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

Handling new editors (follow-up to Metsguy234 section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block of User:Keepscases

For one reason or another, I was directed to the activities of Keepscases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:RFA, which is described in some detail at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 110#Keepscases disrupting with nonsense questions. I then I saw User talk:Keepscases#RfA question?, where a particularly inappropriate question was raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heidianddick. I reviewed Keepscases edits and found other inappropriate questions, and I stated on his talk page that "If you continue to disrupt RFAs by asking inane questions, you will be blocked from Wikipedia."

Then this question was brought up to my talk page. And another inquiry into his edits brought up this. For the continued disruption of RFA as well as the extremely inappropriate comment to Sarah, I have indefinitely blocked Keepscases. It has also been suggested that this block be commuted to 48 hours long, but that is why I am bringing this here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Consensus both at RFA talk and at Keepscases' talk page was that his behavior at RFA is not disruptive. —Random832 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand how asking someone if they "Edit in the nude", or if they like looking at pictures of men, or asking completely inane questions, is considered "not disruptive". Regardless, I saw that edit to Sarah, and that is unacceptable, in my small opinion. Ariel♥Gold 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor reducing the block to 48 hours. We cannot judge on the basis of his comments whether this fellow is a troll or has merely had a lapse in judgment. If he continues to be a pest, certainly he should be blocked again and for longer. — Dan | talk 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought his comment on my page was quite trollish but I wasn't offended and his RfA questions seem trollish, too, but I think indefinite might be too much for a first block. I agree with Dan and would reduce it to 48 hours and then escalate the blocks if he continues. Sarah 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request denied. We do not condone acts of immaturity. —Kurykh 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do -- or, rather, if an act is merely one of immaturity, we give a second chance. What we do not condone are acts of trolling. Again, it is not clear yet which this is. — Dan | talk 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page were quite unacceptable. They constitute sexual harassment in most jurisdictions. Whether Sarah was offended is beside the point - if we tolerate this type of thing, we will drive away female editors. I'm happy with a reduced block, but only if understood as a final warning before a ban. Zero tolerance here.--Doc^g 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree entirely, Doc. Sarah 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a block length reduction; A lot of his recent questions are bizarre, but I don't think there was sufficient feedback to tell him to stop making them more inappropriate before he was blocked. My inclination is to reduce to 48 hrs and give him a strict laying down of the law on harrassment versus sillyness. Further "questions" and comments like the last few including Sarah's talk page after warning would warrant further longer blocks. But not indef, now. The size of the hammer is disproportionate to the actions or how they've been percieved by those he directed them at. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Doc and George above. Reduce the block to a week but make it clear that it is a final warning before a total ban. Dreadstar † 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: reduce the block to 48/72/120 hours, give an only/final warning that any more comments like the ones to Sarah will result in an indefinite block and community ban, and politely ask him to engage in discussion at WT:RFA about whether his questions are acceptable or not. Daniel 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this user may be a sock of a banned user. He first appeared making those comments on Dereks1x sockpuppet's RFA. Miranda 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's reason to think this is not his first account, yes, but how do you make the jump from "sock" to "sock of banned user"? Picaroon (t) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...might ask a checkuser? I am not a person who has access to any sekrit list. He appeared on a banned user's RFA. Miranda 05:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to 48h. When it expires I will keep an eye on his contributions for a while. — Dan | talk 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that should he either date another lesbian or leave the toilet seat up then the block should be extended to indefinite? ;) --WebHamster 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the wink-smiley is meant to suggest that's humor, but I don't think the joke is particularly funny. Please refactor. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So don't laugh. One can't please all the people all the time.--WebHamster 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page, asking if one edits in the nude or looking at images of men is sexual harassment. It doesn't belong here and it's unfair to ask any editor male or female editor to tolerate it. This isn't exactly a long time editor having only approximately 165 edits but in fairness , would support shortening block to one week , one final warning before indef block and ban.--Sandahl 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the block 1-week, final-warning, then indefinate ban idea.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Keepscases. This fellow is adamant that there was absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with his comments, going so far as to say "shame on anyone who was offended." I'm tempted to take this as prima facie evidence that the user is ineducable, but will defer to the consensus that he be given one last chance. That's one last chance, not several last last last last last last last chances as is so often the case here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to my post at his talk page, before his block. His question at The Transhumanist's RfA was IMHO inappropriately personal... and (what I didn't say at the talk page) inappropriately trolly, as it seemed to me to be baiting. The Transhumanist did well not to rise to the bait. I think this is a newbie who's not got the hang of what is and isn't appropriate here - this is quite an unusual site for anyone used to, say, BBs, and our tolerance for humour is bounded. However, if he continually ignores warnings and worse, argues the case that he was in the right, there's no hope for him. Therefore, I support a block lift, but on condition he understands that at the next similar offense, I would propose a community ban. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous block. Keepscases is actually, IMO, a positive influence on RfA; being given an unpredictable and apparently random question, rather than the formulaic "what is your interpretation of BLP/IAR?", is actually a good basis on which to judge a candidate's character, as they are forced to come up with a genuinely individual response. Plus, if a candidate believes one of his questions to be "inappropriately personal" then they have every right to refuse to answer it, and it's unlikely that they'd lose support for doing so. The comments to Sarah could be interpreted vaguely as sexual harassment, but if Sarah herself has not complained, then they should be interpreted (as they were no doubt intended) as a joke; at most, they merit a warning to be more careful with comments in future. This block is yet another example of why sysops should not be trigger-happy with indef blocks, and I only hope that Ryulong hasn't driven another user away through overzealous blocking (it wouldn't be the first time). Walton^One 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller above. Looking at the edits in question, they are borderline -- unlike the recent incident involving Thespian. (The comment about editting in the nude reminded me of the line from "Airplane!".) Assume good faith, & the usual gudieline about biting newbies would direct us to assume a mistake in judgement, rather than intent to harass -- the guy's just trying to inject a little humor. A stern warning here is entirely appropriate, & perhaps a block to make the point; an indef block at this point is overkill. (A second such incident, however, & I give permission to anyone -- especially a female Admin -- to throw the book at him.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some of his questions that I missed were inappropriate but I enjoyed the ones I saw. I was disappointed and felt slighted when he didn't show up for my RfA asking about bunions or offering me a shrubbery. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some what late, but I am in agreement with Walton's comments above. I do not feel that block should have occurred here and in general do not feel that this case is being approached with the user being considered in good faith. I also do not think that the user had significant warning before his ban, as pointed out I believe consensus was leaning towards him being able to do so. His comments to Sarah were not appropriate, I do agree, but not deserving of ban. I also agree with Walton on why his questions are worthwhile and feel that he should be allowed to continue to make them. SorryGuy 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note #Keepscases_speaks—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible remedy for this

I have drafted a possible solution that would allow this user to be unblocked, and I would like to see what the community thinks about this. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbuckner

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

I've blocked Dbuckner (talk · contribs) indefinitely as he's made a legal threat against FT2 by stating that he's contacted animal welfare officials about his conduct on Wikipedia[1]. I've made it clear to him that the minute he retracts this, I am willing to unblock his account. I hope this is just a momentary lapse of judgement and he'll soon be back to editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yup - [2]. Neil ☎ 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Which leads me to wonder why he was so keen to be unblocked. If I was leaving the wikipedia, I wouldn't worry so much about whether I got blocked. He also seemed to claim he was editing from an IP on WP:IP [3]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oh dear. We had the exact same issue last year. "Should a banned user's votes be stricken even if he wasn't banned until AFTER he made those votes?" The answer should be an obvious "no", because bans aren't retroactive, and it shouldn't be possible to influence elections by banning users. >Radiant< 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Users Otolemur crassicaudatus and Ghanadar galpa

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fasach Nua disrupting IfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Stco23

User:Stco23 has been temp blocked twice for being uncivil with other editors, but he does not seem to have learned anything from either block. He continues to harrass and make rude remarks to any editor that either edits an image he has uploaded or removes images he's added to articles. I have had the unfortunate luck to have to deal with him twice now over images in the Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers and Garfield and Friends articles. He had uploaded individual images of all of the DVD sets and wanted every last one in the article, which is inappropriate and excessive. While his exchanges haven't degraded to the level they were at the time of his last block, I'm certain it is only a matter of time. Our "discussion" of the Chip N Dale issue included User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Chip_N_Dale_Rescue_Rangers, User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Stco23 and User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Stco23_2. Borderline, but livable. However, he also did this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collectonian (though apparently he didn't quite do it right or something). As a side note, I deleted nothing (not an admin, of course), the individual DVD releases were deleted as part of an AfD along with the season pages. He also went to other users complaining [19] (dif includes my response warning him about borderline meat puppetry), [20] (in an unrelated CfD), and [21] (another user). Some responded as seen at [22], again trying to correct and education. When one of the images was CSDed for non-fair use, he reverted[23] as "not being legal" then when another editor corrected his inappropriate removal, he told the editor to stay out of it [24].

