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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Is it just me...

Moving long thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Future datestamp: 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

Would somebody make sure this thread gets archived properly? Somehow I don't think shunting it off onto it's own subpage is going to allow that to happen. Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the thread has died now anyway. That tends to happen when these sort of threads get moved to a subpage. The thread was also naturally coming to an end, so maybe it would have archived automatically after a day, but we will never know now. I know Betacommand has been manually archiving some noticeboards. Maybe he could deal with this subpage? Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And it still sits there, abandoned and forlorn... Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the thread as it is over 50k. People who have slower browsers find that this page especially loads up very slow, because of the big threads. D.M.N. (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Handling sock puppetry (block review)

• Griot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Sedlam (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting Incivility...Griot above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice on my talk page how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at checkuser and confirmed that User:Sedlam evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by User:Griot. I know that per policy User:Sedlam is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about User:Griot. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on Matt Gonzalez based on this note. My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article Cabretta, and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in? Avruchtalk 00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, uyou will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in, Avruch. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot indef blocked?

Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.

However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.

This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?

Comments sought. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself because of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated in a more recent note at my talkpage (a belief mirrored by the now blocked IP editor above). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on User:Griot. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. User:Griot didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, he writes "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself and his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as User:Sedlam, and writes ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the BLP noticeboard , Both Griot and another likely sock User:Feedler, both gave input. As Moonriddengirl mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a serious personal grudge against Nader. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, here, where she has indicated a willingness to go along with consensus and suggested this discussion. Personally, I'm wondering if a topical ban would be appropriate in the event that the block is made definite. It seems the sock account was used primarily to thwart consensus building and disguise edit warring on Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking Boodlesthecat the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months here as a sock of User:Telogen, who was indef blocked here, or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reduced block

The handling of this matter was over the top IMO. As an uninvolved editor/admin, and after reading the above, I have reset the duration to one week (it says 6 days, but note a day had elapsed since the block was enacted). Consensus here should determine whether further reduction or an unblock is warranted. I am particularly surprised at the treatment of the user's user and talk pages, which I have reverted to their pre-9 Feb state, and the ignoring of the blatant incivility of Boodlesthecat by those handling the case. I will be placing a warning on his talk page shortly - ([1] done). Orderinchaos 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to the inference of incivility is here.. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Orderinchaos. As a relatively frequent reviewer of sockpuppetry cases at WP:SSP, the standard practice has been to block named abusive socks indefinitely, but to block the master account for a finite period if it appears to have at least some constructive potential. I typically block for 72 hours (see User:Lucy-marie, for example), though others use anything from 24 hours to a week. In any case, the master account (Griot) should definitely be blocked, but for a finite period (72 hours to 1 week). Further confirmed sockpuppetry should result in a lengthy or indefinite block, but an indefinite block for a first offense by a somewhat-constructive account is excessive. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding sock puppetry by Griot

I filed another Checkuser showing the very extended sock puppetry of Griot over here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

Which I don't think is allowed is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so reverted it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history This must be considered uncivil behavior. I reverted it back to the original and he did it again. He has done it again, saying (this is my talk page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\> However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\> WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\> And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Can someone please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was? Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I or did I not warn you to stop edit harrassing and warring with him on his talk page?

Anyone who wishes can see the old versions and edit history. Stop bothering him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Case of "nothing to see here, move along". Seems the guy archived or removed some comments from his talk page. Orderinchaos 09:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amongst the comments removed are challenges to transparently false statements on his talk page that attempt to portray his history on the articles he has edit warred on for years in an undeservedly favorable light. Which of course is his right. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told Billy, the history of what people have commented on there on his talk page remains for anyone who cares to dig. Our user talk page policy allows one to remove comments and warnings once they've been read, though a lot of people object to it. Policy remains what it is, though, so Griot is within his perogative, and edit-warring to restore content there is against policy etc. Best for everyone to just drop the situation - everyone knows about the CU results now, that's not going away, if he wants to clean up the talk page and protect some personal dignity then leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently BillyTFried considers what has been left on Griot's Talk page is a personal attack on him. Perhaps the personal attack should be archived the same way Griot archived the other material. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do consider it an incivil personal attack and attempted defamation of character. And its beyond me why nobody is doing anything about it. Not even just telling him to either delete all my comments or leave them the way they truly happened. Seriously, I was warned and even blocked for a couple hours once for calling him "hysterically paranoid" on my OWN Talk Page. How is this any different? Is Griot somehow immune? BillyTFried (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, would it be ok if somebody posted a setnence on my talk page that said...<br\>

• Hey Bill I wanted you to know that I plan to kill the whole trivia section of that article that you wrote.

And I changed that user's comment to say...

• Hey Bill I wanted you to know... that I plan to kill... you.

Would that be ok with you guys? Hey, it's all in the "history" right? BillyTFried (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Article<br\> I just wanted you to know that the reason Griot did this and that I am so VERY upset about his purposeful misrepresentation of me which you have done nothing about is because there is a Newspaper article about Wikipedia hitting the presses tomorrow morning here in San Francisco and Griot (who is currently banned for abuse) and his abuses and sock puppetry are the main focus of the article and this will surely bring traffic to his page which shows me in an unfair light thanks to him editing out our entire conversation and making it look like it happened in a way that it actually DID NOT. (he actually deleted 90% of his talk page except for the few items left he wants highlighted [inaccurately]) My Wikipedia user name (WHICH IS MY REAL NAME THAT MY HOME ADDRESS CAN BE GOOGLED FROM) is also briefly mentioned in the article referencing that event. Griot is of course an anonymous name. I find it completely unprofessional for his misrepresentation of our conversation to be left intact when it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on what Talk pages are for and breaks incivility rules. I am asking one more time that you please address this issue before tomorrow when many people that live here in San Francisco will be reading this article, logging on to Wikipedia and then reading an unfairly edited chop up of a conversation I had with Griot that was chopped intentionally to make me look as bad as possibly... as if I was actually threatening him with GUN VIOLENCE, which was not what I was doing AT ALL, and that was ruled to be THE TRUTH by the admins after he REPORTED ME. I was NOT banned by the admins, though Griot said I was on his talk page, and when I removed that 100% lie, he didn't fight back. But his purposely editing out of the rest of the convo to make it APPEAR to be a violent threat with a gun will go over REAL WELL in San Francisco. At the very least please review exactly what has gone on here and ask yourself if what he has done is appropriate and that your allowing it is the right thing to do. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, based on that outburst, interested readers coming here and seeing that are NOT going to be coming to the conclusion about you that you think they're going to come to. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of responding earlier, but you've captured my thinking rather well. Orderinchaos 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And just exactly what conclusion do you think "interested readers" will come to about you from your constant unrelenting defense of a confirmed sock puppeteer? BillyTFried (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the section below, it would seem that there's a case here of the pot calling the kettle black. Orderinchaos 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. At least I'm on the side of honesty rather than the side of deceit or tolerance of deceit, which is exactly what will eventually cause the downfall of Wikipedia. And everyone knows it. BillyTFried (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At least I'm on the side of honesty rather than the side of deceit or tolerance of deceit - hence your whole-hearted embrace of a long-banned, anger-management-impaired, and self-promoting sockpuppeteer who got her sister to practice a little yellow journalism on the side? Hence your abusive outburst above complaining about abuse? Strange new meaning of the word "honesty" of which I was previously unaware. --Calton | Talk 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My whole-hearted embrace of who??? I have no idea what you're talking about and if you want to hold on to what little credibility you have left, I suggest you refrain from making any more false accusations with absolutely no evidence to back them up. Let's get the facts straight here. I have never supported or embraced a sock puppeteer on Wikipedia and never will. I think it's an extremely shameful behavior that I would never want to be associated with. You however very obviously have and continue to do so. You are clearly guilty as charged and so instead of hopelessly trying to refute that charge you instead go on the offensive and falsely accuse me of doing the very thing that everyone is witnessing you doing. That's pretty ridiculous. Is defending confirmed sock puppeteer Griot really worth eroding your own credibility like this? And since you're struggling with the word honesty, here's a hint for you... Leaving people's talk page comments as they originally were posted = HONEST... Removing all but one paragraph to make them appear to have happened in a manner which they did not = DISHONEST. BillyTFried (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, based on that outburst, interested readers coming here and seeing that are NOT going to be coming to the conclusion about you that you think they're going to come to, however well a reporter tried to paint you. Hint: when in a hole, it's best to stop digging. --Calton | Talk 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I just stumbled in, but I didn't see anything abusive that Billy said. He seems to be in honest anguish about something, and he made some complaints, but he was not abusive. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not much for originality eh? Nothing on my end needs painting. But I believe making false accusations and openly defending a confirmed sock puppet would indicate it is you who is holding the shovel and is in way over his head. BillyTFried (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But I believe making false accusations and openly defending a confirmed sock puppet "Mr. Pot? It's Mr. Kettle on Line 3. He says you're black." The "in way over his head" part is just a bonus bit of irony.

You can put down that shovel any time now, you know. And I didn't realize that originality was a criteria in giving sound advice. Should I move the words around a bit for you, translate it into hieroglyphics, recast it into blank verse? There's no real value in rewriting a message you don't want to pay attention to in the first place. --Calton | Talk 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, your tired and insulting guilt by association attacks on other editors are getting to be a monstrous snore, and transparently disingenous. It was you who dragged me into this muck with a false and malicious insinuation of sock puppetry on my part, for which you not only never apologized, but instead leveled a steady torrent of abuse my way. On top of which, you never acknowledge your own complicity with the proven sock puppeteer and tabloid pheenom GRIOT. Why not just knock it off already and quit making a spectacle of yourself? Some of us are simply interested in working on articles on achieving a bit of balance on Wikipedia, and really could care less for the silly dramas we get sucked into (e.g., by my having to waste time filing the successful sock puppetry notice against GRIOT while you were busy filing a bogus one against me--not to late to apologize!). Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, your pot/kettle comment is suggesting that I am the one who has made a false accusations and defended a sock puppeteer. What false accusation have I made? What sock puppeteer have I defended?<br\>

• You have aligned yourself with and defended a confirmed and presently banned sock puppeteer, Griot - True or False?
• You have accused me of "wholeheartedly embracing a long-banned, anger-management-impaired, and self-promoting sock puppeteer" but never named the user or gave any proof of such. What is the name of this user and where is the diff showing me "embracing" or even being involved in a discussion with or about this this person? If what you have accused me of really never happened at all, is that not in fact a false accusation?
• What is your purpose posting in this ANI discussion I started? To purport that Griot altering my comments on his talk page to make the conversation appear differently than it really occurred is NOT incivil? Or is there something else you are trying to accomplish?

--BillyTFried (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the second question is self-evident - this checkuser contains the relevant information. Orderinchaos 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the FACT that I have NEVER posted a single word ANYWHERE on Wikipedia in ANY discussion with or about that user is self evident?? Let alone wholeheartedly embraced him or her?? You must be part of the Griot/Calton alliance to be bold enough to try and back up Calton's very obviously false accusation. So tell me, are there more troops on the way? BillyTFried (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in San Francisco Weekly

here is the San Francisco Weekly article that BillyTFried refers to above. I don't think I would be exaggerating too much if I said that it attempts to out an anonymous Wikipedia editor, contains numerous insults that would, if they appeared on Wikipedia, be a violation of WP:NPA, and is by the sister of a banned sockpuppeteer (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen) to boot. According to a previous thread on this board, the reporter (User:Marynega) was in contact with Wikipedia PR and a number of Wikipedians; I trust that nobody knew what the content of the article was going to be, but it's still a bit distressing that this piece got produced with the help of Foundation members. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Crude hatchet-job. I'm surprised she got it past her editors. I've already dashed off a quick Letter to the Editor pointing out a conflict of interest or two that the reporter neglected to mention, including quoting a banned sockpuppet of her own sister without mentioning that fact: seems a wee lapse of journalistic ethics, there. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it this paragraph that makes you feel that way?

“ That's when Jeanne, who is also a writer, told me of a debate over the entry about her in Wikipedia — and of one particular user, Griot, who seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page (which she denies). One Griot note on the talk page of a user called Calton, dated Aug. 27, 2007, reads, "Is there anything we can do about Jean [sic]? It's tiresome. Maybe we should give her back her personal page on Wikpedia so she isn't so lonely." He also accused her of creating several online identities to make a flurry of changes to the Nader entries. "Spicuzza is on the warpath again," Griot wrote to Calton, and made a snarky offer to Calton about my sister: "If you ever need help fending off this multiple personality disorder, don't hesitate to ask." ”

Is what the reporter said about you a lie? What she said about me is certainly hard to believe... ;-)

“ Fried actually struck me as a well-meaning and earnest editor — one of the few willing to use his real name (and even agreeing to meet in person) to talk about his devotion to Wikipedia. ”

BillyTFried (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, you also sound very angry and emotional here:

“ Its amazing the hyperbole the usual cast of beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping can spew out of their uneducated mouths. If you don't like the system bucky, then get out of it. Mmm'kay?

Point is, you dolts can spew whatever bogosity you want, Wikipedia will be standing in the end. Our truth, the Wiki-truth, is the thing that matters. Perhaps you plebians can go back to whatever homeschool spewed you out to learn about such things.

BTW nice email has been sent to your Editor in Chief. I'd start looking for a new job if I were you broom-pusher.

Comment by Calton — February 14, 2008 @ 12:39PM

”

Talk about name calling galore! And what did you mean by "Our truth, the Wiki-truth"? That sounds kinda scary as if you know it's not the REAL truth, but your OWN truth that you have the ability to manipulate. Why would you boast of having "ownership" of the truth in the comments section of an article that accuses you of just that? Way to make Wikipedia look even better in the public's eyes! Bizarre! BillyTFried (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is one of the most creepy cases of ciber and real stalking that I have seen, what is keeping us from indef blocking the user trying to "out" another user's annonimity? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the account will be used ever again. BillyTFried (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She did post this awkward message today [2] so how can't we guarantee that she won't continue stalking? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the question in my mind is whether we should block BillyTFried for harassment. He's been edit warring at User talk:Griot--[3] [4] are recent diffs; he continues to post to this thread when it would be much better for him to lay off; his user talk page is essentially an attack page against Griot; and there's this super-creepy thread on User talk:Marynega (that's the journalist who wrote the hit piece in SF Weekly) that I've having a difficult time interpreting as anything other than a "joking" threat of violence. I don't see why we should allow this behavior. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a novel idea. Blame the victim. I've never heard of that before. Are you part of the Griot/Calton alliance as well?. Anyone that wants the whole story can just go to Griot's talk page history for the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history Also, I like how you refer my REVERTS back to the original conversation as it happened months ago as "Recent Diffs" and try to make them seem as if they were new and were justification for blocking me. Jeez! My "attack" of a user page is simply the original unedited conversation as it original occurred months ago that I am asking be restore. The closest thing to harassment I've done is probably my response to his "Letter to the editor" this morning, defending his actions and blaming the article's author for his being banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=190675197&oldid=190673998 BillyTFried (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have been victimized in one way or another in this series of events. Please stand in line over there to join the crowd... Although at least my appearance in the article was fairly positive.

I think a lot of people think that your response to that, and your interactions with Griot, have gone beyond the bounds of civil discourse and Wikipedia policy into counter-harrassment. And our policy is that two wrongs equals two warned users, or two blocks. If you break policy or abuse people here in response to legitimate or perceived baiting or abuse by them, you're still breaking policy and will still be held accountable.

Please tone it down some. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And as for Calton's behavior you have what to say? BillyTFried (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the constant, unending escalation of tit-for-tat in this AN/I report alone, much less all the links around it, can we just block Calton AND BillyTFried for a while? Griot is already blocked, or I'd list him too. This is ridiculous. ThuranX (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Block me for what offense? Reporting in this ANI Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page and then weathering the onslaught of attacks and false accusations from those defending the confirmed and banned sock puppeteer while the admins stand by and do NOTHING about Griot's or Calton's abuses? BillyTFried (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in San Francisco Weekly (II)

But seriously, folks, it was just a fine article. Very interesting and informative. Nicely edited, too. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And a very creative way to post libelous material in name of a banned user... - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, George, you've forgotten that if you want to pull off the disinterested innocent bystander act, it helps if you say something even remotely believable, otherwise you blow the gaff. So, are you another of Jeannie Marie's relatives here to do her dirty work for her now that her dozen or so sockpuppets have been blocked? --Calton | Talk 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am a relative, but anything is possible because we both live in California. Does she have red hair and blue eyes? I do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing a fellow editor of trying to pull off an act of some sort doesn't seem very civil to me. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or is it just another in your ever growing pile of false accusations dished out to anyone who does not agree with you? BillyTFried (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a person whose sister is a checkuser-confirmed sock, and her mates accusing Griot of sockpuppetry. It's beginning to look to me like a well-planned, long-running case of harassment on and off wiki, and when someone fights back inappropriately, an attempt to hang them for it. To GeorgeLouis's defence I would note he has been a continuous and fairly hard working editor for almost as long as I have been, although I am genuinely curious as to his role/involvement in the situation. Orderinchaos 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor point: Griot is guilty of [sockpuppetry. Pardon this no doubt novel insertion of a fact into this discussion. On a side note, is anybody on this board in an admin position ever going to say something to Calton about the endless number of accusations, including false ones, and mean spirited diatribes he levels against other editors? Does he have incriminating tapes of you all, like J Edgar Hoover? Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of ACCUSING Griot of sock puppetry because he has been CONFIRMED to have been doing it fervently for a long time. That seems to be a meaningless footnote to you. Do you feel he was innocent and was unjustly banned? Obviously he does! And nobody involved in this discussion is my "mate". Again another false accusation from you. I have not had any correspondence with anyone here prior to this event, unlike you and Griot, Calton. BillyTFried (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature

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

Jeffmichaud for a long time has used the signature "Jeff", but changed it on Jan 14 to "Baha'i Under the Covenant".[5] The policy on User names says to avoid names that are offensive or promotional. WP:sig suggests for users to politely request others to change their signature. If there is consensus that the policy of avoiding 'offensive, confusing, or promotional' user names equally applies to signature, then I also suggest updating WP:sig.

