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

MONGO: vexatious litigation

Yet another frivolous RfC on MONGO: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3, this time by an obvious sockpuppet. It has been certified by two people and consequestly moved to "Approved pages" on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. But isn't that formalism run mad? Does the community actually "approve"? I have moved the page from "Approved" to a new section I just created, Vexatious litigation, defined as a special section for frivolous RfCs on MONGO.[1] (Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, should one be brought, go in one of the other sections.) Comments? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

I object. There was nothing frivoluous about this Rfc. These were serious violations of the norms of conduct that should be been clearly exposed and condemned by the community as unacceptable. That the evidence presented was quickly deleted is also disturbing. Esp. on the basis of some technicality that could have been easily remedied? Wikilawyering, and frivolity is what we have here by those who have suppressed a valid examination of a serious and ongong problem with Mongo on this article. I have nothing against him personally, but his behavior has been out of line. If a Rfc is deemed the incorrect approach to get the community to stand up and issue preventative measure to stop him from continuing it, then I take it an Arbitration case would be?Giovanni33 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My re-structuring of the main RfC page has been reverted, well, fancy that.[2] Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

That seems just about right. To would-be Wikilawyers: if you wish someone to be more polite, be more polite to them. Eventually, they'll get the point. Filing an RfC as if it's a lawsuit will probably not have the effect you desire, and it might cause the community to think less of you. In this case, you didn't score any points in any column where you want them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were reverted. The Rfc is unsubstantiated. I was never informed by the filing parties on my usertalk or via email. No effort on my usertalk or via email has been made to work things out...just editors who toss out insults and evade admin warnings repeatedly and then when someone like me stands their ground with them and calls a spade a WP:SPADE they get hot and bothered. I do have a compliant board and had they simply come there and griped, they could have even possibly won a few terrific barnstars!--MONGO 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders? Corvus cornix 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on a situation you didn't even bother to even glance at. --MichaelLinnear 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think "I didn't even bother to glance at it"? I did, in fact, read the whole thing, and went to the RfC page to review that, and, once again, just see more of the same attacks againt a well-respected member of the Wikipedia community who has had to endure personal attacks and lies not only on Wikipedia, but spread throughout the Internet. Why would you feel the need to support the whining of brand new users who are obviously sock puppets with an axe to grind, over a well-known, well-respected, long-established member of the community? Corvus cornix 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I largely agree with Mongo's concerns about the article. However the mudslinging by many different parties there is really too far. Nearly all are experienced editors who should know better, again many different people are at fault here. And smearing people as "ED socks" is out of line, a lie, and quite rude. --MichaelLinnear 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And you know this new user is not an ED sock how? Corvus cornix 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's an offense of which people are guilty until proven innocent? Wikipedia:Assume bad faith! *Dan T.* 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You said my assumption that a new user who just happened to find an RfC was probably an ED sock is a "lie". Prove it. Corvus cornix 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its up to you to prove the positive assertion obviously, I thought it was far more likely it was a sock of a banned leftist of some kind. --MichaelLinnear 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it's clear that you have no intentions of apologizing for calling me a liar, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Corvus cornix 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I, in turn, have moved the page to "MONGO Ω", as it certainly seems more than the third or even thirtieth RFC against him. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the fact that this RFC was created by Seabhcan without ever having attempted to resolve the dispute (as required) could arguably be seen as a blockable offense under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Seabhcan_is_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Thatcher131 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets not do that...I just hope he doesn't decide to go to arbcom as I believe it will be a really bad idea for all involved. I think the best thing to do is for all warring parties on the article in question take the weekend off from that place...I intend to...little is being accomplished in the talkpage there anyway...just a lot of mudslinging by all of us.--MONGO 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. As was blatantly apparent from the RfC, the people creating this had no intention of trying resolve their differences with MONGO before going to RfC. They presented no evidence that they had tried to resolve their personal differences with him, other than a recantation of their farcical grievances. Uncertified RfC gets deleted. You have to actually resolve the dispute before resorting to mud-flinging. Moreschi ^Talk 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand, though these kind of processes are still kinda a mystery to me (I've never participated in an RfC before). I did not start this RfC and had not planned to do anything like that, but once it was started I signed on as being in agreement with the summary (and added a small piece of evidence) because in my opinion MONGO was behaving in a very uncivil fashion and not responding well to comments from users (including me) to tone down his rhetoric (I similarly asked a user on the other side of the debate to do the same thing on their talk page). MONGO should absolutely have been told about this and the fact that he was not is probably reason enough to cancel this thing (I did not realize he had not been informed), but I guess I do not see what the huge problem is beyond that. I don't see how one of the users who signed on to it is an "obvious sockpuppet" but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps more effort could have been made to engage MONGO, but when I asked him on the article talk page to stop the incivility he told me to "not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing" while largely ignoring my complaint about his behavior (he was similarly non-responsive on his talk page regarding a separate issue, so it did not seem possible for me to work out anything with him, though as I said I would not have opened an RfC). Looking at my edit history I think you will see that I am a good faith user and nobody's sock nor an SPA. I agree with MONGO that it's best for all of us to take time off from the article talk page (most of us seem to be doing that) and perhaps an RfC would have just made things worse, but the manner in which this RfC was closed down (for example creating a special RfC section just for MONGO, and another editor moving the RfC title to "MONGO Ω" while posting a note on MONGO's talk page which says "They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?" and awarding him a barnstar) does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me as to how this was handled. If the RfC was set up poorly (particularly by not informing MONGO) I think it was shut down poorly too. I find these processes very intimidating and was reluctant to even sign on to this, but I found MONGO's behavior extremely problematic (unlike other users on the article talk page who were beginning to work together a bit) and wanted to try to do something about it because trying to communicate with him was not working. Unlike MONGO, I'm not well known with a bunch of friends here on Wikipedia, and don't particularly enjoy sticking my neck out like this, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have issues with MONGO and not be a an ED sock or a troll or a habitual RfC filer etc. etc. I'm not sure if some of the folks who've posted here even read the basis for the dispute (including a comment MONGO made accusing a new anon editor of being anti-American simply because s/he apparently had an IP address from Brunei) but it was substantive in my opinion, which is not to say that I'm asking for it to be re-opened because I am not since I understand the problems with how this was filed. Thanks, and sorry for the lengthy post.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is MONGO seems protected. He has created articles on many wildlife related places and as such as earned a status where he is not required to be civil to others. After reading over the past RfC's and RFaR's, which there are 4 total. It seems Wikipedia operates more on the buddy system then anything, being able to contribute over weighs hostility. I am apparently a sockpuppet because the intricacies of Wiki markup, you know adding a < and closing with a >, the very basic tenants of html are to be a mystery. I only hope I too can garner a large sum of edits so I can no longer be held accountable for attacking people based on their place of origin. You would think the existence of 4 total prior complaints would lead to someone questioning the overzealous hostility, I believe that is what Arbcom called it. --SixOfDiamonds 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked as I was trying to endorse Bishzilla's outside ROAR, darnit. Regarding "protection" - I wish. Were he protected, he wouldn't have been de-sysopped for holding the line against POV pushing vandals and edit warriors, and oh yes - not being sweet enough to them as they ran roughshod over every Wikipedia policy in place. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: My creation of a special "Vexatious litigation" section for bad-faith MONGO RfCs on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page was reverted,[3] by User:.V., but has been reinstated[4] by User:Bunchofgrapes. It's still there now, two hours later ... so I'm allowing myself to hope the section will become a standing and useful feature of the RfC/User Conduct page. Perhaps it could accommodate other frivolous RfCs than those on MONGO, too? Please remember to place your bad-faith RfCs there and nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Is this a productive line of dialogue? I mean, it's funny, and I understand the spirit in which you're working here, but are we actually addressing a problem in a way that will lead to a solution? Is "calling a spade a spade" actually helpful here? (Is it helpful ever?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty sad people are honestly advocating here on Wikipedia, a global project, that it is ok for Mongo to call people "Anti-American" because of the country they are editing from. Its is disgusting that people would allow that to happen, and insult those who bring it forward. These are the types of things that end up giving Wikipedia a bad name, things that end up in news articles. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh SixofDiamonds leave MONGO alone, that useless RFC you did and the comments you making here didn't doesn't help. Take your Point of View somewhere else. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Bishonen's "Vexatious litigation" section serious or just a joke? I'm asking in all seriousness because I cannot tell, and that is not good. Personally I find the phrase "Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, if any, go in one of the sections above" disturbing because the snippy phrase "if any" implies that there could not be a non-frivolous RfC against MONGO, which is obviously not true. I'm sure Bishonen did not mean to say it that way and maybe her creation of that section is largely tongue-in-cheek, but if so it's not particularly funny in my opinion. Bishonen's last comment does nothing to comfort me about how the deletion of the RfC went down, and I do feel some of the points I raised in my comment above are worthy of a reply from those who were involved in closing this out and changing the name to "MONGO Ω". In general I'm wondering if others feel if this is the way we should do business around here (i.e. making light of legitimate and serious complaints about user conduct, even if the original RfC was admittedly improper in certain respects). I'm asking about this in good faith and really would appreciate replies, if this is an improper thing to bring up in this venue let me know and I could discuss it on user talk pages. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Update" above came out a little meaner than I intended it. I'm sorry. I guess I'll revert the "Vexatious litigation" section on the RfC page myself, if it's still there. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

• It was reinstated, but I removed it again. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen for your reply and mea culpa, no worries, and to V for removing the section on the RfC page. I guess we should just move on from this. Hopefully those of us working on the State terrorism by the United States article can work more civilly with one another in the future, otherwise I fear the same issues mentioned in the now-deleted RfC (and to be fair some of the concerns mentioned there probably apply to other editors besides MONGO, and on both sides of the issue) will come up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable edit?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=142403955&oldid=142403728

MONGO's summary: "revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.". Note that the edit which was reverted was not vandalism, but a content dispute. 200.58.112.238 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not a good edit summary, but that IP has 4 edits and not one to a talkpage and was adding contencious material (I and others disagreed with it) repeatedly. Please use your username.--MONGO 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Only perhaps!? It's not a question of it maybe not being a good edit summary--its clearly is a gross and unacceptable violation of policy that should have earned you a block. First, you call it vandalism, when the editor was actually restoring (not adding, as you claim) the long standing and most stable version, supported by various editors; he was removing the additions that went against consensus, added by UltraMarine. His edit was supported by many other long term, established editors. Thus, this was clearly a content dispute, yet you wrongly label it as vandalism. Surely you have been around long enough to know that is not appropriate. Add to that the bullying threat that he is "soon to end up blocked."

Secondly, and more serious, is the fact that you felt it necessary to do an IP search to discover this editors country of origin, and then make a personal attack on this editor based on his national origin—the country he happened to be editing from, as if that is relevant. Maybe you something against Brunei or its people (I don't know) but its very repugnant and ugly to display such prejudice openly, much less use it as the basis to attack an editor, i.e., attacking him on the basis of his national origin. That crosses any conceivable grey lines, and is not something to be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, at anytime. If you don't see how wrong what you did is (not just perhaps), then we have a serious problem (it also calls into question your fallacious reasoning process on these types of articles). Unless WP takes a strong stance against this behavior, per its rules, it shares in the complicity of allowing it to continue. If it becomes known that WP tolerates this kind of behavior, then it does immeasurable damage to the projects reputation.Giovanni33 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. I don't add anything ever that could conceivably be seen as contencious to articles about other countries. I have nothing against that country where those edits came from...the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S. to add such material. Claiming long term editors have more clout on material in article space is akin to saying you own the article, which you don't. I urge you to prove to me that you are here to incorporate neutral information into our articles and not misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox or advocacy platform for your cherry picked references to advance a position.--MONGO 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a civil response. You say: "the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S..." I disagree. That is not the question at all. It doesn't matter if an editor disagrees with US foreign policy or not (what I assume you mean by "beef with the US"). It's not our POV's that matters. Sure, we all have bias, but we should not let that get in the way--even if its reporting on political concepts and perspectives (i.e. the concept of State terrorism and the allegations that the US has been guilty of such practices) that we personally disagree with. But, why is that question presumptive based on the editors national origin? That remains unanswered. What does this editors nationality have to do with anything? You say you never add anything contintious to article about other countries. Well, what you wrote in that edit summary is an attack on the editor for being from another country, and therefore you are implying that merely being from that country makes the editor, in your mind, "anti-American" (whatever that silly term means). That is certainly a contentious (and irrational) written comment about another country and/or its people.

The fact is we have many subjects that are very contencious in nature, and there is nothing wrong with working on and adding such material, provided it means WP requirements of Verifability, Notablity, and Reliablity, among other sound policies. Among these other sound policies is assume good faith that is esp. important on such topics. Thus, I don't have to prove to you first that that my edits or participation are in good faith, that I'm interested in developing this project according to its goals, including this article in question, making it an educational and encyclopedic article that reports on these notable observations from various notable sources, using reliable referenced material--the only extent of my "cherry picking". I welcome all relevant POV's to balance the article provided it follows the same criteria, and is relavent to the subject matter.

It seems you are operating on a the wrong assumption: an editor does not need to first prove to you he is editing in good faith per policies, before you can consider if you want to treat him as a good faith contributor, and then be civil, etc. There is no such burden of proof. When there is an assumption to be made, (prior to proof one way or the other), then that assumption, per policy, is to assume its good. Otherwise, you will be excessively combative, and work to work with others, of other POV's (yes, including far leftists like myself. I've read your blog so I know you are quite right-wing, but that doesnt bother me). If we do not assume good faith (and follow the other rules) we will spiral downward, with the project suffering in the end. WP has good rules. I only ask that we all be expected to follow them not as a luxury but as a requirement. If for whatever reason one finds he can not follow the rules for a particular article (and that includes being civil), then one should simply not edit in that article. Adherence to these rulres, I think, are prerequisite for the privlege of editing.Giovanni33 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a blog! Please, link me to the blog so I can see what I have supposedly been writing there.--MONGO 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I had just assumed this [5] was your blog based on the name and similar politics. If its not, then I stand corrected (not that this fact matters). I've answered all your quesitons, but you keep ignoring mine.Giovanni33 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My politics are not the same as that person. Your comments aren't worth responding to if your reading ED to get your facts about me.--MONGO 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your politics are, just as it doesn't matter what mine are (or the editor you suspect of having a "beef with the US" because he is en editor in Brunei). That is the point. I don't know what ED is, but I do know you keep evading the issue, and ignoring the important questions posed to you. Are you afraid to answer them because the answer is not one you, or others, can in good faith support?Giovanni33 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Giovanni that MONGO's reply was "civil". MONGO presents as an arbiter of fairness -- "I urge you to prove to me..." -- when it is no contributor's responsibility to prove their good intentions to any other individual contributor. The policy is to "assume good faith." Proof isn't required when a condition has already been stipulated. MONGO violates the stipulation of good faith by asserting a person's good faith, in this instance faith "that you are here to incorporate neutral information", is not to be assumed, but proven to him as the sole arbiter of what is good or neutral. MONGO has failed to prove consistent neutrality -- especially by calling those who offer neutral information that is less than flattering of United States "anti-American."