I let that one go, trying to be somewhat patient and understanding and hoping he might learn. Alas, no. I started cleaning up the Garfield and Friends article to bring it inline with the TV MOS. The DVD section had three images, I removed all but one (leaving one that one in an attempt at early compromise because I suspected what was coming). First, he undid. I reverted and explained. He then began the barrage of messages to my talk page. He later removed them but I put them back for easier viewing[25]. During one of his messages, he left the lovely edit summary of "I hate you" [26]. When he realized he wouldn't get his way, again, he removed all of the Garfields images and CSDed them, along with the Chip 'n Dale images. He has since "changed his mind."

I nominated the Garfield and Friends template for deletion (unnecessary) and he requested it be kept to protect his images [27]. He's done the same for other template and category deletions, and use the protection of "his" images as rationale for edit warring and harrassing other editors. He's also given the same reason in a suggested (and needed) merge [28].

This editor seems to have some WP:OWNership issues over images and throws a nasty temper tantrum if they are not kept in articles, no matter how many times he's referred to the image policies and guidelines. While he's behaving marginally better since his last block, it is extremely frustrating for other editors trying to clean up TV articles. Having to deal with his ugly/nice back and forth on image issues and his constant barrage of complaints and attempts to get his way so he can keep his images has likely chased off other editors before.

Honestly not sure what should be done, but after round two with him, I'd like to avoid another round. Its likely, though, since I am in the TV project and actively cleaning up articles where I can. So some assistance would be welcome.Collectonian (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for many of the thing I said. I did do some edits but then I changed my mind about them. I decided to put the two images into one, and I thought it would be a good idea. I did get out of hand, but I calmed down and thought it over. I know that sometimes I get out of hand, but then I think it over. By the way I was only blocked once even though it showes I was blocked twice. I don't deserve to be blocked even though I do have problems with my temper and I need to control it. Collectionian I'm sorry. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That thing I did not want to be deleted was not because of her, It was because I thought it would be better to keep it because I thought that if it stayed, it would keep those articles at bay. It was the Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers template and not Garfield and Friends.--Stco23 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am getting rid of two of the images that I uploaded a long time ago since I put both of them together to make one image. I own what I took, but the fox compies own the rights to them. I put them together, and resize them to fit the rules. I should have a long time ago, put the Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers images together. I know the rules and I am going to stick by them at all cost. I will not haress anyone again and I will talk to people reasonable and respectful. I might be different from other people and might not know how to do some stuff on this site, but I will follow the rules.--Stco23 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite your apologies here and on my talk page, I noticed you are still going around to other editors and complaining [29], where among other things you claimed that you "tried to be nice" but that I ruined it? I also see you are now trying to use your autism as an excuse for your behavior? I have a hard time finding your profuse apologies to be sincere when you are doing such things. Collectonian (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash

I am nearing the end of my rope with V-Dash (talk · contribs), who appears to simply be here to start drama. His talk page, for the past few days, has just been he and I going back and forth, and all I am seeing from him is a MPOV and tendentious editing, deliberately ignoring anything everyone says to him. He also posted a link to an attack blog he ran (since removed) and proceeded to process-wonk about it after I removed it as an attack site.

I first got involved with him when I blocked him for edit-warring on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, and that was when I realized he had a fan club of sorts who were making impostor accounts. Although I blocked all the imp accounts, he returned, after his block ended, to starting the same argument that had been soundly defeated on D&P's talk page. After I engaged him on another subject on the talk page, I moved the majority of that section to his talk page, where he and I have been debating for the past few days.

Just now, an anon who has been recent on his talk page, calling himself the "Wandering hero", posted links to a couple GameFAQs forums as "PROOF" that V-Dash isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Looking at the links, I'm starting to agree with him, and have come here today requesting advice on the matter. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection. Way to go against your word Jeske. I thought GameFAQs links to the msg boards weren't considered proof? You said so yourself. Anyhow, you did remove the link, but I never reposted it again. You are the one who started the debate on my user page. So don't even object to it.V-Dash (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He called it proof, I am quoting him. I'm asking for advice because I'm starting to see very bad signs coming from you that generally gets users indef-blocks. And the forums he linked to, assuming that your username there is what I think it is, paint a picture akin to the Mona Lisa. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And another thing? Don't claim admin abuse until you actually know what admin abuse is. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, because I don't remember myself editing any articles lately other than 2 where one had someone vandalize it and the other had false info on it. Besides, you said unofficial links do not count as proof. And yes, I do know what admin abuse is.V-Dash (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you misapplying the label? I have not - and will not - block(ed) you. If anything, I have been biased towards you. And this is precisely what I stated on the talk page: You completely disregarded the majority of my last statement and cherry-picked the issue you want to address. And this is not about your article editing; this is about your behavior en generale. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, this is her idea, not mine...

Anyhow, Jeske, how am I cherrypicking on something? This is all about my idea of DnD. Sure, I called it a board game, but did I alter the article? I did not. This is why I never get involved with fans of popular media...except wrestling.V-Dash (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am male, thank you very much, and this is less about your idea of D&D than it is about your behavior on D&P's talk before my one-week block of you for editwarring and subsequently afterwards on same and on your TP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And V-Dash, creating a thread here is by no means admin abuse. At first, your edits could have simply been reverted as forum posts aren't reliable sources. However it seems your editing has become disruptive, which could result in a block. And BTW Jeske, you said you did already block him, though for a different reason. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him last month for a 3RR violation on Diamond and Pearl (I also blocked Placebo Effect for the same edit-war). At that time I did not know whom he was. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Checking his block log, I assume we're referring to the most recent one. Also, you don't seem to be the only one expressing concern; of the three other admins who blocked him, Stephen also noticed harassment. So V-Dash, please refrain from disruptive editing. If you don't, you get blocked. Simple. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:MelicansMatkin has also had concerns with V-Dash, AFAIK. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but I honestly don't see what Jeske is going on about. Anyhow, I haven't even touched the D/P page since you blocked me. Heck, I barely go there now.V-Dash (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not on your behavior there; it is on your behavior towards other users. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting that you're a sockpuppet account? You did say users and users = more than one person.V-Dash (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can guarantee you CheckUser on me, Melicans Matkin, and the Placebo Effect will come back "Unrelated". -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When he says users, I believe he means that you have been rude to more than one person. Nothing Jeske said could be taken as proof that he's a sock. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, when did I ever mention does two? Guilty conscience?V-Dash (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Users with whom User:V-Dash has had a negative conduct towards, whether on an article's talk page, or his own talk page: Jéské, User:The Placebo Effect, User:Urutapu, User:MelicansMatkin. I feel it necessary to mention that at this point in time, the user seems to starting arguments simply for the purpose of causing disruption. The user also appears to ignore Consensus, and refuses to accept explanations from no less than four different editors on the same topic.