I politely requested on Jan 24 for him to change the signature,[6] and after no response I warned him again on Feb 8,[7]. The first request was immediately archived,[8] and the second request was immediately deleted outright from his talk page.[9]

For more details on why this is both offensive and promotional, glance over Baha'i divisions. The Baha'i religion has teachings on the succession of authority, and anyone creating divisions are considered dangerous and shunned, labeled "Covenant-breaker". The implication is that there is a Covenant in the religion to provide unity, and anyone who breaks away is not under the Covenant. Jeffmichaud belongs to one such group with a handful of followers who call themselves the "Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant". Changing his signature in the middle of a debate over Baha'i content was his way of promoting his ideological claim in the face of other editors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief! What kind of belief or faith is it that cannot withstand critical comment even from within itself? And when it comes down to mere words, whatever their implications, I'd suggest that any belief system should be self-confident and self-consistent in itself to be able to ignore mere words. That words are found offensive doesn't help in the slightest. Throughout history, words have been labelled as offensive, mostly because they represent a difference from orthodoxy; but in the context of an analytical, independently-minded and intellectually balanced source of information, rather than of opinion, taking offence at mere words is jejune, intellectually barren, and time-wasting. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Please feel free to cite any authority whatsoever, religious, legal or otherwise, that supports a right not to be offended. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is completely not the point. We have a Wikipedia policy that says not to use offensive user names, and a guideline that says it equally applies to signatures. Your response is attacking the policy and saying that nobody should be offended by anything. That's nonsense and a total disregard for the official policy that "all users should follow". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, but I personally am offended by any user name containing the letter "c". Therefore, they should all be banned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, completely not the point, and an illogical disregard for WP policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop shaking the straw man, please. Or is that Reductio ad absurdum? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my stupidity, but exactly how is the signature offensive or promotional? —Kurykh 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either; sounds like the debate we had over User:Rama's Arrow a few months ago. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.. neither can I. Has the subject since changed it? Rudget. 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a big part of why I don't edit Baha'i articles anymore. :\ JuJube (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should make something clear: I don't think it's offensive that he has certain beliefs and edits wikipedia, but he changed his signature to something that implies divine right. It would be like a user name of "I'm in God's favor and you're not". There is no need to use controversial user names/signatures and I politely requested for him to change it, and I politely requested for an administrator to enforce policy and ask him to change it to something less controversial. And no he hasn't changed it yet. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a deeper look, and ask him to change it based on that reason. I don't see anything unreasonable in asking the subject to change to something that would at least reflect his username. Rudget. 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if someone changed their sig to "I'm in God's favor and you're not", my reaction would be less "offended" and more "hilarity". Even assuming the worst possible faith--that the person is TRYING to honk off the other believers--changing a sig to something self-aggrandizing says less about the truth of his/her beliefs as it says about their response to disagreement. Just my opinion, though, and no offense intended to anyone. Gladys J Cortez 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gladys. It is funny. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, is someone here talking about me behind my back? Kidding. Rudget, I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required". I don't believe I've violated any policy, but rather am being "asked" to change it to appease Cunado's will on the matter? After closer look at the actual policies on the matter it is obvious that Cunado is taking generous liberties at interpreting them in his own unique way for reasons not exactly obvious to me or anyone else. I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Username policy is a policy that "all users should follow", and "a user who acts against the spirit of them may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." The policy states that inappropriate user names are ones that are misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, and "these criteria apply to both usernames and signatures." I already explained why the signature is controversial. I was once blocked for not following WP:sig, which is a guideline and not even a policy, see this conversation. Someone please enforce policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to view this as not offensive. It is one thing to say "My group is great" and another to say "Your group isn't", so we have lots of users with pro- type names, whether it be sports, nationality, activity, whatever, which seem compliant with the policy; while anti- type names aren't. Quite a difference between User:Boston Red Sox lover and User:New York Yankees hater in my mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, would you find a signature such as "Jesus, the true lord and savior" to be offensive? It's proselytism, regardless of the religion involved. We have some Yankees and Red Sox fans who have a fervent devotion to their teams, but it's not the same thing. If the signature would be blocked as a user name, it shouldn't be acceptable as a signature either. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. I'm identifying myself here, and not promoting/proselytising anything. BTW, it hasn't been blocked as a user name. Would it be? I've considered creating it as one. Would it be a problem? Baha'i Under the Covenant 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but it was not considered because the actually user name is not the issue. The spirit of the policy is that user names and signatures should be used for identification and should avoid anything controversial. Religion and politics are the most controversial subjects, so it should be a no-brainer to say that it's inappropriate to boldly promote a religious view in a user name or sig. Even a name like "Jesus is for me" might seem harmless, but there is no reason to stir the pot on something that should be free of controversial subjects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the signature is intended to be a means of discerning who has placed certain comments. By changing it to something that obscures your username (no where in "Baha'i Under the Covenant" does it tell me who that is), is not within policy. The only problem I see is that there is no reference to "Jeff" or "Jeffmichaud" in your signature. Surely, it would be better to use something that includes the phrase you want, but also includes your actual username in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, WP:sig is a guideline, and it says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." So we're back to offering Jeffmichaud unenforceable advice. The issue is about enforcing the policy about a controversial signature. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also seen that he has not responded to my comment either here or his talk page. I'm really not sure, as an administrator, what should be done here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes. I didn't think further comment was needed. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly I know essentially nothing about the religion in question, so I can't say for myself whether this signature in and of itself is contentious. But what strikes me as a potential bad faith is the way this came about -- from a content dispute regarding the religion in question.

I'm of the opinion -- and this is an opinion I came to by taking my lumps first -- that anything potentially divisive should be left off the wiki ... this is why I changed my username from something contentious to something just plain silly. The difficulty here is that not all people hold this view. Jeff obviously doesn't, and it would seem, from a policy point of view, that he's entitled to not hold it.

Is Jeff doing something whereby we can make him change his signature? Probably not. But in the spirit of good cooperation he should consider changing it as a measure of good faith. However, Jeff's comments here, such as these:

I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required".

I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about.

Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. (emphasis mine)

Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. [...] I didn't think further comment was needed.

do not indicate an overwhelming amount of dedication to the cooperative spirit. Sorry to assume mediocre faith here, but I'm not thrilled with the spirit of these responses. - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Revolving, how strange that you'd decide to cut and paste around the comments which are absolutely agreeable and polite, and display my comments in such a unfavorable way? Why leave out "I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes."?

I wasn't even notified about this directly, but was sideswiped, so-to-speak, by an email from Rudget (which was very polite and agreeable), so I came into the conversation after two days of discussion had transpired. I didn't change this, as Cunado implied, on the 14th in the middle of a discussion, but on the 12th basically on a whim. I don't feel compelled in any way to bend to Cunado's will as I believe his concerns are unfounded and a bit overly dramatic; but that doesn't automatically mean my actions here are in bad faith? Cunado's stated concern was this violated policy by being "promotional and controvertial", and I disagree. That is within my rights as far as I'm aware. Being made aware of Ryulong's concerns shed a new light on the matter, and I immediately made the changes he requested. If that is all then I'll thank you all for your help in the matter, and if there's anything I can be of further assistance for please notify me directly as I won't be keeping abreast of any further evolution of this discussion. Cheers. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You were definitely not "sideswiped". I asked you twice to change it and told you that I would follow up on the Admin notice board.[10] Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Negated fallacy of division -- just because not all of your comments are lacking a spirit of cooperation does not mean that all of your comments are not lacking a spirit of cooperation.

Given the number of people who have approached you in the last week or so (3) vs. the number of them you have directly responded to (0) and your long-standing message that you don't want people to comment on your talk page about anything substantive, I think that a little more effort to reach out to the community would be very helpful in this situation. - Revolving Bugbear 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to user name policy

I can sympathize with admins not wanting to make a value-based judgment on what might be offensive in a religion, but this requires such a judgment. Would it be appropriate to update the user name policy to avoid showing religious or political affiliation? That seems to be in the spirit of what to avoid, and would differentiate this from the User:Boston Red Sox lover example mentioned above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the best place to do that would be at WP:U where there is ongoing discussion regarding these types of things. As a matter of fact, the issue of religious or political references has surfaced. I ask you though, do you honestly propose that usernames that make allusions to a religious figure should result in a block? Remember WP:CENSORED. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between censoring in an article and avoiding controversial subjects in a user name. We already have a policy of not using promotional or offensive user names, and it is supposed to be enforced by a block, but right now it's not specific enough to include religion and politics, which to me seem obvious. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at one time it was specific enough to include (and this is more of a intuitive assessment of the name now) an inflammatory or offensive POV - If the username were to specifically disparage a religious icon or political figure, that would be one thing. However, there is an enormous difference between this and simply mentioning a symbol of your faith or ideology. Would you insist that IlikeAynRand to be a blatant violation of policy? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that there is much ongoing controversy over the username policy, not all administrators can come to an agreement, and in its current form there is nothing that would suggest the username you put forth is overtly offensive. The bottom line is this: virtually any username could potentially insult, aggravate, annoy or inflame somebody based on a personal point of view. This doesn't mean they should be reported to WP:UAA though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be archived now. Any further discussion I'll take to WP:U. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica

Just my day for ANIs I guess. User:Edito*Magica was brought to my attention by another editor, User:UpDown who knows I am well versed in creating episode lists and requested my assistance on List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes. Edito*MagicaJ kept changing for format of the list to one that removes the lead, and does not follow proper episode list format, going against the consensus for proper episode list formatting. (see good version versus his version). I reverted his edits, and tried to explain to him why his edits are incorrect. He refuses to listen, however, and appears to feel that he knows better than the main Wikipedia MOS, the TV project, and existing consensus and standards for episode lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=next&oldid=190484465 talk page discussions). UpDown also tried talking to him. I warned him that if continued his attempts to mess up the list, his edits would be considered vandalism, but he continues to revert, now calling the undoing of his edits to be acts of "sneaky vandalism." (his talk page with warnings that he has since blanked)

He is also removing content from various articles under the claim that information shouldn't be repeated in an article (examples: [11], [12]), despite it being appropriate information and my explaining to him that information can and should appear both in the lead and within the article proper.

At this point, its down to just undoing everything he is doing in these areas, and I'm hoping perhaps he will be more willing to listen to an admin since he is completely discounting the comments of other editors. I'm not entirely sure his edits are fully vandalism, but they are becoming very disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an update, he is now leaving false warnings on the pages of those undoing his actions [13], and is selectively canvassing relatively new, inexperienced editors to try to get them to agree with him [14] in an attempt to "form a new consensus" [15]. He is also continuing to edit war over his changes, blanking out content of infoboxes [16] or outright reverting the undos of his bad formatting and calling it vandalism [17]. He is showing that he has absolutely no desire to actual improve or work with the community, and is ignoring more notes from experienced editors telling him that his format idea is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason why I persist in making the alterations on the Keeping Up Appearances episode page is to improve it for other users. I have the good of the community in mind and for that reason I want to help improve Wikipedia. Secondly, it is true I contacted two other users for a second opinion, both are not inexperienced and both agree with my minor adjustments to the layout. Collectonian does not like the fact that other users agree with me, and to report me for making changes he does not agree with is folly. It is he who is reverting constructive alterations that I have made, which still follow the Wikipedia policy on the “lead”, which isn’t even compulsory to follow anyway. I will stand up to the likes of Collectonian; if he can get people banned for undoing his edits and get them banned for making improvements, then how unjust the Wiki system actually is. I would report him, but i don't thing it is a constructive method in solving deputes. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have either of you considered stopping the accusations of vandalism and trying to follow dispute resolution? Someguy1221 (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith or not, the policies have been show to EditoMagica, who ignores them. That is vandalism whether he thinks he's improving the pages or not. --UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I AGFed at first, and tried to explain in detail why his edits were wrong, but EditoMagica has made it clear that he doesn't care. He removes content from articles because he thinks it shouldn't be "repeated" in the infobox (despite being told the infobox is a summary, not a standalone) and he is refactoring episode lists articles to remove the lead in favor of another section of lists of statistics, despite again being told that it violates the MOS, the lead, and the consensus for episode list formatting. He is now taking these edits to other episode lists[18][19][20] and of course he is continuing on the KUA list[21]. He also completely blanked the talk page of Keeping Up Appearances[22] despite his edit history showing he knows very well how to properly edit a talk page. Its hard to AGF when he has already said very plainly that he doesn't care about Wikipedia policies or guidelines and instead is calling the clean up of his mess "sneaky vandalism" and making other accusations against the editors keeping him from ruining the articles (such as the one he left on your talk page which is obviously not a good faith remark). He's been told numerous times this isn't just the opinion of UpDown and myself (who normally, by the way, tend to disagree), but of the entire Television project, Anime project, and BBC project, all of which deal with television episode lists, and of the FL process, which EditoMagica would realize if he would actually look at the MOS and featured episode lists as was suggested. This was brought here because he will NOT listen to other editors, hence the need for admin intervention as his edits are very disruptive. His claims of support are from one or two other editors who are also as inexperienced as he is, and he continues to claim this support of two trumps to consensus of the hundreds of members of those projects and of Wikipedia guidelines as a whole. He is also blatantly ignoring two other editors telling him he is wrong. Despite his accusations, I'm not asking for him to be banned, but corrected and only blocked if he continues to be disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This really is getting out of hand now; EditoMagica is being hugely disruptive and seems to think that his way of writing an episode list is the best way, and the fact one or two editors apparently back him up he thinks means he has "popular support". These things are backed up policy, guidelines and by looking at relevant FA. All these go against EditoMagica but he ignores this. In addition, he fails to understand that what is in the infobox is always repeated in the article proper (like the LEAD). If he won't listen to advise and guidelines he will need to be blocked for the sake of Wikipedia.--UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And he continues leaving fake warnings on people's use pages[23] and again trying to mess up the KUA episode article[24]. I really wish an admin would look at this. Edito*Magica is trying to harass other users to get his way, insulting other editors, and being disruptive. He is not going to listen to warnings from "regular" editors as he thinks he knows better than all of us, and his actions will only discourage people from working on those articles to give them the final polish they need to be potential FL candidates. Collectonian (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So today, List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes was given a much needed update/clean up to bring it into line with the established format for episode lists. User:Edito*Magica reverted it then again put back in the version he prefers that he has already been told is not appropriate. He is also trying to get other users to come attack me [25] Collectonian (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Create an RfC and if that fails to generate a resolution move on down WP:DR. However I note he's already making personal attacks--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can an RfC cross multiple articles though? While he's concentrating on the KUA episode list at the moment, he's been trying with others as well. Collectonian (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes because you're requesting comment on a certain formatting style.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the formatting style is already established. Edito*Magica is the one going against established consensus, and continuously attacking people in the process (mostly me, when I wasn't even the one who started the issue). *sigh* Collectonian (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly it is Collectonian that is being abusive, calling me and others “inexperienced” and “trumps”. I have not said one bad word about her, only referring to the user as a “nightmare”. Secondly there is no consensus for altering an entire tabular layout on the K.U.A episode page, Collectonian changed the page drastically without discussion on the talk page or considering any other user than herself. The previous table layout of Keeping Up Appearances, which Collectonian changed, had been established after consensus and disputes that had been resolved.