MONGO improperly asserts a claim of proprietary interest in the content of Wikipedia when he demands that someone prove to him personally their intent with regard to "our articles." MONGO is part of no organization that owns any article on Wikipedia. MONGO edits here as a guest of and donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not a membership organization and MONGO is not a member of any organization that owns these articles. The articles are the property of Wikimedia Foundation, licensed for free distribution under GFDL. MONGO and Wikipedia would accomplish much more for the world's access to collective knowledge if they would use reason rather than intimidation to resolve conflicts. Intimidation by inappropriate claims of authority and ownership is not civil. H8 Buster 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another brand new account that finds its way to ANI and jumps straight in to a dispute about MONGO. Yawn! ElinorD (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that is a new account is irrelevant. Lets focus on the content of what their claims are, the merits or lackthereof, its veracity, instead of who happened to make them. Obviously its a puppet account, but it seems to be a legitimate use of a socket puppet, since some people, apparently, have a fear of speaking their mind, openly, without fear of retaliation, hence the anon account. Lets respect the users choice not to disclose their main account and focus only on the argument they make.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why we are allowing this harassment to continue. I propose blocking the SPA's and blanking their contributions to these threads.Proabivouac 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call pointing out serious and repeated policy violations, and discussions about this conduct, harassment. Its like a women who has been raped, saying, "why did you rape me, stop raping me,' and you asking the women why is she harrassing her rapist? The question is absurd. Mongo has yet to even agree to stop violating WP policy. WP rules must apply to everyone. Do you disagree?Giovanni33 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The opinions of long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributors to the site have more weight than brand-new accounts or single-purpose accounts, period. Brand-new accounts especially are to be ignored if they jump into disputes like this since it is very easy to create an illusion of consensus for or against a person or proposal simply by churning out new accounts. The fact that nobody here is agreeing with you should be a signal to stop digging. - Merzbow 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for interjecting this comment, but a long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributor to the site,like (ahem) myself, might think that the statement quoted is worthy of condemnation, but be unwilling to jump into a dispute marked with such unpleasant attacks. So the above comment is both incorrect and counter-productive. Hornplease 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize to a degree, but unfortunately there is no way to distinguish productive contributors commenting anonymously from abusive trolls spawning sockpuppets (like the EDers who've been harassing MONGO), so comments from fresh accounts can only be treated with the utmost skepticism. - Merzbow 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorrry Merzbow, your 5163 edits do not qualify you for the right to express that opinion. 86.149.97.92 13:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, object to the attitude MONGO and his friends are taking here, and I'm far from being a single-purpose account, a new account, or anybody's sockpuppet. *Dan T.* 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you've been harboring a grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO for a while, and have been warned before by an admin about stalking him. You're hardly unbiased in this matter. - Merzbow 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When you can't defend what MONGO does, I guess character-assassinating his critics is the next best thing, huh? *Dan T.* 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, and the username is real charming isn't it. --MichaelLinnear 07:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, because of the powerful clique he has behind him, MONGO proves to be of an Untouchable Caste, with a free pass to be as uncivil as he wants, and anybody who objects to it gets personally attacked with impunity. *Dan T.* 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the contempt with which this complaint was met with to be very disappointing, not helping to reach a resolution at all. --MichaelLinnear 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by all of this as well, such a hateful quote assuming all people of a country are Anti-American would surely have led to a block if not ban for hate speech to anyone else. I have decided not to work with MONGO at all from this point forward, there are others on the article who actually are attempting to work in a civil manner such as Tom. --74.73.16.230 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just drop it already the admins here are on MONGO's side, no one is caring that he made a xenophobic attack on someone. Like Merzbow said, they value his ability to write articles on parks more then anyone else chiming in here. Edit count > civility. If you do not like it, start some articles and you to will gain privileges. --SixOfDiamonds 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat disturbed that even established users still don't understand the concept of consensus. The 'powerful clique' is called 'consensus'. I am sorry that some of you find yourselves on the other side of consensus and must therefore resort to ad hominem arguments about cliques and cabals. Perhaps if you feel that way you should reconsider how you are contributing to such a consensus based project like Wikipedia? --Tbeatty 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about one person, not the illuminati, please take your tin foil hat off. SixOfDiamonds

That's out of order, dear chap. Nick 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The hilarity of that bothering you more then someone saying everyone from Brunei is Anti-American. --SixOfDiamonds 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So a blatant lack of respect for fellow editors and an obvious contempt for anything even remotely similar to manners or can be excused by 'consensus' now? If this is what 'consensus' on Wikipedia has degenerated to, I certainly want nothing to do with it. I suppose it's lucky for Wikipedia that the vast majority of people who do the actual work around here neither look at places like WP:ANI, or care.

I wonder if you actually understand the concept of 'consensus', if you think that it's possible to be on the "other side".

Consensus [6]:

1. General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action.
2. A specific method of community decision making where consent by all parties is required.

I don't believe that there is 'general agreement' or 'consent by all parties' from all editors of Wikipedia (not even amongst the self-selected ones that edit at WP:ANI) that it is acceptable to treat people who have legitimate complaints with the frankly bizzarre and incredibly xenophobic behaviour of another user with mockery and ad hominem, rather than addressing his complaints. Consensus means that everyone to some extent can agree. It doesn't mean that just because someone's friends turned up to agree with him, everyone must have the same opinion and therefore his opinion is OK. 86.149.97.92 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (User:KamrynMatika)

The ad-hominem arguments I've seen in this thread have been coming from the so-called "consensus" side, not from the critics. The critics have been commenting on MONGO's behavior, not making personal attacks on him, while his defenders are the ones who have been trying their best to character-assassinate the critics by applying labels based on superficial things about their edit history, rather than addressing the substance of their comments. Does it matter if somebody is a "troll" or a "sockpuppet" or has a "grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO" or is a convicted ax murderer... if they have a valid point about something, it is still valid no matter who made it. *Dan T.* 10:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that axe you have to grind have a double blade or what?--MONGO 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment SixOfDiamonds and 74.73.16.230 are the same editor. Could someone explain to him that it would be helpful if he at least added his SixOfDiamonds username in print when he makes edits with his IP account. We have tried, but he has dismissively ignored our polite requests.--MONGO 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --John 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? If you play with fire, you're going to get burned. (this goes to both sides - MONGO, that was a rather strong personal attack, but to the other side: removing valid boilerplates isn't on. Discuss first) Will ^(talk) 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Removal of valid boilerplates is a no-no. It can, however be reverted. Dismissing an entire country's contributions as irrelevant and worthy of reversion without discussion because every single editor from there is bound to be anti-American is deeply, deeply worrying. I've never run across MONGO before, and am not likely to in the future, so I have no axe to grind, or see any personal advantage from seeing his wrist slapped a bit. (Needless to say, I have nothing to do with ED trolls, either.) I just think it's bollocks that an attitude like this should be out there and nobody established has reproved him more than the gentle knock above. I compare this sadly with what happened to dab after a far more explicable comment, which he hastened to explain. Hornplease 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit! That IP had 4 (four) edits total, none to the talk page and was adding highly POV crap to the article. I saw zero effort on the part of that IP to do anything but edit war. I certainly never add anything perjorative to articles about any other country. So this ongoing hallucination that I am some kind of xenophobic editor, when all I am trying to do is ensure that articles about my own country aren't taken over by POV pushers who are not editing from the U.S. Before you mislabel me again as being xenophobic, I strongly urge you to search my edits and see if I have ever ONCE added perjorative content to an article related to any other country than my own. The edits I revert I definitely consider to be perjorative and I will continue to revert them. I could add all sorts of well referenced but pejorative POV to articles about North Korea, Iran, Syria...you name it, but I don't and have no intention of doing so.--MONGO 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, be civil, at least to someone who specifies that he has no axe to grind. 'Bullshit' is a bit much, I think.. I think you may have misunderstood what concerns me. I do not worry that you are xenophobic, and adding xenophobic material to other countries' articles. I am concerned that your comment, as reported, indicates a predisposition towards believing all others are xenophobic, and thus towards deleting without discussion legitimate worldwide contributions precisely because they do not represent what you feel is domestic consensus, and thus seriously damaging the project. This is also quite clearly incivil at worst and uncollegial at least. Your statement above, I am afraid, goes some way towards confirming my initial impression, and only exacerbates my disappointment that nobody else established seems to be speaking out against it on this occasion.

Since I have said my piece, this will be my last post on the subject. I apologise if I have offended you. Hornplease 07:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing collegial about that IP's contributions in the least. I have explained this matter but you fail to understand.--MONGO 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL means that we don't snipe at the vandals in edit summaries, warnings, block messages, etc. It just makes you look like an asshole and doesn't defuse the situation, it inflames it. 99.9% of your edits are fine here, but you keep stridently defending the 0.1%, rather than just admitting that you sniped at someone and shouldn't have done that. Doesn't help... Georgewilliamherbert 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what assholish...when one comment is overblown by pedantic wikilawyers who have the insolence to link me to the CIVIL policy and tell me that this 1 tenth of 1 percent of "unfine contributions" justifies being labelled by people on a witchhunt as de facto proof that I am some kind of bigot. If your intent was to convince me that I am the bad guy here you have failed miserably.--MONGO 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an either-or. What you did is wrong, regardless of what they did to provoke it. When you do these wrong things, it blows up in your face, causes more drama, etc. Haven't you noticed that you provoke 10x the number of these things compared to just about any other sr editor? It's not just that you tend to hang out in article areas where there's lots of controversy - you respond to controversy with actions that encourage further controversy. Your life is not simply plagued by ED trolls. You're bringing this on yourself... Georgewilliamherbert 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I deserve more credit than that...I create at least 1,000,000 X "number of these things"...whatever these things are. I hope I can become as perfect as you George...that is my ultimate quest. You just go ahead, stick you head in the sand and stay away from dealing with controversial areas. It's these very controversial areas that need to be cleaned up or Wikipedia will never be taken seriously. Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so.--MONGO 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Cleaned up? Time wasters? I see the disruption caused by your incivility as a waste of time. And, although I respect your motivation, I don't see this as having cleaned up anything. Seems to me you made a mistake and don't want to admit it. That's a shame. --John 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm adding to it, clearly it wasn't my last post....in my defence, I had come back here to further qualify a few things, but my hand was forced by the above comment. (a) You have explained why you believe you are not xenophobic, but that is not the point at issue (b) the IP's behaviour is not what concerns me at this time (c) I really do not care to get into a discussion about this with you. If it is indeed the case that nobody else thinks that this sort of crap is worth commenting on, then I suggest this section be marked "resolved through careful ignoring of the matter" and be archived. Thanks for your careful attention. Hornplease 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do two wrongs make a right? Does uncollegial behavior by one editor justify retaliating by being uncollegial not only to that editor but to his entire country? *Dan T.* 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

let me know when you wear out that grindstone. Shall I come running to the noticebaords next time you are less than perfect. I mean, I'd have to spend most of my editing time here.--MONGO 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am sure that it is not only those with a grudge against you or who are inflexibly anti-American who may be very disturbed by your remarks. Please do not take away from this the belief that such remarks are acceptable, or that they only anger those who are liabilities to the project. As has been said above, you would do well to either apologise and moderate a small subset of your behaviour, or merely ignore this discussion without attempting to taunt those already angered. I suspect this discussion has gone beyond your behavior to the community's complicity in it, anyway. Hornplease 06:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, maybe most editors here know the difference between what is a big deal and what isn't.--MONGO 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease and Georgewilliamherbert are right though. It would be a big mistake to think the community has given you carte blanche to ignore core policies like WP:CIVIL. They apply to all of us and are vital for the good of the project. None of us is perfect but there is good reason for having these policies. --John 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just stop it already, MONGO has committed himself to the role of a martyr, fighting evil doers and all, and as such he will be praised no matter who is caught in the blast. People here respect MONGO because a website attacked him and makes articles on parks. Most people here also are highly patriotic and do not believe in conspiracy theories. Wikipedia does not work on concensus, it works on majority, which they basically equate to each other. Take your issues to the articles and if you feel MONGO is disrespecting you, choose to ignore him from that point on. No one is going to stop him, from his labels of calling people "Anti-American" at least he is not raising the threat level ... get it? right ... threat level ... means of manipulation and gaining support ... Just be happy you are not being called a "red." --SevenOfDiamonds 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:A_Jalil, etc. and WP:POINT

Third time's a charm? I seriously need an admin to intervene here. Among many other things, A Jalil is:

• Deleting dozens of scholarly sources from an article
• Blind reverting a WikiProject and deleting its scope, claiming an irrelevant NPOV concern

