Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [1]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [2]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector^Talk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou ^banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back

DreamGuy seems to be back, and back at it. He didn't like what eight other editors did on Dissociative identity disorder while he was away, so he reverted to "last good version", meaning his last version before he left. This is how he interprets consensus? I have no opinion on that particular content dispute, but this mode of conduct is what makes him so hard to work with. Will some admin please advise him? Dicklyon 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy (again)

I had originally posted this as a separate ANI, but I think it might be better to bundle them together.

Since the previous ANI on this user [3] I have had the 'pleasure' of coming against more incivility by this user, and overwhelming evidence that s/he does not wish to work with other editors in order to improve the project. Please look at the history of Dissociative identity disorder ([4]) and DreamGuy's edit summaries, plus that article's talk page to see how he has dealt with the article (particularly with ideas of ownership over the article.) In that article, I undid a reversion that DreamGuy made, in what has become his MO of flicking off edits, comments, and sources without any discussion. In that edit (as you can see on the article's talk page, I chide both sides of the edit war for being unwilling to work with each other towards the betterment of the article. In this case, DreamGuy had reverted sourced statements from respected scholarly journals on the topic while claiming that such edits were 'POV'. Not seeing HOW this was a POV violation, I reverted back. Today, I found my edit and all following edits undone and posted this diff on my talk page.

Understandably, I took many of these things (being 'guilty of misconduct'?) as personal attacks. I left this on this talk page.

Less than one minute later, DreamGuy had reverted his talk page (which I had thought was a strong taboo). Please see the history: [5]. As you can see, I posted my comment again with the comment that he hadn't actually read my comment. But before that, he left this note.

Which I replied to.

DreamGuy then reverted his talk page again with the edit comment that I had posted 'harassment' and then went once again to my talk page.

I then took all of his edits off my talk page. It is clear who is doing the harassing here.

My complaint centers around DreamGuy's continual disregard for everybody but him and his editions to the project. He even popped up in a recent AfD again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermes_in_popular_culture (another article that he 'owns', by the way. He is the creator), and you can see his comments there. Like I mentioned in this discussion I had with him, I have no interest in DID and only a passing interest as an editor in the health of the article there. What concerns me the most in this AN/I is DeramGuy continues his incivility time and time again after many editors have expressed issues with how he addresses and deals with others. That and his issues with ownership must be addressed by an admin. CaveatLector^Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy --Ideogram 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you've had no recent (or ever) interaction or dispute with DreamGuy, and are the subject of intense complaint yourself. Why jump in here now and muddy the waters? Dicklyon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does happen that uninvolved editors decide a dispute is worth taking to ArbCom. In my opinion there is a great deal of evidence that DreamGuy is a problem editor. I didn't realize my intervention here would be unwelcome. --Ideogram 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to withdraw the filing? I'm not sure I can do that, but I can ask. --Ideogram 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If anyone else involved with DreamGuy brought this to ArbCom, he'd probably take that as a personal attack by "problem editors" (his favorite term for people who frequently disagree with him), which would lead to more bad blood. Having an uninvolved person step in should make it seem much less personal. --clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to have DreamGuy take it better, but this way makes it clear to ArbCom that the problem is focused on DreamGuy and not between him and a particular other editor. --Ideogram 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to withdraw the filing, the time to speak up is now. --Ideogram 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Ideogram 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the right thing to do is. It should would be nice to have some advice here from an uninvolved admin. Dicklyon 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no uninvolved parties here. DreamGuy has the protection of some powerful people. --Ideogram 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When uninvolved admins do respond you put abusive comments on their talk pages and accuse them of being in my pocket. It appears what you are really asking for is admins to come along and tell you that you aren't violating policies yourself and encourage you in your harassment campaign of good editors for your own petty purposes. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining who or what you are referring to, so can you be more explicit? Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... The accusation was that's it's uncivil of me to accuse people of sockpuppeting and so forth when a clear sockpuppet here filed a completely out of process and baseless report? Oh, and people claiming RFCs were filed and that I ignored the results when said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves and most of them later permanently banned? And now some highly uncivil people making edits that multpile admins have agreed were highly POV-pushing is in my face because I said they were POV-pushers? Bottomline here is we have a gang of malcontents working against the policies here, common sense and standard civility procedures wasting everyone's time with their constant whining. Instead of them saying smething needs to be done about me some admins should take the time to tell them that they are way out of line -- and, indeed, I thank those admins who have done just that, though these people simply ignored those helpful suggestions and warnings about following policy and continue to whine and complain because they don't want to admit that they are the problems. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does seem strange to assume sockpuppetry. He seemed to be just trying to help, and backed off when it was suggested that perhaps this wasn't the best way to do it. But maybe it was. Among the RfCs referred to that you ignored was the one on Talk:Photo editing. Who is being uncivil to you? Who is malcontent or out of line? What policy do you refer to? If you're going to make accusations, being clear would be useful. Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People are out of line on both sides here. DreamGuy, you aren't as innocent as you would like to think, but that's not to say that there aren't policy-breakers harassing you. It's just that not everyone who disagrees with you is one of those people. --clpo13_(talk) 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: further refusal to cooperate

On his talk page, in response to polite inquiry from the guy who has mediated the compromise on the content dispute on Photo editing, DreamGuy makes clear his position:

I've made comments on the talk page. The same people out to edit war to the bad version ignored them as usual. We had a consensus version, but most of the people who built that consensus gave up and were driven off by harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users who further went to receruit edtors to the article who never expressed interest in the topic previously but had lost conflicts with me in the past elsewhere. The article is simply a battleground and not a real discussion over actual Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

— DreamGuy

In fact, he has made no comments on the talk page since July 28, and has not responded at all to the proposed compromise. One can infer that he rejects the consensus and intends to go back to unilateral dismantling of the content section after it's unprotected, if that ever happens. His view of "harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users" seems delusional; is there a solution, or a proposed course of action, for such situations, or do all admins just want to continue to ignore it? Dicklyon 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I cooperated: I fully explained the reasons for the edits over and over and over and over again, for something like five or more months now, which you simply ignored. To try to portray my getting sick of it all as somehow proof of bad behavior is just ridiculous. But an editor did politely ask me to respond, so I found time out of my busy day of real work and undoing the vandalism and fullscale doctoring of the RFC page to remove any info that made your side look bad to also go in and, what else, re-explain the same things I've said over and over and over. It shouldn't be too difficult to pay attention instead of blind reverting to your version all the time. DreamGuy 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RfC

So it seems that in addition to the content RfC that he ignored, we need to do a user conduct RfC before arbitration makes sense. So I tried to open one, but the button to create it (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct) took me to an already existing page on a previous 2005 conduct RfC on him: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy. So that's probably what he was referring to above as "said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves." So what is the procedure for opening a new one when there is already one by the preferred name? Dicklyon 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create a new RfC about that user, create the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 with the content {{subst:RfC|DreamGuy}}. Then fill out the page as normal. WjBscribe 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can see from the link color, that worked. I haven't put any content in yet, but I got the page started. Dicklyon 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I filled in my part. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct for instructions on how to contribute. You'll find a link to the DreamGuy conduct RfC there. (and sorry about that last edit that got reverted; looks like I got out of sync somehow) Dicklyon 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proper procedure for letting interested parties (such as those commenting above) know that this RfC is open? Or would any such be considered improper recruiting or canvassing? Dicklyon 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking successful outcomes in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive before filing my part. «You Are Okay» 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy have you anything to say before I file my part? «You Are Okay» 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically canvassing is defined as spamming talk pages of users who are unlikely to be interested in the case. Posting notices on pages of involved users is borderline, and as noted above, you will need to be careful in your handling of this case. Posting in public places such as the Village Pump is probably okay. --Ideogram 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspected and Actual Sock Puppetry by the Accusers (not DreamGuy)

For the record, You Are Okay (talk · contribs) has very few edits and shows unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia processes. His first edit ever used {{cite}}. A savvy newcomer is okay, but when he or she aligns with a known sock puppeteer, that's suspicious. Ideogram has been caught operating at least two abusive sock puppets, one for block evasion on a block that was given for disrupting Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram for full details. Jehochman ^Talk 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: one can be a new user and still know the policies. I edited as an IP for a long time before getting an account. I'm not defending anyone, but it's not really that much of a point. --clpo13_(talk) 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A savvy newcomer can be explained away, but when that savvy newcomer helps build an RFC with a known sock puppeteer and block evader, he or she becomes a suspect. Jehochman ^Talk 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I can see your point there. I wasn't originally aware You Are Okay was a suspected sock of Ideogram. --clpo13_(talk) 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I refactored my initial comment to clarify the linkage. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just that Jehochman got carried away in collecting sock puppets for ideogram, who is clearly a multiple puppeteer. But User:You Are Okay is plainly just a newbie. He added three ext links, copying the "cite web" template from the line above in his first edit. When DreamGuy reverted them (properly), YouAreOkay went to his talk page, discovered this dispute, and piled on, here and at the RfC. Not a sock, just a newbie following his nose and his hurt feelings; but it would be better for all if he'd go away and leave this matter alone. Dicklyon 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted. On my first day of joining Wikipedia I tried to resolve a dispute with DreamGuy over a link to a blitz chess site. He couldn't even respond to, "Do you play blitz chess?" «You Are Okay» 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive

~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy (general incivility, biting newcomer)

~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2 - RfC closed following general agreement - WikiCivility generally improved allround.

At the moment no further censures are appropriate, but if the involved parties continue to engage in Personal Attacks additional measures may be required.

~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2

I did respond to "Do you play blitz chess?" -- I rightly responded that it was totally irrelevant for determining whether the link there should be there... and this newbie editor also edited to add similar improper links to other articles. So far all this person has done (on this account anyway) is spam some articles, complain when the spam was removed, ignore the policies explaining why it was removed, and jump into somehow digging up extremely old and unrelated RFCs to try to claim that some known problem editors who started them (all but a couple of the complainers in those early RFCs have since been permanently banned from Wikipedia for personal attacks, POV-pushing, vandalism, etc.). This complaint is similar to the other complainers: clear violators of WIkipedia policies trying to lash out at someone they perceive as an enemy instead of working to follow policies or try to resolve (or ignore) disputes. DreamGuy 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I realize the reason Wikipedia's chess pages are amateurish. DreamGuy writes the chess pages and doesn't play blitz chess. «You Are Okay» 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I wrote all the chess pages, that's it. :rolls eyes: And funny how the only thing you did to try to change the page was to add a spam link. The only reason I was even on that chess page was I saw you spamming other articles and went in to remove them and thought I'd check your edit history to see if you spammed anywhere else. My not playing blitz chess has nothing to do with you not following WP:COI and WP:EL, links to which I provided on your talk page immediately after removing your edits. DreamGuy 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not spam. UChess.com is a respected non-commercial chess site. Ask the opinion of any professional chess-player who plays 10 minute blitz chess. Chess is participation. Registration is unavoidable to calculate ratings and rank players. Akin to professional chess tournament leagues. «You Are Okay» 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, DreamGuy, WP:DNFTT. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for the comments. I will consider them. -Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not compulsory that evidence of disputed behavior involve the users certifying, see how previous RfCs have been run ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive «You Are Okay» 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~/WP:AN/I history shows more time wasted [6]

More time wasted at ~/WP:AN/I: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Are Okay (talk • contribs)

Who is wrote the above? El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the diffs you seek: [8] [9] You Are Okay (talk · contribs) has done nothing but spam and disrupt. There's not a single productive contribution. I suggest an indef block. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I warned this very new user to stay out of this dispute; s/he is only making things more complicated for naught. El_C 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It didn't work. 11 minutes after your warning, the trolling continued with this very unhelpful diff. [10] This is likely a sockpuppet of a long term disruptive editor. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; and we'll go from there. El_C 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser came back as "Unrelated" for Ideogram and You Are Okay. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ideogram. You Are Okay was blocked for disruption, not sock puppetry, so the block remains valid as I understand things. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Refractor madness

I've tried my best to handle the chaos that ensued on the RfC page during my absence. Conduct RfC rules must be enforced, from now on. El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to block BIGCANDICEFAN

Now, I'm not just picking on BIGCANDICEFAN, but this user has some very obvious alternate accounts, some of which have also posted on Talk:Candice_Michelle. As was stated on Deep Shadow's talk page, this user lurks about, edits pages about wrestlers, starts big flame wars, then just leaves, then comes back under a new account and repeats the cycle. Alot of his alternate accounts have something to do with Candice Michelle. So I'm proposing we block him, do a Checkuser, block any alternates and maybe block his IP for a bit. He's lashed out at me and several other users. Please forgive me if he's already been blocked, I haven't thoroughly checked the Block Logs and I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, although I am a regular Wikia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Падший ангел (talk • contribs) 06:35, August 8, 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should post this under suspected sock puppets aswell. James Luftan ^contribs 02:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image file misuse

It has come to my attention that the users of an anonymous message board for sharing ebooks has come up with the idea of using Wikipedia as a clandestine permanent host for files containing the complete text of copyrighted books. A common practice on anonymous imageboards that only allow posting of images is to share non-image files by compressing them as RAR archives and concatenating them with an image file. The result is an image file that displays like any other, but which can also be opened in most RAR software to extract whatever file it contains (in the case of ebooks, a text file, PDF or similar). So far, I have tracked three occurrences of this, all uploaded by one user:

• Image:Star Wars Republic Commando Triple Zero.jpg
• Image:Hard Contact.jpg
• Image:The Doh of Homer.jpg