Furthermore, my edits are following the rules of the “lead” and other sections of the manual of style, which is not even compulsory to follow, but I do so anyway. I will persist in reverting Collectonian’s edits until she sees sense. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone inexperienced is not abusive, its a fact. Please provide evidence that I called you or anyone else "trumps." You have said a lot of bad words about me, insulting me on multiple user talk pages and in your edit summaries, and who continues to do things you've been warned by no less than FOUR editors not to do. The KUA episode page was changed to bring it line with the MOS, the biggest consensus there is. You are the one who has decided that you know better than three different large projects on Wikipedia and the general Wikipedia MOS. Manuals of styles are not compulsory to follow to the letter, however articles that completely disregard them will never reach good or featured status (or in the case of lists, featured list). Thank you, though, for illustrating why I didn't bother with an RfC or the like. If you won't listen the whole projects, why would you listen to an RfC or anything else. You have stated very plainly you will continue to be a disruptive editor and have no intention of actually working to improve the encyclopedia within its definition of improve, but only based on your own agenda. Collectonian (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for completenesses sake can you provide links to all the discussions from the projects where they decided on style? Thanks.--Crossmr (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is reflected in the featured episode lists and in peer reviews of episode lists. For examples from current FLs: List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Trinity Blood episodes, List of Smallville episodes, List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes, List of Carnivàle episodes, etc etc. For the TV project, users are directed to those and encouraged to use the episode list template here, the talk page of which also includes a discussion on the standard format that has now been implemented at KUA. BBC uses the same standard, with appropriate British English in place of American. Anime and Manga project also uses a similar standard, as is seen in the FLs. Collectonian (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another attack, in the form of a retalitory ANI filing[26] without OUT the courtesy notice to tell me he filed it and making false accusations about me attacking other users and without mentioning any of the earlier stuff before I got involved when he edit warred with other editors over this and I came in as a project representative to try to stop it. Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica is continuing his crusade, now creating a whole new List of Goodnight Sweetheart Episodes. I quickly fixed it up and put it in the proper format, but I suspect he will only start another edit war there as well. He continues to ignore numerous other editors telling him he is wrong and continues so sling insults at editors he disagrees with. Collectonian (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As expected, he is now violently edit warring over this second list and has now violated 3RR. Collectonian (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure who these numerous editors who I am ignoring are, I suspect they are products of Collectonian’s imagination. As for the editors I have spoken to, well I have taken on board what they have said, regarding the “lead” on the Keeping Up Appearances Episode Page and decided it was better in paragraphs; that is hardly ignoring other editors. Secondly, I have not attacked any editor, in fact it is Collectonian who called me and another user: “inexperienced” and “trumps”, if anyone is being attacking it is Collectonian. Furthermore, Collectonian is also violently edit warring and has also broken the 3RR by constantly reverting the improvements I am TRYING to make. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You've again made an accusation without providing evidence while others have already warned you for your personal attacks. You have also now blatantly ignored an administrator who warned you NOT to revert the List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes again. Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I’ve provided two pieces of evidence of YOUR attacks above. And no I did not ignore an administrator, I replies on his/her talk page. I have been wrongly accused.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing is not evidence. You need to provide actual diffs showing that I called anyone a trump. And yes, you did ignore him. He told you very clearly NOT to revert, but you did anyway, resulting in the page being locked. Collectonian (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To all admins closing AfDs created on 10 Feb and 11 Feb

If you are closing an AfD which was created on 10 February or 11 February, you will see a "(delete)" link. Please do not click on it! Due to my egregrous screw-up it will delete the AfD page or whatever page you viewed the AfD from. I have just fixed the mistake (passed wrong parameter to the delete link). AfDs created on 12 February onwards will not have this problem. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this be all AfDs for 11 Feb, or just the ones in the first hour or so before the error was caught (per your timestamp above)? Thanks for the heads up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those AfDs created after the timestamp of my previous comment will be okay (I fixed the template a few minutes before that.) But I'm mentioning dates only, to be on the safe side. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake timestamp for bot: Pegasus «C¦T» 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat blocked again

I've blocked Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continued trolling after Jimbo explicitly asked him to stop. He continued here and was reverted by User:Crum375. As a result, I've blocked him for a week. Since this editor's conduct is currently being discussed in an above section that may be archived soon, I have started a new section for further discussion. Nakon 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the first of this user's blocks that I actually endorse. Which is a shame, since I think that were it not for the previous ill-advised blocks, he might never have stooped to the level of deserving blocks. But he's responsible for his own conduct, and today his conduct hasn't been good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from Zenwhat. He has been posting tripe like this at the Village Pump for some time, and its been getting tiresome. This is not new behavior since the last blocking above, and I do not expect this to stop when the block expires. I would really love Zenwhat to prove me wrong, but his past behavior has not led me to believe that that will happen. I endorse this block, and pray that he returns from it with a better attitude. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta endorse Nakon's actions. When Jimbo says "stop trolling" you stop trolling. A week (as opposed to a longer, perma block/ban) is being generous. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being snarky, but if all he wants to do is discuss meta issues, perhaps someone should point him to an offsite area to do this, like the mailing list, forums, blogs, or whatever. I'm just saying the guy really likes talking about Wikipedia, maybe he can blow off steam elsewhere. daveh4h 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If he put that energy into article editing-- wow. I think he has problems not necessarily related to Wikipedia, and that he should better spend his energy elsewhere. The one week block is fine for the sake of reducing the disruption level. I don't foresee any change in his editing patterns after the block expires. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dave, he seems to have done just that and moved some of his efforts to Meta (m:Special:Contributions/Zenwhat), but aside from some possibly license-breaking copy-and-paste moves, his contributions there seem to be on the up-and-up. --jonny-mt 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I cannot bring myself to see his posts as anything else than a bit distressed and eccentric, but also rather interesting meta comment. That someone who adores Ayn Rand has considerable difficulties sharing that perspective doesn't come as a big surprise. User:Dorftrottel 10:55, February 12, 2008

If I were a meta admin, I'd probably be inclined to do something about [27]. --B (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dorftrottel, for the most part. My only concern is that repeatedly banning this user will make him back come more outrageous than the last time and eventually turn him against the project entirely. Some may say that he is already against the project-but I disagree. If he were, he wouldn't spend so much time commenting on it. That said, I don't see any of this ending well, unfortunately. :-( If he is doing this for attention, then the offsite alternatives like meta, mailing lists, and message boards won't provide him enough. I find it easy enough to avoid his commentary if I find it annoying. Violating the sanctity of Jimbo's talk page seems to be the latest offense. If he said it elsewhere it probably would have gone unnoticed. This user either has other problems or he just hasn't understood the subtleties of how to interact here yet, which is something to consider. I still think he should be encouraged to read and interact at other meta sites, maybe he can find something positive to do. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, particularly with the word encourage. That's the key, imo. Discouraging him is definitely counterproductive. Maybe his energies can be gently directed into more appropriate channels, so why not give it a shot instead of jumping the gun on him (npi)? User:Dorftrottel 17:50, February 12, 2008

Much as I apperciate Jimbo, "the sanctity of his Talk page" seems a bit excessive. Regardless, I do think Zenwhat is a tragic case of what happens when a Wikipedian is brought low by what we call Wikistress, and a downward spiral of incivility between editors. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I've seen a lot of discussions come up about Zenwhat in the past few days. To keep all discussions centralized and in one place, I think it would make sense to have discussions located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Zenwhat. Opinions (note, I will move this discussion if users below agree). Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will be necessary, especially with the most recent block. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. (In general, I dislike moving discussions to sub pages, as the discussion is then fractured and the audience narrowed.) --Iamunknown 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I can only think of one other instance where it was done, and in that case there were issues with th user inquestion being able to edit pages >32K and extreme formatting difficulties. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protected

Per a request at WP:RFPP, I fully protected User talk:Zenwhat and reverted it. As you can see here, Zenwhat was continuing on the same sort of trolling that got him blocked in the first place. Just a long monologue about who-knows-what - conspiracies against him, etc. No discussion about wanting to be unblocked, no discussion about anything related to writing an encyclopedia, etc. Just a blog. Sorry, but to me, a week-long block is a week-long block. It doesn't mean a week of blogging. He can go about blogging when it expires.

Not particularly surprising, I've been called out on it so here I am for community review. If consensus here is to unprotect and let Zenwhat continue his blogging and pondering now instead of a week from now, then I welcome someone to unprotect it. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block, good protection. Wikipedia isn't a place for conspiracy-theory soapboxing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. He was blocked, in part, for disseminating these pointless dull ramblings. Providing airtime for him to continue to use our bandwidth to witter on is pointless. Extended-RBI correctly employed. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't act against consensus, but I see the talk page protection as pointless. Ranting privately on his talk page seems harmless, and protecting pages like that is what gives complainers fodder. Do we wish to make Zenwhat into a hero for WR and the like? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating an account to do nothing but chat with your friends is even more harmless - but try it and see how fast you're permablocked (after you're caught anyway). WP:NOT#MYSPACE. In this case, he was ranting about particular users conspiring against him - mentioning them by name - all while already blocked. He should thank me for protecting him from himself while he cools off for a week. As far as making him a hero for WR, sorry but I couldn't possibly care less. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not caring what WR says is a healthy attitude, sure. I just think it's foolish to encourage people's unwarranted feelings of persecution, and that's what a protection like this does. If he wants to think that we wish to "silence" him, we're now encouraging that. I think it's better to just let him go off on his talk page (it's not as if he's got any credibility). Like I said though, I won't act against consensus. I just think we could handle such a situation better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider Zenwhat's comments on his talk page to be trolling (posting rambling comments to one's own talk page - which people can readily unwatchlist and ignore - hardly seems to qualify as deliberate attempts at disruption) and I don't think his use of his talk page was particularly abusive (as mentioned in the protection log). I would support unprotecting his talk page. --Iamunknown 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So would I. Not my call though. User:Dorftrottel 23:07, February 12, 2008

Protecting the talk-page (it is only for a week) is a good call. Otherwise ZW can continue to post rubbish as has been happening for weeks, and this rubbish includes attacking insulting, misrepresenting, other users egregiously,(to no purpose whatsoever, except to gain attention). If I have to watch the page, to see myself slanderered, I would have to revert such rubbish off the page. I think I have the right to repair such damage on a WPpage put up by a blocked User. Why should I or others be forced to such troubles by a nuisance editor, and then run the risk of being blocked oneself? Wish I didn't have to say this, but Do not feed the trolls applies, as ZW has said so themself. ZW may in time learn to contribute without all the aggro and self-importance, (in time, but not at this time, so its preventative, not punitive.) Newbyguesses - Talk 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. First of all, you don't have to watch the page. Several others of us are on it. Second, if I see myself being "slandered" there, I would consider it my job to either ignore it or to politely correct any inaccuracies, per dispute resolution. I don't know why you think you would run the risk of being blocked yourself. Edit warring with anyone over their own talk page is the height of folly, when there are literally hundreds of people standing around who would be happy to revert it for you. If you truly know how not to feed trolls, then you can simply ignore them, without having to protect their talk page, and justify their paranoia in their own minds. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let him use his talk page for ranting. If he insults or attacks other editors (not Wikipedia in general - railing against Wikipedia in general is fine), we can extend his block. If he doesn't, then there's no problem. Neıl ☎ 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Neil on this one. If he was abusing unblock templates I'd think differently, but if he's just ranting and it's hurting nobody, let him. Orderinchaos 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but (and I understand this isn't policy, but a guideline) isn't personal opinion and ranting about conspiracy ad nauseum a breach of WP:TALK? I mean, it's almost literally the first line in the heading for proper use of a talk page. If he/she slanders, makes threats (physical or legal) etc.., then it is completely unacceptable. It may result in a block. However, what is the overall consensus regarding disruptive talk page usage as displayed here? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW is editing, but the protected page says "Retired"

I am mystified as to how ZW can make this edit, whilst "retired", and under discussion at AN/I for the (third time). Newbyguesses - Talk 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That edit is almost a week old: February 7. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW is blocked until the 19th. Addhoc (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the edit history at WP:IAR. The edit which confused me was [28] and it is not done by User:Zenwhat at all. It is done by 18:02, 13 February 2008 192.235.8.2 (Talk). Newbyguesses - Talk 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Socking?

ZW, and blocked User Karmaisking. (Separate AN/I thread below}See ...You and I both know the game. People want us to shut up. They threaten. They harrass. They hate the truth. Why do we keep going? I don't have the patience, or the time. I welcome and encourage you, a like-minded fellow traveller on this dangerous journey of life, to got into my talk page history and check out the old correspondence...User:Karmaisking 11:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) This sounds a little familiar to me, though it is very slim as evidence goes. See also here and similar questions in ZW's previous threads at AN/I. (I hope I am not coming across as obsessing over these matters, but merely trying to discover the evidence - perhaps there is no black and white, and it all belongs in the grey zone;) Newbyguesses - Talk 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[29] Um, where did this thread go? Newbyguesses - Talk 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was archived by User:MiszaBot II because no one commented on it for 24 hours. Me thinks that needs to stop. Permanent link at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive368#User:Karmaisking — Save_Us † 23:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks are always losing threads. You know how it is. HalfShadow (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians/Chaonians

Repeated tactics

[30] If they dont get it its not my fault.Megistias (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question - do you have a concern of some sort? D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They refuse to interact and simply keep on reposting rejected material.Again on my ethnicity ,denying ,irony and ignore my postings and of any user or admin rejecting themMegistias (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias is mixing up complaints against two different users: User:Dodona, who is indeed a disruptive editor and forever in danger of earning himself a renewed ban, and a new guy User:PelasgicMoon, who has so far not done anything outrageously disruptive by Balkanic standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. In which case, can we have some diffs so that we can resolve, or try to resolve the problem. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty frustrated.This is like deja vuMegistias (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona is a loooooong story. I've been trying to guard him through a "second chance", that's the only reason I'm not just joining in with Megistias' cry for bans, but I have doubts if it's going anywhere. I somehow don't know where to start with the links :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Still at it.[31]13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please remedie this situation in its entirety.Its all wasted time against people that have a dogma [32]Megistias (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling me a propagandist

talk, User:Taulant23 at the bottom of the talk says"his main propaganda agenda" referring to me.Megistias (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really the worst of personal attacks, if it even qualifies as one. What do you want done about it anyway?--Atlan (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For him to stop doing it.Megistias (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. While it's borderline, comments like this are not helpful to the debate. I have left a note. — Satori Son 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User PelasgicMoon is doing the sameMegistias (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please. — Satori Son 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its at the bottom talkMegistias (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User Dodona "that i am what i am called"[33]Megistias (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to apply a few trouts here. Can somebody uninvolved please take over at Chaonians? (I've IAR'd and applied emergency shortterm protection for just two hours, but we need a taste of WP:ARBMAC I think.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize if I called you a Greek propagandist. But, it started with the Albanian page by putting maps after maps, showing North Epirus (southern Albania) as a Greek region.The maps and the article, sound it like a right-wing Greek nationalists favoring the long-term goal of unification of so-called North Epirus with Greece.If Megistias (talk) doeesn’t like something, he takes it off. or reverted. He deleted my sources (and other users too) and call all my authors pseudo historians (even if some are ancient Greek writers). I don't go on Greek articles and edit their page nor do I claim Greek land or their heroes. We Albanians have our own history (ancient and modern)! I do apologize again, and I am offering to work with you. However, please respect my people, our history and let’s edit in peace.--Taulant23 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My maps are source according to Wiki rules.Involved admins(all of them) approve of my actions and your slander here against me is even more encumbering in your case.Admins all call your sources pseudo historians.Admins at a great number and non Greek ones too.Megistias (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So four different users are wrong when they complain about your acts? Since when all Admins(all of them) approve your actions? and my slander here against you? I did apologize, and offered to work with you. What else do you want? I was sincere of what I think of your actions in Wikipedia.I do believe you promote Greek propaganda.--Taulant23 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your actions and that of those users you speak of is rejected by All the admins involved.Since you believe that i am that thing you say i want swift justice and measures by admins on you.You should also know that here only the violation is disscused not its specifics how you put them because those are resolved by the admins in the given pages.Megistias (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Some things you did and carry on it seems.Also note that i use secondary sources according to Wiki rules whilist you do not.So that makes me corrrect in all thesis support.You realise what that makes you and your likely minded users.

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]

Megistias (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you carry on in here is even more unbelievable.Megistias (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you are a lost case,kρίμα Megistias (talk) because we can help each other.I do suggest that you listen to Fut.Perf. ☼ [42] advice.Please do contactDeucalionite (talk),see if he can be your mentor.Enjoy your break.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incident

[43]see talk page[44] admins-User wants an edit war and provokes to this effect ignoring secondary source and pretending he cant read.Most likely sockpuppet .Megistias (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a minor content dispute - I've suggested a compromise, hopefully this will solve things. I suppose both yourslef, Megistias, and the IP (who then created an account, Arditbido (talk · contribs)) could both be blocked for 9 reverts each, but Fut Perf's protection has just as easily calmed that down. Neıl ☎ 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He doestn get it.He wants the edit warMegistias (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a new user for certain.I am tired .Megistias (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that I only protected for two hours as an emergency measure. I've been involved with various related conflicts, so I'd appreciate if somebody else took care of whatever sanctions are appropriate. WP:ARBMAC applies, if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a new user.[45]Megistias (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at what he is doing.I have answered a dozen times and provided myriad sources both secondary and primary and he just goes on.[46].Megistias (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is not a new user he even knows how to switch his name [47] into appearing as another "balkanian".You dont go from nymbered user to that in an hour!Megistias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, User:DragonflySixtyseven made a substantial edit to Chaonians and then protected the page. This seems like a no-no. I've asked him about it on his talk page, but he seems to be away from the computer at the moment. Anyway, I haven't investigated this situation fully yet, but it looks like we've got a handful of POV-pushing disruptive editors who are using a combination of dodgy sources and flat-out original research, with some possible sockpuppetry tossed in. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys impose some sanctions on the whole of the disruptive editors?They dont change or learn .Just do something.Megistias (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys we have wasted endless hours these past few months

with this team of disruptors and they dont change nor will they.They have clones they do they same thing again they ignore users,admins and rules and so on.Megistias (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

