Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Haabet 2 Another Arthur Ellis sock 3 Continual removal of red links at Chesham 4 194.9.5.10 (talk · contribs) 5 Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MONGO 6 Copyright issue 7 User:BassPlyr23 removing ifd tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg 8 Administrator inaction toward 3RR Talk Page Vandalism, or clarification of User Talk Page policy 9 User:TortureIsWrong acting disruptively 10 Automotive hoaxer, possible sockpuppets 11 Babysbottom (talk · contribs) and others using talk pages to chat 12 Drudge Report 12.1 A new wrinkle 13 Sock-puppetry? 14 Solicitation of Interviews 15 Some kind of personal attack 16 Special:Contributions/Fbradish 17 User:63.151.150.82 on Vincent Fumo 18 Stalking and Sockpuppetry 19 Persistant Spammer - Vanity edits 20 WP:BLPC 21 Questionable airport links 22 If Wikipedia funding dries up, it's all my fault 23 PadrigPlasdig 24 User:Sugarsugar123 25 User:Paul venter and User:Berks105 engaged in some sort of edit war 26 User:Gun Powder Ma at Four Great Inventions and Siege of XiangYang 27 User: Drieakko 28 Block for disruption at rfcn 29 DRV Abuse 30 repeated addition of false information on Nadine Gordimer 31 ZoreniaBlueLightning (talk · contribs) 32 Edit war on Duke Rape Case page 33 68.253.206.119 34 Tmangray (talk · contribs) prolonged revert warring and incivility 35 Note from a blocked user? 36 PLEAD FOR HELP AGAIN 37 Personal Attacks 38 Bot makes tons of wrong edits 39 User:Overarchiver 40 Category:Cities in Kurdistan 41 Continued abuse by a temporarily blocked user 42 Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg 42.1 Response 42.2 Blatant Abuse of Images and POV by ChrisO 43 Changing another editors talk page posts 44 Malicious redirects 45 WP:POINT violation by 67.163.193.239 46 Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets 47 Please delete or oversight 48 CSD 49 two users requesting unblock 50 Warnings on anonymous IP pages, and removal 51 User:Servant Saber block for Vandalising Linda Rosing article and personal attack on frontpage 52 Rikki Lee Travolta, again 53 Null edits to redirects 54 Question on blocking related to CSD 55 coincidence, sockpuppet, impersonator, descendant, meatpuppet, user that used someone else's name, or neither? 56 Odd vandalism 57 Disruptive comments 58 Abuse in PBS entry 59 block review requested 60 User:Crazyman08066 and article Paige Mayo 61 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster is at risk 62 User:Wassermann again 63 Disruptive behaviour -- misuse of reference desk 64 User:Riva72 's personal attacks and spam messages 65 VERY SPEEDY deletion of Mark Britten 66 Is Wikipediareview.com an acceptable site to link to? 67 User:I'm so special

[edit] User:Haabet

Haabet has been hard-banned from Danish WP, and he appears make few valuable edits to English WP. His last edit was to add a picture of Gorm the Old to the article Guthrum the Old. His talkpage will show that several users find him problematic. Is it wise to allow him to edit on English WP?--The trollfighter 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We let editors be until they cause trouble here... But I can say that editors that are banned on other Wikipedias historically tend not to last very long here (isn't human psychology fascinating?) His Danish userpage with the ban notice and some kind of commentary are here; any Danish readers in the house? Grandmasterka 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, this guy's been here since early 2004 2003!! with no blocks... Just let him be. Grandmasterka 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably the most active Danish editor on this project. Haabet is the only editor that has ever been banned from the Danish Wikipedia. This was a near-unanimous decision from the Danish administrators (19 of 20 admins voted, 18 of these in favour of a ban.)[1] If I remember correctly, they had to change policy to make bans possible. This ban can be appealed by Haabet once every year. First chance is 15 September 2007. The ban was due to Haabet inserting a lot of OR in articles relating to history which was upsetting a lot of people myself included. Haabet's other main area of contributions relate to corsets and the history of them. I have no idea if these edits are sound or not. Haabet was a very dedicated editor on the Danish Wikipedia, but the admins got completely fed up with cleaning up after him. I've only had sporadic encounters with him and the first one was very negative, but to give him the benefit of doubt; some of the last edits I've seen from him look more sound. I haven't checked his recent edits in detail, so this is just a hunch. His user name means "The Hope" so perhaps there is hope after all? What is perhaps a bit more interesting is that User:The trollfighter's edit history is less than two days old, consisting solely of reverting edits made by User:Arigato1 and posting messages on talk pages, but this person already knows how to make posts on AN/I. Isn't this somewhat unusual? Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Valentinian, who is a user I respect, considers my activity to be suspicious and wishes to put me in a bad light, I hereby cease to exist as a user. Good luck with the project, and I hope someone else watches the edits of these guys, because I will not do that anymore.--The trollfighter 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your statement that you like my edits. I am honoured. If you perceived my post as rude, I had no intention of being so. However, if I hadn't written the way I did, people might suspect that you were a sock of me. I've had to take a lot of crap from Arigato1, Comanche cph and Comanche's IP-address, but had I not reacted now, I'd no doubt have to waste next week with new accusations that I was a sockmaster. I have no idea how many hours I've wasted on this nonsense. Perhaps I should simply spare the trolls the trouble and close my account myself. Oh yeah, and if anybody believes the sockmaster accusations, by all means run a CU on me. I couldn't care less. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Arthur Ellis sock

Y Done Could someone please block:

• Winnebago Warrior (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis. Kla'quot 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continual removal of red links at Chesham

What is the current policy on red links? One anon user currently finds them offensive to the extent that they keep trying to remove them from the Chesham article despite requests not to by several users and a note being added to the top of the article saying why they are left in. This same user has removed all the red links from the article at least six times in the last month and doesn't appear to want to listen to requests. Is it possible to lock the article against edits by anon users for a bit? What else can be done to get through to this user? -- Roleplayer 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If a red link is to something notable that just doesn't happen to have a page at this point in time, then it should probably be left alone. Given that many of those links are to things that appear not to be notable, eg primary schools, it would probably be better not to wikilink them. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 194.9.5.10 (talk · contribs)

I want to report a severe personal attack. 194.9.5.10, a user with whom I've had considerably conflicts before, is an anonymous contributor. However, when you look at his "contributions" you'll see that the majority of his edits are him mixing in my discussions and always chosing the opposing side. In other words he watches my edits and tries to irritate me whenever he can. He wrote the following on Talk:Battle of Kiev (1941)

Dear gentleman, a little well-meant advice: Please refrain from discussing with Rex - it is not worth it, ie a waste of time. He is simply a choleric German-hating guy who is unable to argue systematically, coherently, academically and neutrally due to his limited mental skills and superficial knowledge as weel as to the fact that his mummy never really loved him.

He adapted this all out personal attack 2 times, before he removed it again. Nevertheless I do not want this clear personal attack to go unpunished, and I trust the dealing admin will understand this.Rex 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A simple {{uw-npa1}} template will suffice for this one, which I've done. I am slightly concerned, however, at this (since when was a dubious edit a personal attack?) There is another IP address involved, 194.9.5.12 (talk • contribs), which is probably the same user because of the similar IPs. x42bn6 Talk 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. In that link the anonymous IP puts a NPA tagg on the word dubious, not me.Rex 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's my concern. I can't find any real issues but I am still looking (while helping out on other venues) other than this one. My advice: If he is continuing to be like that, then he might just be being disruptive; but you can always keep level-headed and don't get angry. This anon, however, has made several good faith edits so it is probably not just to harass you. x42bn6 Talk 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I cancelled the statement delibrately and immediately after I had inserted it as I came to the result that it was to aggressive. However please feel free to check all my contribution and you will not find any unpolite or unfair comment whatsoever. As for Rex`s contributions, I would hardly allege the same... Kind regards, (194.9.5.12 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MONGO

Well, that was interesting. Archived. El_C 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue

On cool wall, we had the list of cars on the Top Gear Cool Wall. Leaving aside the question of whether show segments are actually encyclopaedic, the list of cars form the cool wall is, as far as I can see, copyright of the show, just as the script is copyright, the lists from "top 100 foo" shows are copyright, and the singles chart is copyright. I removed it. I'm sure some examples would be fine. I could of course also be wrong. More eyes, please, at Talk:The Cool Wall. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of facts is (by US law, maybe different elsewhere) ineligible for copyright, only a list based on opinion is protected. If these cars where in fact shown on the segment (verifiability may be your real problem) Then the list is fine. Otherwise, if theres no verifiable list, then its an opinion-generated list, and not allowed. The reason music charts are copyrighted is because its not a simple list of how often a record was played and bought, its a complicated procedure involving equations that arent public, estimation and research. -M^ask 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's complicated, and has equations, 'sweat of the brow', etc, does not in itself make the end result copyrightable in the US. (note: I am, as always, not a lawyer) --Random832 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the difference was between previously available info (a list of presidents of the USA is not copyrighted) and a list of newly compiled info (or "opinion", if you prefer), which is normally copyrighted. The Cool Wall is definitely "opinion", but the way it is presented is completely different from a text list. It isn't really a fixed list either. Still, rmoving the list of cars is the correct solution. Another problem isn't that it hasn't any secondary sources. We don't really need articles describing segments of show instead of critically presenting the secondary sources about them (no matter how briliant the show is). Fram 05:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A List of facts is generally not copyrightable, although its arrangemetn may be, if original and non-trivial (alphebetic or numeric order are generally trivial). However, if a magazine article contained a "list of cool cars" in the opnion of the author, that list would be copyrighted. In this case, the list of cars on the "cool wall" is, if I understand it correctly, cars considerd 'cool' not on any objective basis, but simply in the opnions of the show's presentors, or which they think specific other people would belive to be "cool" or "not-cool". That is a clear expression of opnion, and so I think a list of this type is pretty clearly copyrighted. Whether the list is fixed or changes on a regular basis makes no difference, I think. The larger question about whether separate articles for individual episodes or elements of such a show are warrented is another matter altogether. i would be inclined to say no, but opnions could reasonably differ on this matter. DES ^(talk) 05:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BassPlyr23 removing ifd tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg

I would like someone to volunteer to communicate with User:BassPlyr23. He has removed the {{ifd}} tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg three times [3] [4] [5]. Based on the tone on the messages he left me, I believe he would welcome a third part opinion more easily than he would welcome my opinion. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What the image needs is the good fairuse rationale since this historic and non-reproduceable photo certainly qualifies for the specific article. It is hard to expect a newbie user to be able to come up with such rationale and Abu badali, an experienced image handler, if acting in good faith for the good of Wikipedia, should have helped a newbie user to write a good fairuse rationale rather than act in a way that would likely discourage the newcomer and turn him away from Wikipedia. IMO, Abu badali actions qualify as newbie biting and it is Abu badali who is to be taken to a woodshed about this, not a user who tries to contribute and does not know the wikilawyering rules yet. --Irpen 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To Abu badali: meh, I don't watch the images I tag with {{ifd}} to make sure tag stays on them. I just watch the IfD page to make sure the section isn't blanked. --Iamunknown 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to write a fair use rationale for this image because I see the rationale for using it (unless our own convenience). Feel free to fix the image if you can see more than I do. I did tried to explain the user what he needed to do about the rationale, and about removing the ifd tag, even after he suggested that I want the image removed because I wanted to praise "Palestinian terrorists "[6]. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya I saw that and was pretty disgusted. Good job on remaining civil, though. :-) --Iamunknown 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The image seems to be at a pretty high resolution (1000 px width) - I rather doubt that this qualifies per the requirements for "web-resolution screenshots". Do we define anywhere what "web-resolution" means? I've always taken it to mean thumbnail-type images of up to 400 px width or so. -- ChrisO 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - is it from the film? Was the film based on a real photograph of the atheletes? Can we claim {{Non-free fair use in}} rather than {{film-screenshot}}? Hbdragon88 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the quality of the photo and provided a fair use rationale. I still do not understand what prevented all the good people involved to do it earlier Alex Bakharev 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos Alex, you beat me to it. That what the experienced user should have done in the first place rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts. --Irpen 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts" - This is a baseless accusation, Irpen! When did I threatened this user (or any other)? Provide diffs or retract this accusation. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, stop it. Now. You have lodging baseless ad hominem attacks against Abu badali all over the place. It's disgusting. --Iamunknown 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, baseless accusations in ad hominem is indeed ad hominem. --Irpen 05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not. I'm addressing the substance of the argument, not the person making the argument. --Iamunknown 05:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what exactly in my entry is an ad hominem. --Irpen 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I'd love to. Per the Wikipedia entry, ad hominem, "An ad hominem argument ... consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument." Your statement that "That what the experienced user should have done" is directly commenting on Abu badali, the person making the argument that this particular image should be deleted; in other words, you have directly replied to Abu badali's deletion argument an ANI post not on the substance of Abu badali's argument, but on Abu badali him(/her)self. Thus ad hominem. --Iamunknown 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the wikipedia article ad hominem is neither a reliable source nor a Wikipedia policy. WP:NPA is a policy and my entry did not violate WP:NPA in any way. I describe the matter as I saw it. My description was harsh but WP:CIVIL. Abu badali posted a complaint asking for a helping hand in the conflict. However, the conflict would not have escalated had Abu badali himself acted properly and courteously towards the users.

The experienced user greats the inexperienced one with a series of arrogant templates at her talk and posting the newcomer's contributions for deletion. This is not exactly the best way to engage the user, not familiar with a labyrinth of our image policy pages, into productive work. The contributor tries her best and she needs to be gently encouraged. The images, that she failed to properly tag, need to be examined, retagged when possible, deleted when necessary, with a friendly and helpful explanation on why we have to do the former or the latter. Instead, the user is communicated through templates that she, not used to the level of courtesy of some here, perceives as threats and intimidation. The user feels unwelcome as instead of a helping hand she gets the messages from what seems like someone who instead of developing articles like she does, goes around from user to user telling them what to do and claiming policies as an excuse to do that with impunity.

The inexperienced user starts looking for an explanation of such an unfriendly attitude and, since the particular topic is greatly politicized, mistakenly attributes the tagger's motives to the political agenda since she can't believe that someone would deal with her this way for any other reason (she was wrong at that and I don't think Abu badali's motives here are politically motivated.)

The bottom line is that should Abu badali have acted courteously and reasonably we would not have had the cause to discuss this incidents at WP:ANI. Stating this is not an ad hominem but simply an opinion on the matter. I am merely pinpointing the root cause of many similar conflicts in the past and want to prevent similar conflicts in the future. This is the reason of my post rather than, as you imply, some outstanding issues with Abu badali of which I have none. --Irpen 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I though the user would know what the templates messages mean, as he/she already has a couple of them in his talk page. Sorry if my judgment didn't lead to the most productive outcome. But is think that saying that I didn't act "courteously", "reasonably" is a little bit overreaching (considering I have even been linked to "Palestine terrorists"), but you're entitled to your opinion.

But you forget to address the main point being questioned. When did I threatened the user, as you accused me of in ""rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts""? Threats are not WP:CIVIL, and accusing me of engaging is such behavior requires strong diffs. --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, this might be relevant now. Your statements referring to Abu badali's person as opposed to his arguments are still ad hominem arguments and are thus irrational, irrelevant and false. Regards, Iamunknown 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Irpen was hasty in accusing Abu B of "threats of all sorts". That said, it's clear that the newbie uploader did feel threatened by the templates and the deletion nominations, and that communicating exclusively in templates and by rolling back their edits (with the automated edit summary "using popups", yet..!) is deplorable. Especially doing it to a new user, who is clearly doing their best to contribute... and then, when the user can't understand what the template is telling her/him to do (can't say I blame them), to repost the same template, for the next image they upload... what were you thinking? Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Now, I could be wrong about your communicating exclusively in templates, you have a lot of contribs and I may have missed something. But the only non-template post to this person that I can see is on the Images and media for deletion, obviously too little and way too late.