Note the sudden jump in file size from the versions that have been replaced, due to the appended RAR files. If you save the full-resolution versions of any of these files and open them in a RAR program (you may have to change the extension from .jpg to .rar), you will find the complete text of each book concealed within the file as plain text files or PDF. 217.65.149.50 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's... very bizarre. I've checked all three, and when treated as RAR archives they do contain either PDF or TXT files that appear to me to be copyright violations. Will delete them all in a moment. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As for what we do about it in the longer term, I'm less certain about that. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You could poke someone with toolserver access to do a database query matching image file uploads (for the same image) with a difference in file sizes between one upload and the next over a certain threshold. --Iamunknown 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We've got a developer and several people with toolserver access scouring the database as we speak. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The user's entire talk page is a collection of vandalism warnings and copyvio notices, do the dunno response is unconvincing. I've placed a one week edit block on the account without prejudice: feel free to unblock if an explanation is forthcoming that holds water. Durova^Charge! 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The images in question have been reverted to earlier, clean versions (thanks Luna!) and our developers have scanned the database for similar files. Files located that contain warez will be reverted and deleted and the uploaders blocked. There will be consequences and repercussions! Also, try to take it easy on the EXIF data, guys. Really, 5 megs of EXIF data for a 50x50 pixel image? Eesh. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone did think there was modicum of plausibility to the "I didn't know officer" excuse, I was only led to those particular files by the fact that the user was bragging about what titles he had already uploaded on the imageboard where this idea was suggested ([11]). Of course, their idea was fatally flawed to begin with, relying as it would on keeping a list of what titles had been secreted on Wikipedia (perhaps they think Wikipedians don't venture onto the rest of the internet?). Anyway, it's moot now if the developers have come up with a way to spot concealed files, either by flagging incongruent file sizes or by scanning the files for the header structure of RAR or ZIP archives. Out of curiosity, and I realize you might not be able to answer this, were there many other files similarly concealed on Wikipedia? 217.65.149.50 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to give too much away, but at the moment there's a bot searching for rar'd files, and we're implementing some routines to make sure there's not overly much extraneous data in uploads. Off the top of my head, I can recall a couple mp3's and one rather small file (which should've been under 10k) that contained 50MB of game textures. ~Kylu (u|t) 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Well, it's good to know I've raised awareness of this potential avenue of abuse and, all being well, prompted the boffins into closing it off too. 217.65.149.50 14:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, damn good catch there 217.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given 217 a barnstar. Who says IPs can't receive them too? Props go where they're deserved. Keep up the good work. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator undeletion without appeal to DRV

User:Matt Crypto has unilaterally decided to undelete Christianity Explored without going through the deletion review process. I think that this may be something of an abuse of the mop and bucket. What do others think? --Nondistinguished 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-deleted the article and left him a note here. Hopefully he won't wheel war and he will take it to DRV. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt was quite clear why he undeleted the article. He has a point, although he didn't go through the proper motions to get the article undeleted. No need to immediately cry admin abuse, though.--Atlan (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:DP says: "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed." Now whether this provision applies in this case might be debated, and I think it is often unwise to invoke this even when it could apply. But not all undeltions of speedy deletions need go through WP:DRV. DES ^(talk) 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reveiwed the article as it ws before the latest deletion, and as it was when deleted by AfD back in 2005. I don't think it qualifies as a G4 speedy -- i thinmk it is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". I have asked User:^demon to consider undeleting, unless he would prefer that the matter be discussed on DRV. DES ^(talk) 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Complicated case, but I hope those reading this realize that administrators should not be going around undeleting articles without being careful in their research of the issues surrounding it. Matt may have been clear on the talkpage as to why he wanted to see the article undeleted, but DRV should be followed to preserve the integrity of the actions of Wikipedians who do not have the mop and bucket, but still have the best interests of the project in mind. In particular, I proposed this article for speedy deletion when I began constructing an AfD for it and realized in the process that it had already gone through one! There are two related deletion debates which took place with respect to this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Thornborough and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Book Company both of which resulted in deletion. In any case, I made a comment beneath User:DESiegel's comment on User talk:^demon to this effect. In short, both Matt and DES did not look into the matter as thoroughly as possible when making their independent determinations that the deletion was improper. This is why DRV is so important. Any other Wikipedian who wanted to see content reinstated would have to go through DRV. Administrators shouldn't be given a free pass to undelete content without asking for community input after a non-administrator took time to make a good-faith tagging of an article. --Nondistinguished 05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because it was tagged in good faith doesn't mean it's acceptable for the deleting admin to act on it without investigating stuff that the non-administrator who tagged it would not have known (such as, whether the content of the previously-deleted version is the same). A lot of people don't understand G4, and even when they do, they have no way of finding out for sure whether it applies without being an admin. Regardless of the tagging being in good faith, if it was nevertheless incorrect the article should NOT have been deleted. Even if any other user would have to go through DRV, such a DRV should be resolved as a _speedy_ overturn if in fact the only basis for deletion was an invalid G4. Undelete it and take it to AFD, it's not appropriate to turn DRV into "AFD lite". --Random832 11:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) is continuing to use his userpage for personal attacks on another Wikipedia user by name. This is the 2nd such page created this week, the first of which was deleted for containing copyvio information. Current attack page is modified to be within that policy in an attempt to be within policy, plus to add a purported innocent motive in response to recent WP:COI concerns.

This user has been asked several times to initiate dispute resolution instead of making personal attacks. User's edit history is mostly personal attacks against the same Wikipedia editor, plus edit warring and outright vandalism on articles edited by the same editor.

Page can be reverted trivially to a non-attacking version. My concern is the persistent attacking behavior, which has continued for months now. User's edits are seldom if ever constructive, and this user has been warned many times. / edg ☺ ★ 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

With vandalism templates? if he has been systematically and properly warned for vandalism, then a report to WP:AIV could genuinely be made. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is easily reverted. My concern is for months now this user has been honing personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a previous WP:ANI report about User:RodentofDeath inappropriately soapboxing in the userspace? This seems to ring a bell...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, or it might have been about Susanbryce (talk · contribs)... both seem to have a penchant for userspace soapboxing in their ongoing dispute.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bryce has removed most soapboxing, and seems to make good faith attempts to comply with whatever she is warned about. / edg ☺ ★ 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Susanbryce's soapboxing has been on the topic of the Philippines sex industry, whereas RodentofDeath's soapboxing has been repetitive defamatory personal attacks on Susan Bryce, calling Bryce a liar, pedophile, prostitute, childnapper, and insane person. Rodent's userpage has been deleted twice now, once for defamatation and attempted outing, another time for using copyvio in a page that also happened to be defamation of Susanbryce.

I don't wish to defend every edit Susanbryce (talk · contribs) has made, but it is frustrating to me that every complaint about RodentofDeath is met with the defense that Susanbryce probably did something to deserve this abuse. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is easily reverted. Rodent is unlikely to be banned for vandalism because he presents plausible good-faith explanations for disruptive edits, which will either get him off the hook entirely, or negotiate any sanctions to very light. My concern is for months now this user has been honing personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor.

Tagging won't fix this. A dozen or so warning templates have been appended to User_talk:RodentofDeath, and he has been banned once. This editor has learned to stop short of behavior that would mandate a ban; however, RodentofDeath sticks to an agenda that is entirely disruptive and has the effect of deterring editors from contributing. / edg ☺ ★ 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Has any form of dispute resolution been attempted with this editor? Also, I've notified the editor of this discussion--Isotope23 ^talk 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested a few times.[12] I've not seen much interest. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

the only "agenda" i have is to get rid of the lies posted on wikipedia about the city i live in. it seems that other editors are having a problem with the truth being posted and when the lies are taken out. when the truth is posted it gets labeled as an "Attack" for some odd reason. meanwhile, attacks and unfounded accusations are made not only on my city but now on me personally. my personal page has a press release from the Philippine Senate that comments on a smear campaign against my city. please comment on the posts and not the poster. thanks. RodentofDeath 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath was certainly given a chance here. Nothing came of it. However, since then Rodent has certainly been able to focus on personal attacks against Susanbryce. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

seems to me that the disagreement was between you and me and that a compromise was reached. it now seems that i am being accused of things i'm not doing, such as ip farming (still dont know what that is) and death threats. perhaps you need to go after the actual perpetrators of this instead of blaming it on me. RodentofDeath 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

im not too sure if im allowed to join in here, but if i am, id like to put forward what has happened as best as i can. i joined Wikipedia several months ago looking to be an active part of the community. Since then i have started several articles here on various subjects right across the board on the Philippines. ive also participated in other other articles. Im not an educated person, I never went to school, and english is my second language. i made some mistakes when i first joined due to harrasement by RodentofDeath. I didnt understand the way thinfs worked here and i was not getting an early support or advice, so some mistakes were made on my part, I admit it and I apoligize. But i sort out help from more experienced Editors I think starting with Phadeus86, from there numerous other Editors have been kind enough to guide me including Adhoc, Devalover and Edgarde. Ive always been giuded ny what they advised and followed that advice. I think I can safely say i have built a good working relationship with them all. Many of the subjects I touch on are difficult, but on advice from more experienced Editors im trying to contribute as best as I can. Over time I feel I have become a good Editor here on Wikipedia, im learning more all the time and im growing here and I hope to have a long future of many more articles on a wide range of topics. Almost from the beginning RodentofDeath set out with vile and degrading attacks against me. His postings on wikipedia have only been to hound me and nothing else, he has not contributed anything to wikipedia except attacking me. These attacks amount to the hndreds and hundreds over several months and still continue. Attacks against me include continuely calling me a prostitute, ifiot, lunitic, pedophile, etc. They are an attack against me as a human being and a woman and are set out to degrade, threaten, abuse , humiliate me, and i feel contain serious underlying threats to my life. i believe RodentofDeath has used multiple ip farming to attack me. its interesting that these same ip addresses are the ones that are sending death threats to my email including threats to rape and kill my daughter. Despite numerous pleas for help, i find these attacks against me in wikipedia are continuing. I contacted edgarde on this and asked if he could kindly refer this matter further. kind regards.Susanbryce 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I again ask if dispute resolution has been pursued by anyone in regards to the conflict between RodentofDeath & Susanbryce? If not it is time to start; the current status quo of editing between these two editors is not helpful to the Encyclopedia.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

she has a conflict of interest on the articles i am editing and shouldnt be editing them to begin with. RodentofDeath 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has been suggested a couple of times. I'd like to see a mediation between Susanbryce and RodentofDeath, but no one else seems keen on the idea. Since both parties seem to be reading this, I here endorse the idea again. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm nearly insistent that some form of dispute resolution happen here if both of these editors wish to continue editing here. I'm not particularly interested how this dispute even started but it needs to stop before one or both of you are blocked from editing here. dispute resolution is your best path to avoid this happening and I urge you both to agree to mediation. Continuing down the current path of incivility/personal attacks is not going to end well.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Im 100% happy for this to go to dispute resolution and fully support this resolution as I always have. I also gaureentee to abide by the outcome of the resolution.Susanbryce 14:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm a bit confused as to what exactly there is a dispute about that needs resolution. i posted a press release issued by the Senate of the Philippines that directly pertains to articles i am editing. in it it basically calls for the author of an internet petition to put up or shut up and disclose where atrocities in Angeles are actually happening or she will be considered to be running a smear campaign. press release has since been removed not because of content but because, unknowing to me previously, the "fair use" policy applies to articles only and not user pages. so where is the dispute now? RodentofDeath 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters, beyond simple fair use, you posted a press release in your userspace in regards to an ongoing series of article disputes you've had with another editor. That is soapboxing; besides, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not be an an aggregator of press releases.

From a very precursory look at the edit histories here I see quite a bit of incivility between you two though and I don't think removing that press release solves the root problem of the two of you constantly bickering over edits or accusing each other of malfeasance. This goes beyond simple article content dispute and seems to involve a fair bit of failure to assume good faith as well as bringing off-wiki disputes here and incivility towards specific editors. I urge dispute resolution because as I said above, if this behavior continues and escalates there is a very good chance that one or both of you will end up blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and if you two are unable to collaborate, come to some sort of civil agreement, or leave each other alone, then someone else will likely need to step in here.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to STOP once and for all these continuing verbal, vile and degrding attacks that RodentofDeath continues to post all over Wikipedia and till this point still continues? He seems to operate with total immunity and can post the vile and threatening attacks against me. Also, can we please have all these vile attacks he has posted removed? My daughter has read these, her school friends have read these. He continues to post over and over and over again in almost every post im a prostitiute, pedophile, etc. What have I ever done here on wikipedia to ever deserve this? PLEASE! im begging someone here to please stop this.Susanbryce 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? The response below is fairly incivil and unhelpful... but I'm not finding any evidence of "vile attacks"... if you can post page diffs here or at my talkpage I will look at them.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

response from rodentofdeath

ok, lets set the record straight here since we seem to be getting more lies and distortions already. When i started editing the article on the city i live in and subsequently the human trafficking article on the city i live in it was a complete mess. i politely went about trying to remove obvious lies such as 150,000 of Angeles's 280,000 residents are prostitutes. to save everyone the few seconds of brain power it would require to process that figure i can tell you that yes, that means more than half or all the residents (grandmas, grandpas, babies, girls, boys, teachers, police, etc) of the city are prostitutes. even when faced with obvious errors such as this it still became impossible to delete the error without a battle. the list of errors inserted into the articles is very long and wide-ranging. everything from lies saying the Angeles has the highest AIDS rate in the Philippines (it doesnt) to insisting this first class city be called a slum has been inserted into the article at every opportunity. even when presented with well documented facts from reliable sources the editor refused to face reality and instead resorted to accusing me of attacking her.

by far the largest lie inserted seems to be this ongoing obsession that angeles is filled with pedophiles, foreign gangs and rapists. of course angeles isnt actually filled with any of that so in order for her delusions to actually work there must also be a huge government conspiracy involving local, national and international governments and organizations. now when faced with the facts that there is either very little records of their being crimes of this type or the fact that there are no crimes of this type reported it simply becomes an unsubstantiated government conspiracy to cover it up. it also seems that a few other editors have an unusual reluctance to believe that angeles is NOT filled with pedophiles when faced with the facts, such as crime statistics or arrest records and now even senate inquiries that come up empty handed.