V-Dash, accusing a member of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet with no proof whatsoever is a very serious allegation. Jéské never mentioned anything that could construe his being a sockpuppet. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting the feeling of disruption and harassment here. I'd endorse a block. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't do the deed (I'm in dispute with him); another admin will have to give the permanent vacation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are you going to call the cops for Jeske calling me a sockpuppet? Besides, this was not my idea. He posted the link on my talk page. As for the other users, I haven't even seen them recently.V-Dash (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I never called you a sockpuppet, but you have just accused me of Wikistalking. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. So the next thing you'll accuse me of is WikiPwning?V-Dash (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't make the accusation I did above lightly. What little good faith I had in you vanished the moment you made that statement. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict): otherwise, you wouldn't be following me throughout Wikipedia - sounds like a Wikistalking accusation to me. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you be quiet - at this point, your behavior is only sending you further beyond the point of no return. I am going to contact another admin to look at this thread and the ones on your userpage. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE) I have contacted Alison about this thread and the ones on V-Dash's page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were an admin yourself? Or would it look like a bad blimish on your account if you blocked me for the arguments you started? Btw, this is your thread that you linked on MY talk page.V-Dash (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You initially started the exchange at Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl - Nice try. And because I'm the one debating you on that topic and others, I couldn't block anyhow. Nor could the Placebo Effect (she's editwarred with you). Alison, however, can, and I invited her to simply look at this thread and all the threads on your talk page - nothing more. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you powers were taken away? Is this why you've started those debates with me? Btw, I did not do anythingf to the D/P page.V-Dash (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean besides going against consensus, arguing for the sake of arguing, and causing pointless diruption because every other editor on the page disagreed with you? MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have my administrator powers, V-Dash, and it was your post that was simply added there to fan the flames (diff) that prompted that debate. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The last time I saw V-Dash's name, I believe it involved The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. It had gotten to the point where he was calling people 'cocksuckers', if I remember correctly. In fact, I think I was the one who reported him. I don't know what he's done this time, but he has a history of extreme and often outright vulgar rudeness if he doesn't get his way. HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Diruption? You mean disruption? So you want someone else to block me to keep me from accusing you of admin abuse?V-Dash (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep going the way you're going and you will be blocked without fanfare. And HalfShadow, he's been trolling on his userpage and here, and has accused me of being a sockpuppeteer and of wikistalking. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Half, that's a big offense. Jeske, how am I trolling my userpage? I haven't even edited in over a month and a half. Besides, what can you block me for? For replying to you? V-Dash (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[30], [31], [32] HalfShadow (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior on your user talk page is tantamount (the same as) trolling, as is your behavior here, and making baseless accusations of stalking and sockpuppetry is a form of trolling and a blockable offense. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And you have just accused me of trolling you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can they both be blocked?Mantlefish (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC) — Mantlefish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're baiting me to respond to you Jeske.V-Dash (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish is an SPA, and I am not baiting you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's ok for you to accuse others of being SPA, yet no one else can't?V-Dash (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish *is* an SPA; he's only edited here and on your talkpage. I have filed a checkuser request to see if this is another one of PolluxFrost/Dash Jr's socks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we know he's not your account?V-Dash (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Read my contribs (the Kacheek emoticon in my sig is a direct link) and compare them with Mantlefish's. Note that they overlap. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish

Checkuser confirms that V-Dash is Mantlefish. Enough is enough. I am now asking for a ban. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeske, I, for one, would have no problem with you sacking this guy. It is now a clear cut case of sockpuppetry, not just a dispute involving you as before. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Menudo (band)

I believe that User:Christopher R is attempting to remove what he claims to be libelous information. It is sourced, however. He has hit 3rr, as has another contributor who is reverting his removals, and been informed numerous times by way of his (Chris's) User talk that this is incorrect. I believe this to be CoI (see history). --Izno (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up at WP:COI/N, please. This is the wrong place. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be discussed here, since he has now issued a legal threat - [33]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I just blocked him until he retracts his legal threat. The article does seem to contain a lot of unsourced material; he's got a point, even if he's being a bully about it. I left him a note telling him to retract his threat, read our policy, and go to the talk page (I'll unblock him if he retracts his threat, and I encourage anyone else to do so if you see it happen before I do). Antandrus (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is http://menudo.biz really a reliable source? It appears to be a personal website. Should allegations of crime made by the complainant, but with no evidence of charges being laid or prosecutions obtained really be in an article? Particularly for living people, NPOV is more than just a recitation of sourced facts; it also entails a balanced article. Do minor drug seizures (with no evidence of subsequent legal action), particularly where one person was a minor, constitute an appropriately balanced addition? Where are the sources that support the last paragraph, which speaks of "numerous lawsuits"? Where are the sources supporting the claims against Edgardo Díaz? What sources support the claims of massive media coverage ("every major news cast") in the first paragraph? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just unblocked him; see the discussion on his talk page. The article does contain a lot of um, stuff, that really needs good sources if it is to stay. Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While he was blocked, 69.157.5.186 continued the same edits. IrishGuy ^talk 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The section claims reports from Entertainment Tonight, CNN, etc. I cannot find any online corroboration for this. As such, I am removing it for now. A fan site isn't a reliable source and that is all there is for now. If new sourced can be found, it can be reinstated. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The only source working is a 17-year old article from The New York Times, all others from menudo.biz... hardly reliable. That piece is also written like a tabbloid piece itself (my guess is by the webmaster or menudo.biz himself), trying very hard to include the phrase "gay sex scandal" as many times as possible. It should really be removed. I talked before looking. — Edokter • Talk • 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Danger, danger, Will Robinson ... we've now got someone campaigning to restore this godawful paragraph about Menudo's alleged "gay sex and orgies". Blue5864, if "CNN broke the story" would you please provide a reliable source for that? I'm terribly sorry, but we have a WP:BLP policy which prohibits poorly-sourced material of this nature. And are you seriously going to call Jimbo for help getting it put back? Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be well-meaning, just a little misguided. I gave him a friendly notice regarding civility, as he has referred to the edits removing BLP violations as "vandalism". --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is not a single thing in the article that has a source. Is this normal for BLP? Bielle (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman and Ladies I can send you in a private email any document you want original judgments, news stories etc this is not fiction while Menudo has in the English market escaped the sex and drug scandal it is not so in latin america. The News Clips are fact not fiction. The menudo..biz site is owned by Mr. McGillis and more details on him and menudo can be found at www.mcgillismusic.com . There is so much more information all sourced in the mega scandal financial, gay sex (newsreports not me) and abuse of minors that is told in actual news reports. In fact if you go to youtube and type Menudo sex scandal you get Edgardo in his own words defending the international scandal. How can you get more souced than the Cover of the New York Daily News? Any document you want give me a email and its yours. HONESTLY did anyone read the letter signed by the menudo boys and there parents that was sent to the Justice Department and the Press release from the Justice Department. Both are in that one paragraph. Yes its a scandal and it was huge and its history that is sourced. Let that guy scream and holler all he wants because in any Court of the United States the defense to libel or slander is the truth. I did not write the articles the newspapers did. I did not write to the department of justice the children of Menudo and there parents signed that letter. C'mon do not let a bully push you around. This is America not Russia.--Blue5864 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

read this Menudo Parents write the department of justice regards gay sex and drugs read the letter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue5864 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Such material fails WP:SOURCE and is not usable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons demands strict sourcing. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Than Mr. McGillis will sue for libel--Blue5864 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Constant reversions against the consensus here [34] [35] [36] [37] and legal threats (minor and blatant)... --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've listed him on WP:AIAV. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And it's been removed, saying it should be discussed here. So, legal threats? ∞rr? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he was making legal threats here, just an explanation of what he believes will happen. I don't think Blue5864 is presenting himself as representing anyone involved in the legal case. But yes, action should definitely be taken on the nRR vios, and the fact that he removed part of this section. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Any blocks relating to users warring over Menudo should be made at the relevant thread, which is here. AIV isn't the only place administrators watch, and from my observations, they tend to pay more attention to this page. Spebi 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just filed it at AN3 here: WP:AN3#User:Blue5864 reported by User:Seicer (Result: ) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this can be retracted then. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I already removed this. Unless one here is an admin familiar with the dispute, please let me handle this. TIA. El_C 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I filed this independently after reviewing Recent Changes, and noted there was a case at ANI, which is on my watchlist. No one has to be involved to clearly see gross abuse of 3RR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not on AIV, that's for simple reports and this is complex. I blocked Blue, indefinitely, for legal threats. I also removed the entire Sex section and fully protected the page for 24 hours, just to be on the safe side (what's 24 hours, right?). I'll let an admin familiar with this dispute follow this up in case I don't get the chance to study this matter further. El_C 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to follow what it is that happening here, with this Blue5864‎ account? El_C 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It appears to be a role account, with Darrin McGillis at menudo.biz as at least one of the contributors (he claims it is used by his company -- see the "My company has maintained a Wiki account of Blue5864" line on his talk page). He persistently tries to re-insert a clearly libelous and poorly-sourced paragraph (sourced to tabloids, but actually just documents on his own personal website) into the article. I think he/they should stay blocked and we need to keep an eye on the article for attempts to bypass the block. Christopher R -- the user I originally blocked for legal threats -- I think was in the right here; he just wasn't going about it correctly at first. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it truly is a role account run by Darrin McGillis then it is a returning blocked user. See Mcgillismusic. IrishGuy ^talk 15:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could this be regarded as an unfounded personal attack? "Walrus just because you are supporter as stated on your site for gays". I have genuinely no idea what he could mean by that. I don't have a website, and if he's talking about my userpage, there's nothing of the sort on there. I've asked him for clarification. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering Blue5864's strong reaction when confronted about the reliability of the website above I would assume that he is actually the webmaster of this page, am I right? (if I am then this edit war appears to violate COI) regardless of that seeing that legal threats and a rather explosive edit war have resulted directly from this website's inclusion in the article the easiest way to avoid any more edit warring is to have the website blacklisted. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He either is the webmaster, or, if we are to believe his claims, he is working on behalf of the webmaster. Regardless, he was blocked for legal threats, then unblocked when he retracted them, blocked again for more legal threats, then was probably on the way to being unblocked again when he claimed to have made no legal threats, or if he did, they have been retracted, and that he has "never had any intentions to file any legal action". And now, 50 minutes after that, he's clearly changed his mind. I can't see this guy getting unblocked now. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for username requesting unblock for name change