Iamunknown, I have to say you're not helping. Please provide examples and diffs for your repeated claims that Irpen is posting ad hominem attacks "all over the place", or else stop saying it. There's no ad hominem from him here, that's ridiculous. ("Your statement that "That what the experienced user should have done" is directly commenting on Abu badali, the person making the argument"—er, no.) A common saying on this page is "Diffs or it didn't happen". I click hopefully on your links, to take a look a your evidence that these ad hominems happened somewhere, and find instead a clutch of internet definitions of ad hominem, plus our own page WP:KETTLE... Don't waste administrators' time in this way, please. Give diffs or it didn't happen. Bishonen | talk 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, last I was aware this was a dead issue. I can't imagine why you are bringing it up again just to waste admin time. --Iamunknown 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, thanks for the input. I'll try to do better next time. The "deplorable" automatic edit summaries were probably because I didn't had much much patience left for User:BassPlyr23 after he linked me to "Palestine terrorists" [7]. I've recently been remembered to step away from angry users, and that's what I was trying to do. I'll try harder next time. Probably, by ignoring ifd tags removals as Iamunknown suggested above. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator inaction toward 3RR Talk Page Vandalism, or clarification of User Talk Page policy

I am posting here regarding a dispute with administrator User:Rlevse.

Background: User:Brain40 vandalized my talk page, reverting it 6 times. He was warned and continued reverting. He finally stopped when this 3RR dispute was opened.

However, despite the wording of WP:UP saying otherwise, User:Rlevse has proceeded to take no action, close the 3RR complaint, taken WP guideline pages out of content (using a section that applies only to other users' talk pages to apply to edits performed against a user's own talk page), and even stated on User_talk:Brain40 that he is going to willfully ignore the matter.

I would like another administrator's opinion on this matter. This is what WP:UP currently says about editing one's own talk page:

"On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

I read that to mean that removing warnings (which is also sketchy, since "warnings" are not defined) is frowned upon but there is absolutely no rule against it. It's not considered vandalism, so one cannot revert removal of warnings by oneself under the vandalism umbrella for WP:3RR.

I don't believe that a block of User:Brain40 will be necessary unless he continues to vandalize my user page, but this matter ought to be straightened out and the administrator should be informed of correct WP policy. If the policy in practice disallows removal of warnings from one's own user talk page, the guideline page needs to be changed to make that clear.

I became aware of the policy as written when a warning I left on another user's user talk page was deleted by that user. I checked the rules to see if he could do that - and it's allowed. If the rule allows a user to revert, ad infinitum, another user's talk page to re-insert a warning, then an administrator ruling to this effect entitles me to do as much to this other user's talk page. I highly doubt that is the case. --Tjsynkral 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the new consensus was that it was okay for editors to remove warnings from their user talk pages and that said removal was considered ackowledgement by the editor that they had received a warning. If so, it could be that not everyone has gotten the "word" on this. Cla68 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be a good idea if the guideline page was clarified, either way. Even though I think it is perfectly clear right now that removing warnings from one's own UP is allowed, some people need it spelled out in black and white. --Tjsynkral 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the procedure is for rewording any of the guidelines, but if someone could point me in the right direction, I could try to "get the ball rolling" on it. Cla68 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I resent these remarks made by tjsynkral, as soon as I made a comment on his talk page he blanked it before he probably even read it...though it is true I was in violation of the 3RR rule it was only to revert vandalism and repost my warning (ironically about 3rr) on this man's user page. Once the edit war got out of control me and another editor reported tj to an administrator. One is not supposed to remove warnings from talk pages as clearly stated by User:Rlevse TotallyTempo 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rlevse does not make policy; Wikipedia policy pages define policy, and policies are made by consensus. Furthermore, you had no contact with User:Rlevse at the time you made the reverts, nor did User:Brain40. He was only introduced to the issue when the WP:AN/3RR issue was opened. --Tjsynkral 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy certainly needs clarified and announced, it's too open to interpretation. Let's say User:ABC123 gets a valid vandalism notice, removes it from their talk page, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and then has to dig through history pages to find it? Hardly conducive to admins fighting vandals. Note the case in question was 3RR, this is just a theoretical example.Rlevse 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's sad... as an admin it is your responsibility to check the history for removed warnings, and you've revealed that apparently you are loath to check up on these things. Even if it were against policy to remove warnings, it would still happen and you would be expected to look for that. Also, we are still left with a problem in defining a warning. If I went on your user page and warned you for vandalism, without any basis - would you be forced to keep it forever? --Tjsynkral 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse is trying to apply the guideline's consistently and it isn't his fault if they're vague. If no administrator action is required here, then I think the next step would be to take this issue to one of the community forums such as the Village Pump. Cla68 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines don't mention anything about removing warnings being prohibited (only that they are "frowned upon" - much like racism is "frowned upon" but not illegal). The best word to describe Rlevse's actions is arbitrary. --Tjsynkral 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is your point? State it succinctly, preferably, in less than 30 words. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can a user delete warnings from his own user talk page? Can another user revert the warnings back onto the page 4, 5, even 6 times, despite WP:3RR? Wiki policy says yes and no, but User:Rlevse says no and yes. This is a problem. --Tjsynkral 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to remove warnings, although it's better to leave them then to edit war about their inclusion. You should never revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. You should never characterise an edit as vandalism that is intended in good faith. It was a mistake for other editors to assert that the 3rr did not apply, but it was equally wrong for you to revert the page more than 3 times. If anyone should incur the penalty here, it would be you, since you reverted the page more than any other individual. So be glad for the inaction on AN3. Guettarda 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Read WP:3RR. I may edit my own user space as often as I wish. The sole exception would be if my edit violated WP policy, which it clearly does not. --Tjsynkral 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt 3RV applies to one's talkpage when removing warnings. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda and User:Rlevse. TotallyTempo 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

V A scarlet letter.

Don't mind me, just think this thread could use some illustration so we all know what we're talking about here. --Random832 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TortureIsWrong acting disruptively

TortureIsWrong (talk • contribs • logs) has been using increasingly incivil [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and pointy comments [14] at WP:RFCN. The user has now started nominating other frequent RFCN editors for RFCN [15], in response to the RFCN nomination of his own name. The latest, for Cascadia (talk · contribs) [16], is pretty blatantly against WP:POINT since Cascadia is a region, and the User states on her his User page that she is from there. I believe TortureIsWrong should be blocked for a short time to allow the user to reflect on WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, and on how to contribute without disrupting Wikipedia. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) has been blocked, per the above converstion filed while I prepared this report. I'm leaving this up for the difs. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see the Male userbox on my userpage, ther flyguy! I know I'm a big guy and have long hair, but last I and my finance checked, I was still a guy. LOL! Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cascadio ... er, Cascadia. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Plainly wrong as the referral to an Admin has been found in my favor. I was right, not disruptive. TortureIsWrong 07:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are trolling, plain and simple. Your first block was short because all first blocks are short. I would highly suggest not pushing your luck. - Merzbow 07:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would highly suggest that you add that comment to your user page that you're not the REAL Merzbow if you haven't done so already. I would also suggest that if you're going to take shots at other usernames you should make sure your own house is in order first. TortureIsWrong 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do stop trolling.Proabivouac 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• TIW, you seem to be bothered often by what goes on at WP:RFCN. I really think you will enjoy editing here much more if you avoid that place altogether, and concentrate on writing the encyclopedia. That seems more conducive to your happiness than getting frustrated in a place you don't even like. — coelacan — 08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It has to be said that, after applying for a change of name and having "TortureIsWrong" accepted, and then joining in discussions at WP:RFCN for some time, his name was suddenly (and without going through proper procedure) proposed for blocking by another regular at RFCN, immediately supporeted by a third. It seemed to me and to others there that this was not entirely a good-faith proposal. It included the claim (though rapidly struck out) that "TortureIsWrong" might be offensive to bondage-lovers, and other absurdities. TortureIsWrong's misbehaviour is not excused by this, but his frustration is understandable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The nom was per policy; I admit that the trolling drew my attention to the username but the behavior in itself was not the reason for the nom. As far as procedure, the user replied at WP:RFCN before I could put a notification on his/her talk page, so I didn't see the point in a superfluous notification. I suppose I could have requested that the person change their name before nominating for discussion, but given the user's previous behavior and comments regarding their name in previous discussions, I saw the chance of that being a constructive conversation as being exactly 0%. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user is trolling again by inserting irrelevant POV into a policy discussion. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Torture is most definitely trolling on the RFCN. He votes 'allow' on almost, if not all, cases, even if they are clearly against policy. The most recent was Mike J FOX (talk · contribs). Rather than arguing from policy he challenges its legitimacy. In addition to this he has been generally uncivil and caused disruption in the discussions. I don't know what is motivating him; perhaps he has been bitter about the board since they forced him to change his more blatant violating name. But regardless something needs to be done to prevent his continual disruption there. Thank you. The Behnam 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • I'd like to respond to that by referring people to the recent goings on in the [Byron Coley] article. Am I really the one being "uncivil"? I would also like to point out that my username has now undergone two affirmative reviews and some of the RFCN regulars are still complaining about it. TortureIsWrong 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No one is talking about your username, so I suggest you to stop hiding behind the nonexistent "there's nothing wrong with my username" curtain. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I've already said that I can explain the Bryan Coley thing for you, but you haven't made any effort to contact me directly. We won't distract this discussion with accusations against me anyway, especially since you have made little effort to resolve the 'faith' issue with me. Try my talk page, please. Thanks. The Behnam 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that admins look at the discussion for themselves. TortureIsWrong is flailing about, and apparently doing his best to disguise the fact that there's an unpleasant witchhunt against him, mounted by a group of editors whose approach to Usernames is via a narrow and doctrinaire reading of policy, and who reject any disagreement with their interpretation as being based in a misunderstanding or rejection of policy. Early mediæval Christianity offers some insrtuctive comparisons here, as does 20th-century communism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - yes, I see your point, Mel. Having a civil discussion about the appropriateness of a username is exactly the same as burning witches, the Inquisition, and the gulag. What was I thinking? RJASE1 ^Talk 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There is no question in my mind that TIW is being disruptive on RFCN. Regardless of how wronged he may feel, being disruptive and POINT-y is the exact wrong way to go about expressing his displeasure. The main complaint provides diffs of such behaviour. He has been directed to WT:U multiple times as the correct place to express his disagreement with policy. There is no excuse for his disruptive participation and vicious attitude. That being said, some editors on the "other" side are being problematic as well. They are responding to TIW's baiting. Additionally, after TIW's RFCN was closed as "allow", the decision was questioned (and lead into a broader debate about RFCN). A lot of implications of bad faith and policy abuse were thrown around. That is to say, TIW is not solely responsible for the poisonous atmosphere. It seems to me that some of TIW's "opponents" rely on an overly strict interpretation of WP:U not supported by consensus, while ignoring the provision of WP:U that specificies the line between acceptable and unacceptable is at the discretion of other editors. Much as TIW should raise his concerns on WT:U, should should the "other side" express their concerns about the policy on WT:U. Neither side should be trying to force a significantly broader or narrower policy outside of the policy page. Just my thoughts and observations. Take 'em or leave 'em as you will. Vassyana 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your balanced remarks here, Vassyana. I won't deny that I may have gone overboard on occasion, but I really do feel like I have been set upon by a small group of RFCN "regulars" rather unfairly. And it's not really that I disagree with overall policy - I just think - as did the admin who found my name was not a violation - that the SPIRIT of the policy is far more important than picking out a small provision and hammering it to death. I didn't take it to WP:U because it's more a matter of the way policy is interpreted than it is a matter of rewriting it. Again, thanks for your remarks. TortureIsWrong 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be nothing but a disruptive RFCN troll and I can't see any reason not to block him. John Reaves (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has a long history of being a contributive editor, not just a RFCN troll. As has been noted here, the RFCN got heated repeatedly, and there is definitely a 'clean up wikipedia' vibe there. I'm not defending, NOR excusing his actions, but the RFCN stuff has been getting ridiculous, especially in light of the names of some of those most interested in 'protecting' wikipedia. While a 'cool down' block might be valid, there's a lot of context here, and probably a need for some communication to those who seek to 'gentrify' Wikipedia, one editor at a time. Go look at the other debates there recently. Fenian Swine's is a good example of the troubles. An editor with a longstandgin rep, who went through RFCN before, and got a compromise hammered out, now months later, it's back up, and there's a group who refuses to examine or acknowledge standing compromise. There's a lot going on here, and blindly examining TIW outside of context won't actually help anything. ThuranX 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fenian Swine was only up at RFCN to bring resolution to a complaint posted on this noticeboard. That issue has been closed and his username was allowed. I'd reconsider the "long history of being a contributive editor" statement above - the user has only been registered about six weeks and has been problematic all along. For some history, check not only his talk page and contribs but also the talk page of his previous (pre-block_ username, User talk:MoeLarryAndJesus. A look through the history will give you an idea of the problems. However, this is probably not the forum for this, and an immediate block probably isn't the right answer - despite the problems, the user has also made positive contributions. I'm thinking an RFC on conduct is probably the best way to go, to get some community consensus. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that most of my editing time has been taken up defending my username (which was affirmed) and then dealing with the resulting fallout from people who were greatly upset that it had been affirmed. I have also spent some time defending the username Fenian Swine (closed as No Consensus, default to Allow) and dealing with other RFCN issues. Others are free to call such efforts meaningless if they will. Currently I'm involved in the RFCN against Heavybuddha, which will almost certainly close as Allow. I'd like to spend more time adding information to music-related articles, but it's hard to do under the present circumstances.TortureIsWrong 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You've also made unneeded comments such as "long live Fenian Swine!" --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that was unneeded. Is there a requirement that all comments on discussion boards be necessary? TortureIsWrong 04:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no fallout from the allowance of your username, other than the reaction you get from constantly bringing up a now-dead-thank-God topic. If you want to defend other usernames (which is fine) and write music-related articles (which is great), then by all means do so instead of harping upon a no-need-to-be-shoved-into-everyone's-faces incident. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see the fallout just check out the talk pages of RJASE1 and TheBehnam. I'm not making it up.TortureIsWrong 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then ignore them. Easy as that. Strike the high ground when others do not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thus far it seems like being proactive works better around here. If I had ignored "them" my username would have been banned. I didn't, and it wasn't, and as far as I can see RFCN has been improved as a result. TortureIsWrong 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I meant ignore them now, now that the issue is over (at least for most of us). I still have people seething over my past actions from month's past, yet you don't see me burning with vengeance. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you bothered to look at the link I provided, you'd see that this is happening today. I'm not "burning with vengeance." I'm dealing with an ongoing situation. As far as "vengeance" goes, I'm not the one preparing an additional complaint, am I? TortureIsWrong 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem could be solved without any further action by civil behavior on your part, as many people have pointed out. That's what I would prefer, actually. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automotive hoaxer, possible sockpuppets

Recently we've had some problems with hoax articles on alleged future automobiles. There was one round of about 5-6 articles that went to AfD. Last week, we had another AfD about the same subject. These articles were created by User:Teddy.Coughlin (who also had a penchant for adding blatant misinformation to articles) and User:Hardlinger. Another article, Saturn Avaze, was created recently by User:Dathe remoncado, possibly in response to this. These articles were written very similarly, usually only one or two lines of poorly written BS. --Sable232 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was recreated again by Tony Nizwin. I deleted it and added a sock tag to Tony Nizwin's page. IrishGuy ^talk 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What else can we do to about this? I'd say that this Dathe remoncado is most likely a sock of Hardlinger. I'm going to tag both user pages as such, but it's this Teddy Coughlin I'm not sure about. The other three accounts are only used for creating articles, Teddy Couglin is used for adding misinformation to articles as well (there have been what appear to be a few good edits). --Sable232 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babysbottom (talk · contribs) and others using talk pages to chat