He is generally avoiding talk pages and blind reverting several articles, along with User:Wikima and to a lesser extent User:Juiced_lemon. Please someone assist me here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor
Admin intervention is needed. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For koavf to say I do not use the talk page is easily refuted by looking at the relevant articles talk pages. As to what can come out of talking to koavf, that is another matter and can be more understood by looking at koavf's own talk page. The archive of the ANI contain more about koavf's complains against anyone who disagree with him including myself, Collounsbury, Juiced Lemon, wikima, ...etc.--A Jalil 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To all parties involved. Please have a break of a few days. If i'd block Jalil i'd be obliged to block Justin for the same reasons. Nobody is innocent in this case. The problem is if i have to block Justin, i am afraid it would be an indef this time due to the fact that he is under 1R by day parole. Since his return from the last indef block he's been blocked twice for the same reasons (parole vialations). Again, both parties should leave those set of articles stable and disengage for a while. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Obliged to block me? Why would you be obliged to block me? Did you see the diff that I presented above? I worked for a long time making a constructive addition to the article and he ruined it with no explanation. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the difs above of course. The problem is that neither you nor them are innocent. I can make a list of 1km long of all of your and their tedious editing, revert warring, 3RR, etc... So you think by blocking him all problems would be sorted out? Noway! I don't buy that. One thing is sure: if you are not willing to start a new process of dealing w/ eachother from scratch then i am afraid you both would be blocked. Do one thing: start both of you a RfC where nobody would accuse the other. Try mediation. You've never tried it. All i see here is that both of you are working hard your POV. Why not go both of you help the negotiations between Morocco and Polisario and keep this place a bit quiet? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right I've done nothing to warrant a block, Fayssal. I don't think a block will solve anything, but if an admin did get involved to mediate/arbitrate, that would definitely solve something. For the time being, I need him to stop blind reverting out sourced information and inserting irrelevant POV tags into this WikiProject; it wastes everyone's time and keeps us from doing anything valuable. I would be happy to have mediation or RfC or whatever else, but I've requested it before with no intervention. No one has actually assisted me in the past. Do you have any recommendations on what would be best or most efficient? Clearly, this kind of behavior is not acceptable, right? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you say an admin can try to mediate. Certainly not me because i could be biased. I can arbitrate though. So according to our policies you both should be blocked. You are claiming innocent but you are wrong on that. Thanks to Pepsidrinka, we got some raw statistics below that show why i don't believe you and why i was right above. Other admins like Francis Tyre tried hard but in vain. I appreciate your contributions and i remember i said at the ArbCom that i have no problems to see Justin back if he'd play fairly. So where we are now? I'd block Jalil but i am afraid another admin would deal w/ you. If someone reverts your stuff don't revert immediately because in many cases what you revert is just the wrong version. Try to be patient or if skies remain dark go for an RfC. I am sure it would help easing tensions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Glancing through Koavf (talk · contribs) contributions shows you reverted his edits 26 times on July 10. Looking through A Jalil (talk · contribs) edits, he reverted your edits 18 times on July 11. You guys don't care about getting the article correct or finding a solution, you just have this kind of back-and-forth reversions. It seems as if you (speaking to both parties) see the other users name and decide to revert. I agree with Fayssal, both users are deserving blocks. Pepsidrinka 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Koavf as you might know has been indef blocked for edit warring and disruptive behaviour. He is editing again just because the community thought he learned something from it and that he might edit differently. After coming back from the block he started a wave of reverts of dozens of articles to where they were when he left for the indef block. In doing so, koavf discarded everything that a number of editors made. About the two diffs above: in the first, Legal status of WS, there are many editors involved and the reasons for undoing koavfs version are explained in the talk page: inaccurate map and more. In the second, koavf tries simply to make WS and SADR be used interchangeably with the SADR flag and many more sentences taken out stright from the Polisario propaganda. If there is anyone that deserves a block that is koavf. Recently, He was blocked for one week for disruptive behaviour on different subjects but is here now only because the good faith of the community. In less than a month from his return koavf has been edit warring, causing chaos with his thousends of article moves, in addition to being in confrontation with many editors here and elsewhere. Something to think about for those who believed or still believe koavf is capable of changing.--A Jalil 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is relevant here Jalil is what we have now. You do revert as he does and that should stop immediately. You reverted 18 times in a single day! If someone reverts your stuff don't revert immediately because in many cases what you revert is just the wrong version. Try to be patient or if skies remain dark go for an RfC. I am sure it would help easing tensions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever I don't really care what step happens next per se as long as it involves someone with some measure of authority encouraging policy and constructive edits. When something like the two above edits happen, of course I reverted. Why would I not? I certainly don't see how those examples could be considered the "wrong version" by any outside party. Again, regardless of any other edits/reverts in any other instances, I think anyone could admit that the two above diffs are completely unacceptable. Furthermore, I defy anyone to show me any reverts that I have done to any of Jalil's edits that delete so much information, especially when it is properly sourced and cited. That kind of behavior has to stop. I would certainly prefer that it be of his own volition and that he decides he wants to be a constructive editor on the articles in dispute. If it comes about by someone else enforcing policy, that's regrettable, but fine by me. The one thing I won't abide is this continuous back-and-forth sniping. Again, this is not the first time I've asked for some kind of intervention, and I'm getting tired of doing this; it wastes everyone's time, and does nothing to make Wikipedia any better. Does anyone want to volunteer to assist me? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I really read your comments w/ care but i fail to understand why you are labeling yourself as a very innocent contributor. I really want your disputes to stop once and for all but all i see is that you are still reverting the same edits you were reverting years ago (both of you). You talk about others reverting you because your edits are sourced and well referenced. I know about your disputes very well. That strikes me Justin. I don't buy that as well. Haven't you reverted an unsourced edit w/ another of yours at another online encyclopedia on May 5th? So? I told you a few times that i appreciate the fact that you've never used socks. Your impatience has enhanced as well but we are at it again. You know what happens? You push your POV and you get faced w/ another push. That's the story. Please contact an admin or a couple directly and try your luck. Or else would you accept me to help w/ another admin like Francis or Asterion? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Innocence Here's the smokescreen: I've never claimed innocence, nor have I claimed that only Jalil(/Wikima/Juiced lemon) are in the wrong. What I am saying is that the two diffs I have referenced above are completely unacceptable. I think you'll agree. If you see POV-pushing on my part in those two edits, let me know. That having been said, I also agree that the back-and-forth is totally unacceptable and for that to be the case, we must be reverting one another's edits. Again, I'm willing to concede that, and I'd be happy to have someone else mediate or arbitrate, bearing in mind that I won't always get my way and that any outcome would be a compromise. Fayssal, I've generally had a good relationship with you and I don't think that you would be capricious; I would be happy to get some kind of finality on this with you involved, if you're willing and able. Furthermore, I've had a good relationship with Francis and Asterion as well; I'd be happy to have them involved or anyone else who could be of assistance (in point of fact, if you check the history of the WikiProject page, you'll notice that Francis did, in fact, intervene; Jalil immediately blind reverted him.) Bring on whomever you think can be of assistance; I'd be happy to see an end to this, so I can start constructively editing again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if my tone was inappropriate. I do trust your intentions but i dislike your ways of edit warring. See?

I can gladly help but i just don't want to waste my time if you are not willing to start a new page. You are calling for a block which would change nuffin'. That's my point. The most of the articles you edit are a bit hot however these content disputeS are not that complicated. At least there are some civil behaviour from both parties. That would be a start. So let both of you AGF. Can we start w/ an article of you choice and help? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tone, etc. No worries, Fayssal. The only reason I would want a block is simply to get Jalil to stop reverting back (on those two in particular) so we can start some kind of mediated/arbitrated/whatever discussion with an outside admin. I have no personal interest in seeing him blocked per se. If you want to start somewhere in particular, in the main namespace, the most egregious dispute is over the article linked above: Foreign relations of Western Sahara/Legal status of Western Sahara. Others in the main that are troubling are Polisario Front (which is actually over a pretty small matter in terms of content, but large in POV), and Flag of Western Sahara. Outside of main, the Western Sahara WikiProject (again, the one linked above) is causing a real hassle. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The common denominator to all koavf's edits is the same: the disputed territory of Western Sahara is to be used to mean the SADR and vice versa. The flag of the SADR is to be used for Western Sahara and of course WS is occupied by Morocco. He also misuses the arabic word intifada to give the sopradic riots by Polisario supporters more importance. The Wikiproject Western Sahara is considered by koavf his own personal garden where he can plant whatever he wants. He considers two books written by two Polisario fervent supporters as the ultimate references on the WS subject. I have discussed all these matters in the respective talk pages and made it clear that was POV but he was simply reverting and as you counted, much more than I did. I think these are the real issues that have to be addressed. PS. If I dont react quickly here it is because I am on holidays, but I will be looking from time to time. Apologies for that.--A Jalil 12:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vitalmove

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

Warned about 3RR[7], but violates it anyway[8]. Warned about personal attacks[9], but violates it anyway"I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta.". He has also called me a "bully"[10] and insisted I work for the Israeli government.[11] Why has this user not been blocked? Did I mention his edits are sockpuppet-ish? I'm not exactly alone here[12][13]. Perspicacite 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user's conduct is also being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Vitalmove reported by User:Perspicacite (Result:). Shalom ^Hello 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That 3RR resulted in a block, but I undid it because the article is now protected and discussion is underway, so the block would be purely punitive. I left a warning about personal attacks and incivility. Mangojuice^talk 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reddy steddy

Confirmed case of sock puppetry used to evade a community ban. Requesting admin to indefinitely block all involved accounts; namely, Weekscrazy, Reddysteddybrekky, and Onetwothreefourfivesixseveneightnineteneleventwelve. CounterFX 23:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Add Fm104 to the list (performed an identical act of vandalism as Reddysteddybrekky - compare [14] and [15]). CounterFX 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The accounts have been blocked. Pax:Vobiscum 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Stormshadows00

Stormshadows00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is revert warring and continually posting uncited statements which libel Cherokee Nation Officials at Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Account is clearly an SPA and is continuously violating WP:BLP. Suspected sockpuppet of User:Johnc1. I think a block is needed at this point since the editing pattern is the same and recent edits are nothing but vandalism of other editors contributions. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this allegation is correct. This is the very first edit by Stormshadows. It looks like he's been here before, and he's trying to prove a point. I have not reviewed the case carefully enough to endorse an indef-block, but I can substantiate that there is a case here. Shalom ^Hello 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Add a check of user:Smmurphy as well. I am sick and tired of this POV pushing editor and his antics as well. He just replaced uncited materials which violate WP:BLP with a dishonest edit Summary. I think they both need a block. I suspect one of them is a Freedmen involved in WP:COI issues from John Cornsilks board at [16]. They are playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute just like the SCOX trolls did. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you say too much about POV pushing and violating WP:BLP, you might want to review some of your edits, referring to a "Mormon grinfcuk and then they stab you in the back" and "Mormonism is the biggest fraud" (these are not exact quotes, just paraphrases), or perhaps your edits to Eric Schmidt's biography. I'd add specific diffs, but I'm still figuring out all the neat WP features and stumbling over others.

That said, if Stormshadows00 and Johnc1 are socks of each other (would that be "co-socks"?) then WP should deal with that per policy.

This request is not germane to the instant discussion on AN/I, but since you're involved here, I know that you'll see this, and so I'd like to draw your attention to that request, and ask you to discuss it on that talk page. I apologize for bringing a second subject into this thread, but since I agreed to make no edits to your user and talk page as a condition of being unblocked, I can't drop a short "could you look at this, please?" onto your talk page, and so my options are limited. Thanks. Pfagerburg 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, I'd suggest you either open a request for checkuser or a formal sock investigation if you feel these are the same editor.--Isotope23 15:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do so. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments on article talk page

User:Pablothegreat85 an admin who has actively wanted State terrorism by the United States deleted, just reverted my comments, calling them "trolling", in violation of WP:NPA.

Tom harrison, Tbeatty, and MONGO, strong POV warriors who also want this page deleted, will probably now actively support his actions.

The page move, the underlying problem which started this argument, will be dealt with in an upcoming RfC.Divestment 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin? That's news to me. The comment was trolling; here is the diff. Divestment has moved the page against consensus multiple times today. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Divestment (talk · contribs) is a special-purpose sock account established for page moving. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All that aside, how does this require administrator attention? It looks like Pablo has decided not to remove your comments (which are, for the record, less than civil, and you're filing an RfC. How can an admin, exactly, help? --Haemo 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was about to be banned, but Pablothegreat85 is not an admin, and has no authority to do this. Divestment 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An admin less involved than I am might block the special-purpose sock account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Other than noting that you're a brand new single-purpose account who jumped into a heated debate, whose second edit was to WP:RFPP, and is now filing an RfC. MastCell ^Talk 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And having reviewed the contribs in more depth, I've indefinitely blocked Divestment (talk · contribs). It's obvious from his contribs that this isn't his first rodeo, and that this is a single-purpose disruptive sockpuppet account. MastCell ^Talk 02:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I get some feedback from other admins, based on the rationale provided at User Talk:Divestment, regarding the appropriateness of this block? MastCell ^Talk 02:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this block (as a non-admin), this SPA only pops-up to move war on this article. - Merzbow 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As this username has done almost nothing but repeated page moves against consensus without participating in discussion, this indefinite block is well-warranted.Proabivouac 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that Travb is Divestment as he claims and that he has also likely used various IP's in an effort to canvass votes on the last Afd on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Travb. Calling myself and others on the opposite side of the debate POV pushers seems to be begging the question. Unlike those that have been on the same "side" of Travb in the disagreements on this article, we haven't used socks, IP's and three of us haven't been blocked recently for violating 3RR as have TravB's compatriots.--MONGO 06:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To get around the indefinite block, Divestment has now switched back to using the Travb account. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The sock was blocked for being a sock and to prevent further socking. The main account was not since it was ended with a right to vanish. This is obviously the case of they would have blocked the main account. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see no problem with Travb adopting a sock based on right to vanish; it's rather that the behavior of User:Divestment warranted an indefinite block regardless of the identity of the user. I also see no problem with having spared the Travb username the block based on RTV. However, now that Travb has exercized the right to unvanish as Travb, I cannot see why this username should be immune from this block: he/she has picked up to resume exactly the same conflict for which User:Divestment was blocked as if nothing at all had happened. I cannot see the purpose of subjecting the encyclopedia to what can only be more disruption to come. As there has been no apology or pledge to change - indeed this edit to user page indicates that Travb stills sees nothing wrong with the behavior that led to this thread - and RTV is no longer an issue, an extension of the Divestment block to Travb would seem appropriate.Proabivouac 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Travb has acted disruptively, using his new account to move war and his IP's to canvass editors for the Afd for the same article he was move warring as Divestment. At the very least, his Travb account should be blocked for disruption since we block editors, not accounts anyway.--MONGO 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This conversation indicates he is bascially proud of evading his indefinite ban for disruption using the username of Divestment.--MONGO 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so." Right Mongo?

You know the problem with that link you provided MONGO? People may look at it. Pablo and Morton are patting themselves on the back for booting divestment and saying it was funny, and I respond "hilarious ain't it". That is a really long to say I am "basically proud". The link User:Proabivouac provides is my explaining to the world that I was User:Divestment, "sees nothing wrong with the behavior" is a fantasty.

Please note, User:Proabivouac, User:Tbeatty, and User:Pablothegreat85 are active POV editors on the State terrorism by the United States page, who have opposing POVs.

EVERYTHING I DID WITH User:Divestment WOULD BE OKAY WITH AN ESTABLISHED EDITOR. User:Divesment was closed because of WP:SPA. User:Proabivouac ignores this, so his logic fails completely. Established editors are allowed to move pages, in fact many editors on the state terrorism page have. User:Travb is an established editor, editing since October 2005. Is wikipedia going to boot established editors for moving pages? Of course not. User:Divestment, the account I opened two months after m:Right to vanish is closed, so what rule am I now violating?