User:The Epopt blocked User:Duke o Puke due to his username. Duke is asking to be unblocked in order to change his name, but The Epopt seems to be away. Can someone review this? Please see Duke and The Epopt's talk pages for more details. Thanks Ripberger (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'll look into it. The block log isn't saying usernameblock, however, though it appears User:The Epopt subsequently stated on the talk page that it was a block for that reason. Furthermore, the editor in question was never told why they were blocked in the first place - Alison ^❤ 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That name is hardly warranting of a block, in my opinion. If you find something like that offensive, then the internet really isn't the place for you. --For Queen and Country (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not "away." User:Ripberger seems to be unaware of the posts I have left on Puke's talk page. I note that Puke had very little trouble creating a yet another account — User:Duck of Luke. ➥the Epopt (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Queen on that one. That is mild. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
(full disclosure: This editor is not an admin, only voicing an opinion.)

Ah. Didn't know you weren't away, sorry. I just checked the datestamps on the talk page. If you like, I'll followup to my comment on their talk page and defer to you on this one - Alison ^❤ 01:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I was aware of your (The Epopt) messages, but he needed to be unblocked to use the new username. Autoblocked, I guess. I just felt that you should have given him the option to change his name. Anyway, my apologies for any bad faith on my part. Thanks, Alison for looking into this. Ripberger (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I know this is possibly controversial given the article they created, etc, etc. However as they've done nothing wrong, as the username is arguably offensive, and as the blocking admin appears to be away, I've reviewed this and agreed to unblock solely to allow them to file a request at WP:CHU and have their name changed to something else. This seems to be the most reasonable approach here - Alison ^❤ 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that user:The Epopt is continually referring to user:Duke of Puke simply as Puke in an attempt to create some sort of shock factor, trying to fool people into thinking that Puke is infact the entire username. Abuse of power at hand here. --For Queen and Country (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to assume bad faith here. The block has been reviewed and hopefully the Duke will be editing with a new account in no time. I probably should have waited for The Epopt to respond before coming here, but here we are. I'll try to be more patient next time. Ripberger (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly suspicious that the block appeared to have been set with anti-account creation and the autoblocker on. Last I check soft blocks were used for username blocks. FunPika 01:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he's agreed to my suggestion on his talk page. To The Epopt, can we agree to unblock this guy now to address the problem? I'd rather not leave him blocked for any longer than needs be, but I did agree to defer to you, now that you're back here - Alison ^❤ 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not wheel-war over this; if you feel he should be unblocked, I won't object. I do suggest that User:For Queen and Country get his telepathy tuned up, as his intuition of my intentions is ... somewhat flawed. ➥the Epopt (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both points here. Unblocking, so. And yes, a little AGF required here from User:For Queen and Country regarding your intents :) Thanks for the followup - Alison ^❤ 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone try to clear this guy's autoblock? I've tried and can't lift it - Alison ^❤ 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be cleared now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped, and please consider what it makes your organization look like to have The Epopt representing it as an administrator. I would have been more than happy to have changed my name if asked, but he chose to summarily block me. Even now, all he says is that he will not "wheel war". Everything I've read about your username policy indicates that the way he handled this was completely wrong. He also voted to destroy an article that I created, while I was unable to speak for it because I was banned, because of him. If you're going to have written policies, might I humbly suggest that administrators as well as regular users should be forced to obey them? Duck of Luke (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Ripberger (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Resolved

 – User indicated it was an accidental action and would not be repeated. Kwsn (Ni!) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Eye of the Mind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just deleted the main page. [38] I've blocked the account indef until this gets figured out. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The oddest part is that the contributions show no evidence of going rogue. The admin was doing normal admin stuff minutes before deleting the main page. Maybe someone just used the admin's computer while the admin was away. 128.227.1.239 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. 05:10, 8 December 2007 RyanGerbil10 (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Main Page" ‎ (3,957 revisions restored: undo deleteion)
2. 05:08, 8 December 2007 Eye of the Mind (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Main Page" ‎ (Because I'm Evil) (Restore)

We need to get an emergency desysop right away. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[39] Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoo Shanel moved quickly on that one! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment was "Because I'm Evil". Account compromised? No edits since October, then several today, including an indef-block[40]. Was the indef-block warranted? --Tom (talk - email) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether indefinite (i.e. undefined length of time) or a few hours, blocking just means that the user needs to unblock himself first. El_C 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Tom meant the block that Eye of the Mind did just prior to deleting the main page, not the block of his account itself. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Knowledge, I meant that Eye of Mind indef-blocked someone who was supposedly a sockpuppet today. Of course an indef block for Eye of Mind (at least for the moment) is appropriate, but was the action Eye of Mind took warranted? --Tom (talk - email) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's remember to do this too next time it happens... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page itself is cascade protected by a number of other pages, fortunately, so that would not be a problem. Gracenotes^T § 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously The Random Editor (talk · contribs) (sysopping). Somehow, I doubt being evil was the most proximate cause of the deletion. :| Gracenotes^T § 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef block was justified - extreme and unusual circumstance. The block will no doubt be reviewed once we figure out what exactly happened. Manning (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, why doesn't the deletion show up here? (I'm not challenging whether it happened, as it's clear from Eye of the Mind's log; I'm just wondering if I'm somehow misusing Special:Log.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Silly me, didn't notice that "Page" was capitalized. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this admin account was created in Oct '07 so they're obviously a previous sysop who's returned and reclaimed their bit. But who, and why did they just do what they did??? - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison, look up a bit to Gracenotes' comment. This is formerly User:The Random Editor. Metros (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I just looked at their deleted userpage history and found them. Note that a sock 'outted' them a few days back - Alison ^❤ 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"No edits since October..." If that's true, then there's no way that the session would still be active in Mediawiki. Therefore, the second he logged back in, he could have been keylogged; so, a mere minutes later, the attacker would have received notification of the password, used it, and, well, the rest is history. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have a checkuser look at this, just to be sure. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

dmcdevit confirms the account was not compromised. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I checked first thing and no, it's not compromised - Alison ^❤ 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's just a way to enforce retirement from WP:( MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... Maser ^(Talk!) 08:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Although not entirely relevant to this thread, reading through here concerns me about the number of backdoor sysoppings that appear to be occurring. Whilst I completely agree that in some extraordinary circumstances it may be appropriate, and I don't know the events surrounding this particular one, the increased frequency that this is occurring is concerning, to me at least. Wherever possible, the community should be entitled to see the RfA of any admin and their edit history. To see a brand new account suddenly turn up with a sysop flag is far from ideal and should be avoided. Will (aka Wimt) 12:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be tempted to think, with no evidence to the contrary, that someone in Eye's house (perhaps a visitor) got their hands on the keys while it was left logged in. I guess we'll know within 24 hours what happened, there's no reason not to assume good faith in this case especially given the actions taken just minutes before consistent with a reliable sysop doing their job, but the indef-block until info is forthcoming and the emergency desysopping are indeed warranted to prevent any further disruption. Orderinchaos 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I agree. TRE was a good editor. A good man. He retired about a week or so after gaining the admin bit. He created the new account a few days later. If it wasn't a friend being "funny" while TRE took a bathroom break or something, the forced retirement seems like a logical explanation. If it's the latter, I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Lara_Love 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concurr. If a user makes a fresh start under a new username, then they should make it less obvious by not getting their sysop powers back right away, and instead act as a regular user for a while. This was an account that was sysopped too quickly. Oh, by the way, has anybody asked him why he did it? Maser ^(Talk!) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I received an email from Eye of the Mind, with an explanation to what happened. I am assuming good faith, and unblocked the account. The main reason being that the account currently does not have admin privs, and any potential abuse would be minimal. [41] - [42] KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, the problem is resolved! Here's to AGF. :D Maser ^(Talk!) 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about the incident. I believe honestly though I should leave the wiki permanently. This kind of issue is too potentially destructive to the wiki. Thank you all for your time here. -Eye of the minD 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Keepscases speaks

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

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

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

Starts now: You may be interested to know

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

I just felt compelled to tell you all that.