Babysbottom's only edits to date have been to use a group of user pages and user talk pages as forums for chatting with other users whose only edits are also restricted to said chatter. Babysbottom is the most prolific among them and has been warned several times [17] [18] [19]. The typical response usually to ignore or avoid the actual issue [20] [21] and the same attitude is shared by others in the group [22]. The complete list of the group appears to be:

• Babysbottom (talk · contribs)
• Hamsterpoo (talk · contribs)
• Small Dodge (talk · contribs)
• Choclatemuffin (talk · contribs)
• Cherry01 (talk · contribs)
• Cherry02 (talk · contribs)

Though it should be noted that some of them have only made a couple edits. They don't seem to be receptive, and none of them have contributed constructively. I feel like any more warnings are just wasted effort. Leebo ^T/C 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I came acroos a page once when people were using it as a Myspace and then just blanked it and left Chat room-like comments removed by Tellyaddict (talk · contribs). Maybe this could be done and a explanation in the edit summary as it does violate WP:USERPAGE and WP:NOT. Any thoughts? - Tellyaddict 21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been done, and some of the pages were deleted by an administrator, only to be recreated with more chatter. They have also taken to responding with personal attacks. I'm not sure how they misunderstood Wikipedia's purpose to this extent. Leebo ^T/C 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am filing a request at WP:RFP for Full Protection of the User talk and User page, this should prevent it as if blocked they are still able to edit their User talk page.Tellyaddict 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Babybottom's user page is now proteted against recreation, but I've left the talk page until there is post-block abuse. John Reaves (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Babysbottom recently blanked Small Dodge's talk page and continued the chatting. I'll revert it, but should action be taken with Babysbottom? Leebo ^T/C 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And User:Hamsterpoo created User:Hampstershite after being username blocked for the "poo" part, I guess. Leebo ^T/C 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hampstershite blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people get too light handed with this. All accounts blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Talk pages protected to prevent further conversation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drudge Report

Crockspot (talk · contribs) is claiming "ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage." When I WP:ATT this claim the user wrote "rv. Are you being deceitful, or just obtuse?"[23] More opinions welcome. Arbustoo 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the title of the referenced article at abcnews.go.com is "Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage". Seems a rationale for the edit, though a summary of the article would might be better, rather than just repeating lead. Shenme 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a review of a book by Mark Halperin, who is the originator of that quote. At any rate, I can't fathom how this requires administrative intervention; please keep it to the article's talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The second line of the title is "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite".[24] The article is an interview/review of thr authors' book. If ABC believes what the authors said it isn't claimed. I posted it here as I was attacked by another editor on my talk, the page talk, and the edit summary. Rather than have an edit war, I thought it was better for others to give their opinion. Arbustoo 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Again reverted[25] claiming the ABC News believes this. Arbustoo 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for edit warring on Drudge Report (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and says my 3RR report of his 4 reverts in an hour and 20 minutes was "deceitful"[26] because I (apparently) reported them in reverse order.[27] I asked for a retraction of the "deceit" charge and got none.[28] His unblock request is awaiting review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have opened an RfC asking a narrow pair of questions on this issue. I believe that some editors with a history of antipathy toward Matt Drudge are mischaracterizing the source in question. See Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: ABC claim. - Crockspot 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Arbustoo on the 3RR report, and fail to see how it was "deceptive". The reverts were listed in reverse chronological order, which is a bit nonstandard, but I saw that and read them from the bottom up anyway. Regardless, there were four reverts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new wrinkle

It has recently come to my attention that Arbustoo is under ArbCom sanction for edit warring. Considering two prior blocks for 3RR, and an ArbCom ruling, I am concerned about his lack of understanding of 3RR; I have filed a report at Arbcom enforcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock-puppetry?

[edit] Solicitation of Interviews

John2429 (talk · contribs) is soliciting people to conduct paid interviews for a purported Grad School project. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Looking to Interview Wikipedians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Looking to Interview Wikipedians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz#Looking to Interview Wikipedians, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force#Looking to Interview Wikipedians. Is this activity permitted? Should these be removed? Should any warnings be issued for this? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally would turn a blind eye as its for a non-profit organisation. Epbr123 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I brought something similar to this up a while back and the general consensus of the people who responded to my WP:AN post seemed to be to let it slide.--Isotope23 18:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is legitimate. I've spoken with him, and I wouldn't worry too much about it. alphachimp 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. John's project is legitimate, and part of an academic research project (fully approved by his university). I have communicated with him too. --Ragib 04:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some kind of personal attack

Hope this is the right place. I fear it isn't, unless oversight is appropriate. Special:Contributions/172.164.50.47 shows a personal attack being added on two user's talk pages (claimed to be, and likely to be, the same person). But they have fake signatures. So perhaps this is really about attacking the person whose signatures they are. There has been intemperate discussion e.g. [31], Talk:Scotch_whisky#Map. Neither user is active at the moment, but they edit in bursts. I don't know what to do about it anyway. Would it be in order to just delete them as personal attacks, or is that out of order on another user's talk page? The IP appears to belong to AOL, so there's no profit in investigating that further. Notinasnaid 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned the IP, although if it belongs to AOL, it may not do much good. Heimstern Läufer 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Contributions/Fbradish

This guy is already blocked for vandalism and is expressing his general contempt for the community by abusing his talk page. Not a crisis worthy of AIV, but worth making note of.. His 24 hour block expires in a little over 2hrs --Versageek 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted. If he wants to remove warnings, that is his perogative, but he is not entitled to falsify posts by others. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to reset the block timer for the disruption and perhaps extend it for falsification of posts. I'd say an indef block on this guy is going to be pretty inevitable, he isn't going to grow up in 2 hours, is he. -- Nick ^t 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a vandalism-only account, why is it not already indefblocked? I'll do it myself unless someone gives a reason I haven't seen. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Block away. Watch out for vandalism from his IP, though: 81.153.33.130. That will surely follow. IrishGuy ^talk 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I've reverted and protected his talk page, btw. -- Nick ^t 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to extend the block to indefinite, but it wouldn't let me. But seriously... When's the last time anyone saw any good come out of these vandalism-only accounts? I never have, in fact I've seen these accounts step up their vandalism to something worse when some administrator decided to block them for a finite amount of time. This one more than warrants an indefinite block, IMHO, especially when he's changing other people's comments like that. Grandmasterka 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:63.151.150.82 on Vincent Fumo

User:63.151.150.82 appears to be a single purpose account, with the sole purpose of vandalizing (blanking) the text of Vincent Fumo, and replacing it with a BLP violation. The user has been warned once by a bot, and once by me, at User talk:63.151.150.82. - Crockspot 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a job for WP:AIV if he does it again...--Isotope23 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking and Sockpuppetry

User [User:Khoikhoi| Khoikhoi] and [User:Beit_Or| Beit Or] began stalking and reverting all of my edits back to own versions without any comments or discussion here [32] here [33] here [34] here [35]. Suspected sockpuppet of user Khoikhoi who also has been stalking and reverting my edits consecutively[36], here [37], here [38], here [39]. --Oguz1 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no sockpuppetry or stalking here. You have also been warned about this. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Oguz1 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for disruptive editing and WP:POINT violations. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistant Spammer - Vanity edits

The following usernames all appear to be socks of the same individual, whose every edit is either link-spam, information about himself (Asa Dan Brown), or information about his company/organization (Insight Psychological Inc). I happened to notice this trend after watchlisting some random pages due to vandalism. I'm not sure what needs to be done, so I am bringing it to your attention here. The suspected usernames/IP, along with some representative diffs, are listed below. Thanks. Pastordavid 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Insight psychological inc. (talk • contribs • count) diff, diff, diff
• Psychological - insight (talk • contribs • count) diff, diff,
• Insight Psychological (talk • contribs • count) diff, diff, diff
• 142.59.133.152 (talk • contribs • count) diff, diff, diff

Drop by User:Shadow1 and ask to have the offending link/links added to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. -- Nick ^t 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. But should account creation be blocked on the IP? I am generally not quite so adament about vandalism blocks, but this sort of revolving account creation seems to game the system. -- Pastordavid 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind ... for now I am satisfied with the apology offered by the "staff of Insight Psychological", and will simply let the matter go for now. -- Pastordavid 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLPC

I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable airport links

I recently rolled back all edits by Swilson86 (talk · contribs) due to highly suspect insertions of links to apparent airport websites and I just wanted to mention it here in case anyone wanted to double check my actions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be spam. Frise 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If Wikipedia funding dries up, it's all my fault

An anon in the 72.xxx... range added this question to the Reference Desk: [40]. Since an anon in that range has repeatedly been adding anti-Semitic, anti-Stern polemics to the Help Desk, I deleted it as trolling. I now have the following on my Talk page: [41]. Corvus cornix 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You...!!! --Golbez 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How could you! -M^ask 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be quite upset if my garishly extravagent salary dries up. -- Pastordavid 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this be harassment or something? Or perhaps a little pointy? x42bn6 Talk 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I love threats like that. They cheer you up when you're in a bad mood cause they're clearly such bollocks. Like when people threatened to sue you, with no grounds at all. I find it hilarious. --Deskana (ya rly) 04:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the 71.xxx... range. My bad. Corvus cornix 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Those 71.xxx folk only have ningi's anyway. Too piddling by far. Shenme 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PadrigPlasdig

User:PadrigPlasdig appears to be on some sort of mission to troll user talk pages. See Special:Contributions/PadrigPlasdig. This is leading to cascade issues (or he's got a sockpuppet that he's using to complain about himself - either way, it's bad). —DragonHawk (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica troll; username blocked, user talk trolling deleted/removed. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quick. What service!  :-) —DragonHawk (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we aim to please ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sugarsugar123

This user keeps adding unverifiable information ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) without citing a source. The user did this after a final warning and also created a few unsourced articles (possibly hoaxes). These include Rebbeca Langron. Squirepants101 00:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The user never provides an edit summary. Squirepants101 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• You should list vandalism at Administrator intervention against vandalism [47] --Masterpedia 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether this was obvious vandalism or not. Squirepants101 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment was based on your warnings to User:Sugarsugar123. [48] --Masterpedia 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Paul venter and User:Berks105 engaged in some sort of edit war

It would appear that two users Paul venter (talk · contribs) and Berks105 (talk · contribs) are engaged in a sort of edit war over a bunch of articles related to South Africa. Some of the edits and reverts have started to get incivil, and one of the users has resorted to personal attacks. This probably needs further investigation. I make no statements yet over who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", but there are some serious issues going on here, especially regarding ownership of articles, excessive reverting, personal attacks and incivility that need to be looked into. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to pass comments on a fellow editor, but my (and others') previous interaction with User:Paul venter mirrored nearly the exact same situation over the position of the infobox image image in Jonty Rhodes. I found Paul Venter at the time very aggressive, abusive, and generally very resistant to accepting others' views. He also engaged frequently in personal attacks towards individual editors. Further when efforts were made to build a consensus, he declined to abide by the consensus and merely increased his aggression and abuse. Rueben lys 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An argument over whether the image should be placed in the infobox? It seems that Paul venter seems to have acted very stubbornly in that issue... Well,Paul deserves a warning for 3RR, which he seems to have broken, looking at his contribs. As for the image placement, I have no opinion and it should be settled via WP:DR. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that Paul is feeling stalked although Berks105's edits are actually constructive. Paul is reverting Berks's edits calling them vandalism which they are not. There is some WP:OWN here. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I request 48 hour block on User:Paul venter for WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, persistent reverting, failure to discuss, excessive size of images, accusations of vandalism at Lionel Phillips. He needs time out to think about his approach. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure.User:Berks105 has disengaged, according to his userpage, so a block would be inappropriate. Aatomic1 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From a quick glance, some of the edits by Paul venter are not just edit warring, but clear reaches of MoS, e.g. [49]. Reverting in order to clearly breach MOS is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul_venter engaged in discussion on his talk page but has now blanked it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Berks105 has done his best to discourage Paul but Berks has retired and Paul continues to disrupt without discussion. The latest one is persistent removing of Lady in 1st line of Lady Phillips. When I raise it on his talk page, he merely blanks it. He is very stubborn. I request he is blocked 48 hours not as punishent but to prevent damage and disruption. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is to be left in peace to write articles without constant reverts and edits while I am busy on an article. For the latest example of this see Charles Collier Michell where Kittybrewster ignored an "inuse" tag and proceeded to edit. She and Berks have dogged my footsteps and specifically targeted me. For Kittybrewster to request that I be blocked for standing up to their vandalism and lack of courtesy, is extraordinary. I would appreciate intervention. Paul venter 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Berks has retired.

Berks105 (talk · contribs) has not retired. He continues to use Berks105 to make edits. He has made over 100 edits after announcing retirement on 18 March 2007. He has made 25 edits after moving his talk page to the archive with the comment, "(Archive (Preparation to actually leave; recent argument reminded why i decided to leave!))"[50] Of those 25 edits, six were the first edit after a change by Paul venter (talk · contribs).

--Kevinkor2 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I keep meaning to stop, but I wanted to get the issue of Paul venter's constant reverting of MofS edits sorted first. I feel that with Kittybrewster now getting involved this can be done, although venter still seems reluctant to realise he doesn't own articles. Anyway, I will make an effort from now to make no more edits as Berks105. --Berks105 10:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Be careful when bandying about charges of vandalism. Vandalism is narrowly defined as actions designed to damage or harm Wikipedia articles. There appears to be none of that going on by you, or by EITHER of the two people you have accused of vandalism. While I make no statements on the position of either side vis-a-vis the quality of their edits in this dispute, such edits are clearly not vandalism. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a spat of style over substance. I suggest the stylists back off a while. Someone else will eventually edit the articles as they see fit - they might even develop a constructive relationship with Paul venter Aatomic1 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gun Powder Ma at Four Great Inventions and Siege of XiangYang

I have a complaint raised against Gun Powder Ma. He doesn't seem to resort to middle ground and prefers to edit things according to his own sources/POV and throw away contradicting opinions with their own sources as well. He continually edits away any source I pointed out in Wikipedia when it comes to "Four Great Inventions". He does not answer the discussion section, and although he argued with me on the neutrality of his source in Siege of XiangYang he now only reverts the edits back to those of his own instead of discussing the neutrality of it with me. I pointed out that having minority sources is against Wikipedia's NPOV rule, but now he just stopped replying and only resorted to reverting. So I'm out of luck for better communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Xiangyang http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&action=history

[User:ImSoCool|ImSoCool]] 1:125, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Empty message for archiving purposes) Fram 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Drieakko

This user keeps pushing biased versions in certain articles, for example leaving out Finnish names, and names in other languages too, in Finland related articles, wrongly using the word Finnic instead of Finnish[51] or using the Swedish name of a unilingually Finnish speaking city.[52] It seems to be pro-Swedish vandalism. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakko_Sivonen (talk · contribs) has been blocked 12 times, and four for violating NPA. Last time was Jan 20, when he was blocked for one month. He started editing in March again, again aggresively targetting the same set of articles with the same arguments. Isn't it time to take some further actions?