continual lack of good faith and WP:OWN displayed by one editor

I wish to report the behaviour of user User:Mathsci who continually has tried to discourage me from contributing and editing articles on French localities in a significant display of WP:OWN and particularly WP:OWN#EVENTS. This first started with accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [48] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [49] and [50] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [51] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [52] and still displaying WP:OWN in [53]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" today at [54] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [55], [56], and given warnings [57], [58]. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have hardly edited recently [59] because I am busy giving a graduate course/preparing a book. I did buy an 800 page book on the history of Marseille (in French) on a recent brief trip back to France: I have used this a little to check historical details mentioned by other editors on the page of Marseille and have suggested using it as the source for a detailed article on the chronology of Marseille (a similar article already exists on the French WP). Michellecrisp appears to have followed me to Aix-en-Provence. I own neither of these pages but have them on my watchlist. Much local information (eg detailed local history) on both these places is only available in French. If dates are added which contradict the chronology in an authoritative and encyclopedic history they will be corrected using the reliable source. Michellecrisp seems to have gone on a tagging spree on information added mostly by other editors long ago and has not tried to source the information on her own (such as population estimates from INSEE). Often sourcing information is not hard to do with a knowledge of French: the official information is often only available in French. I have no idea why she has brought this to WP:AN/I. Her choice of the word "continual" is odd considering my recent wikibreak. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My original comments stand. I am not questioning Mathsci's knowledge of French topics. but the violation of principles of assuming good faith and clear WP:OWN (I have given seven examples above of this which has occured over the past month) which has regrettably developed to personal attacks. It is against Wikipedia principles to discredit or put down other editors for lacking knowledge. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your content dispute does not represent what happened on the actual pages, where you added faulty information (mistaking a TGV station for an SNCF station, quizzing the climate of Aix, dismissing the ancient monuments of Marseille, getting dates wrong). I have no idea why, without adding any significant content to either of these pages but merely tagging indiscriminately, you have seen fit to bring your grievances to WP:AN/I. You have not made any very clear arguments on the talk pages and most of your taggings that I have had time to look at are easy to justify. They mostly concern long standing additions by other editors. If you tag without discussion and add faulty information, is it not to be expected that somebody with access to detailed information will check the information and add sources? That does not constitute ownership of an article: it merely means that sources are being provided. Data from dubious websites that contradict acknowledged encyclopedic history books will be corrected in this process. This "dispute", of your own making, should never have been brought here. Your tagging was provocative: you seem now to be objecting when proper sources have been added to justify material of long standing by other editors. That seems unreasonable on your part. It seem odd that you have been tagging with no intention of checking the information for yourself, which cannot be so hard, even in Australia. I think you have misrepresented the recent editing history: you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute but an issue of user behaviour. My issues is here are your comments that you have directed to me that violate assume good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS. ownership of article includes trying to discourage others from editing not necessarily "owning" in the literal sense. Please let this be reviewed by an administrator.Adding faulty information such as the SNCF edit was done in good faith. I have never deliberately added faulty information. Feel free to check the history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence where I have found some references and tried to improve wording. I have brought this grievance here because after repeated warning you fail to assume good faith and have developed into personal attacks, and a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles"? On the contrary you have chosen a very public place to misrepresent my WP edits. Bonne nuit. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very clearly a content dispute. Please take follow the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in resolving this issue. Your dispute does not belong here. If necessary, please request mediation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify how this is a content dispute? I am reporting the issue of user behaviour, specifically WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS as evidenced in my diffs in the original post. This is not related to specific content. I am not disputing the content of any article mentioned, I am disputing the validity of editors asking other editors not to contribute to certain articles. One of the things Mathsci is questioning is my right to tag articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "content". You still need to work through dispute resolution to get this taken care of. That's what it's for. So far, I don't see anything that specifically needs an administrator to do anything. Any user can warn another for violating policy or guidelines. You are having a dispute with Mathsci, and the steps on WP:DR are there to help you work through the dispute. Please take advantage of that information and the steps found there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I am on a wikibreak because I am otherwise occupied in real life. Michellecrisp is needlessly wikilawyering here because I have added "of note" after the word "fountains" in Aix-en-Provence to describe two particular fountains, picked out in the cited Guide Michelin for Provence. From her contributions here and on my talk page, she is simply trolling to make a highly ill-conceived point that appears at the bottom her user page. She is being highly disruptive. The presence of this inappropriate report suggests that she is set on harrassing me and does not properly understand how WP works. I unfortunately have no time at present to engage in interactions with Michellecrisp unrelated to actual content in WP articles. Thank goodness she has stayed away from mathematics articles. :) Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp has added fresh citation tags to Marseille. She has inspired me to prepare a WP article on Pierre Corneille's play Médée when I return to France. Can someone please award her a barnstar? Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone note the continual lack of good faith displayed by Mathsci towards me and less than subtle personal criticism in their above comments? Could an administrator please read my original post? I have attempted to warn the user in question of potential WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS violations and only came here because the user persisted with this behaviour to this point with no cessation as shown in the rather rude edit summary here [60]. I have made several warnings which I stepped up to higher levels (the next level being reporting here) but this behaviour towards me continued (as shown in the seven comments I have provided in diffs above). I would like to continue editing or tagging article I see fit without being rudely discouraged each time I edit an article. With the exception of Masalai I have never experienced this in the 20 months I've been on Wikipedia. An example as shown in my original post was Mathsci reverting one of my edits simply because it was me, I changed some text to conform to policy WP:LAYOUT and removed non-relevant links . [61] is not a content conflict but one based on one editor disliking me editing French geography articles. Where is the evidence of my disruptive behaviour? Tagging is not disruptive but as per WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT Michellecrisp (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no revert war. One revert of your edits does not warrant the needless and inappropriate drama you have been creating here. You are behaving out of all proportion, apparently because you have been upset when some of your errors have been corrected. Please desist. Normally people with some knowledge of France or the French language edit pages related to France (the pages on Aix-en-Provence and Marseille are not "geography articles" as you quite wrongly suggest). When this is not the case, such errors are to be expected and should not be taken personally. Now you seem intent on exacting some form of revenge, quite outside wikipedia rules. Why not make yourself a nice cup of tea instead? Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a revert war, therefore not a content dispute. The above comments still reflect a lack of good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS as displayed continously despite my repeated warning. This continues with Mathsci's recent revert of my comment[62]. I might have said geography but perhaps more broadly cities and towns fall under a category of geography and places. My original complaint stands as a violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS. Comment on content not editors as they say. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp, please, please, please, take some time to learn about WP. I can remove any comment on my own talk page if I wish. Your complaint is absurd and, as an administrator has already said, whatever your grievances, no administrator can help you. One remedy is to get a detailed book on the history/recent history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence, read and digest the contents and then transfer that information to the English wikipedia. If the only books are in French, polish up your French. Become an "expert" on the topic. You are wasting time, space and energy here. Go and have that nice cup of tea now, it's starting to get cold :) Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW you risk being blocked if you continue publicly harrassing me here. You have read but ignored that I am on a wikibreak. You are starting to be extremely disruptive. If I am not editing/reverting how can you continue to make these very unreasonable claims about wikiownership? Please stop now. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not harassment, I am reporting your behaviour of accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [63] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [64] and [65] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [66] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [67] and still displaying WP:OWN in [68]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" at [69] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [70], [71]. Become an "expert" on the topic. is classical WP:OWN#EVENTS. Please provide diffs of harassment to back your claim. I have provided diffs of violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS Michellecrisp (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has intervened to tell you that you are mistaken and yet you persist. This might suggest that you have some kind of personal problem. Kindly address this problem in private and stop using this page as a WP:FORUM. Since I am not editing mainspace or talk pages at the moment (that is what "wikibreak" means), your behaviour here constitutes harrassment. You raised your points three days ago and nobody has agreed with you. What exactly do you expect to happen? If you have difficulty understanding these issues, please seek help privately elsewhere. Your comments on my advice "Become an expert on the topic" seem quite unintelligent. You should probably also remove this inflammatory comment on your user page:

One thing I don't like is when editors display WP:OWN. No one owns articles on Wikipedia and no one can dissuade other legitimate editors from contributing. There is no hierarchy for more "experienced" or "qualified" editors.

It suggests that you are looking for "test cases" in your own faulty misreading of WP policies. You are acting as a vigilante and that is quite a serious offense. It suggests that you are set on disrupting the project to satisfy your own personal agenda. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

with regard to your claims to harassment, unless you can provide diffs (which you have failed to) then it's WP:KETTLE. Secondly, an admin made a comment, but haven't you noticed that generally a resolved icon is shown to close off the incident report. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo comments on Mantanmoreland and Gary Weiss.

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

For the record, I did not say that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have investigated that claim repeatedly and I have been unable to find any proof of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, immediately after you claim this here you say My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the same thing, and it is exactly right. I have never said that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have said that I believed it at a point in time. There is a huge difference between saying that something is a fact, versus saying that I believed it. Belief, knowledge, not the same thing. I have been completely clear about this on multiple occassions. To this day, I have no proof that it is true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

However, that you believed it would seem to indicate that it was a reasonable thing to suspect, and that people shouldn't have been considered "proxying for a banned user" just for voicing that suspicion. —Random832 14:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Staygyro

Resolved

 – All Quiet on the Western Front --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism? I'm not sure quite what Staygyro (talk · contribs) is doing. Could somebody block this user and fix the tangled web of moves? Corvus cornix_talk 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its just a misguided attempt to create redirects for possible spelling variations, not anything malicious--Jac16888 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

that is my intention Staygyro (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

if you want to create a redirect to another page, rather than doing it through page# moves, create the pages with the spelling variations, using #REDIRECT [[Name of the article to redirect to]]. --Jac16888 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

on the same issue, i have accidentally created a page called Dmitri Hvorostovsk. Can an admin please delete it Staygyro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

It is inappropriate to open a public discussion concerning these blocks, on this page, on the other noticeboards, or anywhere else on the website. Appeals should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee via email.^[72] Comments redacted; archived. Thanks for your patience. El_C 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day

And 6,000 yesterday [[73]]. All to be modified in 7 days or face deletion. How can that possibly be squared with with betacommandbot's stated desire of not wanting to delete images? I have had 7 tags appear in my watchlist today, and looking at comments on the bot talk page from another user with 7 and an 11, that seems about average, with one admin getting an unholy 65 direct talk page tags over the 2 days. I, like other well meaning editors who have not uploaded these images do have a willingness to investigate, fix and educate where necessary, but are simply put off by the sheer number of tags in a short space of time, with no tags applied for the preceeding 5 days. The intransigence/absence of betacommand on the bot talk page is also frustrating many. I have also seen the speedy deletion of images purely on the say so of uploaders getting fed up with the bot and just jacking it in. The majority of uploaders just seem baffled/confused/annoyed, with none really making any headway faced with tag explosions like this. Many image tags wont even be seen by the uploader in 7 days. Something seriously needs to be done about the way this bot is operated/scheduled. MickMacNee (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I am not the only one angered by this. I find it incredibly disruptive and destructive to Wiki. While I understand that the policy is clearly written, the policy was recently changed, but in most of these cases, the image does qualify as fair use, but it simply needs to mention the specific article its already used in. Why can the bot just do this automatically? Some of the users it is notifying aren't even active anymore to change the image. --Veritas (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This policy has been effect since mid 2006. and bots cannot write valid rationales. β^_command 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. While tagging images is necessary, tagging them at this rate overwhelms the ability of Wikipedians to deal with fixing fair use criteria, the ability of admins to delete the images without a script, and the ability of people to review that the bot did tag the image properly. Please slow down the bot to reasonable levels. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even still, why does a bot even need to do this? We're sacrificing reason for efficiency at a destructive and brutal pace. If it is not possible for a bot to operate in a constructive manner it should be shut down. It is clearly not capable of fixing problems, but only pointing them out and often to users who are no longer active and unable to do anything about it. Thus, what happens? Images are deleted and we will wait a year or so until someone else comes along to add new images. A ridiculous waste of editor time thus indicating that the bot really isn't all that efficient in the long-term. --Veritas (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need a bot to tag these to conform to policy. But given that we have 40+ days, I'd urger that we work on this current backlog past the 7 day limit. Its worked before and can work again. Also, a schedule of when runs would occur, would be most helpful. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of the intransigence. Just completely brushes aside any criticism. Not everyone has been here since mid 2006, especially many new uploaders, and many images pre-date 2006. This bot has got to be one of the most divisive things I've seen on WP, and yet, no direction is given to a precise summary as to consensus for this bot's usage. This is not about the policy, this is about the effectiveness of the bot to apply it. I have seen nowhere in the myriad of talk pages about this, any actual analysis of whether the bot statistically meets it's stated aim of not seeing an end result of deleted images, rather than being just a very fast and efficient deleter of content, valid or not. Denying that the bot plays any role in the admittedly final human decision to delete is just outrageous, especially given the timescale, numbers, and the reactions to it's tags from users of all experience levels. MickMacNee (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that BC is being intransigent, but that the use of this bot must be monitored and restricted due to its damaging side-effects that tags images faster than other, active, editors can step in to fix the backlog of destruction it leaves behind. BC seems to have a tendency to closely stick to policy. That's the safe route and there's nothing wrong with it save the fact that it doesn't always account for the human element of Wikipedia. --Veritas (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Veritas, when ever BCBot makes a run that day's limit is normally extended. since we are getting closer I thought Id identify as many as possible so they could have time to fix them prior to the deadline. β^_command 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure of the technical aspects of how the bot works, but I know that I haven't had any complaints about it until the past couple days so I'm not sure if something has changed recently. It is troubling though since I do feel that the bot's actions are negating is usefulness. Perhaps we can extend these 7 day deadlines until the back-log is cleaned up? --Veritas (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, why is this convo going on at AN as well as AN/I? --Veritas (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That convo looks like a general gripe, I am raising issue with the incident of NFUR tagging 15,000 images in 1/2 days, and the multitude of issues that comes from that. MickMacNee (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)That is reasonable to ID them now so there is a greater opportunity of the uploader seeing and fixing them. Would it be possible to extend the delete date in the tag to say 14 or 21 days to reduce the incidence of uninvolved Admin X wandering across the image, not knowing about the extension on the Cat page, and deleting it? MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has come up several times. Part of the problem is that instead of tagging a few hundred images each day, the bot runs on this task only once in a while but tags many thousands of images instead. There is no need to extend the deadline, really, this will create a huge backlog when it comes time to delete these things anyway, so the deadline will effectively slip. It would be nice, though, if this task was run more frequently but at a lower rate. Mangojuice^talk 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What use is that if the tag says 7 days, and people just chuck it in because they haven't a clue what to do? There is no information anywhere about this deadline we are getting close to. Of the 7 images I have seen marked, 2 required a 10 second mod, most had specific tags that can direct to organised interest groups such as applying dvd cover templates, and none actually deserve deletion. Some even date from Nov/Dec 2005, so why are you rushing this through now? Why has there been no attention earlier by people who know what needs to be done to satisfy this bot? MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright tags on the images clearly state what is required of the uploader to fulfill policy. There are also a few hundred active admins and a help desk for anyone confused to contact about what to do. I really don't see how this is something the bot can be faulted for. Lara❤Love 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree at the same time. Ideally, that is how it should work, but clearly not how it works in practice. I am tending to favor Mango's suggestion here that the bot run the task more often. This would create a far more agreeable tagging to editor-intervention ratio that is actually maintainable. --Veritas (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am planning more runs, I had a massive run about a month ago. this cleared what I missed last time and future runs should not be as bad, Im hoping to run this ~2 times a week. β^_command 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That fits from the admin who said it wasnt her job to explain the procedures on the project page she patrolled, necessitating edits of the instructions by the user themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What project? Lara❤Love 05:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with this. I just cleaned up one myself, and i'm lousy at writing these things. Luckily, it's pretty much boilerplate, and if you can remember most of it, then you're fine, and if you can Cut n paste to fit the use of a given image, then it's easier. there's a bit of mix and match, running down your entire notification list with one clipboard text-set would be bad, but it's not that tough to do. And this doesn't affect every editor, just those who never read the full 'how to upload images' guides, or who disregarded the tough part about writing something. Those editors will get the notes, as will all editors who have any article with such an image in their watchlist. I just grabbed one, and will probably find others in the next few days. This isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be. And, it does keep WP out of legal dangers and hassles. Would it be nice if the tagging bot ran more often than now? Maybe. It would probably irritate the serial violators more and a few might quit uploading, and a few might start writing, and then we'd have less for the rest of us to do. Or maybe not. But that we have 18K unfurred (sounds dirty, don't it?) images is even worse. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know how to write FUR's, it's easy, I did one right off the bat, but when 7 pop up in your watchlist in one day, in the middle of a big article project yourself, none of which you uploaded but want kept, all of which are not violaters, some pre-dating the policy at all, some that could blatantly be fixed in seconds, some you know full well will not get the attention (it's not all project based images), but the effect of lumping it all in one, and with attitude of the operator, and the complete lack of historical guidance, you have to wonder if the stated aim of not wanting to delete images is correct. Had I just seen one or two flagged, I probably wouldn't be here now, and be none the wiser as to the tip of the iceberg surrounding this bot. MickMacNee (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Three of us on the ice hockey project fixed about 40 images in a very short period of time. There is no reason why we have to hold to a hard 7 day deadline if the backlog cannot be adequately tackled, but if editors with an interest in affected articles and projects are dedicated, it can be handled fairly easily. It just takes some time. Resolute 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Beta just said that he's planning on having the bots do more frequent runs. I am in favor of a large number of these being tagged now so long as the bot does regular and fairly frequent runs in the future so that users interested in maintenance have time to step in to fix the often minor adjustments that are required. --Veritas (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, for the day when there'll be a "11,000 images fixed in one day" thread. MickMacNee, if these images are so easy to fix, why are they not being fixed? Why is it so that years down the track, this bot finds thousands upon thousands of bad images each time it runs? --bainer (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are clear issues surrounding the lack of links and interest from the bot operator to inform aggrieved users of the past discussions about this bot (are there any agreed consensuses? Not about the policy, but the specific use of the bot). The issue is not clear cut when most advocates of the bot are expert admins, and most aggrieved by it are new editors. The issue is clearly affecting many many editors. Just needing a 17 point not my fault header on the bot talk page that has an archive for every month should tell people something is wrong. I say again, has any analysis been done on the effectiveness of this bot on gaining rationales to meet policy? As opposed to just hastening deletion of perfectly acceptable material? MickMacNee (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The material is not acceptable if it's not fixed; that's the policy, and the bot is just alerting admins that there is a deficiency. As for Betacommand and his communication skills, yes, they leave something to be desired, and I've had my own 2 cents to say about that a time or two. Nonetheless, the bot shouldn't stop running just because it's delivering the bad news that there is a lot of stuff that needs fixing). Mangojuice^talk 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot ignore the scheduling issue, and the complete lack of any historical links or summaries. 'see the archives' is all you will get, if you're lucky. It has changed my willingness to fix things today, it has caused an admin with 60 odd tags to flip out, and caused others to just give up and say they want the images deleted rather than deal with bcb anymore, which were probably fixable. MickMacNee (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images. Also, Wikipedia isn't really hurt by copyrighted images being deleted, appropriate for fair use or not, so it's not damaging the 'pedia. It's an inconvenience for some, obviously, but it's a bigger issue for Wikipedia to be improperly using copyrighted images. Lara❤Love 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I know this probably doesn't matter to the deletionists, but there are a lot of editors (myself included) who have simply given up on uploading images. BCBot takes a subsection of a subsection (10C is it?) and uses it to tag tons of perfectly acceptable images for deletion. Then we have admins who simply plow through the backlog, deleting without bothering to check if it's something simple to correct. I'm done with trying to add images to this project, at least until BCBot is reined in or shut down completely. Bellwether ^B_C 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's silly to say that deleting images doesn't hurt the articles. It's also a little strange to give up on uploading images. It's not hard to do it the right way, if the image is truly appropriate per policy and guidelines. I won't opine on the schedule though. Sooner or later we do need to get to a resting place where most of the images have the data they need. Wikidemo (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the images at hand were uploaded correctly, then the guidelines changed, and suddenly there's a bot coming by screaming about the coming image apocalypse. BCB is bad diplomacy; Wikipedia rules are in flux, and when they change, thousands of articles are affected. How do we deal with this? Do we make it easy to bring the old ones in to compliance with the new rules? Maybe get a bot to fix that? Or do we get lazy and just send a bot out to tell editors they're wrong and their work is being erased. Even if the form is easy now, why should I trust it? Why should I assume the rules aren't going to change again such that the band name or record number has to be included with every album cover, and suddenly BCB rolls by with another 11k nastygrams per day? Allowing this to proceed unabated costs Wikipedia the trust of its editors. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't really hurt? A picture tells a thousand words. How about the editors chucking it in left right and centre every time this thing runs like this? In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images, As said above, I do fix images, but on days like today you think what's the point?, especially when you research and see the background to this issue, and see the massive effect one user is allowed to have without comeback. The copyright issue is all well and good, but again, this bot today has tagged in my watchlist sample, 30% of images that were loaded in 2005, and not a single actual copyright violator (after modification to meet a seemingly ever changing policy). Would you create content if you knew you might have to do it 3 times after each deletion retrieval? How does anyone expect any other jobs to get done in the face of that kind of lunacy. MickMacNee (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• My main problem is that he's taking a subsection of a subsection, and applying it like it was the effin' tablets brought down from the mountain with Moses. And the admins that mindlessly plow through the backlog, without checking each image carefully aren't doing the project any favors either. There's just next to no common sense applied here. Bellwether ^B_C 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the time you've spent... is such a horrendously fallacious argument to make. In the time I've spent correcting correctly tagged images so the bot stops bitching I could have made substantive contributions to the project. We have X hours of editor manpower, yet a machine insists on determining exactly how we'll get to use those hours, and it has decided that forcing editors at gunpoint to perform dull, meaningless bureaucracy is the best use of our resources. And those hours are gone: whatever it decides, plus the lost hours from the editors who just bail from Wiki altogether when they get spammed by a machine, plus the lost hours from editors who will eventually have to reupload the same image because there was nothing wrong with it before aside from botardedness. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is silly to me is to stop uploading images because of BCBot. Just upload them under the policy. They don't get tagged if they meet the requirements. Lara❤Love 06:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, what is silly is treating a subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ. And dismissiveness is usually the best option when dealing with those less experienced than you. I uploaded my first image maybe a month ago. I haven't uploaded a new image in a couple of weeks at least, after getting bludgeoned by BCBot, both on images I'd uploaded, and on images at articles I contributed regularly to. I'm tired of it, and I'm not going to be uploading (or working with images at all) until this bot is either reined in or shut down. Bellwether ^B_C 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• The issue is also non-uploaders wanting to fix things, faced with ridiculous conditions to do so, the issue of minimal exposure images being lost due to an arbitrary 7 day deadline, and images that were uploaded under the now out of date correct policy, being tagged multiple times every time a phrase changes. The issue is also the us and them attitude, there is absolutly no link from the bot page for a collaberative effort for experienced editors to fix things in a coordinated manner, nor any links to major consensus regarding the bot, it's all hidden all over the shop, all that exists is a long list of excuses and get out clauses. Most loaders hit by the bot only know to go to the bot page if that, and realy struggle to even comprehend what is required of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What would be a better time frame than seven days? "Arbitrary" doesn't seem appropriate considering these are images that infringe upon copyrights. Lara❤Love 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Wikipedia policy with U.S. law. The former is far more restrictive than it legally has to be. Most of these images do not infringe upon copyrights; they simply haven't had a specific rationale for fair use written yet. An appropriate time frame would be one that gives actual humans (not bots) time to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to each individual image, and to write a rationale if the image is to be kept. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not infringing until examined and challenged in court. The one I corrected today was patently legally correct, it just did not meet whatever matching criteria the bot uses (these are I believe kept secret, why?). Many of these are not infringing at all, it is purely the bot design that tags them. Giving 7 days notice on an article loaded in 2005 along with 15,000 others at the same time is patently ridiculous. It is also my understanding that an image with a few keywords but filled with gibberish does not get tagged. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the quesiton was rhetorical but it would make more sense to tag all the images at once rather than haphazardly, and give people a very short time to correct new uploads but a long time (say, March 1 or March 15) to correct older ones. That way people could plan their work load, and rest assured that once they addressed all their notices they would be done with it. That's not going to happen, but just my $0.02. Indeed, the vast majority of these images don't violate copyright and are perfectly fine for Wikipedia, they just lack some data fields on the image file. Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that people who either don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation policies or don't understand how to write a proper fair use rationale are having their images deleted. It seems to me like they want someone to blame. Either Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admins are taking flak for enforcing the policies laid down by the Foundation. The policy is not decided by Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admin. Also it is not always simple to write a FUR if you are not the uploader. How can I know the source of an album cover that someone probably google searched? Also with regard to Bellwether's comment "No, what is silly is treating subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ." - If any part of this section is not met, the image may be deleted. It's written in the "enforcement" section right below the one I linked to. You may think that 10c is trivial but the Wikimedia Foundation (ie the owners of the servers and they set rules which we cannot override) do not. There's nothing silly about a bot pointing out violations of policy. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are issues on how it is being scheduled. There are people who want to fix things, this bot is not helping by going the extra yard and scaring new users and annoying old users that have complied with a now changed policy. At the very least this should have been an internal project bot to highlight first issues for an experienced group to review/quick fix, without going straight to tagging the uploader, placing a massive incomprehensible tag on the image, and deleting within 7 days (that isn't being enforced because it is not working, so why say it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus nobody it seems is aware how the bot checks to decide when and when not to flag, it's whole design and operation appears to be in one persons hands. That to me is wrong when it affects so many other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no-one more suited to writing a fair use rationale than the uploader. If they don't know how, then they shouldn't have uploaded the image. New/inexperienced users may not have known about fair-use and the policy, but the message given by BetacommandBot links to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I think tags such as {{no rationale}} are pretty clear, but if you can think of a better way of phrasing the message that needs to be conveyed by the tag, go for it. Finally; even if the images aren't being deleted within 7 days it provides an incentive to provide a valid rationale now instead of procrastinating. We can't change this policy even if it is overwhelming for new users (I stayed away from fair-use for a long time). James086^{Talk | Email} 07:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The images I'm often seeing tagged are ones where the uploader is usually long gone due to issues like this bot. And I don't get this idea that you can jump straight in and add text without any knowledge, and it will usually be fixed if wrong, yet woah betide you if you add an image with even the most trivial of non-compliances. Only a small subset of images really need the uploader's actual knowledge. Understanding the rules around nfcc is a nightmare. The bot is damaging efforts for new uploaders and experienced fixers at the same time. To suggest all is hunky dory at the moment is daft. The lack of group effort or consensus regarding this bot is also amazing, as fixing furs at the rate they are being tagged is way out of the league of even the most wiki-addicted. MickMacNee (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to MickMacNee: As far as I can tell, the bot has a very simple algorithm. It takes the name of the pages an image is being used on and looks for them in on the image page (note that the links at the bottom of an image page are automagically generated, and so don't count). If any of the images are precisely named on the page (doesn't even have to be linked), ie. including things like "(diambiguation bit)", then the bot passes it. There is even a toolserver link around somewhere to a tool where you can check your images to see if Betacommandbot will tag them or not. So MickMacNee is correct to say that you can write gibberish on a page and the bot won't be able to tell as long as you include the name of the article somewhere. Of course, if a human spots this, the image will be tagged or corrected, and the editor who did this would get warned and, if they didn't stop, blocked. There are images I know of, which lack rationales, but which have the article name on them for other reasons. The most common reason is when the description bit says "picture of random article name" (with or without the link). The bot won't be able to detect these. It does, however, detect ones that say "picture of subject of article" without naming the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's Just That Easy™, why does the bot fix the fair use rationale? What information is it missing? For that matter, if it only detects a linked article name if the article has been wikified, that's a bug. A fair use rationale has to name the article it's used in, but does not explicitly have to link to it.