As I explained below, the reason I left User:Travb is because of the stalking and harrassment of these same editors. User:Proabivouac says himself that my w:Right to vanish was okay.

Again, if you really want to pursue this, call a RfC, why would MONGO get a RfC before getting punished, and I don't?

Travb (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support indef block of travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruption and use of sockpuppets to evade scrutiny of past trolling. --Tbeatty 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and Strong Oppose: I do not feel this is fair. All of the above editors advocating blocking him, are strong POV opponents who are or were actively enaged in heated content disputes with him, pov warriors, and were edit warring with him in politically controverisal articles. To me, blocking him for the vauge "disruption" when the distruption was clearly the result of both sides of many editors being involved in a signifiant content dispute (luckily this has finally calmed down and there is progress being made--with Travb's participation) strikes me as a way to single out and get rid of a vaunerable POV opponent and thus gain an upper hand in a content dispute, or future ones. Therefore, any assessment about this editor should come from nuetral non-involved admins and with an understanding of this context. I think that an Indef blocks against this editor on this basis is certainly inappropriate; community bans require a clear and large consensus. If there is a case to be made against this edtitor, I say take it to Arbcom after the normal dispute resolution steps are followed. In anycase, Travb is working with others on the article, and I don't see him being the primary cause of distruption, in anycase. If he is being primarily distruptive, then give him a warning, a block, a longer block, and if it continues and the claims are valid, then we can talk about indef. ban.Giovanni33 07:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  POV warriors...? Shall we look at your use of socks and your outrageously long list of 3RR violations for which you have been blocked? This has to do with Travb's canvassing with one of his IP's and using his User:Divestment username to move war...Divestment was his only known named account, and is indef blocked. He switched back to using his Travb account to evade the indef block...we block editors if they are being disruptive regardless of what account they decide to edit with.--MONGO 10:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay Mongo and you clique, I asked you not to bring up personal information, but you started it. Here we go.

Sorry so long....

Mongo has a long history of edit warring and abuse of other editors, a few months ago he was desopyed for this abuse. He has had two Arbcoms called against him and two RfCs.

After calling someone an anti-American, on this same page above he wrote:

"all I am trying to do is ensure that articles about my own country aren't taken over by POV pushers who are not editing from the U.S"

"Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so." #1.1 Is this an acceptable edit? and #1 MONGO: vexatious litigation

For a full list of MONGOs behavior up until December 2, 2006 see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Travb I particualy call your attention to how MONGO calls other editors "bigots" and "racist bigots" hasn't MONGO had Teatty ban or has't MONGO banned other editors for less?

While I deeply respect MONGO hard work on National park pages, One of MONGOs purpose on wikipedia is clear: Delete all content which does not match his own POV. Tbeatty, Tom Harrison, and the others above find articles which do not meet their POV and then put them up for deletion. They also remove large portions of referenced materials which dont meet their POV. Any information which is critical of the United States or of the official account of 9/11 will be deleted by this group.

Defector Recently, someone defected from this group, now banned User:NuclearUmpf he revealed that this group actively emails each other and tells each other how and when to vote. He said he really liked MONGO as an admin because he was more active whereas admin Tbeatty? was "lazy".

I think the edit history shows that this group uses the admin powers of Tbeatty to push their agenda.

My behavior If the above POV editors dont like my behavior, call a RfC. But leave me a space at the top, because I can't respond in full until after September 15, because of the Bar exam and a one month vacation to the FSU. Mongo, you get the priveledge of RfCs and Arbcoms for your behavior, why can't I?

I am not going to edit the State terrorism of the United States page until after September 15, maybe forever. After my page name change idea was universally condemned (I am glad the opposing sides agree on something) I have decided that some editors like to edit war, and there is no point in editing the page any longer. If you look at the page history, I have been involved for over a year trying to get disputes resolved, calling straw polls, mediators, etc.

Regarding User:Divestment and Mongo's other accusations. I left wikipedia on March 5. The reason is because of this group of editors in MONGOs words "show(ed me) the door".

I was tired of wikipedia. So I requested. m:Right to vanish on 12:49, 5 March 2007. My userpage was blanked. I no longer used that userpage.

Over two months later, (2 months, 10 days) I created User:Divestment.

I read m:Right to vanish in March and I read it today, and I still can't see the policy on editors who want to return. I was NEVER attempting to break wikipolicy. I never used Divestment and Travb together in any Discussion etc. Divestment was not intented as a sock, it was intended as a replacement for Travb. All of the actions of the User:Divestment would be "okay" if done by an established editor such as User:Travb. Mongo himself on his talk page talks about leaving his user name.

I was not avoiding any blocks, etc. on user:Travb by using this Divesment account.

My use of this User:Divestment has consisted of moving the page name. During this same time, other editors moved the page to the same page name I was.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Other users continue to support this page move name. (This last edit war for moving was started by an account which has been indefinetly banned) On this page I also asked for page protection from massive deletions by editors whose single purpose has historically to delete the page.

Irony the extreme irony of MONGOs "clique"'s arguements is that they call those who want to preserve referenced information on wikipedia "disruptive". Yet, MONGOs "clique" searches wikipedia for articles that don't match their own POV and delete them. They also delete large sections of reference material, call other peoples names like "anti-american" "racist bigot" and begin edit wars. When editors like myself attempt to stop the deletion of well referenced material, we are labeled the disruptive ones.

I have created several dozen articles and added immense amount of information to wikipedia, 99% with references. I have vigourously also defended the deletion of articles which don't match my own POV. Travb (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The same people who wanted the 'state terrorism' page deleted will surely appear as they have been edit warring at the article since the failed AfD. MONGO - TBeatty - Morton - Pablo - Ultramarine. I think it is a shame that this is the method used to get rid of the opposing view point. How are we as an encyclopedia suppose to achieve NPOV on articles that is the case? Not on that page there have been some highlited such as opposing view points that have been working contructively, such as Tom harrison, Merzbow etc. and working with Bigtimepeace and others. I do not know about much of the above, but I can say I have asked MONGO not to attack users numerous times. He has been calling people trolls, sockpuppets, SPA's, anti-american, bigots etc. The worst part is, lately he has not proposed anything to add or discussed anything regarding the article, it seems to be just chiming in to make a personal remark, threaten someone with a soon to be ban etc. This issue was ignored above as just another MONGo witch hunt, which seems to be the way people take these things. Just consider how many people have been chased off this project by MONGO and his behaviour and what they could have contributed. I have so far created 5 articles in just the short time I have been here, 1 month or so, and this constant ignoring of his behaviour is making me consider leaving. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• PUBLIC APOLOGY Two users above have the gravely mistaken view, that I am "proud" of having to leave User:Travb and later returning to Travb. This is dead wrong. I want to publicly apologize for any wikipedia rules that I may have broke when I left User:Travb. If I did break any rules, I apologize. I am at a loss about what I could or should have done differently (A name change?). I am not going to edit the State Terrorism page, the page which is the nexus of this argument, until after September 15. I am seriously considering never editing it again, as I explained above. I hope this is acceptable. Travb (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ripster40

It appears that User:Ripster40 may be trying to make revenge edits (including a revert after they were removed) by adding speedy deletions via db-web to VG Cats, Penny Arcade (webcomic), and Ctrl+Alt+Del, three web comics (and the only three he's done this do) that were cited in the page for Loserz, now since deleted (however, some of the text can be seen in WP:DRV#Loserz). It would seem because this page got speedy deleted for being a web-comic, the user is making the same application of the deletion criteria for these other pages as to prove a point about the deletion. While the user may be right that there is a double standard (which the WP:DRV discussion is appearing to go over), the method of proving the point is inappropriate. --Masem 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that, I was sick and just the blatant ignorance of some of the users trying to get rid of the Loserz comic just doesn't make sense. Ive seen comics with lesser degree still up and running.Ripster40 23:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mirror

While looking for any more incidences of the above, I came across a somewhat complete mirror of wikipedia that is calling getting its updates live from here (not using a dump). I tested this by making an edit to my talk page and then confirming that it had appeared on my copy talk page. The search function is the only thing I have found that actually comes back to wikipedia, all other links are to within their main site.

The page is here: http://hg.seoparts.com/dir/en.2ewikipedia.2eorg/wiki/Main_Page

Anyone know where the list of mirrors can be found? As I remember they are encouraged to use the dumps, and not just call it from here for every query. Perhaps the devs can block access.

Actually, I just checked again, its not completely updated with each new query, the main page is still on yesterdays version. However my talk page was called from the current version, edited a few seconds earlier. Perhaps it caches for a limited amount of time to stop repeatedly calling the same page? Viridae^Talk 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yargh I just tried to blank an article and ended up blanking our version. Viridae^Talk 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that is bad. Looks contactable. Prodego ^talk 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Registrant Contact:
  Personal
  Yasuda Mitsuru (samescar@mse.biglobe.ne.jp)
  +90.90813772
  Fax: +90.90813772
  Toyuhira-ku Hiragishi 4
  none
  Sapporo-City, Hokkaido 062-0934
  JP

I found Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Viridae^Talk 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is better to just send an email yourself though. Prodego ^talk 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Will get around to that this evening, at uni at the moment, really need to get on with work. Viridae^Talk 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to http://hg.seoparts.com/dir/en.2ewikipedia.2eorg/wiki/special:mytalk, it tells the IP of the server as 219.117.216.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). When I try to submit an edit, it goes back to Wikipedia ... but just in case someone finds a way around that, the IP should probably be blocked. --B 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It works as an open proxy. You can surf any site using that. That is really bad and the ip should be flagged as an open proxy. MartinDK 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hot-linked mirrors are usually blocked from the server configuration. Poke a dev in #wikimedia-tech. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

discussion vandalism

my comments where recently removed here by an editor who objected to the way in which i used subscript. This has occured before on this very same discusion page and he kept on removing comments here and in edits before that, it was an all out edit war. i will revert them back but he should be punished or warned for this. the user is ILike2BeAnonymous. please contact me on my talk page whatever happens to occur^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 06:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, other users are allowed to edit your comments for readability. I don't see why you need to enclose your comments in <small> tags, and it definitely doesn't follow our talk page guidelines. It's hard to read, and makes it difficult to follow the discussion. --Haemo 06:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

he didnt edit them for readability, that would be fine. he completey erased them from the page. what would you say is wrong with the way in which i formatted them? how could i reformat them for better readability. i like to use small so i can directly answer longer statements. its all over talk pages. It says '''Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.''' on the link you gave me, isnt that what i was doing?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like seeing comments chopped up as it can make it appear ambiguous who added which comments. I feel a list of rebuttal points is more appropriate, but these are merely my personal preferences. In any event, and much more importantly, removing another's comments from a talk page requires a damn good reason, and "unreadable" is grossly insufficient. Removing good faith comments from a talk page flies in the face of the very concept of Wikipedia as a collaborative project. If said editor can't read your comments, he's free to read the diff, or adjust the format. Someguy1221 07:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

user:ILike2BeAnonymous is repeatedly deleting user:cholga's comments from the talk page despite comments from several editors, myself included, that this is against wiki policy. Yes cholga used small tags and shouldn't have, but this is more about an ongoing edit war than the use of small tags. In user:cholga's defence he/she has sought help at wikipedia:wikiquette alerts and on the article talk page and so imo deserves the support of an admin in this matter, kind regards, sbandrews (t) 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

with rehards to small tags, i was under the impression that small tags where perfectly ok accoring to the talk page policy specifically "interruptions" which stats "n some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.", now i didnt do the formatting perfectly but ILike2BeAnonymous' comments where quite long and his tone on the page is in attack mode and very angry, calling me capricious and sloppy.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

user has relented - now no need for admin action, sbandrews (t) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for helping me out through this difficult situation, I have definatly learned that edit wars are fruitless and i should let others revert after i have reverted and complain and wait afterwards as everything is saved in the history.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vitalmove (again)

• Vitalmove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warned about 3RR[25], but violates it anyway[26]. Warned about personal attacks[27], but violates it anyway[28] ("I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta.") He has also called me a "bully"[29] and insisted I work for the Israeli government.[30]

I ask him to maintain civility[31] so he responds with this[32] ("I'm not sure what your issues are. If you have a mental illness then please accept my hope that you get better.") Why has this user not been blocked? Perspicacite 07:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It would really help if someone would deal with the 3RR backlog. Perspicacite 07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The reviewing administrator may be interested in an entry below: Request for guidance. Just FYI. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 75.25.5.185

This highly offensive post was left on my user page for, what I can determine is, no valid reason [33]. I realise the offending text was removed shortly thereafter, however, if I did this to another page I would be immdiately blocked. This user should experience no different. I suspect it's the IP address of a user with whom i've had quarrels in the past (and trust me, there are many). However, my quarrels never escalate to the childish, offensive, personal attacks such as this one. Batman2005 11:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a vandalism warning. If the behavior continues, he surely will be blocked, but with only 2 edits and no warnings, blocking now would be out of process. (and it looks like there have been any edits for days).-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Mraz the new Stephen Colbert?

Jason Mraz has called on his fans to add nonsense to his Wikipedia article. See his July 1 entry on his MySpace blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4818814&blogID=282689129, URL is blacklisted), where he says "Reality is Malleable. It's constantly changing and shifting and becoming something different each day. Because of this amazing quality of life, I am challenging each of you to help me create an exciting new life courtesy of the loopholes at Wikipedia.com… basically, I'm encouraging everyone to visit the Jason Mraz page at Wikipedia and make minor amendments until the entry sounds as absurd as humanly possible. Keep in mind you'll likely be notified at least once by the Wiki-Police for "vandalizing" Internet real estate, so be careful." Please add this article to your watchlist and remove or comment out dubious information. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there has been heavy vandalism already over the last few days so it is semiprotected. Viridae^Talk 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User reverting once again articles after repeated warnings

Italiavivi has reverted article without merrit. Note: This user has not violated the 3RR rule yet. But a pattern is developing in this article for Fox News Channel controversies Listed below is many incidents involving this user:

• July 13, 2007
• July 12, 2007
• July 9 - July 12, 2007

Please solve this dispute before an edit war begins. Thanks again. LILVOKA 12:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The only edit war here is being caused by LILVOKA, who is repeatedly inserting information that doesn't possibly meet WP:NPOV, and is grammatically incorrect. See his reversions: [34] [35] [36] [37]. This is a content dispute, LILVOKA; try the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 13:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing bug with section header

Resolved

 – problem was due to pagemove vandalism. Non-admin Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit a section of Chrysler Cirrus and as I tried to edit, it took me to a completely different page. The page had been moved before, and was moved back to the correct title - but what is causing this strange error??