Fred-Chess 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem: you can't use my past to argument against my actions in the present time. You have to direct your arguments in my recent actions which have been, unlike you say, reasonable, even user: Jdej said so[53]. I think Wikipedia should take actions against you, for example permanently banning you. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, we can use your past to argue that it's time for a ban for exhausting the community's patience. How in fact would there even be such bans, if a user's past wasn't taken into account? We can mention your disruption of the Swedish wikipedia, too, if it comes to that. Fred, I suggest you propose a community ban at the Community sanction noticeboard, that's what it's for, and it's the logical next step after a one-month block fails to have any effect. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

While using your past to claim your present actions are wrong would be an ad hominem argument, that wasn't what he was doing. He was using your past to claim that your present actions (which he is asserting are wrong anyway) deserve more severe punishment as a repeat offender. --63.173.196.33 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block for disruption at rfcn

I have blocked for three hours User:TortureIsWrong for disruption at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Besides his comments that bordered on trolling, he listed Merzbow's username and then Cascadia's for review, out of spite or to make a point. Review and undo invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Three hours only? True, his username may not merit a block, but trolling is an indefblockable offense. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the indefblock. The user has been trolling around RFCN all week, and has made decisions based on nonsense, included allowing a user name with the comment "I think it's funny". He has also been incivil (see his user talkpage). He also just made a point violation. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Although this 3 hour block is correct, I think indef'ing might be a bit harsh as this user was POINTing after his own username had been nominated for discussion on WP:RFCN. (→Netscott) 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Last name was MoeLarryAndJesus. It's not a short-term POINT; that RFCN was about a month ago, and involved some trollery itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

File an RFC then... Im wary to indef block without making an attempt at rehabilitation. He seems like he honestly wants to contribute and got sucked into the drama. Maybe get a mentor for him -M^ask 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also some question of a variety of sock POINT names based off of his. While it is not clear, they could have been made by him to further his pointy trolling presence on the board. The Behnam 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with any such names, and I consider the absolutely unfounded accusation that I did to be highly uncivil.TortureIsWrong 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, let me get this straight... You're saying he should be blocked because you don't like the way he votes? ((EC/P.S.) and, accusations of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point are thrown around far too lightly in general, can someone substantiate the claims that he's been disruptive?) --Random832 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that TorutreIsWrong can be uncivil, I believe that an indef block would be highly innapropriate without very very very strong evidence of a reason to. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV Abuse

Some editors abused DRV in here. These users voted endorse because they voted delete in the AFD. It says on DRV that it is about process not content but several endorsers based their votes on the content. Therefore, the conclusion has been biased by these abusive votes. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see both my and this 'gentlemans' userpage to see why this is a bad-faith accusation by someone who desn't know what he's talking about. If he had bothered to check the AfD that saw his and his friends article deleted, he would have seen quite quickly that neither myself, nor the other user he accused, made a single comment in the AfD. The Kinslayer 08:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about "process" and whatnot. It's as well to make absolutely clear that an article must never remain on Wikipedia because of process, and an article must never be deleted from Wikipedia because of process. The only thing that matters is whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia. So it's quite in order for any Wikipedian to endorse a deletion because they think the article should have been deleted. In fact it would be a bit strange if they did not. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] repeated addition of false information on Nadine Gordimer

repeated insertion ([54], [55], [56], [57], breaking 3RR) of statement ( "home is protected by high-tech security equipment" ) contradicted by source provided [58], despite warning on article and user talk pages, by IP user(s) 75.212.126.146, 75.213.225.215 and 75.213.225.215. mirrors earlier edits ([59], [60]) by tendentious editor 70.23.199.239. Doldrums 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

May be a sockpuppet of User:Yakuman (and/or User:70.23.199.239), based on the timing and style of edits of Yakuman and the three anonymous Verizon editors today. --lquilter 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

continues[61]. Doldrums 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZoreniaBlueLightning (talk · contribs)

This user seems just a tad suspicous to me, so I created this account to report without retaliation. Ignoreme 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ZBL has 3 edits, all on March 17, complaining about User:Bandit197t9, who has no edits. User:Ignoreme has this one edit. Calling this a tempest in a teapot is an underestimation of the value and scope of teapots. No action taken. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Duke Rape Case page

We're having a few problems on the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal page, which is leading to an edit war:

1. During an ongoing discussion of whether to post the alleged victim's photo, a user persists in unilaterally overriding the discussion and posting it. An edit war is starting. I'm not sure how to return attention to the discussion without continually reverting his edits.
2. The same user has difficulty understanding the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability ideas. First he claimed Wikipedia:Assume good faith applied to content (we should assume it's valid unless proven otherwise). Now he claims any citation is a good one. Twice I've clearly quoted and referenced the policies, but I think the heat of the debate is interfering with communication. An neutral third party might be more effective.
3. I could use a tip on resolving the question over posting the photo. I think the discussion has nearly run its course -- and frankly, I tried to address the merits of the issue, but I was mostly alone; it wasn't much of a discussion -- and no consensus is apparent. What now?

Thanks in advance, Guanxi 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably more the sort of thing for dispute resolution than this noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer 23:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute not requiring administrator intervention and would thus be more appropriately addressed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Cla68 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... it seems like #2 and #1 might fit here, but I'll try Request for Comment first. Thanks. Guanxi 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or should we be looking to merge and redirect Crystal Gail Mangum to this article, on the gorunds that it is an article on a living individual which focuses almost exclusively on a singler incident. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 68.253.206.119

Possible violation of WP:NPA by user 68.253.206.119 in the edit summaries of NBA Records (see the edit summaries on "21:59, 3 April 2007" and "22:03, 3 April 2007"). Myasuda 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Warn the user using {{uw-npa1}}, remembering to substitute the warning. The ip has also made many questionable edits to many sport teams articles, though I have no idea if the edits are legitimate. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tmangray (talk · contribs) prolonged revert warring and incivility

Tmangray (talk · contribs) has a history of trying to ignore consensus on List of California hurricanes and Category:California hurricanes by performing cut and paste moves and posting incivil remarks to people trying to explain the consensus to leave those pages at their current locations. He has done this before, and was reverted, and I left him a warning on his talk page, which he responded to in an incivil manner. A short to moderate term block might be needed, but I'm not sure for how long, and I probably can't do it. --Coredesat 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the four talk diffs, I must say I only find one obviously incivil. It may be worth hearing his case. It sounds interesting. (Out of curiosity, do you have any links to discussion that established this consensus? I'm not trying to second-guess you, but I'd like to read a bit more into this case.) --Chris (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the exact discussion - I'll ask someone. But if you check Talk:List of California hurricanes, you'll notice that he tried to get involved in a related discussion that had been over for seven months. The National Hurricane Center (and likewise, WikiProject Tropical cyclones), always defaults to "hurricane" if a storm was ever at hurricane strength, not just at landfall; but he doesn't seem to understand this (otherwise he would have brought this up on articles for other regions). --Coredesat 07:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after checking, the discussion either happened before I joined the project in March 2006, or I don't know where it is, but it's standard procedure to default to the highest classification used. I left an explanation on his user talk page, but this is not the first time someone has tried to explain it to him (the first time someone tried to explain it to him, he "vehemently disagreed" and proceeded to do his cut and paste moves). --Coredesat 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note from a blocked user?

Hi: I received the following on my talk page. In my humble opinion, he may have a serious point, but I'm a little nervous about directly taking it to AfD, because I don't want to be acting as a proxy for a blocked user. Need some direction, please.

Begin quote: Hello, Madhu Omalloor is a non-notable bio. A cartoonist and sub-editor without even a single notable award to cite is not even borderline notable. The two awards mentioned are highly suspect. One is a fellowship. Anyway, not supported by any reference. Can you please send it to AfD? I am a blocked user. 59.91.253.128 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. Philippe 06:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Advise the supposedly blocked user to try the {{unblock}} template. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 06:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bother. I am User:Kuntan who wields an army of socks, as they say. Not all are listed here either. If the community had some dignity, they would have done away with Thanu Padmanabhan an article created by one of my socks. And on an RfC our reputed editors have overwhelmingly agreed that User:Kuntan was a vicious troll who didn't make a single positive contribution to WP. Then I used a real sock and prodded the given article. And one of the learned editors deprodded it. Isn't this worst kind of misappropriation? 59.91.253.128 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban-evading IP blocked for one month, does not appear to be shared. Sandstein 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PLEAD FOR HELP AGAIN

This is the third time these sockpuppets have been reported, can someone please block them. can we get a more permanent ban of user:Serafin? he has over 15 confirmed scokpuppets and another 20+ more probable socks. These socks need blocked.

• Lapacz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Widelec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Lyzka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can I get an answer from admin on this before it is relegated to an archived page yet again? he is a persistent vandal on a number of articles. He has already been permanently banned from both German and Polish wikipedias. We should learn from our experiences so far and end this headache.

Serafin is blocked from editting for violating 3RR, NPA, Edit-warring and many other articles, atleast 4 pages he vandalized had to be protected or semi-protected.

--Jadger 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Serafin is blocked for a year. For bans, go here—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you

--Jadger 08:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Y Done

User:Xx236 has a history of personal attacks upon me, being warned numerous times, can someone please help me with him. these edits in particular are the latest:[62][63]

--Jadger 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but you can use the following templates for violating WP:NPA:

• {{uw-npa1}}
• {{uw-npa2}}
• {{uw-npa3}}
• {{uw-npa4}}

Dont forget to subst these template (e.g {{subst:uw-npa1}}~~~~) and if they make personal attacks after their fourth and final warning then you can ensure a temporary block (or indefinite depending on the circumstances) after a report to WP:AIV. That should help you.Tellyaddict 11:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot makes tons of wrong edits

User:Kingbotk tags all listas parameter of {{WPBiography}} family-given names order wrong for Asian biographies. I can't revert them by hand. Yao Ziyuan 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, you know how to kick up a stink don't you? Multiple posts to my talk page and now here too! :)

This matter is trivial, and in hand, and indeed I've already implemented a solution in code which you would have known if you'd bothered to click on the link I provided on my talk page. Please see User_talk:Kingbotk/Plugin#WPBio_Listas. This was a well-intentioned feature acceptance of which didn't go as well as planned, so I've already turned it off in code not only for my bot but for any automated operation. --kingboyk 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Overarchiver

Hello, User:Overarchiver mysteriously archived my talk page without permission, you should look into this. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin issue. Have you tried to talk to him about it yourself? – Chacor 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say I would revert it, but User:MacGyverMagic reverted it. Not longer a issue, if he does it again I'll contact him. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll give him a stern warning. You don't archive someone else's userpage without asking. Especially when it's obvious they are active Wikipedians. His name suggests he's up to no good, so we should keep an eye on him. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cities in Kurdistan

Category:Cities in Kurdistan has suffered from some odd form of Turkish nationalist vandalism, could someone please have a look at Category talk:Cities in Kurdistan and help out with some action or advice? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly odd, more like mainstream (if you check the revert wars which have happened on those pages in the past). Anyway, I've reverted, but it's too much work to do it again if the category is re-emptied.--Domitius 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what exaclt is going on but if you have an opinion, please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Kurdistan#Category:Kurdistan.27s_sub_categories. If a category does not have a reliable inclusion criteria (I argue it doesn't), emptying it does not fall under vandalism. -- Cat ^chi? 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So blanking under a false edit summary [64][65][66] is acceptable. OK.--Domitius 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but removing it from articles certainly is ok in the absence of a verifiable inclusion criteria. -- Cat ^chi? 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jobjörn and Domitius; Firstly, "Turkish nationalist vandalism" is not proper adjective for a wiki user. Thanks to Domitius that left a message to my talk page regarding the my cleanups. Lets check above links and Lets check the relevant pages; we will see a hars nationalism before my edits. Many Iran and Sryia cities had tagged with this cat.There was many unilateral, unsourced sentences. If you can share your time also, I am ready to discuss and to add this tag in the articles which you prefer.Regards.Must.^{T C} 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued abuse by a temporarily blocked user

• Techops101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - I have notified the user of deletion of a nonsense article he has created; he responded with vandalism of my user page, so I blocked him for a week. Now he vandalized my warnings on his talk page. (I don't want increase the length myself, so that he doesn't take it as my whim.) Originally reported at WP:AIV, but a bot has twice removed it because he is blocked at the moment. - Mike Rosoft 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If he does it again I'd say you or another admin would be justified in protecting his talk page for the duration of the block. I don't know about lengthening the block, though. Natalie 17:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a vandalism only account. FloNight 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg

I created Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png a few days ago from an existing UN map (under a PD license) to provide a high-resolution overview of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and chunks of the neighboring countries. It replaced an earlier version of the same map, Image:Israel.png, which I also created from the same UN source. That map was the subject of a dispute between Timeshifter and a number of other users concerning the classification (was it a map of Israel alone or a map of Israel plus the territories occupied by it?). I sought to resolve that dispute by retitling the map and renaming it (plus making some unrelated formatting changes) to make it clear that the map was indeed supposed to be of the entire region, not just Israel. I explained the changes and the rationale at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png, and asked for an independent review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Request for review of map classification. Nobody there saw any problems with it.

Three (presumably Israeli) users raised questions about the nomenclature at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png. (The term "occupied territories" is taken from standard UN usage and is also replicated in the CIA World Factbook map of the region, which uses the term "Israeli-occupied" - see Image:Cia-is-map2.gif. Wikipedia uses "Israeli-occupied territories".) In response to their concerns, I suggested renaming the map again to eliminate the term "occupied territories" (see Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png#Alternative proposal). The discussion was ongoing and there was every chance of finding a solution that was acceptable to everybody.

Regrettably, Jayjg has decided to abuse his administrative powers by speedily deleting the image's placeholder from the English Wikipedia with the edit summary "enough is enough; restore the original image without your added commentary" [67]. He also posted to the talk page (addressed to me): "Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough." [68] Jayjg had previously played no part in the discussion on Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png - this was his first edit to the talk page. (Added: the thing that has been deleted is a placeholder page categorising the image in two categories, not the image itself. The image is on the Commons. See my comments further down this thread for a detailed explanation.)

This is a blatant misuse of deletion authority for presumably POV reasons and is a completely unjustifiable personal attack as well. The map was not created for POV reasons. I've taken the time to explain every aspect of its creation and rationale on the talk page. As the talk page also shows, I've been working with the objecting editors to find a common solution, and I've directly asked them for their views ([69]) - how on earth is this "abusive"?. Instead, Jayjg has decided to short-circuit all of that by speedily deleting the image page, posting a personal attack and attempting to shut down the efforts to find a compromise. The deletion policy was ignored, bad faith was assumed and an unpleasant personal attack was posted out of the blue. As a former arbitrator (!) he of all people should know that isn't acceptable. -- ChrisO 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "occupied territories" is the official term for these regions, and it is a term used by the UN to describe them - therefore it is by definition a NPOV term. As you describe the facts Jayjg speedy-deleted the image, failing to satisfactory explain why he did that. But I would also like to listen to what he has to say.--Yannismarou 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The UN does indeed appear to refer to the territories as "occupied", discussion did appear to be happening in the talk page, and the speedy did appear to be out of process and non-AGF. The highlighting of the Palestinian territories makes the title change seem reasonable. I don't like the look of this at first glance, but would like to hear Jayjg's side as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we sum this up as "If it may be questionable for you to use admin tools in a given situation, request that someone uninvolved do so, just like a normal editor would do, and go from there?" I have the idea here that a speedy tag on the images in question (on either side) would have been declined, and I believe rightfully so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely like to hear Jayjg's comments on this. --Golbez 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, Jay wasn't involved in the dispute and took admin action to sort it out. You were involved, yet you also speedied two of the images the dispute was about. On March 27, you speedied Image:Israel.png; Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg, and their talk pages, [70] [71] the first of which had posts about the dispute on it and probably shouldn't have been deleted.

I'm not saying you were wrong to do this, because I don't know the details, but I'm wondering why it would be wrong for Jay to take admin action when he's not involved, but all right for you to do it when you are involved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand here we go. Replacing a map with another (and certainly not a duplicate as was claimed) using admin tools? Oh there's fun on every side. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. I originally speedied Image:Israel.png because I uploaded it to the wrong place - en: rather than Commons. [72] Following the dispute over the categorisation, I modified the image to make the subject matter explicit (as explained at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png) and de-linked the original image on en:. I requested on the Commons that the image be deleted as it had been obsoleted; this was actioned yesterday. There was no need to retain a "placeholder" for a deleted Commons image here on en:. I also created Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg and uploaded that only to the Commons. Following comments on en:, I realised that the image name was both ambiguous and inaccurate - it isn't purely of Israel, and it isn't a topographic map (it's of the entire SE Mediterranean region and it's a satellite image). To resolve this I re-uploaded it to the Commons as Image:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg - the same image with a different filename and some more annotations - along with an explanation of its purpose (Image talk:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg). The original deletion requests are at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg. My preference would have been to move the images to new names and overwrite them with the updated versions, but the images had to be deleted rather than moved because the Commons software doesn't support moves (see Commons:FAQ#Technical questions). I did specifically ask about this - see Commons:Village pump#Image move request.

