleted it as unlicensed (which it was) and it's a bit-copy of the previously deleted image. And yes, concerns re. underage - Alison ☺ 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to interpret the law as it applies to Wikipidia unless you are a) a laywer and b) more importantly, the foundation's lawyer. That said, the contributions of both accounts who uploaded the image are somewhat off, so the image should probably be deleted on permission issues alone unless solid copyright and permission proof is provided. 75.116.0.59 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 26. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre (talk · contribs) recently had a checkuser performed to see if he was His excellency (talk · contribs). The results were inclusive but the general impression seems to be sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Anyway, I have now protected that user's talk page indefinitely for this blatant threat. Whether or not this is the user known as His excellency, Cheszmastre has no business on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre sent me an e-mail confirming that he is (at least presently) the banned User:Kirbytime, who once again is working with His excellency to troll Matt57; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime. I am certain this is not the last we will hear from either of these gentlemen.Proabivouac 05:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior - copying of archives to own talk page

As some may know, there is a small group of editors that are continuing to battle (i'm included in the group). Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) has been copying text from User talk:Jmfangio/Archive 1 to his talk page. Repeated notices that this does not fit well with WP:TPG, WP:ARCHIVE, and WP:RTP are being ignored. There are a number of other "ousttanding issues", but I am happy to continue to walk away from them: this however needs attention. It would be appreciated if someone would instruct this user to stop copying content from one user talk page to his (especially without agreement). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense. All Jmfangio has done is give me three policies (WP:TPG, WP:RTP, WP:ARCHIVE) which I've never read once in my life; ergo, I don't know what they say. I took this originally as an attempt to harass me, but I kindly asked on his talk page why I couldn't do that. I asked him what from those three pages say that I can't do what I was doing because for all I know he could've been making it all up, something that I've no doubt he would do because of the recent history between us (he hates me and has continually accused me of making personal attacks towards him and being uncivil, two things that another user, Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs), believes I haven't done at all. He responded (rudely, in my opinion), " have pointed you to three different articles that have relevant content on this. As they are important articles, it is best that you read this. Now i am quite serious - i am stepping out of this," saying "I am stepping out of this" without even telling me why I couldn't do what I did. Now, he comes and reports me. For all I know, he could've made it up. All I did was kindly ask him what it says so I know that I really can't do it. He hates me, and I am under the impression that he would do anything to frustrate me.

And also, mind that the conversation took place in the past several hours; I wasn't ready to close the discussion, but Jmfangio took the conversation from User talk:TonyTheTiger, moved it to his own talk page, and then archived it before the discussion was, in my opinion, dead. He got all mad at me for doing something that he, himself, suggested in replying on his talk page because he moved the discussion there, I asked him politely why he was mad at me for only doing what he said, and he has yet to answer. I wasn't ready for the discussion to be archived, as I saw it as an attempt by Jmfangio to completely ignore my post so he wouldn't have to answer me. I feel that the discussion was wrongfully closed and haven't even been able to get any answers from Jmfangio. He flat out refuses. Ksy92003(talk) 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• And again - trying to keep it on one of his sub pages. He doesn't need to be blocked, so we don't need to go to 3RR, although I will even if it get's me blocked. Just get this to stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I am also confused as to which policy he is violating by doing this. Could you be a little more specific in your reasoning for removing this content from Ksy92003's talk page? (ftr, I am not an admin) Resolute 05:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Further, why is it so important to blank this discussion from his talk page? Would it not stop if you simply let him maintain this archive and moved on? Resolute 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this is unrelated to the topic, but I have had to put up with so much frustration because of Jmfangio that, because of this recent development, I have been frustrated so much. I decided to do myself a favor and hit a tennis ball with my tennis racquet. Because of all the frustration built up inside of me, I feel that I might've severely injured my right shoulder because of the swinging. Just wanted to say that to prove how frustrated I am and have been. Ksy92003(talk) 05:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of the history of our "relationship" is beyond my control. Stop refractoring my comments to other talk pages without my permission. I'm even giving you a chance to get out of the other stuff. Just stop...i'm yet again about to have to go bail on a conversation I started with ANOTHER user because of you. Go read the articles you were pointed to. Your actions are in dramatic violation of several points on all the articles. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why this is disruptive? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point you to one quote from him: "All Jmfangio has done is give me three policies (WP:TPG, WP:RTP, WP:ARCHIVE) which I've never read once in my life; ergo, I don't know what they say." He is pointed to the articles that explain everything and then says "i don't know what"... Amongst the many other problems with his edits, and amongst the many other violations within these articles - i'll point you to just one more thing and then i can't imagine whatelse to do but keep him from moving my comments. Per WP:TPG#Others.27_comments

"Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• If you have their permission"

He doesn't have my permission. How many more reasons do i really need to have to give you guys. Just get it to stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN your talk comments any more than you do any other edit. Can you show that he has changed the context of your comments by any changes he has made? If all he has done is simply move an entire discussion, I still fail to see how this is a violation of this guideline. Resolute 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... I never edited your comment. All I did was move it, but I didn't change anybody's words to alter their meaning. I don't need your permission to move anybody's comments, only to edit them.. I didn't edit them at all. I copy-pasted them, and nothing more. What's so wrong with that? You did the exact same thing. Ksy92003(talk) 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go read those pages. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By posting any text to Wikipedia, you agree to license it under the GFDL -- no permission is needed to re-use (or even modify) your content, provided your contribution is attributed. There are, of course, some Wikipedia policies which suggest we should avoid editing the comments of others when doing so would alter their meaning or otherwise produce confusion... but I don't see a compelling reason why this particular case is problematic. In any case, I see that you've violated 3RR at this point, and with that in mind, I've blocked you for 24 hours. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All that said, there's clearly something going on involving Jmfangio (talk · contribs), Ksy92003 (talk · contribs), and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds/MONGO

For a loong time now, these two have been yelling at each other. MONGO claims that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet of a banned user (His Excellency, I think), while he denies this and calls MONGO a troll for claiming that he is. Can we solve this please? -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can't keep pretending that I really think MONGO might be an innocent victim here. Yes, SevenOfDiamonds has done some bad things sockpuppet or not, but MONGO continues to implicitly declare that anyone who doesn't do as he likes is in league with trolls. But we couldn't actually do something about this, nope. -Amarkov moo! 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for some sort of sanction against MONGO? Have you tried dispute resolution? I don't see what the link you provided has to do with User:SevenOfDiamonds --Tbeatty 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just ranting. I'm asking for help sorting out his sockpuppetry allegations. The link was about comments EVula removed in a flame war between the two. Even if I were, any form of dispute resolution results in "Support MONGO more against the trolls", that's happened many times before... -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow it and it looked like an IP troll was removing MONGO's comments replying User:Bmedley Sutler.[86]. If they IP troll was SevenOfDiamonds, they should both be blocked. --Tbeatty 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't either of them...Amarkov...might I ask exactly what your problem is? Didn't you file an Rfc on me recently and then ask to have it deleted...then you marched here and attacked me...now you're doing it again. You're not a mediator or an administrator and as far as I am concerned...you are harassing me, pal. Back off now...this has nothing to do with you.--MONGO 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am complaining that you are consistently incivil to people who disagree with you, to the point of ordering them to do as you say or resigning adminship. If that is "attacking" you, then yes, I am. -Amarkov moo! 05:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm also complaining that you repeatedly refer to SevenOfDiamonds as a sockpuppet of a banned user, without ever bothering to actually prove such an assertion. -Amarkov moo! 06:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice...I have an admin who deletes a comment I made in self defense and then marches over to my talkpage (after not removing another comment made to me that I am a troll) and tells me to calm down and this same admin does zero to warn the other offenders...and you wonder why I am indignant? The issue of SevenOfDiamonds being a ban evader is coming...it is in the works. I am absolutely appalled at the level of one sideness that this website is becoming.--MONGO 06:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing: sitting here reading this, I thought "I wonder how long it will take MONGO to accuse somebody of harassment." Didn't take long... - auburnpilot talk 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment like that only inflames the situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be true, but it's about time somebody stops MONGO's bs. Every time somebody disagrees with MONGO, he screams harassment in an attempt to discredit them. It gets tiring. - auburnpilot talk 06:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a chance to try and settle an old score with me, you alway do so.