Anyone else experienced this?? --SunStar Net ^talk 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well-known bug without satisfactory solution at the moment, already discussed... um. Somewhere at the mailing list and/or bugzilla. It happens with too many (>=2) frames stacked on the right side. An ugly workaround involves putting the right-side contents into a "parent" table/frame. A simple workaround involves slight reordering of images :-) Duja► 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the edit link stacking it is where the link goes. That link is going to "HENRY VIII WAS AN OBESE OLD MAN WHO WAS A PAIN IN THE ASS", because someone vandalized the page, and moved it there. Prodego ^talk 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of images in discographies, in this case Jasmine Guy

As a result of WP:NFCC items #3(a) and #8, album covers in discographies are being removed all across the project. Some information regarding this issue is available at User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse. Examples of such removals: [38][39][40][41][42]. Literally hundreds of these removals have been performed and are still ongoing. A partial list of such may be found at User:Durin/Fair_Use_Overuse#Complete (scan for "discography"). The same action is happening across band pages, where there is no separate discography.

The basic principle is that album covers are acceptable fair use under our policy in articles specifically relating to the article. For example, Haunted (Six Feet Under album). Acceptable fair use does not include the display of the album cover in lists such as the examples above where they were removed. Whether there is one album cover or hundreds, the principle is the same.

Today, I removed Image:Jasmine Guy Album.jpg from Jasmine Guy ([43]). As this orphaned the image, I tagged the image as such [44]. I informed the uploader of the image that it was orphaned [45], and also informed User:Jheald that the fair use tag he had applied was inappropriate due to the image being used in a discography [46]. Following this, User:Jheald reverted these changes [47][48], claiming the use was appropriate, asserting it is not a discography but a discussion of the one album the artist ever made [49].

I reverted the re-insertion of the image and the de-orphaning of the image, and responded to User:Jheald on the issue [50].

I'd appreciate an administrator reviewing the matter.

Thank you, --Durin 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. When i see CD album covers in any article other than an article on the album itself, it needs to go. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. Some of the cases on your subpage are just horrifying. There are also some single fair use images that are used far too excessively; for example Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg

I asked copyright lawyer User:Wikidemo for advice, who's recently been taking a lead role at WP:FAIR. Wikidemo's view was:

It's a close call but I would side with Durin on this one. The example we put into the WP:NONFREE guideline allows for album images to identify the album in articles or sections about the album. This section isn't really about the album, it just shows or lists the album. I wouldn't call it a discography though. A list with one item isn't really a list. But it doesn't actually talk about the album. It's implicit that there should be some narrative text. How much, I don't know. If you moved the discussion of the album down from higher in the article, and perhaps added a second or third sentence about the album, then there is truly some discussion of the album. At that point, whether you make it a separate article or keep it as a section within the artist's article is a style issue, not a fair use issue.

I'm prepared to go along with that. Jheald 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree - there does seem to be a difference between one album cover and hundreds. I clicked a random sampling of Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music and found that there is extensive precedent in displaying a limited number of album cover pictures in articles about the artists. In fact out of the 4 featured articles about musical artists that I clicked, only one didn't have an album cover picture.

1. The Jackson 5 (2 album covers)
2. The Notorious B.I.G. (1)
3. Phil Collins (1)
4. "Weird Al" Yankovic (0)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeating experiment:

1. Bob Dylan 1 album cover
2. Beijing opera 0 album covers, but they don't seem to make albums as such
3. AC/DC 2 album covers
4. Frank Black 4(!) album covers

This seems a very strong trend. I strongly advise not removing fair use album covers from articles with fewer than, say, 4 of them on "overuse" grounds. That shouldn't affect User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse if that truly sets the limit at 10, but it seems to apply strongly in regards to the specific case in question here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Precedent is not the guiding principle here. Foundation mandate is. The issue here isn't the use of album covers where such covers are being discussed. The issue is the use of album covers in lists/galleries. There are plenty of band articles we've yet to get to [51][52][53], and plenty that we have [54][55][56]. If the album cover is actually discussed, there's no issue. Lists and galleries, there's an issue. --Durin 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the album needs to be discussed, but that's not the same thing as discussing the album cover. If that were so, then most articles on albums should also have their image removed, since rather few even mention the cover specifically. Look at what the lawyer says, above: not discussion of the cover, discussion of the album. And if you're claiming "lists and galleries" are your target, well it seems clear that the question you're asking about is neither. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the article Jasmine Guy does discuss the album, in two places.

During the run of A Different World, she released her self-titled debut album in 1990, which spawned three Billboard Top 100 hits: "Try Me", "Another Like My Lover", and "Just Want To Hold You." In the spring of 2006, Jasmine spoke to the graduating class at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and revealed that she will record a second album. She commented that of all the entertainment industries, the music industry was the worst. She will sell her new album online herself and not through a major label, similar to the marketing strategy used by Prince.

and

Album information
Jasmine Guy Released: Oct 16, 1990 Label: Warner Bros. Chart Peak: US Pop #143, R&B #38, Heatseekers #32 RIAA Certification: None Singles: "Try Me" "Another Like My Lover" "Just Want To Hold You" "Don't Want Money"

That's substantial discussion by most of our standards, if properly cited it would be a fine standalone stub article, even meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) with 3 charted hits (not to mention notable artist). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• And I have no problem with a separate article on the album, where the album cover can be used. In this list, it's inappropriate. --Durin 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "list" is not usually applied to a single item. As someone who has removed a fair few fair use images from band articles too, I think this this may be rather over-zealous. --John 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're ducking and bobbing and weaving. Pick one argument that you really believe, state it, and stick to it. Is your argument that album covers can only be used in articles specifically named after that album, like Chrislk02 says? Well, that's not anywhere in any of the policies you link to, it seems you just made that one up. Is your argument that the article "overuses" album images, like the title of your page that you made on the subject? Seems hard to call 1 (one) image "overuse". Is your argument that the article doesn't discuss the album? Well, I've shown it does, and you seem to be accepting that. Is your argument that you think that if you admit to being wrong you will have to apologize to an article editor for deleting their good work finding, uploading, and placing that image? Well, yes, you've got me there. You will. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• We've got literally hundreds of images removed from discographies exactly like this one. The only difference here is that this one is for a single album. There's plenty with more. Where would you like to draw the line? Is one album acceptable? What about two? Three? Ten? Fifty? The line has been previously drawn at not accepting album covers in discographies using this sort of layout, where the image is accompanied by some bare information about the album. If you're not willing to assign a particular line as the breaking point, then you've got to say that either album cover images in this sort of format are not acceptable or they are. In the latter case, then we go back to having discographies that look like this. So, please identify where you think the line should be drawn and why. Thank you, --Durin 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Six. :-) (You wanted an arbitrary line, you got one!) More seriously, this a common issue in fair use, called Amount and substantiality. It sometimes takes real judgment about just how much of a given article is really "our work" with the images merely adding on, and how much is "their work" that we've stolen, merely adding on our text as a cheap excuse. As I wrote, for most of your list with 10+ images, "overuse" is correct. Not for this one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, I maintain you are incorrect, specifically with regards to the foundation resolution on the matter. If you want me to stop doing this, get consensus to get me to stop. If you want to discuss an album cover inline, such as in Slayer (last image on page) fine. If you want to add it to a list such as the case here, I'll remove it. Period. I'm sorry if that's overly confrontational. It's not intended to be. But, the endless arguments must stop if we are to come into compliance with the Foundation's resolution by the deadline of April '08. --Durin 17:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) A "list" of one? --John 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• The issue isn't so much whether it is a list or not. The issue is whether it is discussed in any significant way. Displaying the album cover along with bare information such as release date, label and chart peak has regularly been determined to not be significant. That's the principle I'm operating on. It doesn't matter if it's one or a thousand images. See WP:NFCC item #8. Such use is not significant.
• Of course, we have yet another long, drawn out debate on what counts as "significant" Regardless, the practice is to remove images used in this way. That's been done for hundreds of articles now, and I'm not about to stop because someone says one album in such a list is somehow different than two or three or four or five. It isn't. It's PRECISELY the same kind of usage, whether you do it ten times or once. --Durin 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we must comply with the Foundation's rulings. However I do see a difference between one album cover used in a band article, where no article on the album exists, and the sort of unarguable abuse with many images being used as decoration in one article. So, unless I have gravely misunderstood you, did you when you said "I have no problem with a separate article on the album, where the album cover can be used. In this list, it's inappropriate." --John 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to "I'd appreciate an administrator reviewing the matter."? Did you really mean "I'd appreciate an administrator reviewing the matter as long as she agrees with me."? Look, Durin. The great is the enemy of the good. Everyone agrees that there are excessive cases, and you are doing a fine job cleaning up the excessive cases. But in this case you seem to be the excessive one. Please let up a little on the lower end of the scale, and go on with your fine work otherwise. Don't confuse "with all due respect, you're wrong in this case" with "you want me to stop doing this". Just a little while ago you were saying that our policies and guidelines were what was important here, not precedent. Now you are saying it's all right for you to go on in all cases because you have precedent that you have done this before in other, larger cases? You want consensus to get you to stop, when we seem to have shown you that ... well, if not that you're just wrong, at least there is at least room for serious debate here? You're an experienced administrator, what would you say to a user who finds a debatable issue in a policy and guideline and goes around deleting stuff from multiple articles saying "get consensus to get me to stop"? Wouldn't you say something like ... please stop first, and see where consensus lies before going on? You have consensus to delete fair use images where there are lots of them. Please keep doing that. That's great. But you were unsure in this case. So you asked here. That's also great. But now you see that there is a strong argument against you in this specific case ... and you want to go on anyway unless we "get you to stop"? Come on. Don't demand absolute agreement with everything you do or else. That's not the way we do things here. Please. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't say I was unsure in this case. I asked for an administrator to review. The problem with low end/high end is that we WILL get into debates like "wtf? In such-and-such band's article there's a list just like this one with three album covers! What the hell's the problem with this one with six? Get over it!" If you don't think this would happen, you have no idea the struggles we've had. --Durin 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents (and thanks for the honor but you can stop calling me a copyright lawyer, when I'm here I'm just a Wikipedian like anyone else). I agree with Durin's action in this case, and similar cases. However, we did explicitly allow album covers in major sections about the album and not just an article about the album. In this case it is a stretch to call it a major section or to say the section is about the album. It's just a collection of data with the album picture put in. Durin calls it a one-album discography. I use different terminology, I call it an insignificant addition to that section of the article. Whatever you call it, I believe that as per the consensus we reached or confirmed yesterday, this is fairly close but not good enough. If there are hundreds of similar uses, there are hundreds of uses that will fail the test. So be it.

How many album covers is it okay to use in an article? It depends on the article and the use. We did not set an exact number and I think that would be unwise. Sometimes one is too many. Sometimes three or four may be appropriate. Let's not talk in the abstract, let's look at the articles and see if it fits. There is a fivefold limitation that prevents too many non-free album covers from appearing in articles:

• (1) discographies are explicitly banned in the guideline as we updated yesterday.
• (2) to qualify for identification use, it has to be in a major section. You would be hard pressed to create ten different sections for ten album covers and call each of them major.
• (3) the section has to be about the album. Not a mere passing reference, and I argue, not just a data dump. It has to be prose.
• (4) if an article is predominantly a series of sections about albums after only a brief introduction about the artist or some other subject, you could argue that it is a list, which is explicitly banned along with discographies. Maybe it's too free-form to call a discography, but you could say it's a list.
• (5) beyond non-free use considerations, as a matter of style, an article that goes into detail about multiple albums should be broken down into multiple articles. So I just don't think the matter is going to come up too often. Why don't we work with the projects like wikiproject albums, and ask them to make that an explicit style guideline on their end? I don't think anyone would really think there should be articles that have a long string of different albums.

A few final notes. Perhaps there was enough descriptive information about the album in this one particular article to support the cover. But it was in a different section. To be useful for identification of a discussion of the album, the discussion has to be in the same section as the album cover. That's also good style. Finally, there are going to be some rare cases where an album is used for purposes other than identification, for example critical commentary about the album cover itself, a discussion of the graphic artist as opposed to the musician, or perhaps the a significant use of a photograph of a deceased celebrity for which there is no fair-use alternative. Those raise their own issues I don't want to go into here, but there is no blanket prohibition in using album covers for other uses. This does represent a change in policy, one that has been cooking for a long time. At one time there was consensus, or at least a convention, of using discographies and a lot more non-free material. Things change. Whether you think it is wise or not the source of these policy changes is the directive from the Wikimedia Foundation to limit the number and purpose of non-free images. If you don't like it, that's where to take it up at a high level of Board policy because they are the boss and there is not a whole lot we can do here. Wikidemo 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We have an article called IANYL on that, I see. :-) Thanks Wikidemo. Could you check the part earlier in the discussion where there is a prose paragraph in the article that does discuss the album? (If you'll notice, she only put out the one album, so any discussion of her music, her relations with the music industry, etc., really is discussion of that one album). Could you confirm that merely moving it down to the same section would, in your judgment as merely-a-Wikipedian-who-happens-purely-by-coincidence-to-be-a-copyright-lawyer-and-by-further-coincidence-to-be-influential-in-setting-this-very-policy, be sufficient? And, possibly more important, Durin, would you agree to that? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin protect all my userpages?

 Done Gnangarra 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) My userpages have been under a lot of vandalism lately (I mentioned this on this board a few days ago), as seen by this page I made. The edits are all coming from people I know, as all of the IP addresses trace back to Coventry, UK. Some edits are pretty upsetting, see [57] and [58]. I would be very greatful if an adminstrator could protect the pages listed below for 2 months. I would also be greatful if these IP addresses (which are located here) were blocked from editing Wikipedia.

The pages I want semi-protected for two months are:

• User:Davnel03/Remember
• User:Davnel03 - extend protection, if this is possible.
• User:Davnel03/Vandals
• User:Davnel03/Layouts

I would be greatful if a admin could do this. Many thanks. Davnel03 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Gnangarra protected them all. I deleted offensive revisions from the "Remember" page.-Wafulz 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have thanks for reporting the status here Wafulz Gnangarra 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Dear Wikipedia,

Cyber-bullying is the key reason why many people choose not to interact on the internet. As an online community, we are not going to be successful unless we coral cyber-stalkers and bullies. Unfortunately, one user has successfully targeted me. This started when I entered Wikipedia to edit an article for an Iranian television station.