That is what I left for Sarah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sohailsyte and User:Sohailstyle

User:Sohailsyte (ends with "syte") has a short history of contributions. Much of his activity has consisted of leaving (and replacing) insulting and threatening messages to myself and one other user. [43], [44], [45], [46], [47].

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

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

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

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

No, I think that User:Sohailsyte is a hoax, as evidenced by User:Sohailstyle's later question to Zora [48]. The threatening comments by the probable hoaxer seem quite out of character. Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Taric25

Taric25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in some content disputes, and not getting his way. As a result he filed the vexations and frivolous Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, which I deleted. He took it to deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.2FTTN. In this debate Eusebeus said: Endorse deletion I have posted a warning to the user's talk page over his adolescent use of a sockpuppet allegation when he didn't get his way in a content dispute. I also suggest that the user be issued a block as censure for this kind of behaviour. It is completely unacceptable. Needless to say, Taric25 immediately filed Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Eusebeus.

How long do we put up with this querulousness? I believe Tarc25 needs to stop spitting in the soup as a matter of some urgency. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of like this seems to stem from your irregular and upsetting deletion of the sockpuppet page, which is being overturned at DRV. Taric25 might be being a pest with the Wikiquette alert (I was surprised that page even exists) but it's not as clear cut as Guy is painting it. The deletion of a report apparently made in good faith would irritate anyone. --W.marsh 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that if you look into it the creation of the sockpuppet page was itself another example of the self-same querulousness. The user seems absolutely determined to escalate every possible point of conflict. This goes back well before the creation of the sockpuppet page; deletion of a vexatious sockpuppet page is only upsetting if you're determined to be upset. Let's say I were to create a sockpuppet page on you and some randomly selected editor who agrees with you - should that be left lying around forever? I'd say not, in the same way we delete uncertified RfCs. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam

Resolved

 – Ban endorsed. Davnel03 13:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That user is making a plea to lift the ban under which he is. I am not willing or able to mentor him, but I thought he might find someone willing to take him under his wing here. I am not making a judgment about how sincere his act of contrition might be, simply forwarding the request. — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's had a ton of chances. We can give him one more chance, but if that fails, how many more are we willing to give? Maser ^(Talk!) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WHy is it always 'Just one more' for some editors? let him find a new hobby. ThuranX (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his blocklog, the user should stay banned. If you unblock him, he'll just be a nuisance and go on the rampage again. Just keep him block. He never changed when he was unblocked before - I sincerely doubt he'll change now. Keep banned. Davnel03 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. He's been a long problem editor. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the BL, I see no reason why he'd be interested in being a model editor. Endorse ban. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Most of my blocks are because I was reverting vandalism but it was seen as edit warring and I got blocked for it. Either that or, I was pointing out sockpuppets of user: NisarKand and the admins saw that as harrassment and banned me for it. Even though I turned out to be right, I am very interested in being a model editor. My edits are on Afghanistan related articles and I am committed to improving them. I am committed to be a model editor but I everyone makes mistakes. If unbanned, I will avoid doing too many reverst even if I feel it is vandlism I'm reverting, I will not point out socks of other users incase it's harrasment, and finally (this is what I was banned for) I will not listen to advice or directions from users that have been banned (proxying). The last violation I wasn't even aware there was such violation. So I think I should be given a chance to prove that I have learned from my mistakes. What I'm being banned for is just 1 violation that I can easily not repeat again. And the rest, I've stated what I will do to avoid them. Trust me, I am interested in being a model editor and contributing to what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 3 of my recent blocks were mistaken and appologized for by the admins later on. Just ask User_talk:Rlevse about it. Two of my blocks are from him and he ended up being wrong about them in the end and apologized for them. So when considering my block log, please ignore 3 of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kevin Murray

The other day, Kevin Murray made responded to a post, in what I consider a rude manner. The Wikiproject Poker had been debated some notability guidelines for poker players, and his response was, Can you help me with setting up our guideline, I represent WikiProject Overweight plumbers. I called him on this as uncivil behavior. To which he responded, "Lighten up... The plumber joke is an old standby .." To which I responded by stating, "I don't care if it is an old "standby" it is still rude." He then responded with, Go cry some where else. Immediately after making this exchange, Kevin Murray, took it upon himself to close the discussion. Now, the discussion might needed to have been closed---I won't argue that--- but I think his doing so immediately after our little exchange was tit-for-tat and immature. Would he have marked the discussion if I hadn't just called him on his incivility? All I wanted was an aplogy stating, "I didn't mean to be offensive." Instead, he got defensive and ruder and then acted in what I consider bad faith.Balloonman (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I have notified him on both his and my talk pages.Balloonman (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He made a joke about a policy which had consensus to reject, which you undid twice. You're pushing for something the community said no to, and having lost, you're NOW going after a 2 day old comment,which had a point, from a loud voice on the other side. Nothing to see here. ThuranX (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I undid it once, when it was closed shortly after it was opened. This page was started at 11:25 on December 6. United Statesian closed it at 18:10 baded upon a discussion going on here. The participants of the main page and part of the poker project were not even aware of the parrallel discussion until after our proposal closed. I reopened it because I didn't think it was appropriate for somebody to close it based on a discussion that occurred without those interested being notified. What I am going after is the comments Kevin made TODAY. I challenged him on his comment when he first made them---notice the time stamp and my response in on the notability page ---and he responded today. Rather than apologize, saying "I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a joke." He got ruder and acted in an inappropriate manner. I just noticed this little gem, BM, I find your balloon a bit inflated. I am not challenging that the discussion should be closed. It probably should be. But would HE have closed if I hadn't told him that his response was rude? Is telling somebody to go cry somewhere else appropriate? Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: While I am not contesting the closure, I do believe it was closed prematurely based upon the most recent discussion going on, others who opposed the initial proposal recognized a hole in BIO and we were trying to come up with a way to respond. I do not believe he would have closed it if it wasn't for our exchange.Balloonman (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Kevin Murray, rightly or wrongly, has chosen not to apologize, exactly what do you want to happen? Keepscases (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• At the same time that I added my plumber joke, I also made an offer to help the proponents find an alternate resolution (see [49]. I've been gone for two days and found BM's comments at my talk page. My first response was to explain my position (see [50], which solicited more rhetoric at my talk page. My next response was bitey and in retrospect I wish that I had been more compassionate. I apologize to BM and the community for my failure in etiquette. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• In all honesty, that is all I wanted---I did find your first response (starting with "lighten up") to be on the rude side. It doesn't matter if it is a joke or not, when somebody finds a comment to be rude, the appropriate response is to apologize--humor is a fine line. NOTE: While I can't necessarily argue against the closure of the discussion, I still believe you should have reclused yourself from doing so---especially so shortly after our encounter. (I told another admin in a similar situation the same thing and did so myself when I was personallu involved with a situation. As far as I am concerned, this is a dead issue.Balloonman (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case undiscussed unblocks

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doublechecking

Resolved

 – Yep, looks good.

Davnel03 09:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just became an administrator and blocked an editor for the first time. I blocked User:DozClayStaues indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I just wanted some confirmation that I did it correctly. Thanks for any feedback. Useight (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but don't forget to sign your name when leaving "You're Blocked!" messages. Sean William @ 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks OK. Can't see any major problems, apart from the comment above. Davnel03 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added my sig. Useight (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Well done! Just on the sig thing; with certain block templates, such as that one, you can simply add a ''|sig=~~~~'' into the template and it will appear nicely within the frame :) - Alison ^❤ 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, it does look better that way. Useight (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to activate the auto-signing feature in any of the {{uw-block}} series, the parser is looking for "|sig=<any text>" at the end of the template. I suspect that most admins use "|sig=y" or something similar. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are dummy pages and users for you to practise on if you like at Wikipedia:New admin school. Splash - tk 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

New Admin School is a great idea. I wish that had existed when I needed practice. Natalie (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangina2

Resolved

 – Blocked indef; username violates Wiki policy. Davnel03 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The user Orangina2 has disrupted the Wikipedia football project over a long period of time. The very minor nature of his edits (he generally only edits infoboxes) is probably the only reason he hasn't been blocked already. The Wikipedia Football Project Player Manual of Style is the agreed Wikiproject Football standard for football player infoboxes, yet this user continues to actively apply his own style (here for example), despite numerous warnings on his talk page, most of which he has failed to respond to. If the user disagrees with the standard, that is fine, he is welcome to discuss it, but he has failed to do so. However given the user's disruptive edits and his lack of response, I don't know what other choice I have other than to request a block. He doesn't seem to be a vandal as such, just someone who wants to "do his own thing" and not communicate, collaborate or adhere to any kind of consensus. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(1 edit conflict) He should be blocked indefinitely. Despite the amount of warnings on his talkpage (probably over 50), he seems to not be corresponding with any of WP:FOOTBALL's policy's. In my view he should be blocked indefinitely as he seems to be doing what he wants with the templates, when he wants. Davnel03 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He now seems to be communicating on his talk page, but I'm not sure if this is because he fears a block? Not sure whether he should be given a further grace period. --Jameboy (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef because of the above and because the username violates Wiki policy. Davnel03 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:RaulTheFool -- Personal attack and general trolling