susan also at one time put a fictional story on her page. it was a rather absurd fictional story about a woman that heard a kid screaming as they were being put in a car and how she ran to pull this child away from the person putting them in the car. in the process of trying to kidnap the child she was stabbed multiple times. i later put a rather similar version of the same fictional story on my page with a slightly different view. it was of a woman that runs up to a car and tries to kidnap a child from the child's step-father resulting in the step-father defending his child from being kidnapped. this is what is apparently being considered an "attack" and it was deleted from my page. (its ok, i'm not fond of fiction anyway).

now let's get down to specifics of what i have said about susan. she claims i have continually called her:

a prostitute. the truth is i only called her a former prostitute. i only say this because it is true. it was her occupation at one time according to information she posted. she was born and raised in a brothel in a town filled with pedophiles and child prostitutes. it may even be her occupation now but i have no information about her current occupation so i will not venture a guess.

an ifiot. sorry, i dont ever recall calling you an ifiot. i'm dont even know what an ifiot is. for someone that claims to be a journalist i have noticed quite a few spelling errors on your part. in case you meant idiot instead of ifiot i also dont recall calling you that either. i may have said some of things you say are idiotic and i stand by that statement. if you can find where i called you an ifiot or an idiot please post a link so i can refresh my memory on what was being discussed.

a lunitic. dont recall calling you that either but i did call you a lunatic. i'm not sure what other word would be better to describe someone that thinks there are many people out to kill them, there are various government conspiracies, the media is trying to kill them, the philippine senate is against them and there are pedophiles gangs and rapists everywhere killing everyone in the city they come from. they are the only person that knows where everyone is being killed and so now everyone is out to get them. perhaps delusional would have been a better word. i actually stand by my assessment of your mental condition and i am sure others will agree (but perhaps only secretly!!). however, i do apologize not for my assessment of your mental state but for sharing my assessment of it with others.

a pedophile. sorry, i dont recall ever calling you a pedophile either. i do recall calling the priest you associate with a pedophile. you know which priest i mean, right? the one that was arrested for molesting the 9 year old girl and went into hiding rather than face charges?? its a good thing he didnt have to go to trial but instead got a pardon (from a secratary of the president while he was in the process being ousted in a coup). he was then able to come out of hiding. its all very well documented somewhere but not here on wikipedia. it got deleted, oddly enough.

i dont see how any of this equates to threatening you life as you claim it does. i also dont see how these four incidents could add up to hundreds and hundreds of threatening and humiliating posts. even if you math was bad i dont believe it could be that bad.

about this "multiple ip farming" thing.... i dont really understand that. Edg and now you have used this term and i honestly dont know what an ip farm is. perhaps i dont need to know the specifics seems it seems logical enough that you are accusing me of something else that i didnt do. again. i dont threaten people. thats silly as far as i am concerned. for what it worth i feel sorry for you if you are indeed getting death threats, although i have serious doubts that you are. i suggest you contact the authorities if you have not already. contact the ones that arent part of the conspiracy please.

i really dont care about your personal life, susan. all i know is what you post on the internet. things like you were born and raised in a brothel on fields that is still there, apparently. i dont care about you family life. i dont care what country you are in. i dont have nor do i want your email address. i simply dont care that much. my concern is correcting the lies you are posting on the internet about my city.

on a side note, wouldn't it be easier to tell everyone where the atrocities you post about are actually happening?? there are authorities that are trying to find and help the victims you post about but are unable to locate any signs of victims or illegal activities. please don't continue to delay in doing so.

sorry this is long winded but i feel its necessary to respond to these accusations. i wonder if it would be possible to keep these accusations all in one place so it does not continue to be spread out to other pages where it doesnt belong. RodentofDeath 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, but do you not understand how incivil much of what you've written above is? I mean you are deriding someone else over their spelling... it's wholly unnecessary, doesn't contribute to a collaborative effort, and frankly is juvenile. As I've stated above, you both need to enter into dispute resolution--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I misreported something. Apparently, Susanbryce has agreed to mediation several times, most recently on my Talk page.[13]

Would RodentofDeath agree to mediation? Most observers consider this a good idea. / edg ☺ ★ 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SURE!! what exactly are we mediating? RodentofDeath 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the content of Human trafficking in Angeles City would be a good idea.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ok. susan has a direct conflict of interest and should not be editing that article. anything else? RodentofDeath 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with original research from Rktect

I've just posted a note on Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s talk page about violation of WP:NOR. This user is adding a lot of detailed, unsourced material to articles about ancient places mentioned in the Bible, and has been doing so for some time. There has been a recent RFC on this user, but it hasn't moved anywhere. When this user writes a response on the article talk pages, it is clear that there is no real knowledge or expertise in Semitic languages or ancient history. This user has had a previous ArbCom ruling against him for doing this in a different area of the project. I don't really want to get bogged down in an ArbCom case, so I would like to know other users' thoughts and ask others to keep an eye on Rktect. — Gareth Hughes 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He's doing similar things in global warming, e.g., here where he uses a source that included an explicit qualifier that it should not be used as a source. He's also filling the talk page with off topic rambling about the Spanish-American War, the CIA, and so on. Raymond Arritt 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect. Another block is due. 80.176.82.42 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We've had similar problems in past weeks on a number of entries about regions or events related to the bible. Tewfik^Talk 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this is an ongoing problem. I just gave this user another block for re-adding nonsense after being warned to discuss first. — Gareth Hughes 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this guy is back on Wikipedia, he is an absolute bane. I thought this guy had left after his Arbitration case which also involved him constantly spouting his original research. That time, he kept on claiming that all weights and measures were descended from Ancient Egypt, such as the word acre coming from Aker (god). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rope stretcher and User:Federal Street for other crap he's caused. This guy is not good for Wikipedia. - hahnchen 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If this user appears to be broadening out original research into other areas, would it be possible for the old case to be re-opened and broadened to cover the issue? — Gareth Hughes 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try referring it to WP:CN if it is clear cut, or contact an arbitrator to see if they will request a motion on the prior case that the previous restrictions be broadened to deal with his current behavior. I don't know much about how ARBCOM determines when to extend sanctions, but a member of the committee or perhaps one of the clerks could give you more information on that.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

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

Closed per request -- Avi 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CLOSE AND DELETE (OR AT LEAST ARCHIVE) THIS SECTION? SOMEONE HAS FOUND AN OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE UK STATEMENT WITH THE DISPUTED SECTION INCLUDED. SO I WANT TO WITHDRAW THE ACCUSATION.--Peter cohen 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Most readers here will be aware that there is an ongoing POV dispute about the categorisation of Jerusalem and Category:Jerusalem as part of a much bigger dispute on Wikipedia about Israeli-Palestinian issues in general.

Today Amoruso made this change [14]. I at first took this to be just a selective quatation from the British government's Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) website [15]. The relevant section appears under the heading "THE UK POSITION ON JERUSALEM" in the second half of the page.

User:Timeshifter has now compared the two texts and has posted this [16]. If you look at the phrase Timeshifter has emboldened "but considers that the city should not again be divided", it appears in the quotation posted in the change by User:Amoruso but not on the FCO website.

When faced with a dispute, editors rely on their peers posting accurate information from external sources. Amoruso has not posted accurate information. Instead he has posted a quotation from a document which appears to official but is actually a doctored version of the official document intended to advance a point of view.

The posting of such Disinformation is unacceptable and a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia and the editorial discussions that taken place in it. Please could an uninvolved administrator take appropriate action?

Obviously the first stage is to assume good faith and see whether Amuroso picked the disinformation up from a third party source. However, the use of such material to undermine the normal process of editorial discussion must be addressed urgently.--Peter cohen

Have you already talked to the editor? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in this context, but I have previously directed him to that very FCO page. Se my post at [17]. I'm afraid that I find it hard to believe that he could accidentally post the misquotation having been given a direct link to the officaial statement only a couple of days earlier. I'm sorry if it might seem a breach of Wikiquette, but my judgment is influenced by the following factors.

Earlier today I saw this post drawing attention to a campaign from outside to influence the content of Wikipedia [18]

Comments by Amoruso above in #Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem make me feel that he is not interested in honest debate. For example, "It's not difficult to see that Peter Cohen is talking about something completely different which is whether Jerusalem is recognised as Israel's capital or not." is a similar distortion of what I was saying as the distortion of the FCO comment. I had stated there that the status of Jerusalem as in Israel was disputed by the UK as a simple check back will prove.

Then, "I'll WP:AGF and remember the rule that this is not malice, but simply lack of knowledge on his part on the issue" hints at my being malicious and then says my views should simply be dismissed because I'm ignorant. "Wikipedia is not a place for such propaganda of Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi websites." suggests that Timeshifter, is a neo-Nazi supporter and perhaps I am too.

Then reverts such as this [19] accuse editors of having made "offensive" contributions.

As I said before, this needs an uninvolved and impartial administrator involved. --Peter cohen 19

20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really rise to the level of needing ANI intervention. However, you've raised a valid question about the quote, and I asked him on his talk page to explain the source and why the versions differ.

Please keep in mind that ANI is not a user conduct complaints board except for extreme situations; someone merely having misrepresented or misquoted a source on a talk page, even on purpose, isn't really all that extreme of a problem. Georgewilliamherbert 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no misquotation. I have to say it's hard to WP:AGF since the person went here and not to my talk page (which George was kind enough to do). It's therefore a lie and the person raising this issue in a slanderous way should be reprimanded, hopefully with a ban for wasting ANI's time. See the proof here: [20] or read the source directly word by word: [21] Amoruso 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:I now noticed peter Cohen's comment on the top of the section. But I'm afraid it's not enough. Peter cohen should be banned for taking it here in the first place and not even apologizing. Amoruso 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By pure coincidence, knowing nothing about this AN/I, I had some concerns about edits by User:Amoruso at Patria. As a result of which I took "Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor?" to RfC. PalestineRemembered 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered was previosuly banned for indefinite time "(Fraudulent citations and repeats of other past misbehavior, user has had plenty of chances.)" and then "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Based on discussion at WP:AN/I and WP:CN)" and "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Reblocking per breach of his unblocking terms)"... Amoruso 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I apologise for the slur on Amoruso's character and for leaping to conclusions and making 2+2=4. (I think the links given in the original complaint show why I thought 2+2=5.) My request for the deletion was because I didn't want the title of this thread to continue to be visible. Because this is an administrative conference and the thread already had comments by third parties I was wary of deleting it myself. I thought that putting a request in capital letters at the top of the thread was best for drawing attention to is. But the thread is still here. Now it contains a complaint against me, I'm even more wary of doing so. If complainants are allowed to delete or doctor the text of the complaint as part of withdrawl of the complaint in a more substantial, then please let me know on my talk page.--Peter cohen 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

List of Ministers of the Universal Life Church

82.13.141.197 (talk · contribs) continues to add a non-notable, and non-verified person to the list. GreenJoe 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• User was warned. I'll keep an eye on the article, if it continues I'll place a temp block or semiprotect the article. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm notable. Can someone add me to the list? Or do I have to find my card first? But seriously, even notable people shouldn't be listed without a citation to a reliable source. I'd recommend fact tags or removals for all of them. Dicklyon 23:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See the debate started here for that issue. But basically, even lists have to indicate the notability of their entries. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 12:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide being removed

I'd appreciate it if someone would look over this. User:Atabek has been removing every reference to the Armenian genocide in many articles or putting words such as "alleged" in front, all today: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

Thanks.Hajji Piruz 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree block him immediately! this is not necessary!!! --85.18.242.26 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see [41] he is removing Armenian Genocide everywhere! --85.18.242.26 22:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't see how the term "Armenian Genocide" is supposed to be a fact, rather allegations of it are. Can you point me to Wikipedia rule that says that allegations of "Armenian Genocide" cannot be questioned? I did not remove the reference, but only replaced it with Armenian Massacres, which is more correct definition and points to the same page. According to the UN convention, genocide is a crime, for any crime there must be a court which identifies the content and victim of the crime and charges those responsible. Otherwise, it remains an allegation. I would also like to highlight that the person reporting me is a party to current ArbCom [42], charged with assumptions of bad faith, battling along ethnic and national lines, wikistalking and other forms of disruptive editing. His listing of my contributions above is another fine example of his Wikistalking documented here [43]. Thanks. Atabek 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are canvassing with irrelevant information. Are you not also in an arbcom? Yes you are, and this is in no way anything what you call it to be. This is the removal of the term Armenian genocide on mass on many articles based on your own interpretation and on what you would like it to be. The term Armenian Genocide is widely used and accepted.Hajji Piruz 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"for any crime there must be a court which identifies..." Uh, no. Murder is murder, even if the murderer is never convicted (we just need really really good sources to say that he is, the BLP thing and all). Same with genocide when there is insurmountable evidence, no matter how many people claim it is merely "alleged" (even if it's the government of Turkey!). The use of the word is in complete violation of WP:NPOV. Someguy1221 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The allegation here is the term not the fact. And that's why I replaced it with Massacres in most cases, because that's what they were. Genocide is legal definition which was never attributed on legal basis, in fact the very term of "genocide" per UN Convention was defined in 1940s. So using "genocide" word as a fact is an utter violation of NPOV as it only represents the position of a single side in this dispute and obviously attributes a certain non-neutral political stance to Wikipedia as a source. Atabek 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Genocide definitions? Anyway, Wikipedia is not bound to UN decisions. If many independent, reliable sources call it a genocide, so can we. Someguy1221 00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Wikipedia bound to take POV of a single side in a rather controversial issue. So the usage of the word "alleged" was definitely NOT a vandalism. And I am not even mentioning the fact that scores of non-Armenian people also perished in the region during the same time. Per comment below, this will be my last on the topic on this page. You can post your opinions on the subject on relevant content pages. Thanks. Atabek 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: Do not export your content disputes to this page. —Kurykh 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IP complaining about an established user's POV? That's new. Will ^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Two points. The IP backup, i agree, is odd, but probably a different issue. As to this being a content dispute, I find it difficult to write things off as content disputes when they spread to multiple pages and involve unusual POVs being pushed. Calling the events 'alleged acts of Armenian Genocide' is about as neutral as 'the supposed Holocaust'. It's a ridiculous whitewashing and revisionist action. There are numerous sources to cite for the term. Further, Atabek's wiki-lawyering above, about how crimes need to be tried in court and proven guilty, etc., etc., isn't a good faith discussion point, but a 'gotcha' attempt.