Another bug is that the bot is too stupid to tell when a targeted page has been moved and replaced by a disambiguation page, which triggers a false NFC. If it was a human eidtor who falsely harassed a few dozen users and deleted images under false pretenses, they'd be banned for vandalism by the fifth instance. We should not be more lenient for bots than we are for people.

Another issue is how totally confrontational everything about this bot is. Look at User_talk:BetacommandBot: you're greeted with screen-tall stop sign and 17 rules that all essentially say "piss off I'm right about everything." Then read the discussions below where it gets even worse. (Seriously, read it.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Form issues

The issue is obviously that most uploaders are ignoring the page that appears prior to the upload formula, if the users uploading Fair Use images where presented a blank form and filling it was obligatory to complete the upload we wouldn't be dealing with a backlog of 11,000 pages due to something as simple as FCC#10c. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, the issue is that WP's policies regarding image useage are so arcane and stringent that they allow bots to tag perfectly acceptable images for deletion, based on a subsection of a subsection. When this project brings their image use policies more in line with actual copyright laws, perhaps the deletionists won't have such a field day, and new uploaders (and image workers) won't become discouraged and give up. Bellwether ^B_C 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You've stated this four times now. What we're discussing now is a possible way to prevent images from being improperly uploaded to begin with. Lara❤Love 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• And you've ignored the root cause I raise four times now. The problem isn't good faith uploaders who don't know the subsection of a subsection of the NFCC that BCBot uses to tag images for deletion. The problem is primarily with the policy that allows the "letter of the law" enforcement that BC demands from initial uploaders, and the tagging itself, which seems like killing a gerbil with a bazooka to me. Bellwether ^B_C 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. A change that I would think could be easily implemented. And what would be the negatives? Lara❤Love 06:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many images that predate the bot specs and were uploaded perfectly correctly. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You really have to separate this issue into two parts, old images and newly uploaded ones. Or maybe three - brand new, a few months old, and really old. Older images are a real problem because people get blindsided by the tags and by deleted images. For people actively uploading new images they can get spanked around a little bit until they learn how. "Arcane" is an overstatement, it's just a weak user interface. People grumble but I think that's more in the delivery of the message than the task they have to learn. In less than 1/2 hour you could learn most everything there is to know about how to upload images properly. It's a lot faster than learning the markup language, or learning where all the policy pages are. Nevertheless, anything that could make the process easier to get right from the start is good. Wikidemo (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• The negatives are that oftentimes an image is used for articles other than the one it was specifically uploaded for, which then triggers the bot to tag it per 10C. Bellwether ^B_C 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've pushed for this in bugzilla:12452. No word yet on its implementation. If someone could write the css/javascript code, we might be able to implement it locally. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting a option to prevent a simmilar situation in the future, this is supposed to kill the problem at its root. About sideffects, the only one that I can perceive is that the upload process would take longer, but then again when that is compared to the time that admins spend cleaning image backlogs that effect proves meaningless. Please note that this blank form (wich should be designed so even the most dumb of bots can understand the resulting rationale) would only appear if the user selects one of the Fair Use licences, wich means that users uploading free or public images wouldn't encounter this problem. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Most first time uploaders probably don't even know the difference between free and non free, but the editors that do are being given the runaround by the reverence being held for this bot, and ignoring the massive issues it creates and continues to create with it's tidal wave operation. The culture is also now I believe, we have a bot that fixes that, so let's not do it ourselves, or guide good faith violators. The tag box is huge and intimidating to a new user. MickMacNee (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if a new user is going to upload a image he/she will receive the instruction page before uploading, now if they choose to ignore that, chances are that they will most likely end uploading without a rationale wich will only add to the backlog, we can't have a competition between a bot that fixes images and several tagging them, and we can't let the 'fix bot' choose if he removes a notice placed by another bot before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would support a redoing of the image uploading procedure where incomplete uploads were prevented from happening. If a user does NOT supply a required piece of information, the page should send return an error message and stop the upload until all required info has been provided, INCLUDING the article where the pic is intended to go. This would reduce the problems on the back end that leads to all the grief this bot takes. I have no idea how this can be techincally done, but it seems a good idea. On the flipside, regardless of how inconvenient it is, the bot is doing necessary work, since images which are protected by copyright should NOT be used inappropriately on wikipedia. Remember, even "fair-use" is a violation of copyright, though being done in an "excused" manner. If you wish to excuse the violation of the rights of someone else, you should probably be very clear as to how and why and for what reason you are doing so. The bot only cleans up situations where people have not done this adequately. If it tags too many images, its probably because most people are doing it wrong, which is why we need to fix it at the "front end" before being uploaded. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on first loaders, as I've said, there are wider issue with those about them not having a clue at all. But I am seeing a very large proportion of these flags being like this: [74]. Perfectly fixable in seconds by experienced editors, yet we are being swamped, and who is coordinating these efforts, and from where? And is there any information at the page causing all these tags, the bot? No. Leaving fixes to uploaders and pontificating as such by the bot is also wrong when like this, it was loaded 18 months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WT:TODAY should give some insight into coordination. But its rather dormant now . MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For those images uploaded a year and a half ago we will have to deal it with patience and using the current methods. Please note that my proposal is focused in the images being uploaded in the very close future so we don't have a similar discussion eighteen months from now. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same point - it's not fair to say uploaders should've enforced a policy that didn't exist at the time. At the same time, though, people should keep a check on their uploads. Will ^(talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines

Partial repost of previous post at WP:AN

Please click "show" above and have a look at the backlogs arriving soon in the "disputed fair use images" dated categories. Normally, these images would be deleted after 7 days. The practice so far has been to extend the deadline some indeterminate amount. Given that these runs by Betacommandbot were done rather close together (looks like an extended run over three days), what would be the best way to determine a suitable extension here? An extra week? An extra two weeks? I asked Betacommand on his talk page recently (a few weeks ago), and he said he was near the end of doing these runs. Previously, I put dates of 10th and 17th February on the other backlogged categories. I'd suggest putting a date of 2nd March on these categories. It isn't terribly clear where this sort of thing should be discussed, or with whom, and it seems no-one else is attempting to manage the backlogs. To avoid future disputes, I'd appreciate it if people could object to or endorse this action, here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I only do logos (and some symbols and seals). Right now AWeenieMan's tools say I have ~3900 images to process. Given real life commitments and what, I would need about 3 weeks from today to get through them all. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend giving them a month at least. Give the original uploaders (who might not be very active) some fair time to see the notices. I know the policies are strict and all but 18,000 images obliterated in a week just seems brutal (though kind of impressive). • Anakin ^(talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakon (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Solution (for the future)

Stop uploading so many non-free images, and use fewer non-free images. Less time spent writing rationales, less time spent fixing images, Wikipedia is more free — its a win-win situation. Mr.Z-man 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Sarvagnya

This editor's obnoxious behavior towards several editors and articles is appalling and out of control, and needs to stop. It's steadily been escalating to a point that requests, warnings and alerts have not deterred the editor from changing his/her ways, even after a number of months.

The editor has made it a habit of being incivil with editors who make edits that he/she disagrees with. The editor has been requested and warned on several occasions. Once here, and on another occasion, I myself requested the editor to stop being so overly-critical of others contributions and start giving some recognition so that editors don't leave as a result of the unnecessary incivility (evidenced here). There are several other examples which can be found through this editor's talk page history (unfortunately, this editor has made it a habit to delete many of the comments on his/her page) and through some article talk pages where this editor has made comments.

However, he/she continues to resort to using a judgemental tone in edit summaries evidenced-here, assumes bad faith, is rude, calling others contributions names, and making it a priority to direct personal attacks at editors who do not support his/her edits and/or reasoning. The editor also forces others to the point of breaching civility without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This can be seen as he/she scatters some valid points among an extensive attack on an article or on those who have contributed to it. This is evidenced especially here. Again, there are other examples, but i cite only this one as it was the final straw that prompted me to report such behavior. (On a separate note, he/she has also made other attacks on the article and its contributors over the last couple of years, and yet, in all this time, has made no actual positive contributions towards improving the article significantly. In stark contrast, the editors involved have made a major improvement from the nonsense it was to begin with.)

The editor uses mannerisms like 'I'm just obsessed with improving this article', 'This article is dear to me' and 'I am just as frustrated with the state of the article as you are', or the like, as a justification for the impolite, incivil and inconsiderate communications he/she uses, when really, such communications are unwarranted under any circumstance.

This editor in addition to often assuming bad faith, often assumes WP:OWN over the articles he/she concerns himself/herself with. He/she has vandalized articles (or blanked material without explanation), and when left a warning about it, has deliberately deleted the warning (seen here). Similarly, the editor removed a request (that an otherwise reasonable editor would have taken the time explain to the concerned editor who made the request) labeling it 'trolling' here. It is ironic that he/she expects reasoning from others, when he/she often fails to provide any when he/she makes edits or removals of information. He/she in effect thinks its justifiable to do anything as he/she sees fit, without any explanation to support it. For example, the editor has blanked out entire references in an article without properly explaining how or why the references are 'extremist' (as he/she indicates in his/her edit summary here), perhaps in an attempt to advance his/her position that content from this article should not be mentioned in another article, Carnatic music. Having deleted these references, the editor then goes one step further and adds tags that there are no references for the article here. In several other instances, editors have requested for some sort of explanation for his/her reverts and edit wars evidenced-here, but again, no explanation is given as he/she asserts WP:OWN over these articles. Similarly, when an editor has requested that he/she stop making derogatory statements, his/her reply involves telling the other editor to stop whining evidenced-here.