Resolved

If he continues to be a troll, report back here. Davnel03 09:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:RaulTheFool (contributions) is an account with only 3 contributions to date, all comments at Talk:Ann Coulter and all made in the past couple days. The problems of with those posts, of general trollery and of personal attack, are self-evident from them; "RaulTheFool" seems to be a trolling-only account (perhaps another round from "Big Daddy"). Besides fitting action against the account, I suggest the deletion of the talk-page section, whereas it holds much flame-bait but nothing useful toward the editing of the article.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please act soon on that section-deletion; incivility carries on, on both sides. I'm tempted to do it myself, but I think it had better be done by an admin, else it will only feed the flames. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't play his game. The best way to get people to stop trolling and act civil is to simply ask them to suggest a new version of the content they object to. --Haemo (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't feed. The contrib's to this point do not rise to the level of block; it's someone on a soapbox, but there is no clear disruption. I wouldn't even ask for a suggested version. Ignore it and let the thread die. If the editor moves to article space disruptively, post here again or contact an admin directly. Marskell (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the user, and agree not blockable yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Menticor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week by other admin

Can an admin block this indefinitely as a sockpuppet of either:

• Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or;
• Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's evident that this user is a sock of someone, given the user's relative expertise. It's either Mike, who he seems to be defending, or Encyclopedist, who embarked on a stalking campaign of Phaedriel several months ago (and has edited both Phaedriel and Kyoko's talkpages). At any rate, the user just seems to be stirring up the pot. Will ^(talk) 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked a week already by another admin, would support longer if it continues. Can you narrow down which user is the puppetmaster? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew about the one week block already. I'm not sure who the puppetmaster is, but it's evident it is a banned user. Will ^(talk) 23:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Johnny the Vandal, doing his usual. One glance at the edit history is enough. Blocked indef, as well as his other socks - Alison ^❤ 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody close my account.

Last time I tried to help, I was an obvious liar and a jerk who wastes time. If that's the case, fine. Someone close this account. I tried to help on this website, honestly, but if "POV Pushers" like me, even though it isn't my intention it dosent matter because then I'm WikiLawyering, be "fought off" and banned, then fine. I contribute and get nothing but why I'm a terrible editor. I should expect to be called on when I push a POV and then WikiLawyer and say "I didn't mean to".

Someone should actually enforce WP:BLOCK and disable this account. — Selmo ^(talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Walk away from the keyboard. Stop using the account. It's that easy. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If that really how you feel you may want to read meta:right to vanish, however I would hope you would think it over.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Colour me confused. I show this is the first edit Selmo has made in 93 days. Is this regarding a new issue, or is it left over angst from the dispute with Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Selmo, you can also scramble your password. If you don't have email enabled scrambling your password would be pretty permanent. Natalie (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Funny4life

Resolved

 – Messages left for editor. Kralizec! (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please have a look at Funny4life (talk · contribs). Warned several times, keeps on vandalising, even user pages. -- Matthead  DisOuß   23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, his edits to Nicolaus Copernicus do not seem like vandalism to me. His edits to userpages seems to be because he is new and didn't know to use the talk page. However, it is approaching 3RR on the Copernicus article, I'd take it up on the talk page and discuss it there. Useight (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Useight on this issue. User page edits like [51], [52] are classic confused new user. Likewise, the editor might not be aware that their edits to Nicolaus Copernicus‎ are verging on a WP:3RR violation. I went ahead and left messages for Funny4life on both of these issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the editor received multiple messages on the issues in question. Hopefully that will resolve the trouble.

81.145.240.18

Resolved

 – IP already blockedKralizec! (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

81.145.240.18 Talk
Streak of vandalism covering 3 months after his last temporary block. Take a look if you wish. --Illnab1024 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like OwenX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) already blocked [53] the address for 24 hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue5864

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, talkpage protected. Davnel03 09:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is making legal threats after being previously blocked (diff) for legal threats Alexfusco5 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by me. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user last night for legal threats and unblocked him today following his retraction. El_C 02:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry case has been filed against this user, so even though he has retracted his newest legal threat I am uncomfortable unblocking at this time. However, because it is often standard practice to allow those accused of sockpuppetry to provide evidence in their defense, I am submitting this for review by other administrators. I will be busy for the rest of the night so it is not necessary to contact me before unblocking if that is what seems most prudent. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep blocked. He's now invoking Jimbo in his threats. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CBW. Keep blocked. He makes threat after threat, and then denies making them. Assuming that Blue = Darrin McGillis, as he has claimed, not only is he editing with a conflict of interest (posting tabloid charges which he keeps on his own website), but you all need to read this; read it all. Do we want this person editing here? Antandrus (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the way the editor has handled himself so far, no. I have found people with an axe to grind in the real world rarely do well as editors. Has done nothing but POV push and Wikilawyer so far. Maybe in a month or so if he gets the idea that Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, then he can come back. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked and protected his talk page to prevent further legal threats. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

81.98.226.146‎

Resolved

 – Inactive vandal, AIV is the place to go if he continues.

81.98.226.146‎ (talk · contribs) continues to vandalize pages, even though several users have warned him to stop multiple times. Some of today's most recent edits were [54] and [55] and [56]. Please, take a look. Grey Maiden ^talk 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These edits were made about an hour or so ago, and it appears that the user is inactive. If he does make disruptive edits again, see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and make a report there, rather than here. Spebi 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Appletrees

Resolved

 – Leave blocked. Davnel03 11:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Appletrees has asked that I mention his situation here. It looks like he was blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (who then immediately went offline) for "edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks". It looks to me that he reverted twice and made a few comments on the talk page. Apparently the article is subject to many editwars, as there are special rules written on top of the talk page. I don't think Appletrees should be blocked since he didn't violate 3RR. His comments on the talk page weren't the nicest, but I don't know if they're blockworthy. I've been an admin for less than 24 hours and I definitely don't want to just wheel war and unblock him. I'm mentioning this here as per Appletrees' request and to get another opinion on the matter. Useight (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Leave blocked. Appletrees is a frequent Japan/Korea edit warrior and knows full well that the slightest impropriety on his part will get him blocked. As a new admin, I commend you on having the sense to ask before acting, something I think is lacking in the sysop corps. Good judgement. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for not responding earlier, it was late last night and I missed Appletree's unblock request before I went to bed. I've responded on his talk page [57]. No objections if somebody else wants to review the block, but from my side, at this point, I'd let it stand. Note that there is a special zero-tolerance edit warring policy which I've been trying to keep enforced on the article in question (with the consent of some other admins and what I take to be silent assent by the Arbcom). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Merbabu pointless repeat vandaling disruption of Mumia Abu-Jamal Featured Article Candidacy discussion

Resolved

 – complaint opened by banned user, IP blocked, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[58] and [59]. Editor has never made any constructive contributions to development of the article and made solely negating contributions in the past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs)

This IP address, User:74.200.75.5, appears to be here for disruptive purposes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor is reverting an IP - any truth to his assertion that the IP is that of a banned user? If so, then nothing to see here. ThuranX (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The page he's talking about was created by User:PhiladelphiaBreeze, one of many disruptive sockpuppets. I suspect they're linked. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's another User:DavidYork71 sock which been attacking the Mumia Abu-Jamal page. I can spot him a mile away. There's plague. lol As for the FAC page - I'd suggest seeking the opinion of Dr Kiernan (main recent contributor to Mumia Abu-Jamal). Not sure what else I need to say at this stage, but happy to answer any other questions. --Merbabu (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)It's User:DavidYork71. He'a avoiding a community ban and Merbabu, the editor he is complaining about, is his old adversary and one of the editors who spots his various socks. I consider this report some sort bizarre revenge. Sarah 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by Dmcdevit as an open proxy. Sarah 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cody Finke has returned

Resolved

 – Blocked and labeled as a sock of MascotGuy

Acroterion _(talk) 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy is like a cockroach.

Codyfinke2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Banned sock puppet has returned from the hinterlands of banishment seeking further exile...

• codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are others, but i can't remember them. He has been linked to MascotGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Next time he's blocked, could he be account creation blocked, please? Corvus cornix_talk 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He was this time: standard practice for sockpuppets. Autoblock isn't totally effective, and there are ways around ACB. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jtrainor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As expected

Jtrainor decided to travel down the road of revert land and reinsert the personal attacks [61] only for User:Betacommand2 (Betacommand's vandalism reverting account) to remove the personal attacks again [62] Will someone please speak to Jtrainor about why the personal attacks are inappropriate? He seems to think that because he says the users haven't complained about it yet that personal attacks can stay and that removing the personal attacks is vandalism. — Save_Us_229 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Prester John on another delete rampage

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) Prester John appears to be removing properly sourced information, and he seems to possibly be stalking Lester (talk · contribs). [63][64][65][66] I recommend that somebody look at this closely and decide whether a block is warranted; I have left him a warning.[67] - Jehochman ^Talk 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom election drama

Resolved

 – Davnel03 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Just a mistake really. Can't we just drop it? R. Baley (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Surprise! Does this happen every year, I wonder? Removing someone who makes a lot of contributions to an arbcom alection as WP:POINT seems fairly commensense, yet quite political. Yet we have a user [68] who opposed every single arbcom member with the statement Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Sounds like making a point. Wonder if it should be removed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say a better idea would be to ignore it until the vote is closed - maybe consider blocking him if he gets too disruptive, but otherwise ingonre him. Od Mishehu 06:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Users can vote for or against candidates for whatever reason they want to. I voted support for endlessdan cause he cracked me up. Does that make me disruptive? As long as this user isn't spamming the voting, which it doesn't appear he is, and I would think that he's rather harmless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep and add a comment afterwards saying that he has commented the same way everywhere if it is unclear. On second thought, let everyone see his "arbcom is evil" comment and decide what they want. Leave it there; the last thing I'd want to do is encourage accusations of censorship and martyrdom from him. He'll probably get bored enough when nobody responds to him. Oh, and he's an admin BTW (a little odd to me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize my expressing my opinion of the ArbCom warranted a section on the Admin notice board. I've been an active participant to this project for a long time. Much longer than anyone who has chosen to stick their noses in my votes here or on my talk page. I just did some looking at contribution histories, and I'd been an admin for years before any of these accounts had their first edits. I believe none of these contributors remember how this project operated before the ArbCom. I do. In my opinion, life before the ArbCom was MUCH better than it has become since. That is one of the reasons why I think anyone who would want to be associated with that body lacks enough judgment to serve as an arbitrator over my actions. I really don't want to discuss this anymore. I've voted. I'm not changing my votes. I have no intention of going off the cliff and deleting the main page anytime this week. And I don't think I'm above the law. I just think a better way to handle the issues that come before the committee can and should be found. Gentgeen (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, this has zero effect on the outcome. Candidates who have massive support by the community will not be affected by this, and those who will be affected... well, let's say that they probably weren't going to be elected anyways. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, it does; Mr. Wales considers the lot of candidates above 50%, and makes a value judgment for them. If someone is right on the line, this could make up a difference. And please, Gentgeen, I didn't have to stick my nose out very far when your vote was hanging off every page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's thirteen candidates currently with ≥ 50% support. There's only five slots available on the ArbCom. Barring an unprecedented expansion, it really is a non-issue. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone archive/remove this thread already, using ANI to complain about votes is an inappropriate use of the board. R. Baley (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that by complaining about #Arbcom election drama, User:The Evil Spartan is creating more drama.

I have a sad piece of news to report. I just found out, User:The Evil Spartan is no longer with us, God rest his soul.T (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly not what I wanted to do... I just wanted to point out that this isn't that really that big of a deal. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmm...are you saying you are a sock of User:The Evil Spartan? " Not that there is anything wrong with that" Per rules, socks are okay sometimes. I have had User:RWV, for example. Nevermind, I think I am confused.T (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh... if he said the same thing on every nomination page, isn't the effect completely negated, making this a non-issue even further? EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, barring the ultra-hypotheticals mentioned above. Which is why no-one has given a crap until now. Grandmasterka 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Bruce1333 edit warring

First on the Antichrist article, which is all documented in the user's RfC; recently, he's been edit warring on said RfC. I reverted him three times, but he persists in disruptive behaviour. I feel there isn't anything else I can do, as all attempts to communicate with the user have been rejected. Hence, I think administrator intervention is necessary. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does not look good, as far as civil and calm tone. El_C 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IP socks of banned User:Mariam83 on rampage

Despite being banned months ago, Mariam83 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) has been on a rampage tonight. Using four different IP addresses (see below), this disgruntled editor made around 70 reverts to various articles. Initially most of the edits were reverting Mariam83's favourite articles back to their preferred versions, however after C.Fred (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semi-protected those articles, Mariam83 started reverting random edits made by those editors who had reverted, reported, or blocked the various socks. The socks used tonight include the following (all four were blocked by different admins for 3 to 31 hours):

• 64.219.76.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.89.175.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.91.120.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.156.123.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

When dealing with Mariam83 socks, I normally just roll my eyes and go crazy on the 'undo' button. However, this time Mariam83 uncharacteristically left the following message [69] on a talk page: "You cant block me, I'm unstoppable. You just try! I will make your wikipedian life a living hell BUDDY! he he he :-)" Unfortunately I fear that Mariam83 is correct about being unstoppable. To date there are approximately 106 suspected socks of this user. (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83 for the entire list.) The amount of time editors have spent reverting and blocking these 106 socks is probably quite breathtaking.

Is there anything we can do to stop or at least slow down this banned editor? --Kralizec! (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took me to research and write the above, Mariam83 has another 29 52 reverts via 68.90.62.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another 21 reverts in sock attack number six from 68.89.189.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This has been a long night ... I think it is time for me to go to bed. --Kralizec! (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is getting quite out of control. The user has been IP-hopping all night, causing a large backup of reverts and protections to unravel. Jmlk17 09:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we know what service provider the user is using? I wonder if it would be appropriate to do a single 5, maybe 10-minute range block across all those IP addresses (just to make the point that no address on that system will work)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I've already sent them a request to stop the abuse months ago but received no response. Instead, i only receive her harassing emails frequently under different email accounts. She could even create a gmail account w/ my full name. The easiest way to deal w/ this case is WP:RBI. Range block would not work since the IPs she uses cover different areas in Houston, TX. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Some mass CSD taggings by User:Kill the Non-Notable Articles

Resolved

The username, itself, is very borderline, but it would seem that Kill the Non-Notable Articles (talk · contribs) is going on a slew of CSD taggings. I left a note on his/her talk page, but haven't received a response. I don't really wanna mass revert them unilaterally, so I figure I'd drop it here and see what others think. Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 09:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked and edits have been reverted. — Save_Us_229 09:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and all is well. Jmlk17 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soulgany101

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

Resolved

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myra Hemmings

There, she is making threats of me making a point when I'm not; accusing me of WP:BITE even though she clearly bit a new user who disagreed with her before; claiming I am "pushing for Alpha Phi Omega" over other organizations, even though my comment was that I'd be ok with a merge if they are not found to be notable: [70] [71]; I also have no control over if the articles were speedy kept or not, in fact the reason they were speedy kept was given by an admin as them being clearly bad faith noms; in addition, her comments on all of these articles show to me a clear sense of ownership, as anybody who makes a change she does not agree with is immediately warned that they are vandalizing in addition to her commends on the AfD's that go along the lines of "I put a lot of work into this". The accusation given of Miranda of this being race-related are horribly misplaced, and I strongly encourage her to retract those unless she has some serious, strong evidence of such.

As for her accusations that I'm out to "nominated NPHC founders for deletion", she should note that the two links she references ([72] and [73] are not me trying to censor wikipedia. The first is actually an article created by me that I was intending to send the Alpha Phi Alpha founders and Alpha Kappa Alpha founders into. The second is me referencing that intention.