To get back on the major point, though. I find it troubling that editors, often newer ones but not always (the Indian/Pakistani editors and the Palestinian/Israeli editors, for example), bring major efforts to push POV across entire subjects here, encompassing numerous articles, and though regular AN/I editors KNOW it will be back as soon as some rule is violated, we throw it back, saying 'content dispute, try WP:3O or WP:DR or WP:RfC', instead of addressing the offending editor's obvious POV pushing, what ever that Agenda may be. We know it'll kick back to us when somene breaks Godwin's Law, or 3RR, or some other mess. Why do we delay? On a single article, kicking it for 3O or DR makes a lot of sense, but project wide revisionisms could be headed off here more easily than on 15 different article pages, which smacks of forum shopping, because you can probably find the two ends of the spectrum on any topic here, and have two relatively unique groups of regular editors. Convince one that your way is right, then bring it to the other group as consensus for your edit, and it gets messy. Further, doing this on 10 to 15 pages means you get a lot of chances to 'get your way', giving you a toehold to push some agenda, especially if you push it on a quiet page, then claim that no one reverted, therefore consensus. Stepping in at this point is treacherous and muddy water. Instead, why can't we step in now, asking the involved parties to create a single user talk or wikiproject subpage for such discussion, and holding it all in one place, notify all relevant pages, and let them work it out centrally, but with our awareness? I really am serious, and really would like an answer as to why there's no attempt at proactivity with such editors. The sooner they're talked to, the less 'dug in' their heels are, and the more we can reach them, to help them out, or stop them. ThuranX 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it could be argued that Atabek's behavior violates the spirit, if not the letter, of his 1RR parole. It certainly would be actionable under this proposal currently under consideration by ArbCom. Thatcher131 12:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, could you explain under this proposal, which you mentioned above, how does the statement: "should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise." apply in this case? Did I not maintain a reasonable degree of civility in my interactions with another user in the given set of edits? If so, can you please, outline the facts of incivility, so I can perhaps, review my behavior. Thanks. Atabek 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I can tell there is no real dispute that the Armenian Genocide occured. Adding alleged before it is whitewashing and extremely disruptive. The Arbcom thing just settles it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

VOicing some editor (non-admin) support for both Thatcher131 and Jester's comments. ThuranX 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again as I explained, "alleged" in my edits applied to the term "genocide" not to the fact of massacre. I believe Wikipedia often prohibits the frivolous use of WP:WTA words, like terrorist, etc. without source, even in cases when the organization is established as terrorist. In this case, "genocide" word is being applied to the "massacre" without any legal basis, but simply based on political and not legal definitions, and is being used as a political tool rather than an impartial attempt to identify the events. Going even further, the user is being blamed for merely bringing up the opposition to non-neutral POV with threats of being blocked? Atabek 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Atabek is wiki-retaliating[44] there is no doubt that this was an answer to Azizbekov's recent edits on Azeri related articles[45]. Azizbekov seems to be an Azeri who's interested in Azeri involvment in Nazi Germany. Most of Azizbekov's edits were on the Azerbaijani legion, Atabek edit on Armenian Legion was simply a retaliation. I just wonder, given that Atabek has probably broken most of Wikipedia's policies, is there anything left to convince you that he should at least be blocked for 24 hours? VartanM 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be relevant to analyze user:VartanM removal of referenced info without discussion on this page [46] about Armenian Nazi Legion--Dacy69 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That was good one Dacy69, perhaps you should look at the talkpage of the article before claiming such ridiculous claims. This was posted in the talkpage 10 minutes after [47]

Thuranx, I never denied Holocaust, the fact of which was established by Nuremberg trials, a legal process, which identified the victims and punished those responsible for this crime against humanity. So I don't see the point for your comparison. And in Armenian case, I added alleged to the claim of political and legal term "genocide" NOT to the fact of "massacre". In fact, most of my edits on those pages replaced genocide with massacre, thus claiming that I deny it as a fact do not have a basis. This has to do with legal definitions, and in situation when the other side of the dispute is rejecting the term "genocide", the usage of this term is not neutral and is simply an imposition of a viewpoint in Wikipedia as a fact. Using it against me in ArbCom case is even more ridiculous, provided that numerous cases of major removal of sourced material [48], [49] with reinsertion of OR instead here [50] are simply being overlooked and I am being blamed for simply opposing a non-neutral point. If this will be used against me in ArbCom, I reserve the right to further pursue the case with Wikipedia until proven NPOV. I believe this project is supposed to be impartial not pushing POV of single national group against another nation and country. Atabek 14:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Voicing support for Jester and Thatcher - the genocide is only in dispute in Turkey; not even so, since nobody is allowed to talk about it there. It would be more POV to not call it a genocide. I also note I studied this genocide in my human rights law class in law school. --David Shankbone 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this breaches out of the realm on content dispute and into the realm of boldfaced trolling. Anyone putting "alledged" in front of the Holocaust of the Armenian Genocide (or other confirmed genocides) as well as a host of other "probably citable but blatantly inappropriate" substitutions isn't acceptable, and is a "blocking" offense. I could probably dig up some old dictionary that'd justify changing black people to niggers whereever the phrase occured, but if I did this, I should be blocked without hesitation. WilyD 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this is rollback-able per WP:SNOW. If Atabek really thinks he can get consensus for his approach, let him seek it first, by debating on talkpages. If he doesn't, his edits are trolling, and he should be warned, and blocked if he persists. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just present this wealth of sources that every third person studied in college that states "genocide" as opposed to massacre. The issue as presented has nothing to do with if many people died, it has to do with sourcing the term genocide it seems to appropriate people. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide has 84 references, Recognition of the Armenian Genocide has another 30 - that the Armenian Genocide happened, that it was a genocide is not seriously disputed. It's disputed roughly on the same level that the Holocaust happened, and that the Holocaust was a genocide is disputed. WilyD 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this isn't the place to discuss this. The upshot is: present your case at Talk:Armenian genocide first, achieve consensus, and then start changing terminology all over Wikipedia. This noticeboard is not the place to discuss sources, it is the place to report editors who disruptively fail to discuss sources. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Holocaust has nothing to do with this case, as indicated above, the fact of it was established by Nuremberg trials. In any case, if that's the conclusion, then I would kindly suggest for all those justifying the "genocide" definition in this case, to create a separate page or issue a Wikipedia rule/injunction, which says "Armenian Genocide" is recognized in Wikipedia community and denial of the term "genocide" in application to these massacres is punishable by restriction or blockage. And I think all those opposing such claim (possibly counting in millions) must be made aware of this rule ahead of time as well, as such restriction is clearly new to me. Otherwise, haunting contributors, without rule, and based merely on their opinion and position over a controversial issue, does not seem to be very productive or educational.

Also, the comment: "the genocide is only in dispute in Turkey; not even so, since nobody is allowed to talk about it there. It would be more POV to not call it a genocide" - do you call something white because someone else calls it black or because you are provided with sufficient basis to believe it should be called white?

I will post on this subject no more. Thanks. Atabek 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, had you ever participated in the talkpage of that articles you would see that the usage of Armenian Genocide was shown to be appropriate and even Turkish veteran users don't revert or remove them. The fact of the Armenian genocide was established by a Turkish martial court who sentenced the Ittihadist leaders to death, the same leaders who were too coward to attend their own trials but left their lawyers to defend them. Insteed they moved to Germany seeking asylum. The International Association of Genocide Scholars which includes all major historians studying war crimes and genocides unanimously recognize it as a genocide. The only report by the UN including cases and examples of genocides included the Armenian case before Turkey threatened and messed the whole thing. The UN as a consequence has no official document voted which specifically includes the examples of genocide. See you in the talk page of Armenian Genocide VartanM 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Deleting My comments and Lying About It

An editor, Gtadoc, is behaving unethicallly, in extreme bad faith, and probably vandalizing a Talk page. The following events have taken place in Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki:
1) I left a comment calling him dishonest (also giving the reasons, and restating the reasons for my version of the edit).
2) He deleted the entire comment (not merely the accusation of dishonesty).
3) I restored the comment, and told him not to delete editor comments on Talk pages.
...a few days passed...
4) He deleted the entire comment again (not merely the accusation of dishonesty)
5) He added a comment that I am the one who deleted my own post, in order to remove my "personal attacks" from the record. He followed this with an accusation of dishonesty.

The utterly unaceptable, unethical act is the attempt to attribute his deletion of my comment to me, as a way of propping up an accusation of dishonesty. All ability to assume goood faith ends at that point. It is a deliberate attempt to tear down my reputation. I believe the deletions are also vandalism, as I doubt a claim of dishonesty meets the standard of personal attack that justifies deleting another editor's comments. And in any case, he should not be deleting all the other parts of my comment.

Here is the diff that shows the edit deleting my comment and the addition of his suggestion that I deleted my own comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=149994708&oldid=149990048 Bsharvy 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you called him dishonest. The definition of "dishonest" is, according to dictionary.com, "not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief". Calling someone dishonest is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. You may believe he or she is dishonest, but this is a collaborative project; to work in a collaborative atmosphere, sometimes you simply have mince your words. You could have said, "You are misrepresenting my actions. (1) The changes I made were precededed ...." Phrasing your statement like that at least makes it appear that you are at issue with his or her actions, as opposed to his or her person (by saying he or she is dishonest). I agree that you should be able to restore your comment, but perhaps you can rephrase it? --Iamunknown 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That kinda doesn't make any sense. If I think someone lied, I should instead say, I think they misunderstood me? So they can say, yeah thats what it was, and get off about lying? This idea of lying to everyone, so you do not seem like you are violating WP:AGF defeats the point. You should AGF until the point where you obviously no longer, then you call it, calling a spade a spade. WP:SPADE --SevenOfDiamonds 23:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling calling somebody dishonest "the ultimate assumption of bad faith" seems odd. But the Iamunknown dude has a point. Simply, yes, even if you're pretty sure somebody is dishonest, try to avoid calling him dishonest. Whatever the rights and wrongs of calling him dishonest, it's unlikely to advance your aims. Avoid accusations of dishonesty, however blazingly obvious the dishonesty may be, unless/until matters reach this stage.

I haven't yet looked at the talk page in question. The "real world" calls; I hope others will take a look. -- Hoary 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I probably shouldn't have been so hyperbolic. I am sure there are other worse assumptions of bad faith. But it is true, nonetheless, that calling someone "dishonest" is an assumption of bad faith, because you are stating that they neither can nor should be trusted. --Iamunknown 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds, what has "calling a spade a spade" in this case done other than to inflame the situation? Why is it appropriate? Is it ever appropriate? There are more collegial and collaborative ways to say, "You're a liar", than to say, "You're a liar". Like, for example, "You are misrepresenting the situation." Semantics, yes, but it does wonders when you are trying to work in a collaborative environment. --Iamunknown 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If everyone in the environment is aware that "You are misrepresenting the situation." is equal to "You're a liar", then it kind of defeats the point of pleasantries. I do see your point, please do not think I do not. But telling someone here, to lie to everyone when they are trying to have admins look at a situation, is pointless. If someone comes and says "John seems to not understand what I am saying", then admins will tell them to explain differently. If you however are honest, to yourself, and to those you are attempting to seek help from, it helps them to get at what point the situation is. I see on this page often, admins calling people trolls and vandals, and other terms, it is odd to see people now saying "liar" is bad, when they are comparing people to mystical ugly beasts that live under bridges. But as I said, in other areas where the point of collaboration is still active, I get it, however when that collaboration has ceased due to AGF being lost, which is different then never having been assumed in the first place, then it is time to seek help by stating everything honestly. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect it's obvious that announcing his dishonesty didn't help (even though it was accurate). But that is really not the point. I am not asking for administrative action because he deleted my comment. Much, much more serious is his (dishonest) assertion that I am the one who deleted my own comment, so that he can then make false accusations against me (I am trying to hide my "personal attack"...am being dishonest myself, etc.). That is not merely aggressive words where softer words would be better: that is an absolute end to good faith. In any case, I am becoming obsessed with this, so I am going to take a 24 hour break from Wikipedia. But the level here has escalated beyond what a mere undo by me can fix.Bsharvy 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, To start, I think it says a lot that this complaint was posted w/o the complaining editor notifying me of it. As I've been told of it by another editor I'll post here briefly. I've deleted numerous posts by Bsharvy after he created what appears to be a single purpose account in order to disrupt the page on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Random personal attacks were inserted all over the place so I deleted any of them I found, what he posted here was probably one of the more mild ones, I tried not to delete anything that was an actual comment that was just written in an imflamatory way. After Bsharvy was blocked for 3RR and disruption he then also went back and cleaned up after himself (which is fine, as I prefer the page w/o the vandalism but wasn't going to spend each day looking for it and deleting it) and at one point requested for his usertalkpage to be protected to keep admins and editors from leaving warnings and block messages about his edits. At first several editors tried to hold discussions with him but its become clear to the editors that have been putting effort into the page for a while now that Bsharvy's edits are the classic "refusal to get to the point" edits and several of us have simply grown tired of repeating ourselves. In any event, I have very little time to work with WP as it is, much less deal with disruptive editors, which probably accounts for why I didn't get an admin involved with that page earlier. Gtadoc 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I don't like to call admins "rogue", but this certainly needs further attention. Lately, Nick has been threatening to block established users reporting usernames violations to UAA because they were "erroneous". A user requested an explanation, and then Nick gave a nasty reply [51]. I politely told him to calm down and stop the threatening. He then removed the thread, I reverted, asking for an explanation, and then he blanked the thread once again calling me a troll. I told him to stop, he reverted me, and then protected his talk page. This needs to stop. --Boricuaeddie 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's clearly unacceptable. I expect complaints that you haven't done enough to protect him from trolls to follow within the hour. -Amarkov moo! 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that threatening to block people is unacceptable. However I have to say that, reinserting a message that a user has blanked is unlikely to help! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