I added a list of the station's shows, but user: Perspicacite reverted my edits. He refused to explain his actions to an editor. [59][60]. When I tried to correct this vandalism he had me banned on technicality for 3RR. Fortunately, the Press TV article has since been locked and is safe from his harm. I have also been unblocked.

Having found a target, he proceeded to unleash his wrath. Apparently by viewing my edit history, he discovered and targeted my article on Mark Levine (journalist), along with user:Zntrip [61]. The article survived, but I had to waste time defending against the two of them. [62]. He has been abusive and condescending on another Press TV page [63][64]. Not satiated, he accused me of sock-puppeting. His accusations were shown to be baseless[65].

On a frenzy of harassment. he ignores my request to be left alone, and has now attempted to have me permanently banned. [66] [67]. His supporting evidence is the harassment described above, and his "ally" is the user Zntrip, with whom he had previously tried to ban the Mark Levine article. Note that even Zntrip has since abandoned him. [68]In his request, he also falsely claims I insisted he was an Israeli agent.

All of this started because I wanted to add to an article for an Iranian television station. I have now had to waste days dealing with this cyber-bully, and it has caused me great stress to be targeted in this way. If this were the real world, I could easily get a restraining order. Unfortunately these sorts of people rule some parts of cyberspace. I think as a matter of policy Wikipedia needs to find a way to control this behavior. Wikipedia should be a place where parties share information by editing articles which interest them, not a playground for the mentally ill or anti-social. It is alarming to think someone like Perspicacite could have access to people's IP addresses and personal e-mail addresses (which I certainly will not reveal to wikipedia until I am more comfortable.) Articles related to Iran have just as much a right to exist as any other article, and I should not be targeted and harassed for editing one. I'm writing to see what protection Wikipedia provides against such behavior.

--Vitalmove 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue concerning article for Peter Hitchens

Recently I removed several external links from the article for Peter Hitchens because they linked to sites containing video content in violation of copyright, posting on the talk page afterwards (it may be appropriate to note that there has been some dispute over the length of external links section of this article and I have made other edits to the article and talk page since). Recently, however, an IP user restored these links. I undid this edit, and stated why in the edit summary. The IP user went back to their edit, the edit summary reading: "(Reverting politically-motivated vandalism)". Obviously, I don't appeciate this remark, especially since it is not possible to gain an insight into my political leanings from any of my contributions to articles and talk pages on Wikipedia. I am now uncertain how to proceed, considering this concerns an IP user, accusations of vandalism on my part and since the rules on this kind of link are firm policy and not just guidelines. Any help/advice would be appreciated, thanks. EvilRedEye 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say just revert on sight and if he keeps doing it, go over to WP:RFPP or even ask me really nicely and we'll semi-protect. Sasquatch t|c 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. EvilRedEye 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad case of WP:POINT

Czimborbryan (talk · contribs), referenced above [69], has been tearing through his contributions adding the exact same lengthy defense of his site to all of them, occasionally deleting other comments disagreeing with him. Also, he's repeatedly tried to remove the argument he badly lost from the Village Pump. Could somebody take a stronger line with him, since Haemo's post didn't work? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats, vandalism, flase claims of copyright infringement

The public relations firm for Biscayne Landing regularly removes sourced information and adds POV commentary to the article, as well as the Munisport article. They have threatened to sue me on their talk page for slander and libel, and have threatened to pursue an action against wikipedia for copyright violation. In addition, despite uploading renderings of their project themselves to wikipedia under creative commons public domain, they are trying to remove the image as it shows the proximity of a wastewater treatment plant to their project.

• Legal threat: User_talk:Marketingsupport --RandomStuff 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I checked the article out of curiosity and found the following deletions by the purported PR firm [70]. They are serious claims (for example one item said the neighborhood has an unusually high number of cancers). I'm not an admin and so don't have any authority here, but in my opinion if you have support it seems they should be allowed to stay. --Vitalmove 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

here's one reference related to that section you mentioned, though that section could be made more npov if it were to be re-included. [[71]]. If you check the edit history of the user, though, you will see many POV edits and removal of valid sourced information. As to "purported" PR firm, the user gives their phone number and email on their talk page, which is the PR firm for Biscayne Landings. --RandomStuff 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin either, but I left a note on their page suggesting that if they've got a copyright concern, to contact the office instead of making veiled threats and pointing out WP:LEGAL. We'll see how that goes. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the user is claiming we're not allowed to use "Biscayne Landing" in any article because the name is copyrighted. I think that's entirely frivolous but anyone with some law knowledge want to comment? Sasquatch t|c 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much law knowledge, but I know you can't copyright a name or title.--SarekOfVulcan 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but Sarek is correct, you can't copyright a name. "Biscayne Landings" is trademarked, but that just precludes using the logo in the article, not the name itself. Perhaps our marketing friend didn't take business law classes.--Isotope23 19:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Biscayne Landing, LLC has trademarked the words "BISCAYNE LANDING" [72] as part of the mark, not just the logo, but using the trademarked name of the product to describe the product in this manner is not an infringing use. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I missed that when I looked at the TM site.--Isotope23 12:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at WP:AN3 - he's up to 6 reverts to a particular version at this point, not counting earlier reverts to different versions....--SarekOfVulcan 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the most recent reversion and it seems to me that there should be a middle ground somewhere. By the way, using a tool that leaves an edit summary identifying the changes as "vandalism" is not a good idea. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are so many edits back and forth today, you may have missed that Marketingsupport completely blanked out the page several times already. While a specific small edit by Marketingsupport might not look like vandalism, the user has shown bad faith, bad intentions, and repetedly made the same edit that they were asked not to make (by multiple editors) due to POV issues. So while I agree with DS1953 in principle, in this instance of multiple reversions/legal threats/blanking of pages, I think using an automated tool to undo repeated acts like may be appropriate. --RandomStuff 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sock, 3RR, NPOV and BLP violations at Romila Thapar

Resolved

About two days ago a new (and seemingly SPA) editor Outlookeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started deleting sourced material (from Outlook (magazine) and Rediff) on the Romila Thapar page and adding unsourced POV content. Since then his edits have been reverted by multiple editors who have explained there reasons on the talk page but he has reverted back to his version multiple times ([73], [74], [75], see contrib list for full listing) in spite of being informed of the three revert rule on his talk page. A few hours back, two new accounts Vikrambatra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Indiankhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were created and immediately started reverting the article to Outlookeditor's version.
Can some admin block these obvious sock accounts and also semi-protect the article ? Abecedare 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious socks - both sock accounts blocked indefinitely, and the master account blocked for 48 hours as they had been warned about abusing multiple accounts and edit-warring previously. Hopefully that will get the message across, so I'm not going to semi-protect the page right now. If any more suspicious new accounts or IP's pop up, then semi-protection would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Abecedare 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

Could someone please do something about this troll? He keeps on blatantly reverting editors whom he disagrees with on many pages, leaves insulting comments on talk pages like here, here, here and here, and refuses to cooperate. He thinks that the band Tokio Hotel is a pop band, I disagree, so I added multiple reliable sources. He blatantly reverts me, and the only comment he leaves behind is "this is fucking gay" (on my talk). As one can see by reading his talk, multiple editors had a problem with him, and he is suspected of sockpuppetry as well. SalaSkan 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed his contributions, and he seems to be a single-purpose account intended to provoke edit wars over music genres. SalaSkan 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Warned, please re-report if this doesn't work. GDonato (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also added my tuppence worth. LessHeard vanU 20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SalaSkan 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:195.212.52.6/User:Rob right and Manchester

I've never reported a contributor before, and always found a way to make a compromise, even grudgingly, in my two years of editting Wikipedia. However, I feel User:195.212.52.6 bares no hallmarks of good faith, or contructive editting, and hope to halt this issue asap as there are a number of serious breaches of policy.

Checking against the "Definition of disruptive editing and editors" at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, User:195.212.52.6 is categorically is distruptive editor; he/she is tendentious ([76]) cannot satisfy WP:V orWP:RS, rejects community input ([77]), and has campaigned to drive away productive contributors ([78] [79]).

His problem stems from the city of Manchester's (unofficial, but verifiable and contextual) claim to second city status over Birmingham. It's a matter of civic pride of course, but User:195.212.52.6 is becoming increasingly vindictive about this.

We've offered a compromise, asked for WP:3O, but he/she's now setting up single purpose accounts (User:Rob right), and joining the Manchester wikiproject ([80])with them as a means (in my view) of a breach of WP:POINT.

His/Her IP talk page outlines just some of mine and others attempts of engaging with this user to be more respectful and fair (including 3RR warnings).

Some diffs:

• Leaving unhelpful "vandalism" warning - its a content and resource issue of course.
• Single purpose accounts, joining WikiProjects with intent to distrupt
• Admitting intent to disrupt anything about the status of Manchester, on Wikipedia, and anywhere else
• Admission of intent, immaturity and unencyclopedic entries

I would very much welcome assistance or feedback here. I have remained civil and polite throughtout this month of wikistress. Jza84 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Contextual Background I've also been involved with reverting some of the edit's by User:195.212.52.6 on Manchester, the editor has a personal dislike of the city which he has moved to the pages of Wikipedia. This is very evident in his use of phrasing [here] and on History of Manchester see here [[81]]. the concept that is mentioned on the article is that it has been noted that many people (weasle words?) beleive Manchester to be the second city of the United Kingdom. Some of User:195.212.52.6's sources to discount the claim have had little substance such as a correction page in The New York Times from 1995. These constant reversions are not help the article or Wikipedia, many of the editors are busy re-writing and find new sources for the article in an effort to raise it to good article status. All this warring is a constant distraction and very frustrating to commited editors who are here to make Wikipedia good. Mike33 18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also been brought to my attention that this person (self styled Proffessor Rob Right), is contributing to other websites with this campaign (see here). It's clearly a personal matter which in my view is clouding his ability to write fairly, neutrally or mediate rationally. Jza84 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot not properly programmed?

Resolved

UBX migration from 6 months back

MetsBot came through my userpage at 03:41, 9 January 2007, and replaced the its/it's userbox with one saying that I use the I-Tunes shop (which I don't). I have changed it back, but it seems like curious behaviour for a bot. There is obviously some human error (or silliness?) behind this. Kelisi 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It happened 6 months ago; this report is kind of stale. Looks like a simple UBX migration anyway.--Isotope23 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tennis scores

Hi, I recently cam across Tennis scores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you look at his talk page, its just a list of Tennis Scores. Is this allowed?. New England 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I recommend that it be moved to his user page, though. SalaSkan 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it could be another Lman1987 sock. Either way, the user has no edits outside their own talk page and Wikipedia isn't a webspace provider. --OnoremDil 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page, but if you feel this guy is a sock, you're welcome to block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours by User:Swatjester

User:Symbiote-Spidey keeps making disruptive edits to Spiderman: Friend or Foe. When I warned him several times he is now threatening me on my talk page and his user page. I want someone to help me put a stop to this please.BlueShrek 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbiotespidey blocked 24 hours for the physical threats. BlueShrek warned for being incivil and biting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BlueShrek wasnt uncivil Iwent by the rules.BlueShrek 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You certainly did not. You were uncivil, biting to the new user (and you yourself are a new user) and you both have ownership issues. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hes still making threats somehow. He just left me a message. I need help against this vandal.BlueShrek 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten to click ok on the block. He's blocked now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock of User:Mariam83 blocked indefinitely

Further information: [[:User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely, Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83]]

I've just blocked indef another sock of this disruptor. Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is waiting for an admin to unblock the account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:WinterT. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mosquera sockpuppeting

I recently blocked Mosquera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 12 hours for disruptive edit-warring, personal attacks and aggressive lobbying against Wikipedia's non-free content rules. Mosquera is one of those editors who dislike the restrictive policy on fair use and vigorously defend their "right" to upload replaceable non-free images. While blocked, he created an obvious sockpuppet, Tarmikos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (editing the same articles, reverting to the same versions, created an hour after Mosquera's block, typical temporal editing sequences, finally editing pages in Mosquera's user space while logged in as Tarmikos). I blocked Tarmiko but let Mosquera off for the moment. But now Mosquera is giving his own blocked sockpuppets barnstars, including fake barnstars claimed to be by a third party ([82]). There had previously been issues about possibly fake barnstars being posted to Mosquera himself.