This overall style of interaction between editors has resulted in driving away some contributors. Whether it is a lack of patience, or just a deliberate attempt to assume WP:OWN over certain articles he/she concerns himself/herself with, driving away editors is the direct opposite of a postive contribution. It is a serious issue that us editors have been forced to tolerate such incivility, disrespect and persistent assumption of bad faith by him/her, when it shouldn't be happening in the first place, (nor is it necessary).

For these reasons, I request that this editor be blocked for a period of time, both to prevent this happening again (until he/she cools off), and to make it clear that such behaviour is not tolerated at Wikipedia. This editor needs some time so that he/she can refresh his/her style of interacting with other editors (this would involve learning to show more respect for other editors contributions to Wikipedia, and also, learn to show more control over what he/she edits and how emotionally involved he/she gets in disputes). Warnings and requests have clearly not worked, and I, nor any other editor, wishes to stoop to the same obnoxious level as him/her, nor would any editor like to leave as a result of such obnoxious behaviour, or gaming of the system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh! So, here is an ANI which is a result of content dispute from Carnatic Music.

Ncmvocalist, how did you conclude expressions such as 'I'm just obsessed with improving this article', 'This article is dear to me' and 'I am just as frustrated with the state of the article as you are', etc as " unwarranted under any circumstance" ? I do not see any logical reasoning why they are unwarranted under any circumstances.

Regarding removing the warning, I would like to see the policy which states not to remove the warning. On the other hand, Ncmvocalist has been templating the warnings on a user who has written almost a dozen FAs!

And again what is all this with this diff? Those tags are completely relevant to that article, and Sarvagnya has done a good job to that article by those tags. By addressing those tags, the article can only be improved further. Oh, yeah, I observed the previous diff given above, regarding extremist ref. Thats again a content dispute, and a prolonged discussion had happened tamilnation.org and other such sites.

And the plain allegations of assumption of bad faith is just reciprocative on Ncmvocalist's conduct here. Where is the assumption of good faith here? - KNM ^Talk 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance tag vandalism

• see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency
• see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#is_this_disruptive.3F

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on National Policing Improvement Agency

• 09:11, 12 February 2008 - -17:52, 12 February 2008 - -17:57, 12 February 2008- -18:03, 12 February 2008- -10:53, 14 February 2008 - -14:16, 14 February 2008 - -14:50, 14 February 2008- -15:17, 14 February 2008 - -15:17, 14 February 2008

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on Serious Organised Crime Agency

• 09:12, 12 February 2008- -17:52, 12 February 2008- -17:55, 12 February 2008- -17:57, 12 February 2008- -17:59, 12 February 2008- -18:03, 12 February 2008 - -18:05, 12 February 2008 - -18:07, 12 February 2008- -10:54, 14 February 2008 - -14:17, 14 February 2008- -14:51, 14 February 2008

Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) works for the NPIA, see [75][76][77][78]. Despite being invited to the discussion on COI/N, The account and IP's continue to edit, and have have persistently removed the maintenance tags (see above), despite the fact that he/she is infact the one with the conflict. Input please.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford does seem most insistent about that tag. I'll drop him a note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we have all tried to communicate but with little result, hopefully you'll have better luck--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If he removes the maintenance tags again, I would endorse a block. After numerous notes from multiple editors, it looks like Bamford just does not "get it." --Kralizec! (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse a block along the same lines. WP:AGF has its limits and this editor(s) is clearly pushing them. MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here, also I left him a note on his talk page. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you are going to extract any change of heart from this editor. They are not interested in community editing because they are certain they are the only source of the truth. I suggest that they are blocked, the socks recorded, and a checkuser run. If it proves that the editor is using the facilities of the establishment that is the subject of the article then a little email to the management might be in order... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Bamford ignored the various warnings, reverted the articles in question back to his preferred version ([79], [80]), and issued a rather scathing reply [81]. As such, I have blocked Bamford for 31 hours for his continuing disruptive editing. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This series of 25 edits to his talk page have me completely baffled. They appear to consist of adding four {{pp-semi-vandalism}} and fourteen {{COI2}} tags. While these ten edits appear to be the standard variety of rant against the injustice of following Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines (or so I presume - TLDR), I do not understand why even a disgruntled editor would add pointless maintenance tags to their talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking this page

{{resolved|Persistent vandal-only IP blocked by [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] —[[User:TravisTX|<font face="Georgia" color="#2F335F">Travis</font>]][[User_talk:TravisTX|<font color="#888888" size="-1"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Someone want to take a look at this user: 66.168.119.50? He just blanked this page and when I went to warn him, I saw all the warnings on that page and thought I should just ask an admin to take care of it. Tex (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(editing conflict) Next time you could be proactive. It's good practice : ) If the IP is still active and continues to blank after a warning (level 3 or final), then you or someone else can report him/her to WP:AIV. Looks as though they've already been warned. and blocked Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking one's own talk page is permissible, unless it's a shared IP. It's practice; a proposal to use punitive measures against blanking one's own talk page failed to gain consensus, and probably won't. (Of course, this is a bit controversial.) Gracenotes^T § 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an IP with a long history of sporadic vandalism, including page blanking. They didn't blank their talk page, they blanked this page (AN/I).[82] Vassyana (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, misread. Sorry about that :) Gracenotes^T § 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. IP blocked from anonymous editing. {{anonblock}} noted on talk page. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. Apparently my original post wasn't clear. I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say. Tex (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Why has it been blocked for six months? It blanked the incidents noticeboard once - which was of course quickly reverted - and, prior to blanking, had not edited for almost a month. Six months seems, at best, excessive. --Iamunknown 01:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but according to wannabekate, that IP has 165 mainspace edits and every one of them is vandalism. If it were an account, it would definitely be indef blocked as a vandalism only account. Tex (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP has only been used for vandalism and has a long history of vandalism. The sporadic nature of its activity, the length of time between edits and the established history of vandalism all factored into my block. Users on that IP can still edit logged-in, and if they do not have an account they may request one to gain editing access. To my knowledge, this is a standard treatment for heavy vandalism anons. Vassyana (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Seems like a fine solution to a long-term vandal with no constructive edits. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Warbringer47 (talk · contribs)

• I have reason to believe that Warbringer47 (talk · contribs) is an incarnation of an anonymous user who has been repeatedly blocked for revert warring on Sol Badguy, Ryu (Street Fighter) and Guile (Street Fighter) and has been attempting to harass me. (See [83], [84], [85] (Sol Badguy), [86], [87], [88] (Ryu), [89], [90] (Guile), [91], [92] [93] (his vandalism to my talk page). He has a long history as an anonymous user and I don't think he should get a pass now that he has an account. JuJube (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And he's revert warring again. JuJube (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Warbringer47 has dropped the issue of alternate storylines and is now insisting on trying to get height/weight added to these articles. He knows very well that this was a contentious issue a few years ago that led to the items being removed. Considering he's told me that if I'm sick, I should stay at home and not edit, I believe this account was made only to harass me. JuJube (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User with multiple IPs keeps deleting the same material

The Illuminati article is having difficulty with a persistant vandal. I reported the situation to ANI-Vandalism, but they have said the situation is not blaitant enough and referred me here. This is the situation... On January 31, an IP user:189.30.110.198 deleted some material from the article without explanation... I reverted and requested discussion on the talk page (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illuminati&diff=next&oldid=181216241 this dif.). The IP responded with a rather strange edit: here, which led to the following chain of edits and reverts: [94], [95], [96], [97] and [98] ... note the change of IP address... same prefix though. At this point the editor (logged in as User:Edictorwikicentral) did respond on the talk page... seehere. To that point, I would not have called these edits vandalism. We had a content dispute, which several editors attempted to resolve in the appropriate way. However, the removal of the content has continued - to the point where it now is vandalism... The editor simply removes the content with no explanation (see: here, here, and most recently here.) In each case we reverted and tagged the user page with a vandalism warning... but because he/she uses a slightly different IP address each time, the vandalism warnings that have been mounting up are defused. Because he/she only reverts occasionally, it isn't a case for ANI-Vandalism or 3rr.

I doubt it would be appropriate to simply block the entire 189.30... IP range, but is there anything that can be done to convince this vandal to stop deleting the content? Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but my suggestion would be to request semi-protection to keep the IPs from editing so you can focus on the content dispute without interference from users who aren't logged in. --clpo13_(talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess it already is semi-protected. Never mind. --clpo13_(talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection helps... but does not solve the problem. The IP editor in question just waits for the protection to be lifted and repeats his/her deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment by Propol

I have getting tagged by this out of control editor with delusions of socks on his head. I have warned him four times, and he continues to harass me with is war of tagging my my user space with is sock puppet BS. [99] [100] [101] [102]

If he think I'm a sock then let him file, but just unilaterally placing tags on editors talk pages is just a form of bulling and harassment. I think someone should stop this rude and childish punk. Propol appears [103]to have a long, and uncontrolled reputation of this and needs to be disciplined as to the rules. This child is out of control?Oldschooltool (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this appears to be in bad faith. If the user felt strongly about his/her accusations, then they should have filed a sockpuppet case involving your conduct with a list of diffs as evidence. Since this has not been done, it could be construed as trolling (at the very least). Did you attempt to mediate the situation on his talk page beyond the level 4 warning you gave him/her? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's talk page regarding the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent! Sri Lanka - moved / hacked

This article has somehow been moved/hacked to a page entitled Sri Lanka - hacked by Bleezhulk. This user has been vandalizing a number of pages in a similar way, see [104]. This user needs to be blocked.--Gregalton (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User blocked by Riana, articles moved back and deleted redirects created by the moves. Thanks for the heads up! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For immediate attention

Could we get a block on this IP immediately. User talk:86.134.94.232. See these edits:

[105] [106] [107] [108] [109]

I tried a level three abuse warning, but this just escalated things. I hope this is the correct place to report such problems. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New IP!

It seems a broader block may be required. Is this possible?

User talk:86.134.94.204

[110]

Nouse4aname (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Iced him. east.718 at 10:18, February 15, 2008

It's a dynamic IP from a large block owned by a British ISP, so I'm afraid a range block wouldn't be feasible. Please just bring it up on WP:AIV if it acts up again. (Tell them it's a block-evading repeat offender so they won't be asking you for prior warnings and stuff.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

has received two lasts warning

Resolved

 – User blocked indef.

User:Bubbleshum received a last warning about making nonsense pages and he deleted it from his talk page [111], and has now received *another* last warning for making yet another nonsense page with related thematic. First page was John Iliston, and second page is Ilistonitis, and both were speedily deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already blocked --Enric Naval (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbered user

Resolved. Two main protagonists given short blocks to cool off. ^Khukri 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has been changing with original research or simply non at all a great number pages.80.78.74.88.Megistias (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) The user continues [112]Despite being warned that what he is doing it against the rules.Megistias (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be handled at Talk:Ioannis Kapodistrias. No need for ANI. (Although another pair of eyes from an uninvolved admin might be useful, now that it's here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't say "see discussion" in the article (see what discussion?). You need to cite|cite a reliable source so your claim could be verified. El_C 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That was, I think, Mavronjoti's mistake, not Megistias. Anyway, it's reached the stage where we need an uninvolved admin to swing the trout over at that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since they both have names that start with M, I'm unable to distinguish between theM. El_C 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I cite sources and rules this person doesnt.I am not the offenderMegistias (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol.

• Mavronjoti = Albanian, brings questionable sources, has also been editing as IP, has breached 3RR
• Megistias = Greek, defender of article status quo, did two reverts, is under revert parole.
• Tassoskessaris (D.K.) = Greek, defender of article status quo, has been unnice to Mavronjoti.

Makes it clearer? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i thought the limit was automatic!.I suck but i did defend the article!Megistias (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Defending" works differently. Defending is done through friendly, relaxed, patient discussion and through "writing for the enemy". Ever tried that? Writing for the enemy means, you assume an active role taking the opponents cues, actively check how much of their claimed sources may in fact contain a kernel of truth, and then work that into the text, on your own accord. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You that they just remove the secondary sources and then incite an edit war.I took the bait last time.Megistias (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User trying to use Jimbo comment as a club

Before this gets too ugly, I want to make sure a few uninvolved admins start keeping an eye on a situation that appears to be developing. Jimbo made a comment on 7 February in which he stated:

I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.

Since that comment was made, a relatively new user, Lightedbulb (talk · contribs), has started an editing campaign to put "GNU" in front of every instance of "Linux" he can find. More so, he is trying to proclaim the rule of Jimbo in his edit comments with statements such as, "GNU/Linux has been confirmed as the correct naming convention for Wikipedia by its founder Jimmy Wales." He is doing this without prior discussion and is not responding well to talk page discussions trying to get him to slow down and discuss the changes. He is taking the stand of "Jimbo said it therefore it is the law".

Since that time, at least two other editors, Gronky (talk · contribs) and Bald Eeagle (talk · contribs), have jumped on the wagon and started using the same sort of edit comments.

Personally, when someone says "my opinion" I take it in a different context than "this is a Wikipedia rule". This editor runs the risk of making it appear that Wikipedia is driven more by the whims of its founder than the consensus developed by the community. Some help in explaining that this is a consensus driving project is appreciated. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"OMG! St. iGNUcious strikes again!"

Note that Jimbo could be said to have something of a conflict of interest on this particular topic too. ;-) (look at the page footer, or here) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) OMG! He's fallen into the evil clutches of Saint iGNUcious!

Now they think Lightedbulb is using a sock to get around 3RR Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle. Sarah 13:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And, in fact, the Wikipedia rules do say the opposite; whether "GNU/Linux" is "more correct" than "Linux" (an argument I do not want to enter), "Linux" is by far the most common english name for the group of operating systems driven by a Linux kernel, regardless of the presence of GNU tools— and therefore the one that should be used. — Coren ^(talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, we even have an article GNU/Linux naming controversy. —Moondyne 13:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They were edit warring on that page, too, Moondyne. "Because Jimbo said!" :) Sarah 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am undoing these edits on sight. The essence of Jimbo's opinion, IMO, was that creating an organized project to expunge the name GNU/Linux was inappropriate. Gronky and the others are engaging in the exact same inappropriate behavior in the opposite direction. But, y'know, we all remember the scene from Life of Brian with the gourd and the shoe. Nandesuka (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am undoing the inappropriate work of the organised project. No more. --Gronky (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That movie completely misrepresented the situation. Those gourdists are nothing but a cult, and should not have been depicted as comparable in any way to the one true Shoe.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting very disruptive - see Gronky's edits for some more (many haven't been reverted). --Iamunknown 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One (presumably rainy) weekend, User:Thumperward went through a few hundred articles which mentioned "GNU/Linux" and changed them all to "Linux". A few people objected, but no one had equal time to undo this consensusless spree. I would call it an "edit flood". I've been meaning to undo those edits ever since, and others have also expressed an interest. Jimbo's comment is just the final motivation to actually start. There was never any justification or consensus to strip Wikipedia of "GNU/Linux" in the first place. User:Thumperward's campaign completely ignored and undermined the community process that makes Wikipedia work. So my 15 or so edits today are not a campaign, they're just a partial rollback of an edit flood that should never have been. --Gronky (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well with people like YOU (Prolog, StuffOfInterest, Nandesuka and a couple of others) acting here as the owners of the last word on what stays in wikipedia it's not surprising to see why in many Higher Educational Institutions the use of Wikipedia is discouraged and in some cases even forbidden.

With arguments such as to use the most common or most popular words to name things you are not helping to build an Encyclopedia but a kind of blog that you use to express your personal preferences. I will not get into a lengthy demonstration of this disdain of Wikipedia by the the serious international academic community. But for anyone here who has a doubt about that just go to the nearest University and talk to any professor to see what they think of Wikipedia as it is thanks to you guys, wonderful old seasoned editors.

The image wikipedia is getting is one of an outlet that is even used by corporation executives that pay people to edit anything that concerns them or their interests. By the way I can say I am not affiliated to any organization or company that sells any product or service related to GNU/Linux or as you so passionately prefer just "Linux". I don't get one cent from my efforts. I wanted just to share what I know with people seeking information.

The aim has never been to deny the Linux kernel but rather to add. Now your aim seems to be to hide the fact from many users that to be able to use this OS GNU/Linux there is complete freedom to the user and that he/she does not need the services of any company to supply him with the software as happens with proprietary sotfware. It is clear that as the creators of the "Open Source" initiative declared they wanted that what was until then known as "Free Sotfware" became more acceptable to the business community and to investors. Thus there is a systematic pattern by many people to omit the mention of GNU which has as its main message the idea of freedom. Freedom is not what interests "open source" companies such as O'Reilly which by the way is one of the main publishers of books with the Linux title to refer to the entire OS. In a well known documentary one can even see Linux Torvalds wearing and O'Reilly's T-shirt with the words "Open Source". As one of the editors who deleted my contribution said AdrianTM and to whom Prolog readily seconded the reason for eliminating GNU is that he hates the idea of "Free" Software and Richard Stallman. Just as Linus Torvalds does. Well if that is not POV then what?

It is a pity that this idea of a free Wikipedia Encyclopedia will end up as a failure to become an accurate and reliable source of knowledge and information. For that Microsoft Encarta, a proprietary product, will be a far better choice.