While the behavior in question is slightly distressing, the full-protection of his talk page is definitely not acceptable. Admins need to be open for discussion, given the many actions they are able to do which may confuse, or be disputed by non-admin users. --Haemo 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He has already unprotected it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a crusade to overhaul WP:UAA. I'm all for it if folks are getting upset but there are three or four admins that are being downright obnoxious about it all. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said many times today, users filing inaccurate reports on the WP:UAA noticeboard, completely without following policy, are costing Wikipedia tens to hundreds of potentially good editors every week. If users will not follow policy on a process which has a tremendous impact on new users (and indeed, may be their first experience of Wikipedia) then preventative measures need to be taken against users who refuse or simply are unable to follow the letter (and spirit) of our username policy. Blocking a user is never something I take lightly, despite the protestations from the above user. Nick 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with blocking users that do not follow policy. I have a problem with the fact that your not assuming good faith and attacking users by uncivilly telling them that their reports are wrong and calling me a troll. --Boricuaeddie 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sorry Nick but your argumrnt doesn't hold up. 'Reporting a username does not bite a newbie. An admin blocking it innapropriately certaily does. Is there a problem with the admins? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa hits the nail on the head here. The whole point of UAA as a system is to avoid new users being hastled when their username is actually fine. All that happens if a valid username is reported is that admin removes it from UAA - they can follow up with the reporter if necessary. That way new users with valid names aren't bitten. It only causes problems if admins are actually blocking usernames that aren't violations. But that would be an issue with those individual admins, not with the reporters or the system... WjBscribe 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reporting is the first step. If a report is made and the user knows nothing about it, there's not a problem, it's when they're templated and told "I think your username might not be comply with our policies". That causes the problems. Who here would have stayed around if they saw that on their talk page after just a couple of minutes here. How many users can't even find their way through to the discussion page. It's a big problem. Admins are probably being careless in blocking too many of the reports too, but that's a little more difficult to determine, how many username blocks originate from WP:UAA would need a little research, as indeed, would the number of editors templated to see how many edited afterwards. Nick 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but... That's an interesting viewpoint. Mainly because User:Rspeer at UAA talk says everyone should be templated first, and that that's the less bitey way. Grandmasterka 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the policy says nothing about discussing with the user first in all cases. The person who says "I don't need to read the policy, I just need common sense" will be whacked with a Cluestick until they regain the common sense they claim to have. -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) Well the crusade at WP:UAA is starting to sour established users on Wikipedia. I can't imagine that's any better than souring new users on Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 4)Nick there really is no need to warn a user so severely for posting a username in good faith on that board. The user you warned warned has not really caused any disruption at that board and mostly been posting usernames with no malice detectable. But Theresa is quite right about reinserting the talk page items in a pushy manner, which I can understand would cause you some stress and annoyance. Still Nick these actions are a bit harsh and bite-ish in all do respect.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Threatening to block a user for making a single erroneous report seems more than a little bit extreme. --Haemo 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The threat of a block probably was a bit pointy-ish in all fairness. Nick 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I can't believe this. The discussion was still open and he was constantly removing them without intention of archiving it. What was I supposed to do? --Boricuaeddie 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, my actions are justified. WP:TALK#Others.27_comments says you should not remove other's comments without a good reason. He removed my comments without a reason and then called me a troll. That's not exactly good. --Boricuaeddie 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that's not good. That doesn't mean that reverting is the correct course of action. You should have brought it up here first, instead of just reverting him. -Amarkov moo! 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe in discussion before reporting someone here. If the problem can be solved without posting it here, then it should. --Boricuaeddie 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:TALK is meant mainly for article talk pages, and is applied more loosely to user talk pages. It wasn't exactly civil of him, but it's not a clear violation, given the latitude users have on their own talk pages. I would have probably just started another thread, rather than reverting. --Haemo 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that I shouldn't have reverted him, but that's no reason to call me a troll and protect his page. --Boricuaeddie 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody is saying that it does. -Amarkov moo! 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Having been a recipient of Nick's "pointy-ish" threats of blocks and one actual block, I agree that his threats of blocks and actual block were discouraging. Established presences here seem to get a lot of leeway on the expectation of civility and requirement to assume good faith. David in DC 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether Nick was right or not in what he did, Boricuaeddie was totally out of line. I quote Thatcher from not-too-long-ago below:-

Please be advised that under the user page policy, "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. Please note, though, that the removal of good-faith warnings, even though permitted, is often frowned upon." Also, following much discussion, particularly Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, there is no consensus that removing even legitimate warnings from one's own talk page is vandalism. Obviously if removal of legitimate vandal warnings is permitted then the removal of unwelcome discussion is also permitted. The broad consensus among admins is that we will not block a user for violating 3RR on his own talk page or for removing warnings, but we will, if necessary, block users who violate 3RR on another editor's talk page or who harass that editor with continued discussion when discussion is unwanted ... since every editor has broad discretion over his or her own user and user talk pages, I suggest you stop [reverting the message back in].

To that, I agree 100%, and I would suggest that Boricuaeddie never does anything like what he did on User talk:Nick again or he may find himself blocked for harassment and/or edit warring. Daniel→♦ 06:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, Daniel. I agree that Boricuaeddie might not have done the wisest edit with the revert, but it isn't in line with a block for harrassment. --DarkFalls ^talk 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He has now been warned. If he continues to disrupt User talk:Nick by reverting to readd messages removed by Nick, I will be left with no choice. I've seen more experienced contributors be blocked for similar or even less reverting, with the same rationale, and interestingly both of the blocks were endorsed. I cannot fathom how, should he continue to revert to readd messages despite Nick making it clear he finds it harassing, a block would be too harsh. Daniel→♦ 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't aware of the messages he was reverting, and re-adding... --DarkFalls ^talk 07:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't re add after this discussion started, and in fact has already stated "I understand that I shouldn't have reverted him" further up in this discussion. Daniel threatening to block over one mistake like this is way OTT in my opinion. Blocking is a last resort only in cases like this.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I said that if Boricuaeddie reverts it back in again (considering his constant assertions that Nick was in the wrong to remove it, and not him), I will then block. I decided to warn him in an attempt to be proactive rather than reactive, because I'd prefer to see Nick stay contributing to Wikipedia rather than be driven off by a second round of reverting. Daniel→♦ 09:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In this thread other users had already told Boricuaeddie that he was wrong to revert. Four hours before your post, Boricuaeddie acknowledged that feedback and agreed he was wrong to do so. Your threat was unneeded and counterproductive. There was no indication that he was planning on continuing and you should have taken his acknowledgment of the previous feedback in good faith. Removal of user talk comments is something that confuses many people. Education is better than threats. -- JLaTondre 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"FYI, my actions are justified. WP:TALK#Others.27_comments says you should not remove other's comments without a good reason. He removed my comments without a reason and then called me a troll. That's not exactly good. --Boricuaeddie 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)". I stand by my statement that I will block Boricuaeddie in the event that he reverts again - if he doesn't, then there's no issue, right? I'd rather state my intention now in the hope to prevent an incident occuring rather than having it as a shock. I also stand by the fact that, having seen no retraction of the statement that Nick was wrong and he was right (if he has retracted it in another medium then I am less concerned), I felt (and still feel) outlining my intentions in the event that there were further reverts was a correct course of action. If you digress with the latter, then, we merely have different styles. Daniel→♦ 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

His acknowledgment, which Theresa Knott pointed out to you, was after that one, at 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC). Disagreeing with someone's style has no bearing on AGF. I am assuming good faith on your part, but wish you would apply it to Boricuaeddie. -- JLaTondre 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised this hasn't been archived already, after-all an admin is involved! Anyway both parties just need to calm down and move on. The discussion just got out of hand, but clearly the ban threat is biting badly.--Dacium 12:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My God. Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia where an administrator abuses his power by threatening to block without warning, you try to discuss it, you get called a troll, you report it, you're threatened once again, and the admin gets away with it. *Sigh* Let's just archive this. --Boricuaeddie 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am on your side. I was expressing surprise that it had not been archived and infact had actually been given a fair go, rather than the usual archive and message that it has been solved, somewhere in private.--Dacium 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm, please. You reported it, you got agreement that Nick was out of line, but you also got told that you could have done something better too. Please don't expect to be able to criticize without being able to receive criticism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I expected criticism. What I didn't expect was that the discussion is now about me, not Nick's actions. --Boricuaeddie 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when you complain about the admins most likely to mess up, the discussion inevitably ends up about why you shouldn't have provoked him. That's one of the things you just have to deal with, because it wouldn't be worth the effort even if you could change it. -Amarkov moo! 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has been leveling personal attacks against other editors in the past few days despite multiple warnings.[52](Diff includes multiple posts) He attempts to justify some of them with the reasoning that "it is not possible to 'personally' attack an anonymous IP address."[53][54] Even if that logic made sense, he also abuses registered editors by calling them lazy[55] and idiots.[56] He even admits to making personal attacks in the same sentence that he makes another one.[57] Although his talk page claims that he is currently blocked,[58] this tag is deceptive because it's self-imposed[59]. He admitted that he may not be able to resist coming back until after he cools down.[60] Could somebody talk to him about this abusive pattern, remind him that there really are people behind the IP addresses, and that personal attacks against any editor are not justified by his own bias against non-registered users? 24.6.65.83 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done - blocked 48 hours for NPA by User:Chairboy - Alison ☺ 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's still at it on his talk page. He persists in calling editors lazy and nobodies from nowhere. As an real person who exists in a real location, I find it denigrating. 24.6.65.83 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then grow a thicker skin. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. I gather by that response that it's okay to call editors lazy and nobodies. Good information to have. 24.6.65.83 10:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. But he's already blocked, so there's hardly anything that can be done... Just some advice, but if he is causing you trouble, just ignore him. --DarkFalls ^talk 10:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 evading block using IP - 2nd time

Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to evade a block by posting logged out from a non-fixed IP address. This time using 212.126.143.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The posts also contain personal attacks and reveal private & confidential information about me. Regards Bksimonb 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you request permanent deletion of this edit according to the instructions at WP:RFO. Od Mishehu 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The information itself is not damaging to me and doesn't need to be deleted. What is more of a problem is that he is able to find out what internal mailing lists I am on and what meetings I have attended within an organisation I belong to and then use this information with intent on Wikipedia to, it seems, embarrass, discredit or menace me. I've always been open about my affiliations but this kind of detail is just creepy and gratuitous. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 10:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

212.126.143.106 was blocked for 24 hours by User:Isotope23. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite attempts to discuss, IP continues to editorialize

Resolved

The IP user in question is 24.185.136.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As should be evident from the history of Kashmiri people, this IP has been adding and re-adding his personal opinions and editorial comments about the article every day for almost two weeks. I've tried to reason with this user. At first I explained in the edit summaries, and eventually decided to leave the user a message on his talk page (User talk:24.185.136.255#Kashmiri people). Later, when a source (finally) became involved in his "Dear Editor" vandalism, I attempted to open discussion on it by adding this section to the article talk page, and informed him of this [61]. Unfortunately, he has not acknowledged any of my attempts and continues to add his editorial comments to the article.

So, it is with disappointment that I ask for a block on this user. I'm not sure about the length - per User talk:24.185.136.255#June 2007, this is not the first time that the IP has disrupted in this way. In any case, a block is warranted not only to prevent the daily vandalism, but also to (hopefully ) better communicate to him that vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for any help with this matter. The Behnam 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Is anyone able to handle this situation, or will I again receive the honor of seeing the editorial remarks re-added to the article tonight? I think I'm gonna cry... The Behnam 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I sprotected the article for now until I can look into this further.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Kashmiri people article has been semi-protected by User:Isotope23 which should prevent editing from IP's. Note that this IP has been blocked in the past for vandalism at Khatri, which is now semi-protected as well. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. The Behnam 18:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User:PalestineRemembered

I've been having a problem with User:PalestineRemembered over his insistence to make claims for me or about me to other editors on talk pages of articles.

this behavior seems (to me) to be a direct follow up to more general libelous claims regarding israel, an issue which i noted to him and received some stubborn responses to.

after a number of notes, requests, and warnings i found that i cannot resolve this issue without taking it to the noticeboard, so i issued a final notice that i am reporting this issue.

the chronological order of notes the user's talk page is:

• soapbox - list of warnings/notes

• this is getting ridiculous

• no alternative

note: i suggest going over them from the most recent

i would appreciate some assistance on getting the user to change this offensive behavior.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading through some of his postings, I am against blocking User:PalestineRemembered. He/she might have a different POV on those issues, but he/she is providing good references [62][63][64][65][66] and blocking users with a different POV will work against establishing a NPOV article. --Raphael1 11:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to blocking this user. --Eidah 12:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raphael1 and Eidah, and respectfully suggest that Jaakobou take this to WP:DR if he really feels that he needs to pursue this further. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Raphael1, i was refering to him making incorrect accusations about me (and not referencing them), not to the way he works with content inside the articles.
2. User:Eidah, i'd rather hear what you suggest to change his behavior over what you think should not be done.
3. User:Abu ali, this is not a content dispute, but an issue of problematic behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that all of the previous commentators have been partisans to this subject-matter (as have I). The point of AN/I is to solicit comment from uninvolved editors with a grasp of policy. Tewfik^Talk 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

Resolved

note: offtopic resolved note: not anymore. :( Kyaa the Catlord 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like some help over at that page (Battle of Jenin). I'm not sure if there will be a pattern, but PalestineRemembered just reintroduced text I deleted due to it being blatant copyvio. (I've made him aware of his mistake, but I'd rather not have an edit war started over this...) Kyaa the Catlord 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa removed the copyvio and it has not been restored, so case closed on that. Carlossuarez46 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, PalestineRemembered improved it so it meets out requirements rather than being a chunk of text dumped from another site. Kudos to him! Kyaa the Catlord 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: PalestineRemembered continues to readd copyvio text even after being blocked for 3rr yesterday. Kyaa the Catlord 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Butseriouslyfolks and I both left the editor notes about where s/he may look for advice on whether to include long excerpts. I will assume that this resolves the "offtopic" (again) and I'll dare to mark it so (again). Carlossuarez46 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:217.42.109.45 changing votes and other content on AfD