--MONGO 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a score to settle with you. I simply find you to be one of the most uncivil editors I've come in contact with, and I'm continually amazed by the excuses that are created to defend your behavior. Nothing more, nothing less; just amazed. - auburnpilot talk 06:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough...that is how I find you...to be incivil. I am continuously amazed at the level of incivility you subject me to.--MONGO 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO Mongos behavior is the most un-civil and aggressive of any long-time editor on Wikipedia, (who I have seen) and he does get a 'free-pass' (IMO) because he used to be an administrator and was attacked from some other site nobody reads. Bmedley Sutler 06:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what exactly do we want done here? I'm not really seeing anything actionable, though I may have missed something. This is really looking to me more like a case for dispute resolution, not ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. What I want to be accomplished here is to determine if allegations that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet are valid. If he is, block him, if we decide he is not, then hopefully that will stop the accusations. -Amarkov moo! 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heinstein, In the big schema of things Mongos words and posture over the last few days is much more hurtful to 'the project' than Giovanni33s slight mistake of 3 RR, but this just shows how silly the rules can be here, and how some get a 'free-pass' (IMO). Bmedley Sutler 06:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, "Removing comments?" Like you did here [87][88] to stop discussion and squish the truth on your friends administartor election? Bmedley Sutler 06:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about with respect to this subject, but your smear attempts are very transparent. --Tbeatty 07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have given MONGO a formal warning for his disgusting behaviour/notice that he will be blocked if he continues it. I am yet to look into SoD's edits, but thus far haven't seen anything anywhere near as offensive was what is being discussed on MONGO's talk page. Viridae^Talk 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes...Seven is allowed to call me a troll and that is okay...I am not allowed to defend myself from the baiting and attacks. You claimed on my userpage that I had called Evula a jerk, and I did not...I asked you to provide a diff and you didn't. If you are going to threaten me for doing something I didn't do, and fail to retract the threat, then we have nothing more to discuss and your threat is going to be removed.--MONGO 06:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied to the query for a diff and pointed out that I made a mistake, but because of the 2* jerk calling the warning still stands. I really don't care what you do with the thread, I hopefully won't have to act on it. But seeing as you have seen it it may as well be deleted - I really don't mind. Viridae^Talk 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now go and warn others for calling me a troll and for the other insults...threaten them with a block and tell them their edits and comments are disgusting. Please don't ever come to my taklkpage again and threaten to block me for doing something I did not do. I'll be patiently awaiting your impartial actions...I suspect my wait might last forever, so prove me wrong.--MONGO 07:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a checkuser request here. I believe SoD is Lovelight, a banned user, and I believe the IP trail proves it. I think the evidence is strong enough to stand without checkuser but we'll see where it goes. --Tbeatty 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

requested deletion of closed AfD talk page

Hi, I wish to draw attention to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brent Henry Waddington, and an ip which has twice blanked the page, most recently with the edit summary "As a Brent Waddington unconnected with this guy, it would be really great if everytime my employers googled me they didn't see that page. Would it be OK if we deleted it?". Since the previous blanking (without edit summary) was reverted, I kind of feel the guy deserves some sort of a response. I think it's odd that he isn't asking for the AfD page to be deleted. Note that the AfD was connected to a bunch of hoaxing apparently connected to a poetry book masquarading as a textbook in game theory, by a bunch of university students tracked down by User:Bwithh, and eventually ended with a university official requesting access to the deleted article [89]. I wouldn't like to have my name associated with such stuff, it's pretty much of historical interest only, but should a closed AfD be deleted for such a reason? My 2c says it ought to be blanked, but I think some admin input is appropriate here. Pete.Hurd 05:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reason we can't blank the page out of courtesy; I'm not familiar with general practice, here, as to whether blanking or deletion is preferred. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a 2-year-old AFD ... I don't see any real reason not to delete it. --B 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dante Santiago Autobiography?