Lightedbulb (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The shoe is his sign! Let us follow his example. Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise." Nandesuka (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am SO tired of arguments that include the phrase or likeness "well, THIS is the reason academics don't like Wikipedia!". I have some great ideas for what to do with the shoe when arguments like that one are made... - Philippe | Talk 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the common name arguments, maybe you should try and get the guideline which says to use common names changed instead? --Haemo (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you meant WP:COMMONNAMES in the link above, but WP:COMMON is I think much more appropriate here. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

cough. Sniff. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Inverness

Resolved

 – all articles fixed, RM can be opened for future move requests

Hi all. I'm requesting that someone with admin privileges restore the page now at Inverness, Highland to Inverness. This is a controversial move made in the last hour, but moving editor User:Laurel Bush has already edited the previous location Inverness, redirecting it to Inverness (disambiguation), so that no editor without sysop privileges can reverse the unilateral move. I don't think it's unfair to request that the page be restored, so that Laurel Bush can then open a WP:RM if she desires. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moved back to original locations. Left a note on the talkpage to open a RM, though I'm not sure why we'd want to move this article now. Black Kite 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Having a look, the disambig page isn't a bad idea except it's being used for all things pertaining to the various Inverness's, and not different types of Inverness's themselves. Also the page I think with naming convention it should be Inverness, Scotland not Inverness, Highland. However I see you haven't left a message on the editors talk page prior to bringing it here, and only a message on the disambig page and discussion hasn't been thoroughly explored but will look to move them back. And it was done as I was typing. ^Khukri 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've move-protected it until a discussion takes place, if one does. As a general point, we usually don't use a qualifier for a city if one is by far the most well-known, which I think the Scottish city is. Black Kite 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A similar course of actions had been taken on Nairn yesterday I think. Again, the irreversible action was taken first, then a notice was posted on the Scottish wikipedians' noticeboards. The move ... unnecessary and controversial from the responses, involved the cutting and pasting of text, and has left hundreds of wikilinks pointing at a dab page (now at Nairn). In both the cases of Nairn and Inverness, the pre-move page appears to be clear primary usage ... though moves in both took place before this matter had been examined by the community. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've moved the pages and fixed the links, problem is now that the history is at Nairn (government and administration boundaries) rather than Nairn after the article was split. I've got to go out now, but I'll fix this when I get back. Black Kite 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a nightmare ... took a while to work out what happened! It fairness to User:Simply south, who did the cut and paste split, the split wouldn't have been so bad if he'd chosen to make Nairn, Scotland (now thankfully back at Nairn) the successor of (pre-move) Nairn rather than the other one! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• And done. Black Kite 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to note that i did before place notices both on the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Also, after the split i made Nairn a disambiguation page so there was no successor to it, as you have put it. Simply south (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How strange...

Someone please take a look at this strange/suspicious upload of 10 Feb...

• Image:Jaso2.pdf (note the suffix)

The .pdf is not linked to by any article and the upload constitutes the user's only edit.
Paranoid snot that I am, I wouldn't recommend opening the file. I hear it screaming "exploit".

-- Fullstop (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems harmless. It's a text about a location in India that was apparently meant as an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More V-Dash socks

User:Supertoolbox is going around and changing the userpages of User:V-Dash socks to make it appear as if they were Jeske socks. Anyone want to handle this? shoy 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. But, we should ignore these to whatever extent possible. I see no value in bothering to create userpages for throwaway troll accounts. Revert, block, ignore. Creating a collection of trophies only encourages them. Friday (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(merging duplicate threads)

User's talk page has a personal attack against Friday and Jeske... dont know how this started or who's sock this user is, but it should be investigated. Queerbubbles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! The user has been blocked. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolling username

Resolved

 – User hard-blocked —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get User:UntimelyMaroon blocked for the trolling username. Let me explain. Earlier today a new user showed up at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, under the name of User:Ultrastoopid. This username is a clear jab at User:Ultramarine, who is a regular editor of the article. Furthermore, the user's edits were heavily critical of Ultramarine's contributions. I had Ultrastoopid blocked by a report to WP:AIVU. Moments later, the same user (no need for an request for checkuser per WP:SNOW) showed up under the new name User:UntimelyMaroon. Once again, this username is (in my mind) a clear violation of the username policy, since it targets the editor User:Ultramarine with the explicit goal of being offensive and disruptive. However, Slackr, the usernamevio admin, did not see the name as a transparent violation. He/she recommended that I send the complaint through a different channel. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - nicely explained. I hard-blocked UntimelyMaroon. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot, reprogramming suggestion

Resolved

 – No forest fires, please ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am increasingly seeing how this bot works through its invasions of my watchlist and watching the results. What appears to be happening is that images with no rationale and images with an attempted rationale, but no article link, are tagged as being completely the same, i.e. deletabble in 7 days, i.e. here: [113]. I believe this is unnacceptable, as the cases of attempted rationales would clearly pass muster in a court, which is what the policy aims to meet. In order to decrease the stress and anger this bot is causing every time it goes on a 20,000 tag run, it should be reprogrammed to only run a few hundred images at a time, and to dump the resulting tagged images into an expert clearing house, before placing a huge warning and endless spamming of talk pages, only some of which are appropriate, so that images can be screened into the obvious 2 categories here, non-compliance full stop and in need of time and attention, and non-compliance with the bot's specification, but fixable in 10 seconds without stress and alarm by experienced editors, and the consequent uneccessary loss of images/editors. This would also increase the accuracy of the bot process as a whole itself, as the bot can be defeated easily by putting a gibberish rationale, as long as it contains the appropriate number of links. I know time/numbers is a factor, so I suggest images in the clearing house not given any attention in 7 days are then tagged and users warned as usual, irregardless. The clearing house can be accessed by anyone, in a collaborative effort that WP is supposed to be. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC) You do realize we have almost 300,000 non-free images? If it only did 500 per day, it would take about a year and a half to go through all the images we currently have. And that assumes that there are people willing to spend hours per day going through the images and fixing minor errors. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC) And you have assumed every single image present is in error, which they are not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) It would be better if changes were made to the upload process that required the use of the FUR template, which makes it clear when there is anything missing that it must be added. The problem is at the beginning of the process and with the uploaders. The bot is just pointing out the mistakes. Lara❤Love 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) That is not a reason to not change the bot as described above. Pick a random sample of tagged images, this is not purely a new image problem. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) That actually probably makes the situation worse. Don't know if it still holds true but the license list used to contain licenses which were invalid for use on wikipedia, such images quickly got deleted. Why would we do this? Simply we want people to be honest about the license, not just use something which works. So user uploads image, select FU as a "license" is forced to enter all sorts of stuff they don't understand, ah what the hell PD it is then... --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I did just noticed uploading two images a second ago that (unless it's the advanced wikEd editor that put it there) that the non-free rationale template is automatically inserted into the rationale edit area for image uploading. --MASEM 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) It was inserted a couple of months ago. Remember the Dot did the programming and either I or him suggested it at the Upload talk page and I believe VP-Prop or VP-Tech. MBisanz talk 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) If you are getting spammed messages from BCBot on your talkpage it is because you are doing it wrong. The images are supposed to have a machine-readable rationale template, and the bot tags images that do not. The purpose is not to be sufficient for court, Wikimedia copyright liability for images is not the primary issue. Please do not create new threads for BetaCommandBot when there are already half a dozen on WP:AN and threads from this board have been moved there recently. Avruch T 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Roll-up disputed, see actioner's talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

La dii da

Resolved

 – indef blocked

Brand-new account, only edits are to blank arbcom pages. Possibly a sockpuppet? —Random832 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, user was blocked within minutes of the blanking edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Request edit summary change with less offensive comment

Request that an admin kindly remove these WP:ICA "vandalism" comments from edit summaries here andhere. Thanks, JGHowes ^talk - 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot edit edit summaries. Sorry! Metros (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An oversight could remove the revisions? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They could but I highly doubt that they'd consider this a needed removal. They generally only do this for personal information being revealed; not a bad-faith edit summary. Metros (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if we oversighted mean edit summaries, we'd be at it all day. --Haemo (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Spamming and threats

I caught an anonymous user adding inappropriate links to contextflexed.com here and here. Now Contextflexed showed up and not only readded the links, but threated me here saying he will be forced to out your identity. Stop headhunting me or else. IrishGuy ^talk 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for a block - possibly indef. Also blacklisting for the external site. Can't very well stand for nonsense like that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMike did a soft usernameblock. I upgraded to a hard block for the threat to reveal a RL identity. Anyone want to add the blacklist line? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SA and WP:HARASSMENT/WP:OVERSIGHT

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

User:ScienceApologist has googled my user name and is insisting on posting an off-wiki link that reveals an off-wiki pseudonym. A clear violation of WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:HARASSMENT. Can someone please put a stop to this? Ronnotel (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Dana4

Disruptive single-purpose account, possible sockpuppet. Edit-warring on Homeopathy, which is under probation. I have deleted the copyrighted image they uploaded but am not sure if they should be blocked at present. Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly new (if precociously tendentious) account. An alternative to a short block for edit-warring (which would appear justified) would be to place them on 1RR and disruption parole, per the terms of the article probation, and give him/her another chance to shape up. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone impersonating, or a sockpuppet of, User:Danaullman, who edits the same article. It is too soon to determine which, but it certainly raises a red flag. I'm not saying we need to act now, or indeed if there is anything to act on, but its something to be aware of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman

Ombudsman following a RfA is under indefinite Probation. "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing"[114]. He has recently repeatedly deleted commentry on his involvement on vaccine related topics at Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics (1, 2 and 3 in the last 2 days). Edit summary claim of moving to to talk page are not borne out by this where material and Ombudsman name not included.

I find this disruptive editing and accordingly have notified Ombudsman of a ban on further editing.[115] Could other admins please review my action under the RfA probation. David Ruben ^Talk 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked to see if this is connected with Whaleto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Guy (Help!) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They are almost certainly not the same person, though they share an agenda. I'm not neutral here, having run into Ombudsman before. Still, the "longstanding history of tendentious editing of medical articles" identified by ArbCom has hardly abated. He was indefinitely blocked by Jimbo in October '07 and unblocked out of a desire to show forgiveness ([116]). Based on his lack of engagement and deletions of appropriate commentary from the noticeboard, I think a ban from that particular page under the terms of his ongoing ArbCom probation is reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD Deletion of User Conduct RfC

The language on the User conduct RFCs say:

"In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)."

Am I correct in assuming that the person who wrote an filed the RFC obviously does not count as the threshold for two people? This is regards to the talk at User_talk:Pegasus#Deletion_review, because I tagged Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Clouds for deletion today. Only User:Johntex had certified it after 1+ week. Lawrence § t/e 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, Lawrence, you are mistaken. "Two people" includes the person who files the RFC. If it meant "two additional people" it would say so.

That is clearly the interpretation that was being used during the discussion on the RFC itslf. That discussion centered around whether or not I had certified it. If I, as the second person, was still insufficient to certify, then the conversation would have been completely different. It would have centered around whether a third person was stepping forward. You never once came forward with an opinion that my certification was not sufficient.

Also Lawrence, it is ironic that you say that "as possible partisans in this both your and my opinions are to be immediately devalued here for the community to decide".[117] I am happy that you agree because it proves my point. You, as an involved party, should not have tagged the page for Speedy Deletion.

If you felt the page should be deleted then you should have taken the more up-front approach and listed it at MfC. That would have allowed community discussion.

Also, this proves my point that deletion of the RFC is NOT an uncontroversial matter. A controversial deletion should not be based upon a "speedy tag" placed by one of the partisans.

The RFC page should be allowed to restored and allowed to run its course. If Lawrence disagrees then the appropriate venue would be MFD. It was not appropriate for Lawrence to tag an ongoing RFC wihth a "speedy deletion" tag. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The RFC as I read it was an uncertified work of pure harassment, and an attack page on a valued editor. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have made your opinion clear on that. Again, it points to your personal involvement with this why it was improper for you to tag with speedy deletion. Numerous other people did not agree and have already commented on the RFP. Many of them had criticisms of CC's actions. You are doing CC no favors by trying to sweep this under the rug with a speedy deletion. The deletion needs to be overturned and the RFC allowed to continue. Johntex\^talk 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm with Johntex on this one - the plain language of the header says "two people" -- not two people "other than the filer." Lawrence's intentions are good here - but there's a dispute between BQZ and CC that needs to be resolved. An RFC is a fair-enough place to do so, and they seemed to be moving in that direction, so let's just let them resolve things if they can -- and if they can't then, ok, we tried. Arguing about whether or not the RFC was properly certified just seems drama-inducing, rather than helpful. --TheOtherBob 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here are recent sample RfCs that were certified by a total of 2 people, including the original filer.

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Angie_Y._2
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Threeafterthree
3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_2
4. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COGDEN
5. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4

This mistaken deletion of an in-process RFC is a grave error and this improper deletion should be un-done forthwith. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh - what possible reading of the RfC guidelines tells you that the filer isn't a certifier? It says two people must be in the dispute. If the filer is in the dispute - thats one person. The filer of an RfC is routinely a certifier. Additionally, what would cause you to tag an RfC for deletion? RfC's serve a purpose beyond whatever technical satisfaction of the page guidelines you are looking for - clearly there is a dispute there that hadn't been resolved by other means and required community input so that the editors could appropriately weigh the correctness of their actions. By getting the RfC deleted (which, if its restored, you can see I specifically argued against without taking a position on the dispute) you have short-circuited the process here. Additionally, the CSD category that was used to delete the RfC was cited improperly. The deleting admin should have noticed that there were a sufficient number of certifiers and refrained from deleting the pages. Avruch ^T 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Pegasus, for restoring the RfC pages. Avruch ^T 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you Pegasus! Johntex\^talk 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Personal Attacks

FInally, I have got to ask for help on this. In spite of agreeing in the past to leave me alone and to cease personal attacks in general, SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, editing my talkpage (something I had requested he not do and I have agreed not to edit his...which I have abided by) multiple times, removing an obvious self-deprecating joke, and now is making his personal attacks on me again. This user, with a long, distinguished list of blocks and interventions, has been begging for a indef block forever. Granted, he's not calling people "Nazi scum" or even calling people "rude brat". Now it's these: "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour". Can something be done? He has worked very, very hard to antagonize, vilify, harrass, and belittle many users on Wikipedia. Something has got to be done about this highly disruptive, verbally violent user. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) if more links and diffs for history of attacks is needed, let me know... but they'd fill up an entire page.

I think it's safe to say that the patience of the community is wearing thin. I, for one, am very tired of seeing the same names appear at AN/I with issues. I recommend that both parties find a way to solve this on their own, because I have a feeling that if administrator action is required, it will be of a grave nature. - Philippe | Talk 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We did, and he is reneging on it. I leave him alone, I do not edit his userpages, but I cannot get rid of his following and attacking. I have worked hard to not be involved with him. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some history and at the risk of taking sides, I have to say it looks to me like SqueakBox is the short fuse in this dispute. He's very quick to use colorful adjectives to describe other people and their actions, in statements that could probably often be considered personal attacks. I think at the least, he could use a stern reminder about civility from an uninvolved admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak is a decent person. I blocked him in the past, and he impressed me with his ability to understand that a time out was right in that case. What SqueakBox doesn't like, being a decent person, is any hint of the promotion of pedophilia, racism and a number of other things that decent people don't like. Each time I've investigated an issue with Squeak recently, it's turned out that the problem was excess of decency. Make of that what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating that into objective terms, he acts inappropriately but since he does so in accordance with your POV then it must be okay. In the interest of neutrality I don't think the cause he's fighting for, even if it's the majority POV, should be a determining factor. Considering blowing up at people as an "excess of decency" means little since "decency" is subjective, and even if his views were considered decent by matter of fact, you can be excessively decent and still conduct yourself appropriately. We don't judge people based on their views but on how they act, the two being mutually exclusive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:44, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Pro-pedophile advocacy brings the project into disreupte and has led to bans. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing, not pro-pedophile advocacy or anti-pedophile advocacy in particular, leads to bans. And regardless of the reasons, inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. You can't justify it by saying you were acting for the good of Wikipedia. If you want to do good things, you do it the right way, or you leave it to someone else. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

The history is perhaps more complex than you have seen, Equazcion, this is perhaps a case for dispute resolution (possibly arbcom) and I have initiated that while also resolving the current flame at VPs talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that Squeakbox has a long fuse, but that it's been re-lit over and over by a succession of POV warriors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rules should be applied consistently - you get the same sentence for assaulting sinners as saints... oh, and assaulting a sinner makes a sinner of the assaulter. i.e. If you are on the side of the angels, then act like one! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's a denial of human nature. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• this is wikipedia, not the nsdap. its not the job of any editiors on here to attack verbalyl any users that he doesnt like just becuase he feels that they are "acist" "pedophilic" or any other pejorative. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on , as usual, Smith Jones. Thanks for cutting through the "acist" crap, again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary for Squeak to even edit Vigilance's page. I didn't see any attacks, I saw the (rather odd) addition of a template. How does that involve Squeak at all? Why even get involved? Frankly, if I were he, I think I'd have walked away from that, even if I thought it was incredibly offensive, because of previous involvement with Vigilance. Strikes me as an astonishingly bad choice to even engage there. - Philippe | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SJ and other users. As demonstrated in a (now deleted) subpage of VP's, this user has a history of disruption and repeated harassment of editors on stigmatic, personal grounds. I would not personally support an indefinite block, but see the umbrella WP:PAW as a good dividing line when it comes to what articles this user should e allowed to edit. Lambton ^T/_C 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• VigilancePrime's deleted subpage was an attack page against Squeakbox that contained similar content to the material currently on VigilancePrime's user page. The subpage was deleted by MfD:
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

with comment from the closing admin that : " The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor..." When content is deleted by MfD as an attack page, what is the policy on re-creating that content on a user page? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be holding up a mirror on his talk page. It is not disruptive to simply list edits that you dislike. Lambton ^T/_C 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. You brought up the deleted subpage, not me. So I provided the MfD link and the quote from the closing admin, who found that consensus in the discussion considered it an attack page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I should note, though I had hoped to stay out of this, that EVERYONE in that discussion saw it as an obvious keep except: SqueakBox (of course, as it quoted his poor word choices), you, Jack-A-Roe (always jumping to his defense and a partner with him in deleting content you don't like), Will Beback (same difference), and Pol64 (who was very soon after permablocked for the same type or aggregious personal attacks). As one user said, "Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks." Other comments about the former page: "The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links.", "no apparent policy vio", "does not violate bad faith or civility", and finally "This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct." VigilancePrime (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