User:217.42.109.45 (also believed to be User:Typeone9) is changing votes and other comments on the AfD for Ross Quinn. The user also blanked the AfD discussion page and has repeatedly removed the AfD notice from Ross Quinn. 12:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given a final warning and will block if necessary. Kusma (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IPs

On the Tōru Ōhira article, many IPs vandalized the article by repeatedly changing the official birth date, September 24, 1929 to May 24, 1940 and also the years. I have reverted them to make them more accurate. This could be the same person that is vandalizing the Cogie Domingo article. Also, he/she vandalized Nobuo Tanaka, an article about a person who is the Director for Science, Technology and Industry at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and elected Executive Director of the International Energy Agency by adding in the Tokusatsu credits. On the Seijuu Sentai Gingaman article, the narrator, who is really Norio Wakamoto according to the Official website at Toei has been repeatedly changed to Toru Ohira and I have reverted them. I am getting sick and tired of them. I appreciate it if this vandalism could stop. Thanks. Greg Jones II 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the birth date legitimately disputed in other mediums and/or on Wikipedia? Or is this nonsense changes? Daniel→♦ 12:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some of my reasons (i.e. Seijuu Sentai Gingaman and the birth dates) are plain nonsense changes by the IPs themselves. Greg Jones II 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I also suspect the IP vandals of sockpuppetry. They all come from that same person who vandalizes Gingaman and various articles. We need to make sure this vandalism on all Sentai articles and Toru Ohira must stop. Greg Jones II 13:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The birth date change is just plain nonsense. Make sure every IP who has vandalized the articles is found. Thanks. Greg Jones II 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Without verification of those arguments and combined with the vandalism of his/her actions in general (deleting sources, sources information, adding speculation, changing date of birth, etc.) these users needs to be blocked. Greg Jones II 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would personally see all the Sentai articles semi-protected. Greg Jones II 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with these users, but it is no use. Greg Jones II 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The user IPs who are vandalizing the articles are User:210.213.240.27, User:210.213.240.28, User:210.213.241.7 and User:210.213.243.198. Greg Jones II 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for page protection and the vandal-prevention hotline are that-a-way, third door to either side. They're much quicker than AN/I, at any rate, for this type of stuff. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reported all of the user IPs from the phillipines at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Thanks for the warning. Greg Jones II 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AIV failed because Gogo Dodo removed the long list of IPs (no recent edits by any of them). Anything else I can do? I need some help now and that would be much appreciated. Greg Jones II 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no administrator intervention required here, necessarily. There is nothing we can do for good faith (yet unconstructive) edits at the article in question. This is very likely a single individual in the Philippines (in Quezon or Manila) who thinks that the edits are correct and who has seen the show. There have been intermittent issues with good faith (yet unconstructive) edits to these kinds of articles from someone in the Philippines for some time, but to prevent that would either require semiprotecting all articles they editted or blocking a major island in the chain from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, Ryulong. I usually revert the edits, because I usually take them from the Japanese interwiki site, so I feel that it is necessary to add them. Thanks. Greg Jones II 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Geraldunc vandal - originally reported at Wikipedia:Help desk by Calbear22 (talk · contribs)

I tried to report this vandal on the Wikipedia section concerning reporting to an administrator several times. Could someone please take care of this for me? I've been trying to get this resolved for the last several hours but it hasn't work. Thanks.

The problem

Geraldunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not understand the rules governing Wikipedia concerning sourced information and vandalism. He has repeatedly vandalized the Don Perata article. The user deleted information that was provided by other contributors and sources and replaced that information with an unsourced argument (revisions on 07:27, 24 July 2007 and 07:34, 24 July 2007). On July 29, 2007, I removed the unsourced information and posted an explanation on the Don Perata talk page and on the user's talk page. Garaldunc proceeded to again remove sourced information and sources from the article and replaced the information with unsourced material (05:25, 7 August 2007, 05:36, 7 August 2007, 05:37, 7 August 2007). I tagged Garaldunc's changes as vandalism and reverted the page back to its previous version (05:46, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007). I explained my actions on the Don Perata talk page (17:53, 8 August 2007) and warned Geraldunc on his talk page (06:01, 8 August 2007). Then, Geraldunc again vandalized the Don Perata article (21:48, 8 August 2007). He used information I provided on my User page to find my personal email address (which is not listed on my user profile). He sent me the following threatening email:

"YOU are the one who is printing unsubstantiated "storis. EBE has repeatedly printed unverified, undocumented, non-sourced crap about Perata and I have to assume by continuing this crap YOU are part of Bobbie's world - his boyfriend perhaps. The most recent story - about Perata's "lavish lifestyle" is so misleading it is basically a lie - for you college boys, that's called "Libel" in legal circles. Are you two so stupid you don't realize the expenditures listed were for FUNDRAISERS??? I notice in listing those thousand dollar dinners, nowhere in there did Bobbie Gagmee point out there were, for example, dozens of people dining - most of whom paid for the evening. Obviously you have never run a successful non-profit and held a fundraiser. Obviously you have never run a successful political campaign. It takes money, it takes events, it takes relationships. So if YOU continue to fuck with the Perata Wikipedia listing, I'll not only have you banned, I'll have you sued. Thanks for giving me your real name. Nothing that I put in that post was UNTRUE - Bobbie has a history of writing slanted stories about Perata. That is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has never listed a single named source for his allegations against Perata - that is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has thrown Perata's name into any story about any Eastbay political figure even if it meant reaching back to Perata having met the person 10 years ago - that is TRUE and it's verifiable. You have NOTHING verified, yours is simply a repeat of insinuations. But enough about Perata. I think it's time to post Wikis on you and your boyfriend. You poor pathetic little nobody. God, it gets old having to hear from losers like you who have nothing beside their name except blog credits and the fact they're still in school and living with their mommies."

I admit that the East Bay Express isn't the SF Chronicle. Some of his arguments might be valid but without verification of those arguments and combined with the vandalism of his actions in general (deleting sources, sources information, etc.) this user needs to be blocked. Although the user needs to be blocked and was very disrespectful to me, I will try to address his criticism.

Summary by Shalom ^Hello

Calbear22 claims that Geraldunc, after revert warring on the Don Perata article, sent him an email containing an explicit legal threat. Though I have not seen the original copy of this email, I consider the claim credible, and I would support blocking Geraldunc based on the allegation. (Not being an admin, I cannot do this myself.) Shalom ^Hello 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that if he does not know the rules regarding OR and vandalism, he probably did not know the rules about legal threats. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LinkSPAM binge by Dinnermoney

Dinnermoney, a newbie, seems to be on a rampant binge of posting http://www.bullying.co.uk/ to any article he can think of the most tenuous excuse to post it to (I fully expect it to pop up on Running of the Bulls any minute :o) ). I think he means well, I have warned him gently, but he needs watching. --Zeraeph 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The topics are fairly "sensible" for lack of a better word. Either way, there is related discussion here: WP:NCHD#No edit button on page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat, Speditor

I'm not quite sure how to handle this situation. An anonymous editor left what appears to be a fairly straight-forward legal threat on my talk page, see here. This same threat was left on User talk:Speditor. The problem here is that Speditor did wilfully violate our privacy policy. Furthermore, the anonymous user seems to be requesting that comments be removed from User talk:Speditor but I see nothing there that needs review. I have not yet had my morning coffee, though, and am therefore not functioning well. Could someone else take a gander and see what's what? --Yamla 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user in question (72.93.130.143) using {{Uw-legal}} - it tells them to take the matter to disupute resolution if necessary. Talk pages are not the place to get these things changed, whether there's anything wrong or not. For the record, the IP's complaint seems to be not so much the content of the User talk:Speditor talk page itself, but the difs it links to (and possibly other elements of Speditor's contribution history). Waggers 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to defamatory material on that talk page now is stuff left on it by the IP claiming to be the defamed party! (He/she seems to be demanding that offensive stuff be purged from the edit history as well as the talk page itself.) --Orange Mike 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speditor (talk · contribs) is blocked, the anon has been warned about legal threats, and if he/she wants to pursue WP:OVERSIGHT, point them in the direction of the Foundation email or Cary Bass. I'd say that about wraps it up.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the versions in question at Talk:Sturgis Charter Public School, if anyone disagree please let me know. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not trying to be rude, but this is still not even close to being "resolved":

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Speditor&diff=150194651&oldid=149398569

THESE REFERENCES TO MY NAME MUST MUST MUST BE DELETED. Wikipedia users have a right to be anonymous.

EXACTLY. The references to my name need to be deleted from the talk history. This is a violation of my privacy.

Thanks.

You provided us a link to an edit where no names are mentioned. What are you talking about? --Orange Mike 16:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please post which specific edit you are talking about. Also note that "a high school dropout" does not mention you by name and thus would, I think, not be eligible for oversight (that is, removal from the history). However, any edits that do specifically mention you by name would be eligible. --Yamla 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he wants the name "Bissonnette" removed.Sarah 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the individual contact WP:OVERSIGHT via email. There are too many subsequent edits to make a delete/restore workable for removing the information.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the diff mentioned, seems I've somehow gotten an edit conflict without being warned of this. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Diemacher, Sox23 and Spirit Airlines

Yesterday at WP:AIV I blocked Diemacher for what appeared to be continual vandalism of Spirit Airlines. Diemacher contacted me via email and stated that it was he who was trying to fix the articles (he states that he is a member of the company and has given me a phone number, which I have not called). Either way, as can be seen from Spirit Airlines history these two users have just been reverting and warring over it. Diemacher has been blocked even after I unblocked him the first time so he could pursue mediation (which he either decided not to do or was blocked right before he could); I have also blocked Sox23 for a short period for violating the 3RR repeatedly, and protected the article. Diemacher has in the meantime been threatening legal action, or that at the very least he would like the article taken down if such erroneous info is kept. (phone is 954-447-7930, guess I'll try that now and confirm.) David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rlest

I know the page was left unprotected to allow Rlest to make any more rebuttal comments, but he has since returned only to reintroduce the personal attacks that were removed. I've protected the page. Figured I'd start a thread so people can comment on the situation if they need to. Leebo ^T/C 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous use of real name.

I humbly request that this sort of gratuitous personal attack not be permitted. I've repeatedly requested the editor not to use my real name when it is unnecessary, and he is now adding it in gratuitously. I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that your username is "TedFrank" you may find it hard to keep people from calling you that. Have you considered a username change? Friday (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's bizarre that User:TedFrank, who used his real name as his User name, has a problem with editors (I am not the only one) when they use his user name, which happens to be his real name. People consistently use "David Shankbone" when writing to me. Ted Frank said there is a WP:Policy against "gratuitous use of name" and then began editing talk page comments. So, Ted wants to have a user name that nobody uses. Regardless, Ted has never, ever made such a request to me, he just began editing my Talk page comments. --David Shankbone 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit unreasonable to request that users not refer to you by your username. There is no such policy for this. If your real name was not disclosed, it would be harassment to continue to use it, but your name has been provided willingly. Granted, users who don't want the hassle can use THF in the future, but it's unreasonable to ask others not to call you by your username. Leebo ^T/C 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for my username to be changed to THF. I was naive and didn't realize that people were going to engage in wild and untrue personal attacks against me, perhaps because I mistakenly thought that Wikipedia WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA rules would be enforced. THF 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

David, please be a good sport & use "THF". Ted, please realize that your current username is a perfectly valid way to address you on Wikipedia. I know of no policy that's being violated, but a little less hostility and a little more common sense could end this little dispute now. — Scientizzle 17:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You would not wear a name tag, say to a convention, with a name other than what you wanted to be called. Likewise if you did, you cant get mad at people for calling you the name on your name tag. In short change your nametag, dont try to change everybody reading it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm totally willing to be a good sport; but may I suggest to Ted that he pop by my Talk page and make future requests, instead of making the unilateral decision to edit my Talk page comments, especially since we are engaged in a very contentious issue on several pages? That seems reasonable and sportsman-like. --David Shankbone 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — Scientizzle 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note I also want to note that the issue "THF", David Shankbone ("DS") and others are having with THF is over an article he specifically wrote under his real name and is trying to inject on multiple articles, so use of that real name is not particularly unseemly in the context of these discussions. --David Shankbone 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a related thread concerning THF on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard. I've commented, per a request on my talk, but would welcome some input from others as well. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations against THF

This is the thread Brad is talking about. The problem stems from an ambiguity in the WP:COI guidelines. WP:COI simultaneously refers to two things:

• The existence of a conflict of interest; and
• The conflict of interest guideline