User:Dantesantiago claims to be the subject of this article. I have warned him that it would be best that he no longer work on this article due to conflict of interest issues and the WP:AUTO guideline. He has continued to be the primary contributor to this article as the [history] shows. Additionally, this article cites no references and bears a "sounds like advertising" tag. Could an administrator join me in encouraging User:Dantesantiago to cease editing his own article? Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pablothegreat85 erased

User:Pablothegreat85 wrote this about me "Something still needs to be done about users such as Bmedley Sutler and SevenOfDiamonds and their IP sockpuppets. They both, especially Bmedley Sutler, are accounts that used mostly for left-wing POV-pushing and trolling." I am not a troll and I have no sockpuppets. Check my edit history to see all I do tonight. Link I left a NPA warning on his page as part of 'dispute resolution', so I would not need to have to post here and bother you. I was told to try some dispute resolution first. He erased my warning and called it 'trolling'. Link I ask for a block of at least one week for thwarting my efforts to communicate as a part of disputing. He suggested a forever ban for Giovanni33 for a 3 rr. I think he needs one week or two weeks to settle down and stop his attacks and poor behavior. He is a long-time editor so he knows better. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Erasing warnings from talk page is frowned upon. It isn't a blockable offense. --DarkFalls ^talk 07:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not good! I'll post it again. Bmedley Sutler 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an fyi, the corresponding "policy/guideline/essay/article" reads: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." A user can remove pretty much whatever he wants from his user talk and edit warring over a warning like this is silly. Kyaa the Catlord 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And edit warring to keep unwanted content on a different user's talk page can be interpreted as harrassment and can lead to a block for the editor who keeps posting the warning. Kusma (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He attacked me, then removed my warning as 'trolling'. That is not right. If he says in his edit summary "Okay, I made a mistake attacking you, removing warning" that will be Okay. Not to label it trolling though. Not after he attacked me! Sorry! Bmedley Sutler 08:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Templating a talk page isn't an effort to communicate! I'm going to revert your revert. Try actually talking him to him instead. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On top of this, you are complaining about the same thing you have been doing. You have put a multitude of warnings, received on your talk page, into your archive almost immediately. Ursasapien (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are funny! I am laughing! I made one archive when my page got too long, and I didn't delete anything. Bmedley Sutler 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad I could provide you with a little humor, because you come across as fairly angry. By your measure, since it can be seen in the edit history, User:Pablothegreat85 did not delete anything either. Why don't you take a wikibreak. Wikipedia seems to be getting to you. Ursasapien (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one laughing. You seem angry and you and your friends will be getting much angrier in the next days! See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA Bmedley Sutler 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm the one laughing." - Yes, I assumed you were laughing at my comment, hence I provided you with a little humor. "You seem angry" - How so, I don't feel angry and apparently I come across as comical to you. "you and your friends will be getting much angrier in the next days!" - Now this seems paranoid. Couple that with your statement: "Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions." and I would say you definitely need a wikibreak! Ursasapien (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, my first warning to him was hand written And he erased it. So I used the more official warning template. That's what I'm supposed to do! (use a template) Whats with these rules that have no lines? 24 hrs is not 24 hrs and I follow a rule and now someone tells me I'm not supposed to follow the rule of official templates! Bmedley Sutler 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User posing as Ryulong

Uifjei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted {{UsernameHardBlocked}} on several talk pages ([90], [91], [92], [93], see contribs for full list), signing as User:Ryulong... and he's continuing this behaviour on more user talk pages. –sebi 09:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked... Seems to be a series of users posing as administrators. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)