What are we going to do with him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week this time. I still think of a longer block because i am afraid this behaviour would just flourish. But we'll see. You haven't mentioned trolling and foolling wikipedia but i'd just consider that part of the sock violation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He also seems to have posted as User:Enríuqui while blocked, although only to his talk page, so I'm not sure that counts as evasion of a block. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the bare IP 77.181.77.173 was him editing during his original block as well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A week sounds about right to me. We shouldn't ignore the fact that he may still make positive contributions (even if I personally don't see much encyclopedic value in series of articles about not-even-yet-aired telenovelas, but that's just my taste) But as long as he insists on climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman to defend his non-free images, he'll be more a liability than an asset to the project, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ElinorD (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also agree, besides, in one week all his images tagged as replaceable non-free content will, most likely, be deleted. :) Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one week? Most merciful to Mosquera, not sure about Wikipedia.Proabivouac 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% sure he is a sock so 1 week = 1 year if not indef. I have no idea whose sock he is. When you give them 1 week today, you'd still have the option to give them an indef a week later. Maybe even before. Who knows? I'd not object at all if someone extends his block but i am sure it would change nothing in this case. So better give them a week. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean Mosquera himself is somebody else's bad-hand account? Could well be, judging from how quickly he jumped into the fair use debates as a newbie. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the harm in studing

I am a new contributor who studyed wikipedia before contributing. I follow links to "places where I can get help" like this place and i am accused of being a sockpuppet. LuckyLouise is conspiring against me. This guy must be a new ager using bully like tatics to intimidate editors. He uses spelling mistakes as "evidence" that im a sockpuppet which is a very common mistake. I hate it like any reasonable person when everyone pushes me around and snarl at me for making mistakes. I wonder what insult the first person to respond to this post is gong to make. Science Solider 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't smell very good? (j/k) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One policy you appear to have missed is WP:NPOV; which your article edits don't conform to... this isn't an insult, I'm just pointing that out. Lucky Louie didn't appear to attack or bully you, that editor just pointed out to another editor that some of your edits appear to follow the pattern of an individual who isn't allowed to edit here; it wasn't even a WP:BITE situation and they were rather polite when you contacted them about it. If you are not that person, you should have nothing to worry about. I'd also suggest getting used to your contributions being edited mercilessly... it's kind of how things work here.--Isotope23 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Molag Bal is at it again

His latest disruptive sock is called User:Molag Bal in the USA. SalaSkan 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One can find this evening's disruptive socks here. SalaSkan 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

They're all blocked; multiple Molag Bal socks have been blocked for the last few days, and many were done today. It's not just Molag Bal who's returned to being heavily disruptive at the moment; the Kate McAuliffe vandal also appears to be back, except they're using a new "has a crush on" girl. I've blocked two Molag Bal socks and one KM sock today. Acalamari 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the WP:RFCU process, but perhaps we can request that a checkuser be performed on MB to prevent his IP from creating new accounts? SalaSkan 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded upon that list. Acalamari 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal by Panache

Panache apparently believes that my talk page is an appropriate place for personal attacks directed against me:

• [83]
• [84]

Note that these attacks are about a month apart, rather than being essentially from one burst of anger. —SlamDiego_←T 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Sbandrews and I have both left a note on Panache's talk page about this. Let's play it by ear, from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay by me. —SlamDiego_←T 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to arrange a drug deal

Resolved

I deleted Talk:Midwakh for reasons that should be obvious if you can read the deleted history. Anybody think it is worth taking further? The main article is a hell of a mess; it either needs improved or deleted. --John 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone else needs done. Even if this stuff is illegal in some places, it's not our job to enforce the laws of the world. Friday (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Friday has a point though you have to be pretty sad to use wikipedia to score. I've redirected it to pipe anyway, revert me if you want, SqueakBox 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, this is one of the saddest things I've seen. What you have to resort to when you don't have friends, wow. --MichaelLinnear 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked Geoffrey Mitchell indef as he revealed Sceptre's real life identity using a sock IP (User:24.173.10.197) - the contribs are very similar if you take a look, and checkuser stated they were from the same ISP (view evidence) - unfortunately, the edit where the IP revealed the information has been oversighted now so I can't provide a link. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "fortunately, the edit where the IP revealed the information has been oversighted"...by the way, there's a thread below about this. Daniel 01:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not Geoffrey/24 who posted that information on ED that's pushing me towards leaving. I am 95% certain who that person is (If it's who I think he is, I know him in real life). Will ^(talk) 01:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wakinglife24

I looked at the recent changes and noticed that Wakinglife24 had vandalized an article. I reverted it, and as I was putting a warning on his talk page, I got an edit conflict. I checked the page out, and noticed three warnings showing that he'd vandalized an article several times. I then added my warning, and came here to report it. I know of two articles he messed up: Gibson Guitar Corporation and Philadelphia.

Try WP:AIV. Corvus cornix 01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass date-delinking campaign by Lightmouse

This user has taken up a contentious stylistic campaign that has caused much disruption in the past: indisciminately stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks, using bot-like methods to run through large numbers of articles at high speed. The same thing has been done in the past by Bobblewik, who finally gave up only after repeated rounds of escalating blocks, hiatuses and resumptions, and by Hmains (under Bobblewik's initial influence), who somehow escaped blocking but acted likewise, breaking off under pressure each time the campaign attracted notice and opposition, only to quietly resume it at a later date. (For this background, see Bobblewik's block-log and talk-page, and Hmain's talk-page in its history, repeatedly, almost from the get-go: Dec 2005, June 2006 and straggling on through the summer, Sep 20006, Oct/Nov 2006.)
Long discussions at Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers) have failed to reach a consensus either for linking years or for de-linking them, giving the matter a status alike to that of other stylistic differences (e.g. "British" versus "American" spelling) for which there's a general principle of "don't go around articles changing the style from one way to the other". It was for stubbornly breaking this principle that Bobblewik was repeatedly blocked.
Now Lightmouse is repeating the very same pattern of behaviour: First as Editore99, and then under his present name, he's been stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks. Quite a number of other editors have complained, but Lightmouse has mostly ignored their complaints. A month ago I warned him to stop, filling him in on the background. He laid off for a month, then resumed making edits such as this. I warned him again, more strongly, earlier today, but he has since carried on with edits such as this. He's made no effort to get consensus for his campaign by re-opening discussions at the MOS page.
His edits are not all bad, and I, personally, even agree with some of his year-delinkings, because he tends to concentrate on articles for quite recent stuff. He also does much other, largely useful editing at the same time, with units and such -- but this almost makes matters worse, because it means that a straightforward revert of the date-delinking also undoes the good stuff. (He's gotten complaints about some of that other stuff, though, and reacted to them with equal stubbornness.)
Anyhow, since complaints and warnings have failed, admin intervention seems to be the only way of handling this. I hope this is the right place to ask for it. -- Lonewolf BC 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it myself. What difference does it make? These links are not of any real use anyway. --John 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Not policy nor consensus. Corvus cornix 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy or consensus either way, right? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a stern final warning. Please report further activity of this type here. --Richard 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What policy is he violating? The BC/BCE thing was decided by the ArbCom, that no one should change one to the other. But there's been no such decision here, has there? Or am I missing something? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why would he get a "stern final warning" for something like this? --John 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a year) should be abandoned. Corvus cornix 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. There's no general consensus either way. So I shouldn't threaten to block people for linking years, and I also shouldn't threaten to block people for de-linking them. At least, that's how I read it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I admit that this is an ambiguous situation. I researched it before I left the warning. I researched it again quickly and revisited my thinking after reading Quadel's comment.

I think we all understand that there is no consensus to link or de-link years. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly indicates that it is permissible to link years (else why would they show how to do it?).

WP:BRD suggests that it is ok to be bold but that, if someone else objects, then you should discuss and develop a consensus.

Someone (User:Lonewolf BC) has objected to Lightmouse's de-linking and asked him to stop pending formation of a consensus. Ignoring the opinions of others and editing unilaterally in the face of opposition is disruptive.

According to the BRD model, it would have been permissible to revert Lightmouse's edits. However, that probably would have been more confrontational than necessary.

I don't think any admin relishes the idea of having to go through each of Lightmouse's edits and rolling them back if the consensus were to decide against his de-linking campaign.

Blocks are meant to be preventative; not punitive. The purpose of a block in this case would be to limit the de-linking until the issue can be discussed in an appropriate forum.

Discussion and consensus are crucial to working in a collaborative community.

--Richard 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Applaudere. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said Richard. However, I think the best would be to help coach Lightmouse towards making more productive edits, rather than talking about blocks for what seem to me, from a very cursory sampling, to be more good than bad edits; edits with which I too see certain problems, but which are undoubtedly well-intentioned. Discussion and consensus are vital here and I'm disappointed at how little attempt at dialogue was made with Lightmouse about his edits before threatening him with a block and reporting him here. Experience has shown repeatedly that the community is not able to attain a consensus either for against linking standalone years, and that there are editors on both "sides" who passionately believe they should or shouldn't be linked. I should say that I often delink standalone years as part of a copyedit myself. Perhaps the solution to this issue would lie in discussing with Lightmouse on an individual basis the merits of his edits. If there is a concern that he edits somewhat robotically, then perhaps he could be restricted to a certain speed of editing. Finally I'd say, with all respect to everybody involved in this, it really doesn't seem worth anybody falling out over, to me. --John 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:VirtualSteve

Although this isn't the techinical place to do this, deletion review is, VirtualSteve decided to be bold and decide that some articles were unnotable and delete them [85] such as Chris Kindred, Delany Lewis and Peroxwhy?gen, which last I checked weren't tagged for concerns of notability, and would like an administrator to look at the deleted revisions of these articles, and any others VirtualSteve may have recently deleted out of process, and would like to see if these were correct or not. Thank you! — Moe ε 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:CSD...

The speedy deletion policy specifies the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion. Non-administrators can request deletion of such a page by adding an appropriate template (see below). The word "speedy" in this context refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.

If Virtual Steve thought they met the criteria, he was "within process" to delete them. WP:DRV is the process to challenge his decision. --Richard 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing "out of process" as they were all expired prods, so you can't have checked them recently. You can request their undeletion from any admin at any time, but there's nothing to stop them being sent immediately to AfD. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the expiring prods on them. I could have swore I visited the Chris Kindred article a couple of days ago and it wasn't tagged.. meh, no need if it was prod'ed, but it would have been nice to be given the prod notification. — Moe ε 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

True. Just as VirtualSteve would probably like to have had notification that you were discussing him here... --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An extra eye on Badger

Could someone please take a look at this article. An anonymous user seems to be determined to add information about the British plan to bolster their forces by using Badgers to supplement the troops. It appears that the source they want to use is reliably equivalent to The Onion. (One of the images is a photoshopped badger in a tank...) After further review, I think I've already technically violated 3RR, and will grudgingly accept the block if so, but would appreciate some extra eyes on the page either way. --OnoremDil 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, the British Army had to just deny that they were using man-eating badgers in Iraq. Yeah, that war is something mad surreal. --Haemo 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Extra eye on Aluminium

New account has been making wholesale changes including doing a pagemove to it.

He's been warned, and may have stopped, but I may not be online much longer. If people can keep an eye on it... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already on my list. More eyes will always be appreciated though. --John 02:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Am watching. Just reverted to a "safe" revision from a couple of days ago, might want to let WP:CHEM know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is the fastest block I have ever handed out. Please review and discuss here if anyone feels I have been harsh. --John 02:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just semi-protected it as well, as they edited once as an IP before logging in and using the account. Just for a day, though. Hopefully they either go away or respond on the talk page... Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Harsh? No. Registered vandalism-only account = immediate indef block. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Spamming

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

This user is spamming via images. The image description includes corporate advertising and links, like an article. The image is placed in categories to drive traffic. What's the best way to handle this? Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted, user blocked, next case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Shaniqualonda

Somebody want to deal with this Talk page and unblock "request"? Corvus cornix 04:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On contribs perusal, shouldn't almost six months worth of almost nothing but vandalism on particular targets (I'm stretching "constructive edits" here quite a bit) be treated as a permablock offense? MSJapan 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Kind of makes you wish you had a 'hit him with a lead pipe' button, don't it? HalfShadow 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing constructive at all. Someone having created an account on Dec. 06, finding a podium here where to say "Deport illegals!" inside an article pretending to know enough about the related terminology, removing sprotected tags, first edit summary was 'LOL' before replacing another page w/ 'LOL' and creating another w/ 'ey dis ya gurl shanaynay ima blockhead and proud'. I am tired. He doesn't have to come tomorrow of course because it would be a waste of time. I mean another 'LOL'. Thank you Andrew c. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SPA flooding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malware Spread Mitigation discussion

It seems to me quite blatant, and possibly the result of sock-puppetry. If someone could do an IP trace, I'd appreciate it. Lipsticked Pig 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want a checkuser, see the requests for checkuser page. Most administrators can't do that, only checkusers can. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lipsticked Pig 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxer might be a User:Danny Daniel sock

Gaky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be a Danny Daniel sock. The user has appeared to have created several hoaxes. Danny Daniel sockpuppets sometimes start creating hoaxes first before editing an actual article. Most of these hoaxes (Spongebob Diseasepants, Bloo Lost in Time, and Ned's Fairly Day) seem to all relate to the articles Danny Daniel socks edit, though the username is not written in CamelCase as the last nine sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. If this was an actual sock, then it would indicate another change of username pattern (the vandal has changed his pattern several times before). Do not block this user unless I find more evidence to confirm that this user is a sock, but someone should keep on the user's contribs. Pants^(T) 06:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, tag him as you wish.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

There is an edit war over Julianna Rose Mauriello. The show has not been cancelled, and User:69.132.198.186 has repeatedly changed "stars" to "starred" as if it had been. This user has just gotten off a block for doing so, and has even admitted in edit summaries he is doing it just to annoy User:Ispy1981. He continues to change the article. Kat, Queen of Typos 06:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:76.182.220.150

I am deeply concerned about the edits I see by Garry Denke (talk · contribs) (who also apparently contributes as 76.182.220.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). He has recently spammed a number of talk pages with fairly well-written pseudoscientific/pseudohistorical religious "theories". By itself, this is a problem but easily dealt with. My bigger concern is that Garry Denke has contributed to and started a variety of semi obscure articles over the last two years (e.g. Seven Spirits of God, Scroll Trench), and made small factual changes to topics like geomagnetic reversal. Some of these contributions appear legitimate, some are transparently false (e.g. magnetic reversals do not occur in less than 39 years), but others are plausible sounding statements that I am unqualified to judge. I worry that he may have inserted a variety of problematic content that was too obscure to notice.

I would appreciate it if others would investigate his edit history and take appropriate action as necessary. Particularly useful would be someone knowledgable about Stonehedge. Dragons flight 07:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The last swing of the VGP from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere in the Brunhes-Matuyama geomagnetic reversal took only 38 yr.

<copy of abstract removed. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)>

Speaking of knowledgeable

One entry found.

knowledgeable

Main Entry: knowl·edge·able

Pronunciation: \ˈnä-lij-ə-bəl\

Function: adjective

Date: 1829

having or showing knowledge or intelligence

— knowl·edge·abil·i·ty \ˌnä-li-jə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun

— knowl·edge·able·ness noun

— knowl·edge·ably \-blē\ adverb

John

Okay, so it's nonsense that some scientist believed in the 1980s. "[A]n analysis of the available sediment records of the four most recent polarity reversals ... yield[s] an average estimate of about 7,000 years for the time it takes for the directional change to occur." (Clement, Science, 2004 [86]). If one only cares about the time it takes to go from slightly S oriented to slightly N, then obviously the time required is neglible because you catch it just on the transition, but that is not at all the same as asking how long the reversal takes as the pole slides through a 180 degree arc. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

what to do about abuse both administrators and users

I'm not sure this is the right place to go with this, but I'm at the end of my rope with wikipedia. I was an ip editor for quite awhile and only occassionally made a little correct here and there. One day I came across interracial pornography wiki, and noted that the vast majority of users both in the edit history and in the talk page had major concerns that were not being addressed(malik either reverting their edits or no response to their concerns about certain material in the wiki). Thus, I removed the speculative comments and libelous comments(on living persons) from the wiki that had no support. This was the consensus of the editors both in the edit history and in the talk page, about a 6 to 1 consensus-- I actually counted after I was accussed of vandalism and made it known i was enforcing consensus, not randomly deleting things, only specifica things that had been detailed in talk. And that's what happened, i was accussed of vandalism for enforcing consensus, I was even BLOCKED for vandalism, though its obvious the material I was moving did not belong, neither by wikipedia merit nor by consensus opinion.