This leads to unnecessary confusion: WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to certain procedural limitations, but other editors misread that to believe that the existence of a conflict of interest violates WP:COI, leading to a lot of time wasted on the COI noticeboard. The report on me (which two administrators have commented on already) is a good example: WP:COI compliance requires editors with a conflict of interest to discuss edits on the talk page. DSB left a lengthy report accusing me of violating WP:COI because I was discussing edits on the talk page after I disclosed a conflict of interest, when in fact, that is exactly what WP:COI says I should do. Someone can be subject to WP:COI and comply with WP:COI: it's a two-part inquiry, and some sort of disambiguation is necessary to distinguish the two to avoid these problems. Per a suggestion by an administrator, I've made some edits to WP:COI that do not change the meaning, but resolve the ambiguity. They are discussed here. THF 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more than a couple of us who find THF's behavior disingenuous, and WP:GAME-y. It's at best extraordinary poor form to edit the Conflict of Interest guidelines when he himself is (and has been) up for a Conflict of Interest incident (so he disagrees with the merits - what subject of a COI doesn't?); he writes and sells an article on Michael Moore that includes his own version of highest grossing documentaries, used by nobody, has it posted on his employer's website (for which he is paid) and then strenuously argues for its inclusion on multiple pages, raising the argument that if we don't include it then it's POV (while nobody else in the Mainstream Media uses it). It's a bit difficult to assume good faith through much of this, when almost universally everyone acknowledges he is on Wikipedia with an agenda. I think wider comment on the totality of your edits would be merited, and how you go about them. Gaming the rules and guidelines is disdained as much as flatly violating them. I would venture a guess that, excepting the situation with THF, 98% of my edits are uncontroversial, where has less than third of THF's edits are the same. He is involved in many Talk page disputes and edit wars, which has been pointed out on several boards. --David Shankbone 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DSB is disruptively forum-shopping after having his false allegations rejected on WP:COI/N. Can an administrator please confirm that this set of edits to WP:COI is consistent with COI guidelines? THF 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How is David forum-shopping? You're the one that started this topic, not him.--Atlan (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He's raising a false allegation of Wikipedia guidelines violations that has been rejected over and over and over. At what point does this become tendentious? Or can he raise the same rejected allegation on every page that I edit and force me to waste time defending myself instead of editing Wikipedia? THF 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, but a bit more discretion on your own part would also be helpful. A wise person recognizes that even if certain things are permissible, sometimes it is better to refrain from doing them. Raymond Arritt 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The solution is obvious. THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance - and abide by their decision. The complaint about using his name looks very much like an attempt to distract attention from this blindingly obvious fact. If THF refuses to take a step back from promoting his own work, then the next step is RfC and ArbCom. This is not, I think the first time he has been in difficulties of this nature. I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance. This is exactly what I did: I disclosed a COI, made my case in an RFC at 19:01 on a talk page yesterday 17 hours ago, and made no further arguments, not even responding when DSB made additional false personal attacks on me on that talk page and misrepresented facts in his argument against inclusion. Neutral editors are evaluating the proposed edit. It won't be in the mainspace unless they agree. My role in that dispute is entirely over. Not once did I edit mainspace to promote my article. This is exactly what WP:COI compliance says I should do, and exactly what I did do. In terms of whether my edits have been disruptive, I note that this is the fifth time I have had to request an RFC for Sicko, and the first four times, the RFC agreed that I was correct, and that changes to the article were required; this time, a respected administrator has agreed that my proposed edit merits some change to the article. Consensus may not agree with him at the end of the day, but my request wasn't frivolous, and, at least some of my proposed edit may be adopted, though perhaps without the cite to me.

But DSB is continuing to harass me: we now have four administrators who have participated in the COI/N thread, and all four have rejected the complaint that I violated the COI guideline. DSB re-raised the allegations here and a fifth administrator, Raymond Arritt, rejected them. Not satisfied, DSB posts again at 12:12 today on AN/I repeating the same allegations that are about to be closed at COI/N without identifying a single new fact, instead raising a content dispute that I am not even currently participating in.

Wow, you say you made your case to include your own work and then made no further comment, but then why do you have reams and reams of paper making the argument on the Talk:Sicko page that if we don't use your article, we will be violating WP:NPOV. Again, this is disingenuous, Ted. One of the last steps you took was the RfC, after strenuously arguing for inclusion of your hit piece on Talk:Sicko, WikiProject:Films, Talk:The Dream is Alive and Talk:Jackass Number Two. --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I remind Guy that the last time I was "in difficulties of this issue" in February, the other editor was indef-blocked for particularly nasty harassment and legal threats. I don't know why he thinks it is a damning fact that I was a victim of harassment, and it is unfair of him to insinuate that that was somehow my fault. THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think THF has a point at all, and he's the one who tried to get the his article on multiple pages, and lodged an accusation against me as on the name change page as his reason. WP:KETTLE. The COI board had quite a few users that felt THF's strenuous, constant efforts to have his paid work ranking documentaries by his own criteria posted on his employer's website violated COI. Had he started on the barely-trafficed The Dream is Alive page (as he did eventually) and nobody noticed an answered, and he made the edit, would that not have been a COI violation? He would have been in the letter, but not the spirit, of the policy. This is all too WP:GAME-y and disingenuous. There were serious problems with WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and WP:NPOV with including his article. Ted spammed his story on the conservative blogosphere, and then said "Blogs are starting to pick this up" to defend that nobody uses this list. It was pointed out to him that even when he spammed his story on conservative blogs, right-wingers themselves questioned why he included Jackass Number Two and Eddie Murphy Raw on a list of documentaries. I stand by my actions, and I still find it a COI issue, as do many other people. The name issue was really the ultimate: I am the author, who wrote this piece, and who has now tried to have it put on as many film articles as possible, and yet -- don't you dare use my name when discussing it! Get real! Two days ago I told Ted I actually respect his edits; I have absolutely no respect, and assume no good faith, where his edits are concerned. I think he has completely ruined any good faith assumptions this week. And yes, this is the second time he has been brought before COI. --David Shankbone 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The record will reflect that the first time I was brought up before COI, it was by an editor in a content dispute who was upset that he had lost an RFC: two administrators evaluated the allegation and found no COI, much less a violation of the COI guideline. DSB knows this, yet repeats a false allegation. DSB issued the second COI complaint, and four administrators have unanimously rejected it on COI/N. Yet he raises it again here, ten hours after an administrator on the COI/N board asked to close the earlier complaint. Again: how many times must identical attacks on me be rejected before someone asks DSB to stop attacking me? THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous COI, and the last one, all point to your editing articles that deal directly with your employer, that you do during your work day, and trying to have your own unnotable (paid) work for that employer put on multiple pages, and then saying we are violating policy if we don't put it on. Not only do I find this COI, I (and at least six other editors) find the totality of your edits to be agenda-driven, in violation of WP:NPOV. That you misrepresent your edits here is par for the course. --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close of Split move request

Administrator Húsönd participated in a recent move request poll at Talk:Split showing his bias against moving the article about the Croatian city of Split to anything else. His oppose vote was "per Asterion". Asterion's justification was "The city entry has got the most encyclopedic value. Turning Split into a disambiguation page would only make sense if there were more than one city."

After the move request to move Split to Split, Croatia was closed due to lack of consensus, I submitted a new request to move Split to Split (city) because this was suggested by a number of those who opposed the first move request (in other words, the opposition was not to moving the article in general, but to moving the article to Split, Croatia specifically).

That poll has been active for only a couple of days, and Húsönd has just speedy closed it. He cites "selective canvass" (another user posted a notice about the new move on the talk pages of two people who supported the previous request, but neither of those has voted - this relatively inocuous matter can be remedied in way other than a speedy close, surely). I request that the speedy close be reversed due to administrator bias in this matter. Thank you. --Serge 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My bias about moving this article in the previous discussion has nothing to do with my closure of this one. I always speedy close move proposals when they are created shortly after another closed move proposal. And the canvass just made it impossible in my view for the new discussion to continue. There's no much point in waiting for the canvassed users to drop by and renew their calls for a move. Canvass disrupts Wikipedia's natural consensus building process and discussions where canvass occurs should be void. I shall though undo my closure if other admins find that it was inappropriate.--Húsönd 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur that it should not have been closed, even though Serge thinks it shouldn't be closed. (See our discussions on WP:NC(CN) for background.) At least two of the "oppose" !votes in the first move said they would accept the move to Split (city), so the new move request can rationally be considered seeking consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening and closing of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Watchdogb

Resolved

I don't know how to deal with this situation. I filed the WP:RFCU regarding this WP:SSP case on 17:50, August 8, 2007 and User:Amarkov closed the case on 00:42, August 9, 2007. Since I posted the checkuser I tried to re-open the case[67] but another user made his objection on that.[68] Can we re-open a non admin closure? Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I closed it because there was no activity for five days, and there wasn't convincing evidence of sockpuppetry given. It would have been nice if someone had told me about the checkuser case being filed instead of just having an edit war about it. I leave this for someone else to decide now, I don't want to solve an edit war. -Amarkov moo! 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake by not posting the RFCU case link into the SSP case. I too does not wish to have an editwar and waste my time. What should we do? open the case since the results of RFCU case is pending or keep it as it is? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, unless there's some smoking gun I'm not seeing, the RFCU is not likely to come back conclusive. The SSP report did not sufficiently show a reason to believe these two accounts are related. If the checkuser comes back with a positive, then you'd have a reason to re-open it. Shell ^babelfish 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you both meant - I don't want to have an edit war because that's not the right thing to do, right? ;) Shell ^babelfish 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes ma'am, btw thanks for the advice :) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where to report flagrant, repeated incivility?

Hello, I'd like to know the proper place to report flagrant, repeated incivility (bordering on personal attacks)such as these: [69][70][71][72][73][74] coming from User:KarenAER at White people and its associated talk page? Thanks!--Ramdrake 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's incivility? Those diffs? Anything else? Ok, I can understand why you might be a little annoyed if you're on the other side of content dispute, but I've seen worse (including from myself). With no comment on the content dispute in question, unless there's some slightly more damaging evidence I'd say there's no action to take. Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The diffs above are fairly tame in terms of incivility. Being rude doesn't make something a personal attack. My recommendation would be taking a deep breath and not letting the other user get under your skin. These are not really flagrant. Leebo ^T/C 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, comments such as "YAWN", "LOL", insinuatng the other editors can't read, can't look up a reference and others, while still not using foul language, are incivil (to me, being rude is incivil, albeit petty incivility - personal attacks and foul language are something else). I think at least a warning from an admin would be warranted, as this is not the first time this user has acted this way (you may wish to look up all the warnings the user deleted from his/her user talk page in the talk page's history).--Ramdrake 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to second Ramdrake's statements. I'm getting quite tired of having to deal with incivility (in the form of insults or condescending remarks) from the editor during almost every interaction. Especially since this is a tendentious editor, and is generally not correct about content policy. If it was only once or twice, I'd brush it off, but now it is becoming frustrating. I almost wonder if the editor is trying to bait others into responding in kind. It is becoming difficult for other editors to stay cool. I don't think that we should have to ignore this pattern of abuse just because each remark, taken by itself, isn't severe. The conduct is disrupting discussion and editing at that page. The Behnam 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I have some diffs. I don't know if they repeat Ramdrake's. acusations of irelevant opinions, and to shut up, get over it, again saying an editor's opinion is irrelevant and accused of trolling, stupid thing to say and yelling about vandalizing edits, admitted to having another user name, edit summary-can't stomach this user, edit summary-silly picture, accusing aothers of vandalism. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some background information. Behnam is an editor who ignored the advice of the previous meditator [75], User:Stevertigo. He abused the situation after his opponent, User:Lukas19 was banned, whom he accused me of sockpuppetry of [76], deleted HUGE amounts of information [77]. That information has been restored thx to another admin, User:Dbachmann.

As for Jeeny. Some of her remarks: This is exactlly what's wrong with Wikipedia, when people that have no reasoning abilities are able to edit articles and LOL! And KarenAE whatever (for me to be blocked). And going earlier this year: asshole, I quit you jerk and she had repeatedly removed a map because she thought it was wrong, without citing any sources whatsoever.

So, I'm not sure if I'm the only one here who should take all the blame... KarenAER 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, based on the initial diffs, I see nothing overly incivil and I have no problem imposing blocks for incivility. There was nothing that i saw warranted a stern warning. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I offered a suggestion to the editor which she can take or leave as she sees fit. The only other think I'll add is that the whole discourse at Talk:White people could probably use some cooling down.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Background information, eh? I've already explained to you that your story, which you use to bash me, is not entirely accurate, as the mediator later that day changed his mind and agreed with me. I've explained at Talk:White people#Wikipedia Rules and Guidelinesdiff, and still have received no response from you regarding my very straightforward argument. I suggest that you stop attacking me based upon your misrepresentation of the former mediator's opinion unless you can answer to the fact that he agreed with me instead later that day. I do hope that you aren't purposely ignoring this reality because it weakens your case against me... The Behnam 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Images tagged weeks ago not deleted

I tagged some images as having no rationales sometime ago in July and they still don't have rationales and they are still tagged. Apparently something happened when I tagged them and the category didn't show up properly, thus it went unnoticed. Should I retag them to appear in the category or should they be deleted? An example of what happened is on Image:Benison books.JPG. — Moe ε 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the category tag was broken. I have deleted that one, but are there others? Until(1 == 2) 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but luckly this happened right when I started keeping a log of images I tagged:

• Image:Blakfgee.JPG
• Image:Bolt play.JPG
• Image:Burnsgeo.jpg
• Image:Bust of jefferson.JPG
• Image:Cleoseln.JPG
• Image:Coa north brabant.jpg
• Image:Crete3.jpg
• Image:Dorothy sayers.JPG
• Image:Drusmaur.JPG
• Image:Films named cleopatra.JPG - someone provided a faulty rationale because this is a derative work

• I'd suggest tagging this image with {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} as it's not currently speedy tagged. - Papa November 1 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Gracieal.jpg
• Image:Henpercy.JPG
• Image:Jk beatles ringo.jpg
• Image:Joanbrit.JPG
• Image:Julia.JPG
• Image:Kathleen kennedy.JPG
• Image:Lehrer book.JPG
• Image:Moulins.JPG
• Image:Pistolsflyer.jpg
• Image:Saints slept.JPG
• Image:Six wives tape covers.JPG
• Image:The swan.JPG
• Image:Tifftree.JPG

• The author died over 70 years ago, so I have tagged it {{PD-old-70}} - Papa November 1 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make sure these are fixed the next time around :( — Moe ε 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The User, GasSnake or Poison Oak

This is being posted here as per the request of the administrators whom deal with the WP:AIV as they feel it needs to be further examined. In accordance with general policy, this user has been given warning after warning and continues to make colorful, defamatory remarks and insults against other users including myself in addition to other general violations. This is my first time posting to the WP:ANI so you'll forgive me if my knowledge on how it operates is sketchy. I will post here as was posted upon the AIV.