You're entitled to your opinion too, sure. In the situation with your user subpage attacking SqueakBox, the MfD consensus did not agree with your interpretation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up because it demonstrated something (listed edits, just like his user page), not to discuss its creditability as a project, which I would have to look at in further detail. Lambton ^T/_C 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel I must say a few words here. I'm sure SqueakBox will believe I'm persecuting him but he still has not offered me (or anyone else he has unfairly stigmatized) any sort of decent apology for labelling me a passive supporter of pedophile activists (because of I speedy closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Man/Boy Love Association), repeatedly calling a now deleted Category:Rape victims "your beloved category" (because I asked him to nominate it for deletion rather than unilaterally depopulate it). He has unfairly accused Haemo (talk · contribs) of pedophile sympathies, during his RfA no less. This is the umpteenth ANI thread about his short fuse and while I understand that it's not always easy to deal with POV warriors and the typical sockpuppeting nonsense that surrounds many of the PAW-supervised articles, his behaviour cannot be tolerated. Guy, I've told you this before and you refused to listen [118]. Now all I can do is repeat it and you'll tell me again "ah, deep down SqueakBox is a good chap" and of course, I can't even disagree with that. But tell me: how many times can you say this before doubt starts creeping in that maybe a good chap can sometimes go overboard, way overboard. If need be, I'll go back and dig out all the diffs that have popped up in the numerous ANI threads and User talk threads where SqueakBox's behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. There are many people who have the courage and patience to work with PAW but somehow, SqueakBox is the one that keeps generating ANI threads. Where does it stop? Fighting the good fight doesn't buy you a get out of jail card. SqueakBox has got to stop or leave. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS for Guy. It had been a while since I got involved in that crap. But I just looked back at the details of our last conversation about SqueakBox. I was trying to explain that SqueakBox was not a good idea to mentor Pol64 (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, that experiment did not work out so well. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing altogether or be blocked from editing PAW? For me, based on his disruption and its rather narrow focus, a modest and workable solution would be a permanent curfew on PAW. I have saved quite a few of his mistakes, and would be happy to set up an e.mail so that I can communicate them to you off wiki. digitalemotion 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch needs more good-faith editors like SqueakBox, not less. Those topics are difficult areas for Wikipedia. More editors participating can help air out what otherwise might be a dark corner. Concerns about those topics affect the whole community, so the community is best served by more people becoming involved. It doesn't matter what POV editors bring, more participation is better in highly polarized situations. With more editors, it's less likely that discussions devolve into POV-pushing arguments. With more editors, it becomes easier to find actual community consensus, because there's less chance of getting sidetracked into arguments between indivudals or small groups.
• Whatever else comes of this AN/I report, I hope that more administrators and other editors visit the WP:PAW project and bring their skills to the various articles involved with those topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jack should probably specify that he/they only want editors that will edit to their liking. NPOV is not the goal, "SPOV" or their POV is. Fair warning: If you have even the slightest disagreement, you'll be labeled a pedophile, vilified, harrassed, personally attacked, and listed at Wikisposure. Contribute at your own risk, as this phenomenon has been widely documented (though much of it has also managed to have been deleted). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't twist my words. Your opinions and ideas are yours, not mine. I wrote what I intended to write. All POVs are welcome - a wide cross-section is preferable, to avoid POV-pushing - the editing must be NPOV of course. Broader attention on these topics can only be a positive thing for Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, all POVs are not welcome. While you sing the phrases of disruptive, accusatory POV warriors such as SqueakBox, you, just like Will, keep quiet about the "uncomfortably impartials" e.g. Barry Jameson and specialist editors such as GroomingVictim, and then break out in rapturous applause once they do get banned indefinitely. digitalemotion 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:VigilancePrime and "fake" template

Resolved

Well I've got a request - can you remove that fake block template from the top of your page? it's misleading. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that and have changed it to be obvious that I am NOT blocked. Avruch and I worked that out civilly (as opposed to the way SqueakBox operates, and that's the point of the problem there). Fixed. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the joke associated with the use of the fake template? You're a rebel? Or some other message? I agree it is confusing and distracting. David D. (Talk) 21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

since people are focusing not on the actual question, I started this into a seperate ANI

Lately there have been some very knee-jerk overzealous blocks. I have been somewhat vocal about how they are probably a bit excessive (I support a block in both instances, but indef is clearly excessive). The only reason I haven't been blocked is that I gave up on WP:NPOV and the like before the fireworks began. There are a couple people that would like me blocked for life because they don't like my NPOV-ishness and demandingness regarding the following of actual policy and precedent. That is why I have the "yeah right...don't you wish" and "well it's about time...not" in those boxes. The humor value of it. I'm careful not to let me emotionality (totally) get the better of me on Wikipedia, in spite of the personal attacks I sometimes have been subjected to (as above). Anyway, it's moot as the page has been thusly changed so as not to be misleading-able or mis-read-able. Thanks for the interest! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting moderately tired of you, too, VP. It seems if you aren't bitching or moaning about something, you're complaining. Have you considered taking up collecting stamps as a hobby instead? HalfShadow (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that a constructive comment? Do you expect him to take your suggestion seriously? I removed it hoping that you would think better of it and either not replace it or replace it with something that isn't inflammatory. Unfortunately, you put it back word for word and threatened to "report me." Feel free. Avruch ^T 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just ignore people rather than waving the red flag? David D. (Talk) 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I also think the block notice is misleading... the text you changed is rather small, and mostly, what you notice is the big red X with its familiar bold indef text. Perhaps you could at least change the background color, or some other code that results in a more visible difference from the actual indef template? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:05, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Who cares?. Honestly. Let him be. If he wants to leave the template on his page, let him... What is the offense we are supposed to deal with here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended, but I don't think its really appropriate because of the potential for confusion - seeing it without reading it closely (or at all in its previous incarnation) could lead someone to redact his contributions, to refrain from posting on his talkpage or otherwise interfere with communication. I think we should stay away from letting people put blocked templates on their own pages. Avruch ^T 22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Initially I thought it was confusing. From what he wrote above it appears to be taunting. It might be his own user page but taunting opponents is exactly the wrong way to go about creating a good editing environment. Hence my don't wave red flags comments above, i really think this is bad judgement. David D. (Talk) 22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was a joke it was in bad taste. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's converted the template into something amusing. Way to go. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidbinder14

User:Davidbinder14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From the editing pattern, and particularly the comment on Talk:David Binder (now deleted), I think there is a high probability that Davidbinder14 is a role account. The account certainly indicates a significant WP:COI issue - I don't think it's Binder himself, but it might be a PR firm or agent working to improve his Wikipedia coverage (from none to copyright violation - great improvement! :D). Something to keep an eye on, and possibly take action against if it does prove to be a role account. Happy‑melon 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but from my end all I really see is a WP:COI with the account. It may very well be David Binder, or an associate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IP reverts on Prem Rawat

Four similar reverts have occured in a timespan of less than an hour on Prem Rawat:

• 24.176.193.149 (talk · contribs):
  • 22:13, 15 February 2008
  • 22:23, 15 February 2008
• 32.155.57.53 (talk · contribs):
  • 23:01, 15 February 2008
• 32.156.154.10 (talk · contribs):
  • 23:11, 15 February 2008

1) Don't know whether these are linked, nor how very well to check that.

2) when reading intro of WP:RCU, that page does not seem an appropriate place to have this checked (or am I wrong?)

3) I'm an "involved party" by now, so I'd like someone else to look into this (if this is anything that should be looked into).

Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback seems to think the IPs might be Momento (talk · contribs) [119] - file a WP:RCU now? Don't know, might be premature, and I've been harsh on Momento just a few days ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who they are, but the intent appears to be to circumvent 3RR. While there is a claim that removing BLP violations doesn't violate 3RR, the claim of BLP violations is disputed and it isn't an excuse to violate all other policies or to edit war without seeking consensus. The external links have been a point of contention throughout the history of the article. It would be helpful if all parties would seek a resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This was going to be my response essentially - Instead of edit warring, attempt a lightweight mediation. On the talk page of the article implement a WP:RFC so that all parties involved, and other casual editors of the article, can participate. This would help build consensus. However, in the mean time, if the same IPs (again, not sure if they're the same user circumventing 3RR) continue to blank the EL section without discussion, use the traditional warning templates and then a report to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's repeating of Will Beback's suggestion is outrageous. These editors could have asked for a WP:RCU without mentioning my name but are trying to create on aura of guilt by association. A WP:RCU will exonerate me and I apply for one. Thanks.Momento (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that a RCU can not be initiated without mentioning names (i.e. user accounts), it seems not possible to submit such a request mentioning IP's only. That's why I wrote above: "when reading [the] intro of WP:RCU, that page does not seem an appropriate place to have this checked (or am I wrong?)" --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RCU cannot exonerate a user of mischief, it can only confirm it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A WP:RCU will exonerate me from your suggestion that I have used the IPs in question and that is what we are discussing.Momento (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never suggested that you used IPs - I asked you if you did. You denied and I accept your denial. What we are discussing is disruption to the article by an editor using IPs. We still don't know who did it. It doesn't matter so long as it stops. If it continues we'll need to deal with it somehow. Meanwhile let's work towards resolving the external links dispute on the article talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

“Likely” (not merely suspected) sock- or meatpuppetry by Triberocker

I requested a checkuser on Triberocker, concerning some inappropriate anonymous edits to “Phi Kappa Psi”. The outcome was “likely”. But I've seen no indication from his blocklog or from his talk page that action has been taken. I read on RfC that “In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself.” but I'm not an admin.

As noted in request for checkuser, the edits are not in good faith; for example one anonymous edit summary falsely claimed to have moved the material elsewhere. The over-all objective of the edits is to erase some notable history concerning a gang-rape. (The issue of appropriateness of this history to the article was the subject of a prior mediation, albeït not one to which Triberocker was a party.)

Before I requested the checkuser, I told Triberocker that he could be shown to be the responsible party and that the edit summary mentioned above could be shown to be false (with the implication being that the edits are not in good faith); I advised him to stop editting the article. His response was to challenge me to prove that the edits were his. —SlamDiego_←T 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this sock-puppetry deceptive in some way? That is, was he actively pretending to be two people to give the false impression of consensus, or to get around WP:3RR, or similar? Otherwise, I don't think a block based on checkuser results is appropriate or necessary. As for any other disruptive editing he might do, I see that he's agreed to stay away from that article; given that blocks are preventative rather than punitive, my inclination would be to leave things be unless problems continue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on more than one count. For example, the summary of the last of these edits declared “Everyone else is right...”, and the edits jointly violate WP:3RR.

Reasonable people might have different ideas about what administrative action is necessary, but at present there has been no administrative action upon the results of the checkuser.

And he appears to look at this situation as a feud. For example, after the checkuser result, I gave myself a temporary link to his block log, so that I could see what (if anything) followed. He responded as if this were a tit-for-tat thing. —SlamDiego_←T 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that he declared that he had decided to stay away from this article before the -puppets began editting (which claim was falsified by the checkuser), and I am not aware of him making a subsequent pledge to absent himself. —SlamDiego_←T 05:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Userbox!

No, not that sort of drama. Just a userbox for all you guys.

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Wikidrama
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh that one's for me! Thanks :) Merkinsmum 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me plz. Will ^(talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The real question is, can we put this on other users' pages as needed? :) MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Adding it to my userpage now :-) Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is just awesome. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

Strappado

This article was mentioned on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish today. Apparently at the time the United States was listed with a {{fact}} tag. A reference to Abu Ghraib was subsequently added by a couple of IP users. This strikes me as a possible WP:NPOV problem so I'm reporting it here. MoodyGroove (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Harrasment, abuse of admin rights

Resolved

 – Troll thread Will ^(talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked for a period of 31 hours on account

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit war on Ante Starčević, using multiple reverts without gaining consensus to do so..

as it can be seen here [120] by Jayron32. Consensus is something completely meaningless here - due to the fact that the existing version was not a result of any consensus. I was motivated to put previous version back - seeing that huge portion of sourced text was baselessly removed. I was supported by other editor (Smerdyakoff) - see here [121] and here [122] . In this edit war participated only two other editors - Spylab and Rjecina - see [123]. Rjecina refused to discuss the removal of sourced text, Spylab claimed that the text was POV and written in poor English - see [124]. As to the truth about POV - the removed text is strictly referenced but Spylab removed valid reference. Moreover, Spylab does not read or speak Serbo-Croatian in which almost all references are written - the fact proving that (s)he has no valid knowledge to justify removal of the text under being POV.

Bottom line - administrator Jayron32 acted baselessly and baselessly called upon Wikipedia's blocking policy. Looks like that consensus is obligatory to only one side - the one picked by Jayron32. Constructive contributions must be based on proven knowledge and impartial and verifiable references - which I supported by putting back the previous version of this article. --Stagalj (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line - you're a troll. Next please. Will ^(talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I respond, or just let this post speak for itself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection... The edit patterns here were both suspicious and vaguely familiar. It appears that Stagalj is a sockpuppet of indef-blocked Velebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Indef blocked... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash again?

I've noticed that IP 74.202.131.118 is going to each one of V-Dash's sockpuppet accounts and changing the message from "This account is a sockpuppet of V-Dash" to "This account is a sockpuppet of Jéské Couriano". I've begun to revert all of these, but the diffs include [125], [126], [127], [128], and [129], although there are several more instances. It should also be noted that the IP opened their talk page with the message "Jeske is an ass" diff. Jéské Couriano has requested that all potential V-Dash sockpuppets be reported to ANI if the block log for the account is empty (which it is at the time of this message). MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but since the IP stopped over an hour ago, I don't know that a block would be either necessary nor effective at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Assorted harassment

I'm having a problem with an IP user (69.157.51.121). I believe that it's the same one who has repeatedly vandalized my userpage (and others) over the last couple of months, related to Trenton, Ontario. Now it seems that s/he has started on a page I started last spring. There were some issues and they were resolved, but this person is vandalizing the article (Whitby Public Library) and calling my reverts COI. I'm not sure how to deal with this - he just made a comment on WP:Long Term Abuse. Any help appreciated. Blotto adrift (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blotto adrift please see the history regarding conflict of interest. He was ruled that he was in conflict on interest last year regarding the Whitby Public Library, however he now edits the page after it has left the minds of people. Take a look at his history, many users have noticed a problem with him and his editing style. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.51.121 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP address for trolling. I find the claims unsubstatiated, and his spamming every admin noticeboard around as disruptive and harrassing of the user. Feel free to comment on the block, or recind it if you feel it is out of line. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. This is the same editor that has been trolling and harassing various editors related to the Trenton, Ontario article. Multiple IPs have been blocked. His targets have been Blotto adrift, myself, and several others admins that have blocked him from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Assorted harassment part II

Resolved

 – blocked by Antandrus already

There's another ip out there who's really getting to be pretty belligerent, he/she apparently has a fairly solid knowledge of how wikipedia works given references to 3RR and modifying user pages, but there's a lot of personal attacks, disruptive mainspace edits and more. see User: 67.204.1.137. A quick glance at Special:Contributions/67.204.1.137 should be enough to warrant action in my opinion. thanks, CredoFromStart ^talk 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

never mind, it's been dealt with. CredoFromStart ^talk 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of: [130]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blotto adrift

Blotto adrift please see the history regarding conflict of interest. He was ruled that he was in conflict on interest last year regarding the Whitby Public Library, however he now edits the page after it has left the minds of people. Take a look at his history, many users have noticed a problem with him and his editing style. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.51.121 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The above IP has been trolling every admin notice board, and his claims are unsubstatiated. I have blocked them for harrassment and disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. This is the same editor that has been trolling and harassing various editors related to the Trenton, Ontario article. Multiple IPs have been blocked. His targets have been Blotto adrift, myself, and several others admins that have blocked him from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User continuing to add slanderous material about a company

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#Mortgage_Guaranty_Insurance_Corporation, where I recently reported this. User:Justjihad continues to add slanderous information on the above company, and I believe he should be blocked for a day, if not more. This appears to be a SPA to add his own POV in an off-wiki dispute. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Justjihad has been blocked for 1 day for repeatedly adding poorly referenced personal commentary to the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another Creepy Crawler sockpuppet

Godcthulha (talk · contribs) is adding the Category:Soap opera actors to a bunch of articles, much in the vein of Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs) and his numerous socks. Others, including the newly admined Doczilla, have expressed the belief that this is yet another sockpuppet of CC. Pairadox (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:MascotGuy and Dr. Sunset's Chariot Railroad (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Ryulong dinged him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While looking over the modus operandi section of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy, I noticed one user who seems to be doing one of MG's hallmark contribs - plural redirects (for example, this). While the user in question has a pretty good net productivity (the redirects themselves are generally considered to be good contributions, I think), is there a protocol for telling someone their edits are similar to that of a sockpuppeteer?

Am I completely misreading this situation, am I being to bitey, or is this a legitimate problem? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No edits to Talk pages, editing Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy/list. Smells like a duck to me. Corvus cornix_talk 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block him, but I noticed someone got there first. Thanks to Ryulong for taking care of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)