The CSD reasons were (1) author request (i.e. mine); (2) transwikiing in the case of the first image; (3) deletion of the referenced images on Commons in both cases. None of those reasons applies for Jayjg's action. No rationale whatsoever has been given for Jayjg's action and it certainly isn't covered by WP:SPEEDY. Just to clarify, neither image is a "duplicate" - I don't think I've ever claimed this. I've been very explicit about why they were created and why I asked the Commons to delete the first versions. They were misnamed, the first image had some technical problems and neither image was clear enough about the subject matter. -- ChrisO 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the Israel image twice; it's the March 27 deletion I'm talking about because the dispute was underway by then, and I don't really follow what you said above. CSD by author request where you're the author is fine, but only if there's no ongoing dispute. Can I ask why you speedied Image talk:Israel.png, which contained parts of the dispute? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See below. (Could you possibly post questions just in one place? It's a bit confusing if they're asked and answered more than once. Thanks in advance.) -- ChrisO 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I will cease commenting when half asleep. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

here's my personal perspective:

1. ChrisO, has been rigorously involved in the last month and a bit or so (over 150 related edits/talks/reverts/deletion requests/requests for support/etc. within that time frame) in "taking an article Pallywood hostage" via an AfD suggestion, a blanking attempt, a 3RR evasion and general ignoring of any wiki editor with a different opinion/perspective.
2. this apprears to be a similar case in regards to Israel related editing, where user appears to be adamant on anti-israeli presentations. As such, i think it is very much appropriate to firstly remove the bais presentation, and return the information only when an approved version is accepted upon - rather than doing it the other way around - misrepresenting events until a resolution is achieved. Jaakobou 09:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you've added your personal perspective, let me add mine. I've been creating maps for Wikipedia since 2004 for places as diverse as Greece, Ukraine, Niger, East Timor and Azerbaijan. Dozens of my maps are in use across numerous Wikipedias. I've never in nearly four years of editing had to face such a barrage of hostility over a map as I have over this one: "blatant idiocy" (sic) ([73]); "POV" ([74]); "attempt to place a POV" ([75]) and "increasingly abusive" ([76]). There seems to be a tendency among some users - you, Jaakobou are one, Jayjg is plainly another - to constantly assume bad faith on anything to do with edits on Middle Eastern matters that don't meet their personal POV. It's more than just inappropriate - it's creating a hostile and intimidatory atmosphere concerning the entire subject area on Wikipedia. I know people have strong feelings about the issues, but that isn't justification to constantly assume the worst of your fellow editors. -- ChrisO 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

please explain to me the text i just highlighted from your statement in the following order:

(1) how does "What did you change other than the new POV title?"^[77] (by user User:Eric1985) was turned into just "POV" ?

(2) how does "was somewhat an attempt to place a POV (though I am not accusing you of taking a side, but rather you interpreting the situation in your own personal way), but then you emphasized this change with the 'occupied territories' bit." (by user User:Shuki) was turned into just "attempt to place a POV"  ?

(3) how does 150+ of your edits/reverts/etc. on Pallywood makes me an "allways assumes bad faith" ?

(4) do you feel an aggressive hostile environment when being requested by a multitude of numereous editors to treat Israeli matters with a little less of a bias presentation? Jaakobou 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that User:Jayjg is in the wrong without question. It has been noted before that Jay abuses his admin powers(although probably with good intent) - but whatever the intent, power abuses can't be tolerated and policy must always be followed. Perhaps an apology from Jay would suffice - if not maybe we could think about consulting ArbCom (by the way I'm really glad to have found this page, it's brilliant for helping with the more mundane tasks!) --I'm so special 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...[78]--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the deleted image. No opinion about which of the two is better, but as long as there are no copyright problems or anything there's no harm having both of them on the server and leaving it to the editors of the articles in question to decide which they are going to use. There clearly was no valid speedy criterion. Sorry for IAA'ing in taking this discussion in lieu of a formal DR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png? He has already uploaded it to the Commons, a restore is no longer necessary. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that. For some reason it was showing as a redlink for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's evidently some confusion about exactly what's been deleted. The first version of the map, Image:Israel.png, was uploaded here by me by accident, but I deleted it immediately and re-uploaded it to the Commons. A placeholder page for that image at [79] was used by Timeshifter to categorise the map in the existing English Wikipedia categories Category:Maps of Israel and Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. After it became clear that I had misnamed the file and the caption was insufficiently clear, I created a second version of the map, Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png, and uploaded that to the Commons. I requested the deletion of the original image on the Commons; this has now actioned and the original image no longer exists, which is why it shows as a redlink. I deleted the redundant placeholder page for the first image and created a new placeholder for the second one at [80]. This placeholder is what Jayjg deleted. -- ChrisO 11:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why you speedied Image talk:Israel.png? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8 - Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist. Don't forget the image was deleted from the Commons. I didn't think there was any point in keeping a talk page for a deleted image. -- ChrisO 12:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe as there was a dispute on it, it might have been worth keeping. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - at worst it should have been substed onto the talk page for the new image Orderinchaos 14:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

ChrisO was involved in a dispute about an image, and, from what I could tell, proceeded to delete the image and upload a different version, to further his own POV about what the image was about. I was not involved in a dispute regarding that image, but viewed ChrisO's actions as an abuse of admin powers, similar to his abuse of admin powers last week, when he protected the image while involved in an edit war over it, and subsequently deleted it. ChrisO seems to be playing fast and loose with his admin powers here, protecting, deleting and re-uploading modified versions of images when he gets into conflicts over them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the image is already on the Commons, and Future Perfect at Sunrise has since restored, then deleted the image, and Timeshifter has then restored it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this clear. First, I deleted the image from the English Wikipedia on 20 March, before all of this blew up, because I'd uploaded it to the wrong place - en: rather than Commons. The subsequent deletion of the same immage from the Commons was done by a Commons admin following an unopposed request at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png. As the author of the image, I have an explicit right to ask for its deletion. Second, the accusation of "furthering my own POV about what the image was about" is utterly wrong - I said right from the start that the image was a map of Israel and the occupied territories. I then had the bizarre experience of users ignoring my stated reasons and in effect claiming I didn't know my own intentions. That's why I added an explicit rationale and statement of intent at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png - to make it crystal clear why the image was created and what it was about. The change to the image caption and filename were similarly intended to make this clear. Third, you're mistaken (I'm assuming good faith here...) about your own previous involvement. I pulled this revert out of the edit history for Image:Israel.png: 03:17, 25 March 2007 . . Jayjg (Talk | contribs | block) (don't need a cat for one map).. Finally, the deletion of the placeholder page (not the image) at Image:Israel.png was undertaken because of the deletion of the image on the Commons. We simply don't need to have placeholders for deleted images.

But let's also get past your smokescreen and get to the heart of what this is about. You speedily deleted a page without giving any rationale beyond what I can only describe as an order directed at me. You were involved in a dispute over the previous version of the image. You issued a personal attack: "Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive." You assumed bad faith. You plainly had a POV objection, but didn't try discussing it with me or any of the other users on the talk page, who were trying in good faith to reach a common solution. I'm still not clear what your objection was, because you've never bothered to explain it to anyone (and still haven't). That sort of conduct would be unacceptable coming from any admin, but coming from a recent former arbitrator it's mindboggling. A few months ago you were voting to ban people who did exactly the same sort of things. -- ChrisO 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow mapmaker, I think I agree with ChrisO on this; he replaced an image he created and he uploaded with what he perceived to be a less POV version, and I personally agree with that assessment. My prescription for this is that we all sit down, calm down, and realize that after all of this discussion, deletion, reversion, etc., we seem to be exactly back where we were after ChrisO uploaded the new map and before Jayjg deleted things. In other words, I say we start over and discuss the merits of the new map, without getting into immediate accusations of POV and deletions. So, peace, y'all? --Golbez 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, frankly. :-) -- ChrisO 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think ChrisO's latest version of the map may solve all the problems people had with the labeling and coloring of the map. Please see:

• Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png#Proposed new version. The new image is Image:Is-wb-gs-gh.png. --Timeshifter 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, much of the discussion on the map was editors telling you why it is not proper to unilaterally create a new map with an altered name to fit your new filename (the original UN map was titled 'Israel', which you reproduced in the first image, and altered to '...and the occupied territories' on the second), and then replace the original map across WP. That your response was to then delete the original both on WP and on the Commons (by proxy) is at the very minimum an improper use of your admin tools for the second time this week. For the record, between the new discussion and the still active one that you deleted, six editors objected to your move (Ynhockey's comments were deleted with the first page). I don't see how it is at all relevant to make presumptions of anyone's nationality (Three (presumably Israeli) users, your words above). I requested last week that you be more careful in using admin tools in content disputes - I can't say that these events show promise in that direction. Tewfik^Talk 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself indefinitely here, so let me do it once more for the record: I created both images as an overview of Israel and the territories. I stated this explicitly at the time. Because the filename and caption were ambiguous, it promptly got jumped on by several users. I changed the filename and the caption to make the subject of the map explicitly clear in the image itself. -- ChrisO 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the crux of the issue - you decided to modify/label/name the new images as "...and occupied territories", which is a content decision, despite the original UN image only being titled "Israel". That would be fine if discussion then formed a consensus declaring that a better description than the original UN image's, but instead you unilaterally enforced the change (with admin tools - deletion, hence AN/I) while the discussion was ongoing (Talk reflects that your changes are what "promptly got jumped on by several users"). That this comes on the tail of a previous misuse of admin tools on your part a week ago (on this very image) is why there is so much concern. Please show us that you realise what the problem is and that you'll be more careful about it. Tewfik^Talk 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tewfik here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well stated by Tewfik. Jaakobou 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I might take your comments more seriously if they didn't come from three members of a POV-pushing clique, the activities of which are well known to and deplored by a number of admins, not just myself (see also [81]). I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision as a cautionary lesson. -- ChrisO 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When all else fails get personal ehh Chris?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look at WP:CIVIL; your intemperate remarks are most unseemly. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris0 for your side of the story, and the very enlightening links. As a participant in most of this, I must be seeing something completely different from what Tewfik is seeing. Tewfik's characterizations of what happened seem very inaccurate. To sum it up, you, Chris0 have been trying to create content, and to modify it at the request of discussion on talk pages. Tewfik and Jayjg have not been creating content. Tewfik has been trying very hard to eliminate this map category, Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. That has already been discussed on the incident board on March 26, 2007. Until recently that desire on his part to eliminate the map category is all he clearly discussed on the talk page for the map in question (Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png). On April 1, Jayjg deleted that modified UN map with the cryptic edit summary of "enough is enough." His comment on the talk page was, "I've deleted the image; restore the original, without your added commentary. Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough." That was his first participation on the talk page for that map. This was several days after Chris0 had asked, "Would it be more acceptable if the map was recaptioned 'Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights' - eliminating the collective term 'territories' altogether?" So I see great effort by Chris0 to discuss changes and to accommodate people, and little or no effort to engage in current discussion from Tewfik and Jayjg. It is all on the talk page: Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png. Tewfik and Jayjg seem to be mad about some perceived problems from days before. I thought that was taken care of in a previous discussion on the incident board here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#Use_of_admin_tools_in_content_dispute --Timeshifter 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I call it as I see it. As I see it, many of the Middle East articles - not my normal subject area by any means - are being used as soapboxes by a group of editors (including a few admins) who are seeking to impose a specifically right-wing American/Israeli POV. In the process, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT are frequently being ignored or bent; bad faith is assumed of anyone who doesn't share their POV; attempts to fix problems with articles are being reverted without discussion; fringe sources are preferred over the mainstream; editors who aren't part of the clique are denounced as biased, disruptive or abusive. I should add that there are of course editors who are biased, disruptive and abusive in editing Middle East articles, but accusations of such conduct seem to be made at the drop of a hat.

As an example of a grossly bad article produced by this clique, I'll point to Muhammad al-Durrah - I've never edited it but it's plain from the article's history that the clique has been fighting off any attempts to make the article conform with NPOV and ATT. The entire article is written from a conspiracy theorist's POV, using fringe sources, with POV-pushers removing references to The Guardian and BBC News on the grounds that neither organization is a reliable source (!). That's comparable to writing Barbara Olson exclusively from the POV of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and junking anything CNN says on the subject because it doesn't suit the conspiracy theorist's POV. This sort of behaviour is totally at odds with our aim of producing neutral, reliably sourced articles, and it's going to end up in an arbitration sooner or later. If you'd like to improve Wikipedia in a small way, might I suggest that you try fixing that article so that it conforms with our basic policies? -- ChrisO 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, in fairness, you edit from a strong POV yourself. You're currently trying to suggest at Zombietime that only the United States regards Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, [82] and that the views of people who support those groups are only regarded as extreme in the context of U.S. politics, [83] which is demonstrably false. Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the U.S. Several countries other than the U.S. regard Hezbollah or its external security arm as a designated terrorist organization. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have seen what you are doing now many times from many editors and several admins. I ask that you apologize to Chris0 for the smear and slander implied by your above comment. If you don't see the smear and slander then I ask you to reread what you wrote, follow the links, and put everything in context. If you still can't see the smear and slander, I ask you to consider resigning as an admin. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to see why this is not a personal attack on my part. It is a formal request I am making on an administrators' noticeboard concerning the content of your remarks, and not about your character. Like Tewfik, you are inaccurately characterizing things, assuming bad faith, and generally assuming the worst about someone. I have lived outside the USA for several years. So I know somewhat of what Chris0 is saying. Chris0 is eminently NOT editing from a strong POV, as you say. Quite the opposite. He is being very NPOV. The fact that you don't see it is disturbing, but understandable. It is the reason for the existence of the project I linked to. --Timeshifter 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how merely pointing out widely available facts about a militant terrorist organization can be conflated to slandering a user.Bakaman 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to suggest anything of the sort, as you very well know, and Timeshifter is right to characterise your comments as slanderous. Let me point out that I myself said that Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organisation in several countries other than the US, including my own (see Talk:Zombietime#Terrorist organisations, well before you tried to pin this "terrorist-supporter" tag on me. The point I've been making all along is that there is no universal agreement on what is or is not a terrorist organisation. You and I happen to think that Hamas, Hezbollah etc are terrorist organisations. Others do not. This is a statement of plain fact, not POV. Frankly, you seem to make a habit of this sort of deliberate twisting of someone else's comments and ad hominem accusations of POV. Stop it now. -- ChrisO 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Without getting too involved here, I feel obligated to point out that on the face of it the above comment is comically hypocritical.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, what happened here is very simple. You posted a very critical post (some might even call it abusive) about a fellow admin, accusing him of abusing his tools. Other people spoke up, either in defense of him or pointing out similar behavior from you. You responded by attacking or dismissing most of them.

They may be more right than you, or you may be more right than them. Who knows. What is clear is that you seem to feel you may criticize people, but if they criticize you, it is outrageous. You may call other people POV pushers, but if anyone feels you also push a POV, it is slander.