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

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

abuse report

Resolved

 – Puppet blocked, puppeteer warned Guy (Help!) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

i want to report an abusive user~--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdx10 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As your first contribution? Could you maybe clue us in as to who it is you want to report? Shell ^babelfish 15:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Shell Kinney said, you'll need to be a lot more specific than that. If the user is vandalizing, you can report them to WP:AIV. Metros (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

yes . this person came onto my previous talk page and started an argument. his name jeskeVdx10 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean User:Jéské Couriano, yes? Can you be more specific about what kind of "abuse" is going on here? And identify who you are so we can see this "argument"? Metros (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doubly since there are no edits to the talk page of the account you are currently using. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

C.Fred, I think what Vdx10 is saying here is that he is the reincarnation of someone else who had a previous run in with Jéské. Metros (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Looking at edit history, the reporting account, Vdx10, is a new account that User:V-Dash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has created. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

*points the above section* V-Dash = Vdx10 = Mantlefish, which = abuse of WP:SOCK. — Save_Us_229 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Vdx10, for reporting the abusive user V-Dash, who is now on a final warning for sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

link to note at AN. Just a note, Mercury 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Puppy General Kitten

Resolved

Puppy General Kitten (talk · contribs) has copied my user and talk pages (and part of Abuse truth's talk page) as his user and talk pages. His other edits appear to be vandalism (which I've also reverted), but I don't think I should be the one to block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why cant somebody copy your page? I know it is a bit odd, but its not "yours" and any text on Wikipedia is subject to licensing terms..... - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If he was copying layout features and things like that, sure. But when he's copying word for word the talk and user pages of another user and passing them off as his own, that's an issue. I think this guy needs an indefinite block, so I'll give him one. Metros (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand that. The bottom of every page here (including userspace) says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". Again, I admit it is awfully weird, and maybe the block is justified for disruption reasons, but not just for copying the text, right? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it does - its not about the copying, its about the attempted impersonation to make an account look reliable. Shell ^babelfish 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, it is disruptive to claim to be someone else. It's that plain and simple. To have a userbox claiming yourself as an admin is inappropriate if you're not an admin. In addition, he never attributed Arthur Rubin as the source of his user page. In order to use material from Wikipedia, our licensing requires that you attribute the source. So, in other words, he would have had to say that he copied that from Arthur Rubin's page for it to be kosher under the GFDL. Metros (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Rjd0060 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Upsetting posts

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image fix

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sock war on Afghanistan-related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

SmackBot malfunctioning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duke o Puke and Wikipedia Review

There's been a recent discussion about Duke o Puke (talk · contribs) and Duck of Luke (talk · contribs), see #User blocked for username requesting unblock for name change. Duck of Luke recently created the article SureFire M6 Guardian, which is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SureFire M6 Guardian‎. It appears that he may have been asked to do so by Wikipedia Review. See [74]. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence saying Jimbo has one. We would not include that if it were, say, Matt Damon. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked Duck of Luke and deleted the article. My actions may look overzealous, but that WR discussion makes it obvious that: (1) the article wasn't created in good faith (2) it was created because Jimbo owns one such flashlight (3) this article is created on behalf of banned user Daniel Brandt. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing on behalf of Daniel Brandt isn't the wisest move. Agree with your block and deletion. The article was created with the intent of banned editors like Brandt getting to add content to the site, which is a big no-no. — Save_Us_229 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's proven that he was meat puppeting for a banned user, I don't disagree with the ban however I disagree with the speedy deletion of the article. The AFD should have been allowed to complete and there was a consensus that the article should have been kept. I believe the rationale for deletion (WP:CSD#G5) was invalid because Duke of Luke or Puke wasn't the only editor to that article if I recall. I can't tell for sure as the article has been deleted. Also, if I recall, deletion based on the motivation for creating the article is not reason enough to delete the article as long as the article can be improved and add value to the project. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the history of the article, and the only author was Duck of Luke. The other editors made maintenance edits: adding cleanup tags, adding wikilinks, categorizing, etcetera. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My interactions with the Duke/Duck are that he is a very reasonable person. I ask that he be unblocked and warned not to recreate the article. He has been an editor in good standing prior to this and I believe he will contribute positively to Wikipedia if he is unblocked. Looking over the banning policy, I believe that he had to be banned first before creating the article before it can be deleted according to that CSD rule. Many Wikipedians like myself endorsed keep on the article not knowing of external influences. Regards, Ripberger (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We should judge an article on its content not on the motives of the creator. Paul August ☎ 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think. Wikipedia is a reference work. I also believe that we should focus on the content, not the contributor. Ripberger (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and that is what I said above. It's a moot point now as someone else recreated the article unless it's going to be speedy deleted again. I would recommend the version before deletion gets restored as it had more information was better sourced and categories attached. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything about the creation of this article that was so disruptive tat it required an indefinite block? AniMate 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the block was for meatpuppetry for a banned user (apparently one that seems to be widely disliked but I don't know the whole story). The article seemed benign to me though. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was closed with "Anyone is welcome to recreate this page in good faith", so just go and do so. DGG (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comic Guaranty LLC

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

As Jasonewert was clearly here to simply attack a person names Jason Ewert [75] [76] he has been username blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

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

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

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

Inappropriate block of Ethajak

Anthony.bradbury recently placed a block against Ethajak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "vandalism". The term "vandalism", as defined in Wikipedia's vandalism policy, refers to "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and expressly provides that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Nowhere are putative violations of WP:NOT#CENSORED defined as "vandalism" in the vandalism policy. Moreover, it is obvious from an examination of Ethajak's edits that he was engaged in a content dispute over Erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not a deliberate effort to harm Wikipedia, as the term vandalism implies. The characterization of Ethajak edits as vandalism, in warnings on his talk page, and in his block log, reflects a failure to assume good faith. Moreover, by blocking a user whose content edits he has reverted, Anthony.bradbury has blocked a user with whom he is engaged in a content dispute. I ask that this inappropriate block be removed. I further note that Ethajak's unblock request was recently declined on the grounds that while Ethajak's edits weren't actually vandalism, he was "edit warring to push... [his] personal POV... [He] wildly breached WP:3RR and never even attempted to garner consensus on the talk page as... [he] continued warring." While I concede that Ethajak's edit warring was disruptive, as a new user possibly unframiliar with Wikipedia policy, Ethajak should have been informed of the relevent policy and asked to stop edit warring, being blocked only if he continued. The false accusations of vandalism against Ethajak likely inflamed the situation, and consituted a serious violation of WP:BITE. Morever, even if Ethajak were to be blocked for edit warring, he shouldn't have been blocked by an administrator who was reverting his edits [77]. John254 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Sceptre, hard to AGF and the block appears to be valid. The images all appear to be the same except the first upload is in color. All of them are of penile implants apparently from this site (copy/vio) [78].--Sandahl 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is no "interpretation" involved here as far as use of images on WP is concerned. He placed a copyright image on WP and that is not permitted. He has tampered with it by removing a signature and the colour attributes. He certified that he is the copyright holder of the image here [79], which is quite untrue. The image will be deleted for copyright infringement. Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's circular logic. The placement of a template:uw-vandalism4 warning [80] assumes that Ethajak's contributions were vandalism prior to the warning; if they weren't, then the warning was invalid, and his continued edits after receiving an invalid warning don't imply anything. The template:Uw-notcensored1 warning was likewise invalid -- it is intended to be used where users blank sexually explicit content without explanation, or with a frivolous explanation; as explained above, a genuine dispute over whether any given image should be included is a content dispute, not vandalism. Ethajak should have been informed about the actual legitimate objections to his edits. John254 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not circular logic at all. The two unheeded warnings were quite clear. [81] Are you suggesting that first time users are allowed to ignore all warnings, even when there are messages flashing up in front of them? Mathsci (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Angie Y.

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

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

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

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

User:Beenturns

The only edits of Beenturns (talk · contribs) so far have been to nominate Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of Virginia Tech massacre, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seung-Hui Cho. Very suspicious, to say the least. This appears to be a sockpuppet out to prove a point, possibly in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Hawkins. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Greatsoul

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

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

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

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

Need help with editor removing fact tags

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

Resolved

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalking?

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

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

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

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

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

• Sandy, I noticed your edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Protection of China and Names of China

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

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

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

Timothy Braun

Resolved

 – Rjd0060 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

regional power article.

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

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

G-Dett

I've been keeping an eye on the discussion at Talk:Gary Weiss over the 24 hours due to a high incidence of edit warring and personal attacks on those trying to enforce the standards there. After seeing take a turn for the worse (starting with this and this) I issued several mild NPA warnings [82][83][84] One particularly biting comment from G-Dett about an admin I removed. Sadly, G-Dett has taken to making threats in response. If someone wants to talk some sense into G-Dett it would be better than what will happen when the drama machine kicks into high gear. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Indeed, in my eyes the "turn for the worse" began when this innocuous question [85] was met with accusations of "deliberate disruption," "bad faith," hounding, harassing, etc. I suggest interested admins follow the entire exchange. I suggest they also follow Felonious' link above to a "threat" of mine, so that they can discover for themselves that it doesn't exist.--G-Dett (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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