I appealed my block, and was almost instantly turned down by the reviewing adminstrator who must not have even taken the time to view the edit history of the page and the overall opinion of wiki in the talk page. I told them to look at the consensus in both the edits and the talk page. I was not a vandal, and I thought people were supposed to assume good faith? Malik Shabazz's good faith was to call me a vandal at the time, which is interesting givem what happens afterwards.

Now it comes to the Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis wiki and Malik Shabazz is again trying to ram is POV down other editors' throats. You can look at the talk page and you will notice that there are three editors agreeing WITH ME that the material regarding bobby cutts's violent past should be included in the article. Despite this, Malik Shabazz continues to revert the material in question, claiming a different reason for his removal of the material almost every time he removes it. My reading of of vandalism was that repeated edits that do not add to the wiki were considered vandalism, so I've been noting that I consider his edits acts of vandlism-- after it had been clear that the consensus was against him. Today out of the blue I get some guy that pops into my talk page claiming I'm about to break the 3RRV if I make another edit, despite the fact I had only made 2 edits on the page in the pervios 24-36 hours and was by no means close to being over 3RRV. This was a clear attempt to bully a new user to wikipedia and was disgusting to see. I've also been accused in my talk page of being people I am not and saying and doing things that I never did. When I question these people for their strange claims, I am met with very rude behavior and to leave their precious talk pages alone, despite the fact they came to me talk page first and accused me of these absurdities.

How am I supposed to assume good faith when I have been nothing but abused here by biased moderation and by bullying, POV-pushing editors?? This is not an evironment conducive to such things. Is there any way I can go about get the activities of these users and adminstrators looked at by people "higher up" or something? Users Malik Shabazz , Gnangarra and adminstrators Jmlk17 and Vassyana, too a lesser degree Krimpet, who actually blocked me from editing my own page after I questioned why I could not ask for a second appeal from an adminstrator that would actually take a good look at what actually occurred instead of instantly refusing me because I was an "dirty IP editor", which appears to have been the case here. Or is wikipedia just really pretty much a joke unless you have an adminstrator or two in your back pocket??? And forgive the tact, as I am extremely pissed off that I have been trying to improve wikipedia with my time and efforts to be met with this crazy, biased treatment.KillerPlasmodium 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do, choose sides? Have you tried dispute resolution? --Ezeu 07:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. What should I do? I don't know much about wikipedia. All I know is that I've been treated very unfairly at the very least.KillerPlasmodium 07:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see. On Interracial pornography, you deleted a section of a literal quote, and the reference to a source authority, with the comment "removing nonsensical material. I see this as vandalism. Interracialist is not even a word". You, apparently editing as 68.187.117.71 (talk · contribs), have systematically removed all mention of actresses performing with black actors, claiming that such an assertion is "libel", and -- despite the comments being directly attributed -- claiming that arguments presented were made by an "unreliable source"; a comment which betrays a misunderstanding of our reliable sources guidelines. You have also asserted that the page is being "written by some black racists".

On Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, you have systematically added material unrelated to the actual disappearance, such as unproven allegations of abuse, and hearsay allegations of violent behavior on the part of the suspect; a living person. It should, of course, be noted that the accused in this case are black, while the victim is a white woman.

While I'm not going to tell you what you should do about these edits, since I think they speak for themselves, I will put it to you that you have a rather obvious point of view in these matters, and your editing is systemically reflecting it. You would, perhaps, be better served by taking your complaints in this matter is a venue such as dispute resolution or a request for comment. --Haemo 08:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was reading your uhhh, stuff, there for a bit, until I hit "It should, of course, be noted that the accused in this case are black, while the victim is a white woman.", at which point it became clear I was appears to have made a racist comment, hence I give your opinion little merit. Why should it "OF COURSE" be noted that he is black and she is white? I will say I did not remove anything that did not have to be removed in according to wikipedias own BLP or were speculative unsupported statements, KillerPlasmodium 08:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not call other users racist if you disagree with them. It is not helpful or civil. --Dark Falls ^talk 08:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, do not put words in my mouth please. I said THE COMMENT APPEARS TO BE RACIST. which it does. I did not say it was racist nor did i say he was racist. This is beginning to look like a complete witch hunt. Correction, what happened was what I wrote and thought "stuck" was blocked because changes were ebign to the page, when i pasted I pasted an old version my edit. What i mean to say about was that the comment appears to be racist, not what I wrote up there. Though that is no doubt how I felt, but I did not intend to say that. I changed it, as it's not what I intended and only ended up there because of the edit conflict casuing to paste my "rough draft" verion .sorry.KillerPlasmodium 08:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out the racial context of the article you were editing. If I just mentioned Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in the context of this dispute, and didn't mention race, I would be missing the point here; it was meant to illustrate that you, too, appear to have a strong point of view when it comes to articles that deal with race. It is important to notice that the two disputes you appear to be involved in share an important similarity. --Haemo 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, you have never been blocked for vandalism, as stated in the block log. I would strongly suggest ceasing to call Shabazz's editing "vandalism", as it can be upsetting and lacking in good faith. Edit warring, whether in good faith or not, is never helpful, and it might be better to discuss your changes on the talk page. I am a bit confused with Jmlk17 and Vassyana's involvement in this, as neither had any prior interactions with you. Also, it might be wise to heed the Neutral Point of View policy when editing mainspace... --Dark Falls ^talk 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar attitude without edits here on Talk :Barack Obama.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvoz (talk • contribs)

Smells like a bit of a witch hunt Tvoz. Please sign your comments. I wasn't aware I wasn't alowed to have an opinion nor aquestion the material presented in that highly NPOV (ROFL) Obama fan site, er, I mean wikipedia entry.KillerPlasmodium 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, see the above. Your comments on that article as well fall into a pattern which explains your point of view, and goes to the heart of your dispute. These editors are merely trying to point out that this goes further than simply a content dispute here. --Haemo 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Get the chair and rope. I'll meet you at the lake. Bring your cryptic responses with you for my eulogyKillerPlasmodium 08:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to attack you here; I'm merely explaining that you appear to have a strong point of view on issues that surround race. This may cause your opinion about certain types of material, especially neutrality, to be different from what the community tends to expect on this matter. --Haemo 08:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From all of this, it appears that Mr. Plasmodium does not play well with others. A sad thing on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. KillerPlasmodium is blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From the way he was acting, especially with the "chair and rope" comment and the apparent strong view of racism, the block was inevitable. --Dark Falls ^talk 09:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TV station articles

This user was indefinitely blocked back in February. Since that time, he has continued to edit pages under various Houston-based IPs. The edits are vandalism/nonsense (changing TV station affiliations/call signs/channel numbers) and some threats. After months of this abuse, I send a boilerplate message to the vandal's ISP, but that didn't work. I've placed the Houston TV stations on semi-protection, but the vandal has moved on to Bakersfield TV stations, and WP:TVS members are asking for a range block. As I do not really understand the range block parameters, I'm asking here.

The IPs which have been used include: 71.147.18.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 66.139.10.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.6.214.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.92.33.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.156.123.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 72.236.190.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 65.34.130.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.94.98.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.147.16.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.21.56.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.1.22.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.246.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.232.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.132.151.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), many others. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a member of TVS, I support something of a limited range block--require AT&T users in this range (the Houston area) to create an account before editing. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but clearly the ISP isn't taking it seriously (despite the fact that AT&T's TOS requires users to abide by the policies of third-party sites). To refresh some people's memories--he was community banned in part for exactly this behavior, including threats to the life of Christina Aguilera. At the very least, requiring him to create an account would make it easier to keep track of him. As it is, his vandalism is almost a weekly occurrence. Blueboy96 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I don't like blocking a whole city, but it really is necessary. Will ^(talk) 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitation evidence being vandalised by Sarvagnya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a right to post my evidence before the arbitation and it is being removed by a accused editor.Please help.It is for the panel to accept or reject my evidence.The arbitation page edits are only allowed by those giving evidence and they can edit only there section an accused editor or anyone cannot edit other's sections. [87]Adyarboy 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That arbitration case is closed, I don't think you can add evidence there anymore. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I had given my evidence before the case was closed on July 10th.you can verify the date of my edit here.[88].The case was closed on july 11th and my evidence cannot be edited by an accused editor on july 14th.It should remain on record and it cannot be edited by an accused editor.Thank you for your prompt responseAdyarboy 13:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This was also posted on my talkpage (I was clerk for this case) and I have responded there. Newyorkbrad 13:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad I understand that No one should be editing the evidence page in a closed case.But Sarvagnya vandalised it by removing [89] which I reverted to what was there when the case was closed.[90] I understand I have taken up the issue with the admin.All evidence presented before the case was closed should be there and Sarvagnya or anyone can change what is there after the case was closed.Adyarboy

The Fashion Icon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user reverted an edit of mine. My edit had restored an image which had been removed under some fair-use claim (only one picture per page). A talkpage discussion had come to the conclusion that, since the images illustrated different things, both were perfectly in line with policy.

I warned the user for this - maybe slightly too strictly, but the reverting was the same as what about three IPs had done in the previous day or so. Fashion Icon then left this extraordinary message on my talkpage, which I replied to in the same place, since I was blocked at the time (I've since been unblocked). This discussion then ensued, and FI stroke out my "troll"-like warning.

I politely pointed out that though removal of warnings is allowed, it's not a good or smart thing to do. That message was also promptly removed. As a final resort to make the user see sense, I explained my original warning message ({{uw-delete3}} as it happened). FI deleted this explanation. I'm mainly posting this for general information purposes, but I'd be interested to hear any comments.--Rambutan (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: user informed of this thread. I'll post if s/he deletes the note.--Rambutan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

please state where the "talkpage discussion " mentioned is, please state the policy violation, Tankyou The Fashion Icon 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming up... just hold it a moment.--Rambutan (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right... the "talkpage discussion" regarded this policy page, which allows multiple images to be used if they illustrate different points. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure which written policy outlawed your removal, but if you can't see that undoing another editor's changes without explanation isn't right, then you've no future here. I suppose it's simply courteous to leave a summary (according to your favourite policy, we should be courteous), not that you should remove the image at all since there's a consensus that it should stay. Going against consensus is disruptive.

Ultimately, the image had every right to be there, and removing it could be vandalism. However, before you continue this debate, be sure that you have a purpose: WP:POINT and WP:TROLL are quite close at hand.--Rambutan (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

so one good faith edit constitues vandalism? and the grounds for claiming consensus are. . . .? The Fashion Icon 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It may have been good faith, but it wasn't right to simply undo someone's work without providing a reason. That can't really be good faith, in fact: if it was, you would have looked into the issue and then explained your point of view. The consensus I spoke of is the one which enabled the policy listed to become policy. If the consensus was not to have that policy, it wouldn't exist. Most people agree that more than one image per article is fine, since that is policy. May I remind you of WP:POINT and WP:TROLL again, please?--Rambutan (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "one FU picture per article rule". As long as the NFCC is followed, a thousand near-identical fair use images can be used in an article. For example, When Your Heart Stops Beating has three near-identical colours. We have all three, all of them have rationales, and whether album covers pass the NFCC is left for another thread, though. Will ^(talk) 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are not claiming a concensus to keep the image in the article? Where did this "one FU picture per article rule" concept come from anyway? My objection was to the inclusion of a fair use image which did not convey anything which wasnt already conveyed in the other image. The Fashion Icon 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FashionIcon, I'm not continuing this argument until you answer the following question to indicate that you're not violating WP:POINT and WP:TROLL. It's probably worth you reading those policies first, so you know what you're talking about. In fact, once you've read them, you'll see how my warning wasn't trolling.

• What is your aim in arguing this debate? Why do you want to win? I'm simply answering your questions, but you're asking them with the aim of winning. If that's your sole aim, then you must stop, because you're causing disruption and preventing me from editing Wikipedia as I normally would, just to make your point.

If you give a satisfactory answer, I'll continue to explain how Wikipedia works to you.--Rambutan (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

All I want is an end to your bullying and harrassment, initiated over one single edit, as agreed here [91], perhaps I am culpible in feeding the troll, I have encouraged this bullying The Fashion Icon 15:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[92] Please note: I am not a troll, according to the official definition.--Rambutan (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether the second fair use image should be considered on the article talk page, I don't think it is really a matter needing administrator assistance. Yes, The Fashion Icon acted incorrectly in reverting without discussion, but perhaps people were a little too hasty to label that edit vandalism. I would say that there is little to be gained from discussing the matter here, and the issue should be taken to the article talk page, civilly. There is no gross incivility here, no obvious rulebreaking, and I am sure you are capable of working together. J Milburn 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned with the actual issue - there's nothing to discuss there, the policy is a bright-line rule. I was concerned at FI's behaviour, but apparently that's fine too! Good show!--Rambutan (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

This user has repeatedly deleted cited material over and over from the Cherokee Freedmen Controversy and has been violating the NPOV and AGF policy with false comments about the Freedmen descendants and Cherokee ads that push his POV all while claiming that the article is filled with “uncited materials”. I made changes to the article, but he deletes each change over and over again. I’ve discussed my changes (before I didn't know that I was supposed to) and researched every bit of information before I posted them. He claims that I committed vandalism and “libel” to the page, but if you look at the entire page history, I have not in the least and have contributed to the article with multiple numbers of cited materials......even more than the original piece before I joined. Even the user whose he claimed I vandalized states that I didn't vandalize the page [93]. He's accused me of being some user named "JohnC1" in the “talk” section and I still have no idea who this person is! He tagged my page with "This user is a sockpuppet of JohnC1" [94] and I had no idea what that was until a fellow user told me (which is funny because Merkey has been banned for using sockpuppets in the past [95]). Now that I know what ihat is, I welcome ANY Admin to check my IP and see that this claim is garbage. All of this is ridiculous because I have stated over and over that I am new and this person keeps harassing me on the page [96]. Now he wants users who have contributed to the article with cited material blocked as you can see from the page history link above and making some bogus claim that people contributing are "Freedmen that should be blocked" with another piece of unfactual information [97]. This isn’t right and someone constantly manipulating the page to push his agenda makes no sense if people are hard at work trying to make the page factual. I've deleted his edits to my information page, but more have taken its place [98]. I know that harassing people is not cool and people deliberately adding false information isn't cool. So I'm hoping that an Admin can resolve this because this is out of control. I joined Wikipedia to not only contribute to this article, but to contribute to other articles that I have interest in. The freedmen piece was my first article and I have to deal with this? If he constantly manipulates the page and going against policy, then what’s the point of even adding information? Stormshadows00 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)