All I can say is that whatever applies to others, applies to you too. If you are allowed to criticize, so are they, and I supplied diffs that clearly support what I said to you. I think you should take Golbez's advice (which you seemed to agree with) and let this go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with being criticised. I do have a problem with being criticised unfairly, which is what's happened here. I also do have a problem with being targeted by a partisan clique, and I do object to NPOV, OR, V and the rest being systematically trampled. Likewise I do have a problem when someone misuses his privileges for nakedly partisan reasons, which is why I posted here in the first place. I don't intend to reopen the dispute on that particular topic and I'll leave further discussions of the clique to possible future arbitrations, but at least for now it's on the record. Let's all take Golbez's good advice and call it a day for now. -- ChrisO 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't want to keep on posting about this, but I have to point out that shortly after my post above from today, you voted oppose to ATT, in part on the grounds that you are "concerned that some of the proponents may have ulterior motives in pushing this so hard. [84] That is so thoroughly out of order and below the belt it leaves me almost speechless. If you're talking about me, I've worked very hard to develop and maintain V and NOR for two years because I don't want to see Wikipedia publish unsourced nonsense. I worked hard for months to develop ATT because I feel it's a clearer rendition of the V and NOR concepts. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you can't imply there was an "ulterior motive" without saying what and who and giving diffs; and it's not clear what such a motive could possibly be, given that the two pages say the same thing. I'll leave it to others here to judge whether your responses in this thread have been reasonable or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about you. If I was, I would have said so. I've seen claims that the change is being pushed as a means of undermining the policies rather than reforming them. I'm not inclined to believe that, but I want to take the time to be sure that there is no undermining, whether accidental or otherwise. You know as well as I do that unfriendly eyes are watching the debate and hoping that we stumble. We have to get this right. (I've updated my comment on the poll to make this clear.) -- ChrisO 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a proponent of ATT, and I was very troubled that you lodged that comment on the poll right after the dialogue on SV's talk page. I'm wondering who you were you talking about? Also, I just checked the poll, and I don't see that you've changed the comment; I wish you would because it is below the belt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We all know that the debate is being watched by people hostile to Wikipedia. There have been claims about Jayjg and SlimVirgin's involvement which I won't repeat here and haven't repeated in the poll, and which for the record I don't believe for a moment, especially not in SlimVirgin's case given all the work she's put into this. Unfortunately both Jayjg and SlimVirgin's prominence in editing controversial articles has made them a target for many unjustified claims of improper behaviour. If a perception develops among the Wikipedia community that such a fundamental change is being forced through for improper reasons, that's going to be absolutely disastrous for our reputation - far worse than the Essjay affair and potentially causing permanent damage to the community. We absolutely have to avoid this. I support the objective of streamlining existing policies, but we need to take more time, use more patience and get the politics right. My approach to this issue is a strictly Fabian one. Regarding the comment clarification, it looks like I posted it a matter of seconds after you posted your message above. -- ChrisO 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, this isn't fair. You're repeating nonsense from Wikipedia Review. For a start, Jay had nothing to do with developing ATT. Secondly, there is no fundamental change. Third, hundreds of editors have looked at it, commented on it, and helped to develop it, including editors who worked on V and NOR. I helped to develop V and NOR in their current form, so if ATT is tainted, then so are the others. You really are out of order. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not repeating WR (didn't I just say I wasn't citing or repeating any claims?). I'm saying that claims have been made by hostile parties, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that other potentially hostile parties - the media, members of the community who don't like ATT, the external trolls - don't buy into those claims. That doesn't mean I'm calling for you to step aside - absolutely not. It does mean that we have to avoid giving any impression that the process is stacked. Time, patience and better politics. -- ChrisO 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable! After I post about smears, slanders, and not assuming good faith on the part of Tewfik and SlimVirgin, we are now into using mind-reading and comment timing as tools for assuming the worst about people. Please resign, SlimVirgin. You did not even bother with the courtesy of a reply to the substance of my comment. Instead, you escalated your personal attack on Chris0. --Timeshifter 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think demands for resignation are either called for or necessary. SlimVirgin is commenting in good faith, even if I think she's wrong in some regards. :-) -- ChrisO 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If SlimVirgin is commenting in good faith, then I suggest she needs to check herself. I also suggest that she, and as many other people as possible, join these wikipedia projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I wholeheartedly support WP:NPOV, and I am a member of all of those projects. SlimVirgin needs to step out of her clique in my opinion. And I am not a terrorist-supporting torturer who cooks kittens in the microwave. As these diffs suggest concerning SlimVirgin.... To quote SlimVirgin, "I supplied diffs that clearly support what I said". Oh, and here are some more ...

Back to the original topic. If people want to know the current and past discussion concerning the map modifications, then please go to: Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png rather than believing the inaccurate characterizations of Tewfik, Jayjg, and SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin wrote: "Other people spoke up, either in defense of him [Jayjg] or pointing out similar behavior from you [Chris0]." What actually happened was that there was a near consensus of admins who disagreed with Jayjg's deletion of the map. --Timeshifter 04:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the inflamatory rhetoric. You must exhibit minimal restraint. El_C 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was using sarcastic humor. SlimVirgin was using inflammatory rhetoric. Do admins get a pass? But I will desist in using SlimVirgin's tactic, even in my twisted humorous form. --Timeshifter 05:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond absurd. All criticism of ChrisO's behavior is "unfair", but ChrisO's accusations, conspiracy-mongering, etc. cannot even be commented on. Utterly ridiculous. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant Abuse of Images and POV by ChrisO

i've just had the idea of inspecting the original UN file attached on the image in question:

Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png

the original PDF was not only altered in the "green areas" but also in the "UN Title" which was changed from "Israel" to "Israel and the occupied territories".^{original PDF image}

perhaps, there is a case non the less for all the fuss around ChrisO's editing? Jaakobou 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the rather important points that (a) from the start I explicitly created the map as an overview of Israel and the occupied territories, not just Israel, so the caption needed to make that clear ; and (b) more fundamentally perhaps, we're not allowed to use unmodified UN maps. They have to be modified else they don't comply with the UN license, which I negotiated with the UN in the first place - see Template:UN map and Template talk:UN map. -- ChrisO 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would the UN not allow us to use maps unless modified? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They don't mind derivative works, but they have a strict policy on the original maps: "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web." [85] Derivative works are OK as long as they don't claim to have been authored by the UN. -- ChrisO 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do explain how you personally overviewed^(a) the designation to disputed territories (a.k.a. "somewhat an attempt to place a POV" - User:Shuki) without abuse of this image and POV. Jaakobou 12:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

issue seems to be progressing for now. Jaakobou 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing another editors talk page posts

User:Minderbinder edited one of my talk page posts. [86] Admittedly, I made a minor clarification to my post after he responded to it (without changing it’s meaning at all), but I do not believe he had any right to edit my post even under those conditions. He continues to argue that he can do so, and I’d like to have someone clarify this for me. BTW, the discussion we were having when he changed my post was all about him changing another editor’s post. This seems to be a pattern with Minderbinder. Thanks. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt' edit anything, I merely restored the version that I responded to since it changed the context of my response. WP:TALK says not to edit your posts after others have replied (or to edit with strikethrough) which is exactly what Dreadlocke did.

The other edit was the removal of a comment on a user talk page calling a living person "Basically a self-confessed mud-slinging bullshit merchant throwing anything and everything at his pet hate." WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I'd love to get an admin opinion on that as well, as Dreadlocke has argued that the removal was the wrong thing to do. Thanks. --Minderbinder 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Restoring a different version=editing, Minderbinder definitely edited my post. My minor change was to replace the word "it" with what "it" was referring to: "the editor's opinion", which changed nothing in the context of either the post or Minderbinder's response. Even if it did, I don't think he had a right to edit my post. Nowhere in the WP:TALK editing other's comments guideline do I see where he can "restore" (edit) my post for the reasons he gives.

There's a whole discussion on the other issue here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Argumentum_ad_Jimbonem_in_defense_of_name_calling. Which is not a place I would have chosen, but Jimbo did give me advice on how to handle a similar issue. I was just repeating for the current case on how he said to handle such a thing. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that in a discussion about his editing other user's posts, Minderbinder edited my post. Fascinating. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• As good practice, one should not edit the post after it has been responded to. It may change the context of the response. Use strike thru. Additionally, WP:BLP should be adhered to. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 10:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for your response. I do agree with you, but the main question here is whether Minderbinder can edit my post, even if I've changed it after he responded to it. WP:TALK does not prohibit my change, so I don't believe he should be editing my post under that guideline. Further, the minor change I made did not change the context of anything in my post or his response. And BLP doesn't enter into his editing my post, it has nothing to do with it. Thanks. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is supposed to apply to talk pages, so Milo's removal of your (my mistake, see below) User:Davkal's description of Robert Carroll was in accordance with that policy. You He can make the point that you consider the Skeptic's Dictionary an unreliable source without the ad hominem attack, certainly. The other issue is more of a gray area. Dreadlocke, you're definitely discouraged from editing your posts after you've made them, but the change you made didn't alter the context in a significant way. Probably the best way to handle such things in the future would be to request that the person not edit their posts after the fact (rather than reverting their post), unless the change is a blatant alteration of context. At this point, the best thing is probably for both of you to let it go and move on. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have completely the wrong idea, I did not make the Robert Caroll edit, another editor made that post. I made no ad-hominem attacks. That edit has nothing to do with minderbender's editing my post. He shouldn't have edited my post, which had no attacks nor violated any policy or guideline at all. The Robert Carroll attack removal had nothing to do with me and was probably mentioned here as just the very distraction it has become. Let me say it again, I did not make any edits attacking Robert Carroll, that was another editor and a subject minderbender and I were discussing when he edited my post. It is not my description of Robert Carroll, examine the link carefully - it was another editor who made that post. Please contact me on my talk page if this isn't clear.

I already know and acknowledge that we're discouraged from editing our own posts per [{WP:TALK]], that's not the issue here either, it's whether or not another editor can edit or revert my post even if I have changed it. Nowhere do I see that an editor has permission to do that. That's the core issue I have asked about here. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence of some greater pattern, I'm not sure I see why this is an issue worth arguing over. Perhaps neither of you handled that ideally, both of you should probably just grow up and move on, lessons learned. There's plenty of work to be done on far more important issues. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you're correct about the Robert Carroll post - that was User:Davkal, not you. Sorry for the mistake. I do still think its removal was appropriate, but I'm sorry for mistakenly assigning the statement's provenance to you. Otherwise, I agree with User:Luna Santin. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, MastCell! On my issue, I'll have to agree with Luna Santin myself. On the blp front, I agree too, but got a slightly different approach from Jimbo on such removals - but in the end, I believe any attack on a blp should be removed immediately, and I'll definitely be following that recommendation - I ran into a problem when attempting to remove a far worse attack than the one mentioned here - an administrator (who shall remain nameless), actually stopped me from removing the attack, that's why I went to Jimbo. When I showed Jimbo's response to the offendee, he immediately removed his attack. So, I guess whatever works, eh? Dreadlocke ☥ 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious redirects

I don't know what the correct response is. 205.200.145.205 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been placing redirects from sandbox and test area to articles and user pages, caused embarrassment to established editors and others. (I couldn't figure out why User:AAA! had gotten 3 bad edits in 10 minutes!) I have only placed a uw-vandalism2 warning, but it seems he has friends accompanying him that might pick up the same tricks. Shenme 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hit and run, leaving the redirects to cause problems for following editors. Nice. Nevermind, until next time. (Hey, it was an education for me (reverting) and another editor (apologizing) (look at the page title before hitting submit!)) Shenme 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also another one, known as 142.161.68.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). He has been blocked for 24 hours for redirect vandalism. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why such malicious vandalism isn't dealt with more effectively, such as a much longer (or even permanent) block? I think Larry Sanger's advice is appropriate here:

"show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." [87]

-- Fyslee/talk 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think 142's block should be extended to about a week or a month, maybe even longer. And his talk page might need semi-protecting, as he is vandalising it while blocked. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my comment to AAA! was to wonder why #REDIRECT is even permitted in the sandbox. This simple 'trick' can end up with other well-meaning users vandalizing project pages with little warning. How does this rate in the threats to WP index? Shenme 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT violation by 67.163.193.239

67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs) seems to be violating WP:POINT by scrubbing articles of fansite links. IP is upset that its own links have been rejected at Rule of Rose (lengthy discussion there). IP keeps blanking talk page, and has been blocked before for spamming & 3RR. Any help? Not a dog 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I looked at every single contribution, or that I like the possible pointiness of their actions, but I think some of their removals are valid. But again, I didn't check all of their contribs, and others may have a different evaluation. Natalie 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as WP:POINT -- in general, fansite links are discouraged. It isn't really disruptive and the "point" being made is largely supported by consensus. The user absorbed that information and is acting on it. Personally speaking, I'd be happy to see a lot of fansite links removed from articles. Cheers. Dina 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the IP says here that fansites don't belong as justification for removing from various articles, but then is still lobbying strongly for inclusion of his/her fansite here. So I still think the removals are WP:POINT. Not a dog 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And continues to remove links without discussion or comment from articles where his/her link wasn't allowed. Not a dog 01:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'll just add that the removals might be valid, but it is the method that is flawed. The ends don't justify the means. Not a dog 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This has now digressed into personal attacks [88] [89], and the immediate deletion of any kind of warning left on the IPs talk page. Not a dog 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For now, it may be best if we give them a little space and see if they calm down -- obviously leaving more and more warnings on their talk page is only going to fan the flames. Then revisit the issue once things are a bit more settled (if they settle). That's my read, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try that. Not a dog 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: All three users have been reported to WP:AIV. See reasons here: [90]-- _Hdt83 ^Chat 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, for User:Not a dog, you have been reverting 67.168.193.239 constantly. Instead of reporting directly to WP:AIV, you continued to revert and post warnings that caused 67.168.193.238 to start attacking others. This is an example of WP:DENY; you should have just reported him and stop reverting his edits and he will be blocked. Now User:Obscure80 comes along and both 67.168.193.239 and User:Obscure80 start an edit war by attacking each other, deleting each other's posts and just being obnoxious. See history [91]. These are the reasons why I reported them. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake for not repoting to AIV sooner. Sorry. I'm disengaging now. Not a dog 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But I've never edited nor deleted any of 67.163.193.239's posts, so why am I being banned? the only reason I can think of is 3RR but even that is minor Obscure80 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, you are not being banned. Second, even after posting the WP:DENY, you still engage 67.163.193.239 by responding to his edits and not ignoring him. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Because she edited and deleted my posts. Since others already reported her I saw no reason to do it myself Obscure80 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the victim here. I asked both of them politely many times to stop posting on my talk page, because all they did were insult me of issue warning and block threats for things I did not do. Then, they started following me to every other page I posted on and started attacking me there, which I somehow keep getting blamed for. I was told by staff that I have the right to delete anything on my talk page. I deleted their comments in hopes they would stop all this and leave me alone, but people just keep reverting it. When I go to ask the people reverting it to stop, they show up and start a fight. I know Obscure80 from a forum where he got banned. He thinks I'm the admin, which is his main reason for harassing me. If you do not believe me, just take one look at his talk page, which is one big attack and flame against me. And I only editted a post that HE edited first, in order to manipulate what someone else was saying, back to what it originally was. I think I have been more than patient with both of them.67.163.193.239 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not starting something with you again, and I never edited someone else's post. and the 'fight' was because you were spreading lies, not to mention editing and deleting my posts to make it look like you were saying something different. Obscure80 23:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not lie. I only reverted your post back to what it said before you editted it, which anyone can see by looking at the history. And I can delete whatever I wish to on my talk page, especially when I find it offensive.67.163.193.239 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I said was offensive, just things that you did. and that was editing my own post, because you delete any new posts I make to make it look like Hdt83 was singling me out. Obscure80 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is going to get out of hand, Hdt83, would you please talk to me on my talk page about why I was being reported so we can sort this out? thanks Obscure80 23:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am disengaging. Bye. Not a dog 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of always being made out to look like the bad guy. I'd invite you to my talk page, but thanks to them, it is impossible to have a discussion there. What I said in my first post remains true.67.163.193.239 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets just forget about this whole thing. Nobody gets banned and we just take a break from it. Perhaps this will calm people down. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets

I've done a bit of research, pertaining to Bowsy and Henchman 2000 and I believe that enough of a pattern has been established to satisfy a WP:MEATPUPPET finding, as well as WP:CIVIL infractions. The evidence I've accumulated is at User:AKMask/puppets. Id like to open a disussion on this, with remedies being either some sort of restriction on them participating in the same XfD's as each other up to a block on one of the accounts and restriction to just one username, depending on where consensus says the evidence takes us. Thank you. -M^ask 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Probable socks, at bare minimum meatpuppets. Votestacking with these two account. Bowsy admits that it is a shared computer. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to consider asking them not to participate in the same deletion discussion. Such things aren't supposed to be decided strictly numerically, so it doesn't seem like much of a restriction, and will counter the notion that an opinion has wider support than it actually enjoys, since there seems but one opinion operating here. Demi ^T/_C 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks strongly like one person, so I would make sure that they don't participate in the same deletion discussion. They admit it's a shared computer not a shared mind, which is almost implied by the AfD similarities.--Wizardman 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be one person. Look at their talk page, if they are two sharing a single PC why is there an extensive arguement between the pair of them when they could have just talked to the person sitting with them at the PC? The Kinslayer 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not puppets, we have been proven innocent on TWO occasions. Also, if we were one person, we would not be able to log on at exactly the same time on two different computers. I am going to use Henchman and Bowsy is going to use Bowsy. We are not going to start using one acount. Bowsy watched me nominate Fancruft for deletion, so when it was his turn he eagerly voted delete as he hates the essay as well. Also, we have not always had the same opinion on the AfDs, as I vote Keep or merge in the LMPmgs AfD where Bowsy voted keep, I have also participated in the debating side of the AfD and Bowsy hasn't. There is nothing wrong with us having the same opinion. Also, my "uncivil" comments and Bowsy's "uncivil" comments on the puppets page are not related, and not all "uncivil" comments have been posted, only ones that will help you get us unfairly indef. blocked. I ask you, please remove this could-be case, or I will notify an admin. Henchman 2000 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess what, the admins already know. It's these kind of ignorant accusations that Bowsy made on my talk page without knowing what he was talking about. Remarkably similar to what you've just done Henchman. The Kinslayer 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Where? What are you talking about? Henchman 2000 18:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As the person who closed the original sockpuppet investigation, I still suspect these are 2 different individuals who share a computer and apparently some of the same interests. I've been aware of their shared AfD !voting for a while now because I've been getting messages from Henchman, Bowsy, other editors almost daily about this. Up to this point I didn't see much reason to get involved because none of this "tandem" opining has had any appreciable effect either way. I did caution them about this type of behavior when I closed the original sock investigation though; specifically stating that tandem !voting would probably not be looked upon favorably by the community. At this point it might be a good idea to take a very targeted ban discussion to WP:CN specifically stating that Bowsy and Henchman are prohibited from participating in the same AfD discussions. I don't think a more general ban or indef blocks are really warranted at this time.--Isotope23 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Done here -M^ask 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, we share the same IP, SO WHAT? What does that tell anyone? Henchman 2000 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in collusion with you're shared votes on most AfD's, it tells us you're Meatpuppets pretty clearly. -M^ask 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete or oversight

Spammer gives a phone number: [92] Αργυριου (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, if you will. x42bn6 Talk 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It doesn't need oversighted, just removed from the page history. -- Nick ^t 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In the future, just go right over to WP:RFO if you need something oversighted - posting the sensitive material here isn't really a good idea, and the oversights can decide whether to hide it or just delete it normally. --Coredesat 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It should still be oversighted, Nick. In the past things like that have been selectively deleted and then mistakenly restored when a second incident required selective deletion. It's best just to get anything like that oversighted rather than risk having it mistakenly restored. Sarah 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sarah, and I'm wondering also if it's possible to make it more explicit at the top of this noticeboard that people should go to WP:RFO, where they can send a private e-mail, rather than coming here and reporting exactly where the personal information can be found during the few minutes that elapse between the request for deletion and the actual deletion or oversighting. See the question I have raised here. ElinorD (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now updated both headers per your suggestion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

CAT:CSD is pretty full. Anyone want to lend a hand? IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if you promise that people will come to my talk page pissed off, again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I can guarantee it. They always come to mine. :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially with images. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] two users requesting unblock

Two accounts I blocked as vandal only earlier today are requesting to be unblocked, but not using the template and thus not being auto-categorized. I would vastly prefer another person to judge the indef blocks, so if you're interested go by the talk page of 9999a9999 (talk · contribs) or Coolman76 (talk · contribs). Natalie 23:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added an unblock template for Coolman76. He apologizes and promises not to vandalize any more. I figure it's worth a gamble. After all, he could turn out to be a valuable contributor now that he knows that vandalism is quickly reverted and results in blocking. And what's the worst that could happen? He starts vandalizing again and we'll block him again. (that's a "royal" we. I'm not an admin)

I put a welcome template on his Talk Page and will field any questions that he might have. Please unblock him. Thanks.

--Richard 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Coolman76? [93] [94] [95]? *raises eyebrows* —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward the 9999a9999 user, one last chance in leau of indefblock. Honda Pilot 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why I [96] Dgies (talk · contribs) RFA. The blocks shouldve been for just 1 day. You couldve avoinded these arguements. Honda Pilot 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal only accounts are routinely indef blocked. Coolman76 edited on three different occasions...all vandalism. A 24 block would have simply meant in 24 hours he would start again. Why bother? Hence, indef blocks. IrishGuy ^talk 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These blocks are 100% valid and correct. Sorry, Honda Pilot. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When someone registers an account and then immediately starts a spree of vandalism, I think admins do indeed block indefinitely. That would not be the case with an IP, which could be used by a different person the next day. I don't think it's particularly unkind or newbie-biting, because if a reformed vandal wished to contribute to the project he would probably prefer to start again with a new account that has no taint in its history. So all he has to do is wait for the autoblock to expire. I think admins should be much more lenient with newcomers who violate NPOV or 3RR or even (within reason) BLP. ElinorD (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was and is following the lines of ElinorD. Blatant vandalism and only vandalism does not deserve a second chance. If the user wishes to contribute positively they can create a new account, and probably would prefer to. To quote User:HighInBC, "'Assume good faith' does not mean 'Act like a sucker'". Natalie 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings on anonymous IP pages, and removal

Hoping for some guidance and clarification on something. When doing RC patrol, I often focus a smidge more on the anonymous contributions, to try to catch nonsense, BLP vios, and other 'crap' that people try to slip in quietly. After the small vandal assault on Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters last night (multiple IPs all asserting he not only died in Michigan yesterday, but was also a black man from the future), one of the IP vandals started nuking the warnings on their talk page as seen here. They also started to slam various nonsense edits all over the page in their replacements, leading to a semi-protect on the talk page that will expire soon.

My specific question: while logged in users are by concensus commonly free to... remove their warnings (since they saw them), what about anon pages? My understanding is that they have no claim at all over these pages, and warnings should 'stand' for a good amount of time so that editors can track ongoing recent vandal work from a given IP address. Whats the right course of action here, for future reference...? - Denny 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone is actively vandalizing and likely to get blocked soon, I usually role back their talk page, but do not warn them for altering it. But that's just me. I also remove any personal attacks and/or garbage that they put there. But if I notice after the fact, say the next day, that someone's cleared the talk page, and the IP is no longer vandalizing, I leave it alone. Dina 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Servant Saber block for Vandalising Linda Rosing article and personal attack on frontpage

I want Servantsaber to be blocked for a long time since he refuses to stop vandalising Linda Rosing article. even tough 3 editors are trying to tell him in a nice way not to revert edits. He has also done a personal attack on me on his front page and thats just wrong and a bad faith attack on me as a person, im not saying im a perfect person or anything but their is limits to what people can do.--Matrix17 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy edit wars, batman. Both of you are far beyond WP:3RR -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the 'personal attack' in question is at [97] (oldver, was removed by Matrix17). No opinion at the moment. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User:Servant Saber for 24 hours as he went well over 3RR. I blocked User:Matrix17 for going over 3RR and issuing a block warning to User:Servant Saber, which I consider to be well outside the realm of acceptable behavior here. Considering the fact that I've had interactions with Matrix17 before, I would welcome a block review, though if anything I think I was probably easier on him than I would be towards an editor I didn't have any previous interaction with; I was considering a week block.--Isotope23 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rikki Lee Travolta, again

SPA TonyntinaNY (talk · contribs) is re-adding Rikki Lee Travolta material. I have requested that they stop because "Travolta" has been judged as not a celebrity under Wikipedia standards, but the edits continue: [98] Corvus cornix 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:AN#Tony n' Tina's Wedding, where apparently you are the bad guy Corvus...--Isotope23 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Insist on reliable sources; report for 3RR as needed. Thatcher131 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Null edits to redirects

What can be done towards such useless edits to redirects? [99] [100] [101] - Privacy 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't engage in move wars over articles and other editors wouldn't feel the need to make edits to redirects to prevent you from pursuing the move wars. SchmuckyTheCat 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What move wars are you talking about? Who is starting and engaging in the move wars? - Privacy 21:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It would seem you are. --Carnildo 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Making null edits to redirect pages to prevent moving the page has been sanctioned in the past by Arbcom. Move warring is bad but using this technique to enforce one person's version of the "right" title is also very bad. You should all stop it immediately and seek consensus through the normal processes. Thatcher131 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the edit history of all these pages. Don't think I ever engaged in move wars. - Privacy 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This like these might possibly be by the user using a bot. Some of his other edits are... interesting.--Dacium 02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on blocking related to CSD

Is it appropriate to block accounts that have created attack pages and patent nonsense (especially as their first edit) as "vandalism only?" Also, I see articles deleted as per CSD being re-created by what appear to be socks of the original creators. In this case, is direct indef-blocking of both accounts acceptable? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To both questions: I see no reason why not. Disruption is disruption; if they really want to contribute constructively, they can either start over with a new account or request unblocking, which is unlikely to be denied if they promise not to do such stupid things again. It isn't considered biting the newcomers if they're asking for it. Picaroon 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do first edit unless it's obviously a sock of a blocked user (in which case I would). You can warn them with {{uw-create1}} through {{uw-create4}}, preferably putting the article into the first parameter ({{uw-create1|article}}) so that it can be seen after it's deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys - ever since the policy changed on article creation, I've felt a need to patrol the accounts themselves. Ostensibly, there are a hundred-odd dormant accounts that were involved in such dubious activity. Thanks again, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] coincidence, sockpuppet, impersonator, descendant, meatpuppet, user that used someone else's name, or neither?

Hi. I see lots of strange things on wikipedia, but prefer not to get involved. I will say that I am not involved in this, just curious. Please do not take this as an allegation, I am just noticing. Anyway, I found this through links in my watchlist. I will not provide links because this is accesible yourself. Anyway, I noticed a strange coincidence with User:Amos Han and User:Han Amos. Anyway, I noticed that Amos Han had been indef blocked for being accused of being a sockpuppet. Han Amos appears to be a legimate contributor. I am not accusing them of being sockpuppets, I just noticed this as a coincidence. If this is not a valid argument, please remove it. Han Amos claims that his/her real name is Amos Han. Now, Amos Han has repeatedly claimed that he/she is a legit contributor. This leads me to believe, as Han Amos is a more legimate contributor, that either Amos Han has impersonated Han Amos, or that Amos Han has used someone else's real name, or that they share the same name and thisis just a coincidence. However, after checking the logs, it turns out that Amos Han can't be an impersonator, as Han Amos's account was created after Amos Han's block. Now, I think, in my opinion, that this is merely a coincidence, because just because a legimate account similar to an older indefed account, does not automatically imply that they are sockpuppets, and CheckUser isn't always correct, as shown in the Cute 1 4 u case involving Tennislover and Tennis Expert. Is this a legimate argument, or is this a completely non-notable minor coincidence? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amos Han is a sockpuppet of a prolific vandal that is unrelated to Han Amos. Someone obsessed a bit too much with an individual who will not be mentioned here, but is clear from the block log.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd vandalism

I don't know if this is connected to the people from a couple of days ago who used their talk pages as a social networking site, but Hobos4life, Cowshroom, Bam127, and Zcam are all just screwing around on their userpages. Bam127 is also engaging in vandalism on the side which garnered him a one hour block from (aeropagitica). . IrishGuy ^talk 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are so many users nowadays that just use Wikipedia as a social networking site... I doubt there's any implicit connection. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh how we need a CSD covering this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would completely support that. IMO, we should give leeway on userpages for editor who actually edit Wikipedia. Editors who are just chatting, using their spaces like MySpace, or have only vandalism mainspace edits on the other hand... I'd say their userages should be fair game for deletion at admin discretion.--Isotope23 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Cptn Funk popped up the other day. I don't know if I want to depress the guy any more than he is, and it gives his friends someplace to meet, but... Shenme 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors who are just chatting, using their spaces like MySpace, or have only vandalism mainspace edits on the other hand... And don't forget the spammers, too. Yeah, there were and are quite a lot of all of those. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssjay_controversy&diff=119667229&oldid=119666356 Also read the edit summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&curid=9803346&diff=120377595&oldid=120377427

An editor is making disruptive comments directed at me. I consider it a personal attack and harrassment. The talk page is supposed to be used to improve the article. He is using the talk page for disruption. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a warning to this user. If he continues his behavior, he may be temporarily blocked. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Duck is a disruptive editor on this particular article, as well as a number of others dealing with Wikipedia. His particular interest appears to be in generating disparaging critiques of Wikipedia, its contributors, and in particular Essjay and Jimmy Wales. His ongoing campaign is to diminish the role of Jimmy Wales in founding Wikipedia, pushing the disputed title of "co-founder" in any article about Larry Sanger, and promoting Citizendium: See, for example, his insertions and comments at:

• Larry Sanger
• Talk:We aren't Citizendium
• History of Wikipedia
• AfD/Citizendium versus Wikipedia
• his current talk page

Duck has been given a great deal of leeway already, but has been increasingly antagonised a number of individuals, who have warned him about repeated edit warring and other issues. For the last number of weeks, he has been intensely trying to insert irrelevant material into the Essjay article, where he appears to be intentionally impervious to reasoning, to the point of sending on editor into an impolitic fit in response. In all, he has all the characteristics of a "troll of misplaced criticism"--Leflyman^Talk 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Leflyman has falsey accused me of being a troll again. This is personal attack. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive comments by another editor

An editor continues to remove references, undo my edits, and make disingenuous edit summaries.

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]
4. After Ned Scott had been advised his behaviour is "grossly inappropriate" and to "stop," another editor has made a comment to encourage him on be stating: "You're my hero." Risker 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Good advise will help but encouraging an editor by stating "You my hero" does not help. We should not reward this kind of behaviour. I am requesting the comments on the talk page of the Wikipedia community be reverted. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse in PBS entry

Inappropriate references to licensed merchandise adult toys and and profanity has been inserted in the first paragraph of the entry for PBS- Public Broadcasting System.