• The user, GasSnake or Poison Oak, implements Personal Attacks against users including some remarks which can be found to be insulting and others which can be found to be questionable. Also makes use of their user page by taking other editor's comments and posting them upon it. In addition, this user makes usage of their signature to spoil a novel (Harry Potter, Book 7) by means of the text: "Change is coming and potter should have died". This does not affect my person as I've read the novel but it still does not excuse the action. In addition, other violations include violation of the 3RR Rule, Multiple POV Edits (as self-admitted by the offending party), spam, consistent uploading of Non-Licensed Images, and flat-out insulting other users including, but not limited to the reporting party, Ancientanubis, and Sam ov the blue sand.

I believe other users who have been affected by this will be making their own cases here. The above, however, is my sumation of things to the best of my ability without going out on an entire lengthy rant. Please look into and deal with this situation accordingly. Thank You. Evilgohan2 05:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried ignoring him? It doesn't look like he has editted any articles in a while (just talk pages). Someone should review his image uploads for speedy deletion, though; never mind, there's just one, and I just db tagged it. Dicklyon 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• if this were brought up a few days ago i would have completely and utterly agreed with all of Gohans above statements without question seeing as i was the one who technically gave birth to this entire predicament (through a discussion/argument between GasSnake and i over some of his edits to List of O-Parts in 666 Satan) and i still have no problem saying that GasSnake is guilty of the things mentioned above. But, over the course of last night and tonight i have attempted to make peace with GasSnake and have seemingly succeeded seeing as we were able to carry some discussion about various topics related to the editing of 666 Satan, i have also attempted to convince him to stop his personal attacks on other editors as it will result in him being either banned or some other action that would not end well for him (as an editor). i guess in the long run the thing holding me back from outright saying he needs to be removed from wikipedia is that i now see some potential in him as an editor and i feel it would be wrong to take serious action(such as banning or what not) against him without him first giving him an "administer realized last chance"(of sort), thanks, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• i truly don't care about what happens as I've delt with worse than this guy. But originaly I tried to help mediate becuase anubis asked me to, even after I tried to talk to him calmly he answered me by yelling and making excuses as to why he does what he does, after telling him not to yell I also told him that being african american and hating racists is no excuse as to why he was acting in such a way. Even after that he retorted and telling me what I said was a personal attack even though it wasn't. I do see pontential but right now all I see is a troll. I truly don't care what happens to him but I do hope he stops his trolling ways.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• well, my main reasons for saying i feel he has some potential is the fact that during some of our more civil discussions(here for example) he has shown the ability to do things that most others see as being a "normal editor", and to be a little honest, i also see a bit of him inside me (this being the fact that i have been known to lose my temper and say thigns i really shouldnt say, only GasSnakes appears to be at a slight bit more of an extreme @ times), idk, to be honest im still waiting to hear his response to these aligations as i think it could go either way... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "...right now all I see is a troll." At the moment, that is all I'm seeing. In addition, in response to Ancientanubis, I shall point out that he has been informed of the statements made against him. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• idk, maybe your right and im just being to optimistic, but after my enormous argument with him i'm tryin to treat him as a fellow editor until it is (or is not) deemed time to let him go.... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• This was removed from here for some reason.... I do not know why and I find no rationale for such in the history so I've re-added it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• It was archived; this happens to threads that are inactive for 2 days.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• While I do see some edits that get my attention, GasSnake or Poison Oak (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since 5 August. Is there a pressing reason we can't wait and see how things go if and when they return to editing? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• None specifically. I've discussed this with Anubis and we both feel it can wait. We also suspect he flew the coop and/or was a socket puppet. His entire purpose here seemed (sic) to be to annoy people, as stated on his own talk page... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bots Semi-Protecting

Not sure if this is relevent. MadmanBot semi-protected the page Roy Oldham and despite me asking why said it was still semi-protected and didn't bother to leave a courtesy reply on my talk page. Bots do great work, but semi-protecting watched pages? The last edit was 4 days before the bot intervened. Are we not going mad? Is Wikipedia still the encyclopedia anyone can edit or do we allow bots to decide over editors who take their time to watch articles? I would ask for an undo and if I am proved wrong, I will never ask again. Mike33 - t@lk 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MadmanBot is not semiprotecting anything. It's adding the semiprotection tags to pages that are already semiprotected.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DocG has not been able to remove semi-protection for the simple reason that he is "wikibreaked". A 23/04/07 semi-protection is a joke. All editors have been able to edit for at least 8 weeks. Bots should not be able to protect articles in this way. Wikipedia is about consensus, I cannot see how a script can judge or know the inner workings of any article. I move for a clean removal of an unecessary semi-protection. Mike33 - t@lk 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Read what Ryulong just said again.--Atlan (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An administrator semi-protected the article back in April. Semi-protection stops unregistered or new (less than four days old) editors from making changes. The bot simply added a template which labeled the article as semi-protected - it did not apply the actual protection. I've dropped the protection for now as a test per your request - I'll add the page to my watch list and will re-apply if needed. Kuru ^talk 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Look my apologies - I have no idea about this particular bot. DocG is on Wikibreak, so it was never an option to contact him. When the bot showed up I just went mad, thinking that the matter had been cleared up months ago. However, I just cannot see why any semi-protection tag should exist for months at a time (ok GWB execpted). Mike33 - t@lk 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:76.167.86.63

76.167.86.63 (talk · contribs) is an SPA which has only been involved in edit warring on Islam: What the West Needs to Know, and has never left so much as a single comment on a Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't even leave edit summaries, so this can really just be considered content-removal vandalism, a report for WP:AIV if you want him blocked. Someguy1221 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been adding long, OR essays. Corvus cornix 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't look that far back into his contribs. Anyway, complete refusal to acknowledge being warned and reverted makes this quite trivial in my book. *shrug* Someguy1221 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User Scipio3000

Concerns about his previous actions have not been addressed. [78] . Fresh off his second block, he has made blanket attacks on Wikipedia [79], and appears to be claiming ownership of one of the contested articles [80] where he has a heading titled ‘On my article, Sicily'. Also, since the end of his block, Scipio3000 has accused User El C, the one who blocked him, of vandalism, threatened to report him, and said he had ‘no right to butt in’. [81] Edward321 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For now I have issued another 48 hour block after he violated the 3rr rule on the Sicily article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks by an IP editor

 Done

After earlier being blocked for harassment on User talk:Vintagekits, an IP editor has made a series of disgusting attacks on editors who he believes to be Irish republicans.

• why are these insurgents allowed to get away with all this
• all I ask is that you retired insurgents play nice and according to the rules
• but it seems you are determined to protect these terrorists

I was told by User:Mackensen to bring the matter here, please advise. Brixton Busters 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Neil ム 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nooblettepwns's hoax articles

This user has created the following articles about supposed hockey players:

• Omar Chu - appears to be a copy of the Dan Cloutier article with minor changes
• Jamal chu - the Joe Sakic one.
• Shannon wong - Markus Näslund
• Patricia lin - Markus Näslund

The supposed teams the last two play on appear to be, through google, high school teams. Can an admin look into this and deal with it?--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, hoaxes deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI sprotected for a bit

FYI, I sprotected this page for a short trolling break. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A boastful vandal

[82] - I've seen his work coming from another IP address which was blocked, a couple of days ago. Corvus cornix 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They're very likely all proxies. He's the reason for the semiprotection of ANI right now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've fed the three IPs used to WP:OP for them to check. Tabercil 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious, WP:OP is backlogged, m:OP is backlogged, and I've blocked whatever I could.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could use a hand, and/or a second opinion

User:RonCram has a long history of making charges against a certain climate scientist, charges that I consider clear violations of WP:BLP -- stating that he is unethical, that he knowingly published false results, and the like. I've had to revert two of his edits today (here and here). Now he's done it again on the very same talk page as earlier today.[83] I'd block the guy as a last-ditch attempt to let him know that we take WP:BLP seriously. But I'm heavily involved in editing articles on the same topic as him and don't want to give the appearance that I'm trying to gain an advantage. Would anyone like to step in and (a) issue a block, (b) make one last attempt to get through to him, or (c) tell me that I'm off base? Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any administrative action either, since I occasionally edit those pages, but User:RonCram is an inveterate abuser of article talk pages and violator of the talk page guidelines (e.g. this recent comment). His months-long crusade to introduce defamatory, poorly sourced material about a specific climatologist into Wikipedia is problematic. MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral party who doesn't edit that subject, here's how it looks: this is on the borderline since it refers to an op-ed piece. The style is close to a blog and the editor keeps reopening the topic over objections, so WP:NOT and WP:POINT are arguable. Yet it's also framed in the context of a legitimate WP:RS question. Is the editor gaming that guideline to soapbox? Possibly. I suppose it seems that way to someone who disagrees with that editor's POV. So a block would be a hard call based upon this evidence. If it fits with a larger pattern of borderline behavior, suggest user conduct WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned with the op-ed piece; disputes over things like that come with the territory. But User:RonCram's persistent comments that a certain scientist is "unethical" and has knowingly published false results are a serious problem. Raymond Arritt 05:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks like heavy POV pushing. If he's already been warned, and it looks like he has, via edit summaries, if not talk page notes, then perhaps a 24 hour breather is in order? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 06:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As Raymond said, the issue of how to handle the op-ed piece in and of itself is a content dispute. The larger problem is a pattern of attacking a living person, in article space and talk space, in a way that likely violates WP:BLP. Since the issue is really a pattern of behavior rather than one specific incident, Durova's suggestion of a user-conduct RfC may be the most appropriate way of handling it. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Slovak speaking (reading) admin in the house

St. Urban's Church (Bystré) is tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of a Slovak website. Any help would be appreciated. I have lots of babelboxes, but Slovak and related languages are not among them. :-(.... Carlossuarez46 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch844 (talk · contribs)

I've had it with this fellow. All he does is edit war and disrupt Out of India theory, against clear consensus, with his brand of fringecruft cranknutcasery. Somebody uninvolved please block him indef. Moreschi ^Talk 10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I went for a one week block. The guy really needs to stop his incivility and edit warring... He starts edit warring again after the block, and it'll be indef. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and the subsequent unblock request. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

you may want to compare WIN (talk · contribs), who has a similar strategy of reverts-only contributions (but this one doesn't even pretend to have a case). dab (𒁳) 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A warning should suffice for the moment... --DarkFalls ^talk 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe in blocks without warning. The ideal outcome is that an editor actually reforms once they realize people are serious about enforcing policy. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi returns

I had thought things were a bit too quiet on the Conradi front, and I just figured out part of why. He's been editing quietly under the id User:Tobias Conradi2. Since he is a banned user, I have blocked this account. I wanted to give everyone a heads-up, since 1) he is likely to unleash another wave of personal attacks once he discovers his new account is blocked, and 2) he's evidently not accepting the idea that he is banned and unwelcome here. So I suspect more new accounts will follow. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry, unobvious puppeteer

Sjones23 recently filed a report at WP:BLP, regarding the changing of information at the Toru Ohira article. I responded, changed the information back (Ohira was born in 1929, the false claims have been in the 1940's) and provided sources. Today Sjones23 reverted another such edit. The problem here is that all these edits are definitely coming from the same place, smacking of sockpuppetry. User:210.213.240.27, User:210.213.240.28, User:210.213.241.7 and User:210.213.243.198 and, now, User:210.213.241.86. I've given one of the above users a final warning. However, it's unclear as to whether or not these are sockpuppets, and who is the sockpuppeteer. Otherwise, I would have taken this to WP:SSP.--Sethacus 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are normal IPs from an ISP in the Phillipines. Greg Jones II 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As what Ryulong pointed out to me above, there have been intermittent issues with good faith (yet unconstructive) edits to these kinds of articles from someone in the Philippines for some time, but to prevent that would either require semiprotecting all articles they editted or blocking a major island in the chain from editing. Greg Jones II 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

There's an ongoing edit war over this page, with which I have been peripherally involved. I replaced a section that seems like a quote-farm by summary text, but Jaakobou keeps reverting this change, claiming there's a POV problem. An edit war then developed, chiefly between Jaakobou and CJCurrie. There are also several anonymous edits that may also be Jaakobou. Jaakobou seems to me to be acting against consensus (his claims otherwise notwithstanding) and keeps backing away from discussion on the Talk page. I'm not certain what to do next: the style manual seems pretty clear that a quote-farm is inappropriate. So I've come here -- I hope this was the right thing to do. Bondegezou 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kafziel abuses protection on User:Kafziel/gallery

I was recently removing fair use images from userspaces and when I came to User:Kafziel/gallery which contains fair use images, specifically I was triggered by Image:Algerianfranc.jpg being used in the userspace. When I looked at the history of User:Kafziel/gallery, I discovered

1. Fair use images were being used on the userspace, and per WP:NFCC this is a violation of policy
2. A bot attempted to remove non-free media before on July 3.
3. User:Kafziel, an administrator, reinserted the fair use images by reverting the bot and then protected the page so they couldn't be removed by non-administrators.

Will someone please remove the fair use images from User:Kafziel/gallery and discuss with User:Kafziel why this was inappropriate? — Moe ε 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The images being removed are all pictures of money, and it's not at all clear that the bills pictured are under copyright, because as the template says, some aren't. Even if it does turn out to be a violation, it's not his fault for not knowing. It was reasonable for him to assume that pictures he took wouldn't be under copyright. -Amarkov moo! 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check to see if these are violations then? — Moe ε 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's very clear that images of money aren't the only issue: Image:Trix box 2006.jpg, is cleary presumed fair use. — Moe ε 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd presume the pictures of products (the closeups) might have some issues but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV -- Tawker 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but it looks like it's just a misunderstanding of copyright, since he did previously claim the images as GFDL. Anyway, the only thing I found about the money is that the algerian franc isn't used anymore. -Amarkov moo! 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

A cut-and-paste move occured at Alexa Fluor. The previous title was Alexa (fluor). Cool Blue^{talk to me} 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Repaired. — Moe ε 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Advice Me

Can I use photos with the tag -

for my magazine.Kaystar 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)