Apparently referencing these changes by 169.157.13.194 (talk • contribs • WHOIS), who popped in for 25 minutes yesterday. Most of this has been reverted. I'll go look at the movie links, which remain, and see if they are 'real'. Shenme 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the movies in IMDB or elsewhere. Just in there to make a joke. So, last of their vandalism cleaned up, for now :( Shenme 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] block review requested

I just indef blocked AGuySoSoSuper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as a vandal only account; requesting block review because the user had only received one warning (not a level four). However, I think the edit summaries they chose, particularly this one, demonstrates that this account was not going to contribute positively any time soon. I am going to bed and will not be able to watch their talk page for any signs of understanding, humility, etc. If such signs appear, or you think the block was a bit too quick, please adjust as necessary. Good night, and good luck. Natalie 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on his edits, you made the right move. He was a blatant vandal. Nothing more. IrishGuy ^talk 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Not a whole lot more to be done here. Heimstern Läufer 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I might suggest protecting the user talk page, too... — Scientizzle 04:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Crazyman08066 and article Paige Mayo

Sorry this is my first time coming across something like this, but User:Crazyman08066 has made and editted one page here: Paige Mayo. He was issued a bunch of copyright notices for the images, but the content is slanderous, POV and before my attempted edit, openly vulgar. If someone experianced could please review this and tell me what the actions that need to be taken are. I dont know about deleting articles or blocking users. --Csodennc 04:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It has already been deleted. Thanks for reporting it. Also, only administrators can delete articles and block users. That's why this place is made, so that regular users like us can report things to administrators so that they may deal with them.--Kirbytime 04:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC) unreadable sig refactored Viridae^Talk 07:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page and all images. User was warned; any other problems -> block. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle Columbia disaster is at risk

That article is at risk. It been vandalized many times! mostly by guest. We need to semi protect this page and stop vandalism. the reason they do that is so that page is not a GA.Jer10 95 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• [105]
• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]
• [111]

WP:RFPP -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that but the page is barely being hit. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wassermann again

User:Wassermann (formerly WassermannNYC) is fresh back from a two-day block for incivility, and is again reverting and "complaining" about "censorship" (e.g. no reason besides censorship to keep Category:Jewish American lawyers off of this page Revert censorship). The previous discussion of this behavior was here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Persistent_violations_of_WP:CIVIL_by_User:WassermannNYC. I suggest a longer block to drive the point home. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive behaviour -- misuse of reference desk

I am concerned that Bowlhover (talk · contribs) is causing unnecessary alarmism by posting, on the Humanities reference desk, that media are reporting a toxic spill in Toronto [112]. --Mathew5000 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments there. This user 'just' discovered it is was April Fool's day. Want to check their other 'contributions', at science and elsewhere? Shenme 06:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, Mathew. How does anyone believe such a thing could happen in Toronto (how do you get access to the water system)? Also, what date did I post the warning on? Check what the other users said and see whether I'm alarming anyone. --Bowlhover

You posted it on April 2. A message like that is bound to be alarming to anyone in Toronto with small children. --Mathew5000 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Check again, and remember not everyone is living in the UTC time zone. Do you also realize that you're the only one complaining? Why do you assume "anyone in Toronto with small children" is bound to be stupid? --Bowlhover 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question was made at 04:07, 2 April UTC, corresponding to a few minutes past midnight on April 2 in the North American Eastern Time Zone. In another edit, 29 minutes later, you stated “By the way, it’s April 2 right now in Toronto.” Your initial post did not have the appearance of a “joke”; you did not acknowledge it was a joke when asked, and creating panic about contaminated tap water is not an appropriate April Fool’s joke in any event. Moreover, it was not even on-topic for the Humanities RefDesk. --Mathew5000 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the last time Mathew, did you notice that no administrator has taken action against me even though this notice was posted almost a day ago? No complaints either at the reference desk, except for yours. I have no interest in debating this any further. If you don't enjoy April Fools day, fine. If you always wish to assume bad faith, fine. Just keep your opinions to yourself and don't try to hurt any other users. --Bowlhover 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block. --Carnildo 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Block me for 24 hours. Wait, make that 24 days. Let me make it very clear that I will not apologize for my actions on April 1, and I will not refrain from them on April 1, 2008. Judging from the responses on the reference desk, almost everybody got my joke; it doesn't matter whether it was funny or whether I only managed to submit it 7 minutes after April 1. (I'm very curious as to why you intervened just now, by the way.) So please block me indefinitely if you really feel a joke/prank isn't appropriate even on April Fool's day, and realize that any shorther block will be completely useless. --Bowlhover 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As requested, I've blocked you for 24 hours. --Carnildo 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block" is the perfect example of what not to say to a user who is already upset. A productive, and as far as I can see loyal, Wikipedia editor does not deserve to be baited by admins. And guess what, Bowlhover ended up indefinitely blocked for talking back to an administrator. (By Yamla, who apparently didn't think the matter deserved a note here.) I hate to see this. I'm going to start a new thread at the bottom of the page. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:Riva72 's personal attacks and spam messages

User:Riva72 posted a message to a user talk page which include an unacceptable statement I dont know, you are a man, a woman or an animal..., he posted many messages to many users (including the phrase above) see here.Must.^{T C} 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1. DO NOT alter my comments. Provide the whole phrase, if you please:

• Do not use me as a tool. - Cat chi? 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• You are all tools, the sysops, of someone who holds all the Commons and the Wikipedia. Besides, you are tools of the users; you are for the users and not vice versa. Besides, I see you are only a Cool Cat. I even do not know if you are a man, a woman or an animal. The user called Ejdzej evidently broke the licence rules and you are a coward to admit this. This is all from my part. Bye, bye C.C! - Riva72 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• 2. These were not spam messages but requests for assistance (or help) to the three Commons administrators: Jastrow, Gmaxwell and Yonatan. You can read all the messages and get accustomed with the affair at their discussion pages and mine (Riva72) as well.
• 3. To the user Makalp: Cheers!

--Riva72 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• 4. I was brave enough to introduce myself. Cool Cat was not.. --Riva72 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a personal attack, but simply a humorous comment in regards to Cool cat's username. As for the background of the messages, Riva72 returned to Wikipedia and contacted numerous users solely due to his block on Wikimedia Commons. If he wishes to request unblocking, he may always contact the users through email. I've reverted his messages for now. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear personal attack. Calling someone who has specifically stated, and provided photographic evidence that they are a cat either a man or a woman is blatantly specieist. Recommend indefinite block for everyone participating in this thread... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry for the words which may have appeared rude to some people. --Riva72 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VERY SPEEDY deletion of Mark Britten

I created this article with content moved from Chinaman (disambiguation). It was almost immediately tagged for speedy deletion. No problem there, as it helped me go to Talk:Chinaman (disambiguation)#Mark Britten and warn of what was bound to happen. Problem is, an admin was too hasty in deleting the article - it took less than 5 minutes from creation to deletion. As it happens, a user that was intent in putting a hangon on the article in order to expand it couldn't do it and the content, as little as it was, was lost. All because he was a couple of minutes "late". (The admin response: User talk:Skookum1#Mark Britten.)

This is not the first time I see admins being very hasty in speedy deleting and this is not my first reporting on this matter. I have previously seen suggestions that there should be a minimum period between tagging and deletion. Please, admins, discuss and enforce that. I have no desire in becoming an admin but I also have no desire in being treated like this by hsty admins. In the meanwhile, this particular admin should reflect on the kindness of his acts which are at the very least wasting the time of everyone involved. Thank you. --maf 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: The article in question consisted of one sentence ("Mark Britten is an American comedian whose stage name is "The Chinaman"."). That falls under speedy delete categories a1 (empty) and a7 (no assertion of notability). I've advised User:Mafmafmaf that there is no bar on reposting and that all he/she has to do is create an article with content. Anyone who works on WP:CSD knows that people put hangon tags on speediable articles all the time. If we were bound to honor every hangon tag, CSD would be even more backlogged than it usually is. NawlinWiki 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I support NawlinWiki's actions here. The article had no meaningful content, so was clearly speediable. maf, you were clearly told that you could recreate the article once you had enough material to show notability, so why are you posting here? What action do you expect? NawlinWiki did the right thing and told you how to correctly create an worthwhile article. That's what you should do. Gwernol 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was speediable.. but 5 minutes is still a very quick deletion, and not everyone uses the "preview" feature like they should, which is why I think even admins on newpage patrol should probably just tag for speedy deletion rather than deleting outright. But there's no point complaining about individual examples like this: Maf, you have the text you wrote, so if you want to write the article go ahead; use the preview feature until the article is in a state good enough to be a good stub. Mangojuice^talk 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is not about the content, my point is that "speediable" should not be "instantiable". User:Mangojuice is right in that aspect. As a "dab police" myself, I don't write articles, I move content away from dab pages and warn others to expand on the articles. When the articles instantly vanish, there is the risk that the content will move back in the dab page, and my work becomes a waste of time. Please consider that.--maf 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Maf -- I see your point, but if something you're taking out of a dab page is insufficient for an article (like a mention of a person with no assertion of notability), you could just delete it from the dab page rather than creating a new article. NawlinWiki 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted articles that clearly deserved it that were several hours old before; I don't see why we should wait some arbitrary time before deleting something that clearly doesn't deserve to be here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that the speedy deletion policy tells us to? I quote: "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." I don't believe that this is a valid application of A1; it was a stub, for sure, and, 5 minutes after creation, didn't assert notability. It absolutely should have been given a chance to assert it before deleting it... We've been over this before, and I thought it was fairly clear what the proper procedure is. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It always depends on what it is... If it's 'Joe James is teh kewl' I always delete it on sight, but if it sounds like it might be notable, I often leave it for a while or use a different deletion process. Grandmasterka 06:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit CREEPy to me. If it meets a speedy criterion, it can be speedily deleted. In this case, it did, and it was. If it so happens that the subject of the article can assert notability, recreate it and do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikipediareview.com an acceptable site to link to?

I contend this is an attack site and should never be linked to from en.wikipedia.org. They have active threads on their forum to out the IRL secret identities of various administrators such as JayJG, SlimVirgin, and others, stalk them, and harass them. On Daniel Brandt, various editors are saying there is concensus to keep the link to the site active. I think it should not be as an attack site, and ArbCom has said... that links to attack sites can be removed immediately.

Is this an acceptable link to remove as an attack site on Wikipedians? - Denny ^(talk) 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they have removed the hot link, but still give the URL. Is this what is meant by not linking? Or do they mean full removall of the URL and its use as a REF?--Dacium 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I made a non-clickable link. I don't think that even is a valid source as a forum but I didn't want to throw a hand grenade, just take an active link to an attack site down. - Denny ^(talk) 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WR is an attack site. I've been harassed and attacked there like many other users. FloNight 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as an attack site. It's merely a Wikipedia meta forum. Yes, some people there do (or did) have serious issues, but it's actually gotten better over time as it's been subverted by active Wikipedians who comment there. Cyde Weys 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, if that's not an attack site, I don't know what is. There are serious libels on it, plus hundreds of childish insults, purported photographs of editors added without anyone's permission, sexual insults about women editors. I've been called a "c**t" by it more times than I care to remember, and a whore; people have posted comments like I better find a place to hide, which sounds like a physical threat; and have obliquely speculated about whether I was able to get jobs in real life because I had sex with people. The speculation about the sex lives of other women editors has been more explicit. It should never be linked to on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutey not. Why are we even considering the possibility? ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They have active threads trying to 'out' peoples' real identities that most of the 'regulars' there all take part in. - Denny ^(talk) 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They generally keep criticism constructive from what I've seen - no attacks. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you can't have seen much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not link to it here, but they have active threads to stalk and expose the real-life identities of editors such as JayJG and SlimVirgin. That is an attack site. Do we support 'outing' editors here? - Denny ^(talk) 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalking is wrong, yes, but it isn't attacking. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we link to sites that are trying to endanger Wikipedian's identities and privacy by trying to find out their real names/who they are? - Denny ^(talk) 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you ask, I doubt your going to get the answer you want. -- Nick ^t 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to think the silence then can be taken as endorsement of harassment of Wikipedians, and wanted to give the editor a chance to... affirm that they do not support stalking/harassment. - Denny ^(talk) 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whilst the motives and activities of users of that site are wide and varied, and some of their criticism has a certain validity. I'd say on aggregate that the site is regularly used to harass individuals and actively promote privacy violations (which is ironic, given Brandt's criticism of wikipedia - which I actually do find somewhat valid). Until/unless the moderators of that site are willing to counter the worst abuses, we should regard it as an unacceptable site and remove all links to it. Stalking is worse than simple verbal attacking - although they do that too.--Doc^g 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it just gives em more ammo when you try to ban this kinda stuff. The Review site is fairly tame, but the other site linked from Brandt's page, Wikipedia Watch, is pretty savage. If anything, links to such places should be allowed so more people here can go see just how absurd they all are. Tarc 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What is tame about the bulk of their editors trying to actively fish for and uncover the true IRL identities of multiple administrators and editors on Wikipedia? - Denny ^(talk) 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need to aid in promoting such things. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WR fails NPOV and is not a RS, and remove it whenever found. SirFozzie 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

None of that is applicable, as it isn't being used as a source for anything; it is just listed in a "see also" kind of section. Tarc 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not true, it was being used AS a source in the article. - Denny ^(talk) 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it can be pretty informative ... I do however think that Wikipedia Review should only be allowed as a link in articles related to wikipedia, where the review linked to provides a constructive and educating contrast to views expressed here. --I'm so special 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You can post issues with editors here with supporting diffs... or to the ArbCom. Lets also not be reposting nonsense from trolls here. We shouldn't link to stalking/harassment sites like Wikipedia review. They offer nothing to the encyclopedia beyond harassment of editors. - Denny ^(talk) 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to I'm so special)Sounds to me like an argument based in "but I agree with them". The views expressed on Wikipedia are intended to be neutral, and if we fail in that then the solution is to amend the article based on reliable sources until it becomes neutral, not to link to attack sites. --tjstrf talk 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And THAT seems to me like an arguement based in "but I disagree with them". It's a viscous cycle here. I think the problem users like Jayjg have with the review is that they are not immune to criticism there. I'll probably be blocked for saying that.. someone will find an excuse. E.g by fishing up an old edit where I corrected someone's spelling and call it a Personal Attack! lol! --I'm so special 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Alas, the image is copyrighted, but a viscous cycle looks more like this. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No... it'll probably be a 48hour block for trolling. (just my guess) While although I think it's laughable to prohibit linking to sites, simply because they may be against wikipedia (if they're worth sourcing at all, it should be done right. Singling out anti-wikipedia sources specifically screams censorship), using this discussion as an excuse to air your beefs with a specific user is grossly inappropriate, and entirely unhelpful. Bladestorm 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Per previous ArbCom ruling, we may not link to sites which out the real identities of Wikipedia editors, or which host offsite personal attacks. End of story, really. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto, and fails WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• That seems pretty conclusive. If WR was limited to merely "reviewing" Wikipedia it wouldn't be a problem, but plainly it goes way beyond that. -- ChrisO 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an NSA agent now ^{(permission to link)}, I learn! Damn right deviationist tendencies! El_C 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm very critical of that site, but I'm also against banning links to it (or any other non-spammy site). If it's worth mentioning at all, it's worth a real hyperlink to it; turning the link into a non-link that still gives the address is a silly cop-out. *Dan T.* 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the non-link that gives that address should also be removed. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As forums are not RS anyway I'm going to remove it completely. - Denny ^(talk) 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of anything that makes it a little less easy to stalk and harass editors in real life. In other words, I'm in favour of removing links any site that publishes real names (or speculation about real names) of editors. That includes Brandt's site and WR. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

NO we should not link to wikipedia review. The website does little about those that post personal information. It had the potential, and still does, of becoming a forum where a realistic outside analysis of the "problems" of Wikipedia could be addressed, but instead is more generally geared towards posts trying to identify wiki editors on a personal level or for banned editors stating how big an injustice they have suffered at the hands of the :admin cabal".--MONGO 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia Review is an attack site! Their latest thread is titled: "Who is Jayjig?"; they continually try to out eminent Wikipedians in this manner. To be fair, there are one or two decent people who post there who try to avoid a complete free-or-fall, but they're outnumbered by the nutcases, of whom there are plenty. Dangerous radges, that gang. Plenty of banned users with a grudge. We should not link to them at any cost, nor use them as a source. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:I'm so special

I've gone ahead and blocked this user indefinitely, just to bring on what I see as the inevitable a little sooner... This account has been nothing but disruptive and trollish since he got here, and seems like he may be someone's sock. (He also removed some criticism as a "personal attack" and then links to a similar comment he made that was considered as such and laughs about it.) I realize that this will probably be controversial, so it's here for review. Grandmasterka 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Certainly appears that the user had past grievences and was channeling them in a disruptive & provocational manner. El_C 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the indefblock, but yes, he was doing an irish jig on WP:Point SirFozzie 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. This was obviously a reincarnation of some blocked troll. ElinorD (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Seen, seen, seen, sick, ... thank you! Shenme 00:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. This user has been hitting everybody else with the WP:POINT stick too much. Natalie 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I'd looked at the contribution history the other day and it's an obvious disruptive sock. Don't think we really need to wait it out until we figure whose. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Little but disruption...not here to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 05:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Disruption only, wikilawyering, wasting time. Not needed. No interest in writing the encyclopedia. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)