Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:DreamGuy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with the views expressed here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example

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

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

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

AfDs as well

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

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

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

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

A proposal

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

Frequent incivility

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's back

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

User:DreamGuy (again)

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

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

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

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

Which I replied to.

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

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

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

Request for arbitration filed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom line: further refusal to cooperate

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

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

— DreamGuy

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

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

User conduct RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive

2004 ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy (general incivility, biting newcomer)

2005 ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2 - RfC closed following general agreement - WikiCivility generally improved allround.

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

2007 ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry for my impulsiveness. «You Are Okay» 05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. If you need any help finding your way around here, just ask me, OK? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Refractor madness

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

Has anybody noticed that the topic of this discussion has gone from User:DreamGuy's incivility to suspected (though deemed unrelated) sockpuppetry? LOZ: OOT 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, has anybody noticed that this discussion has been going on for a good two weeks? What's so difficult about giving User:DreamGuy a warning, and if the incicility continues, a possible long-term block? I don't understand why there has to be so much argument and debate over something that is usually settled in under 24 hours. This user's incivility is not acceptable and he/she needs to understand that. And the issue that you are now discussing (which is already settled), with the exception of the filed (and then unfiled) arbitration case, is totally unrelated. LOZ: OOT 05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be unwelcoming, but it would be best if week-old accounts stay out of this dispute. El_C 06:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I just wanted to say that this debate is just overly complicated. LOZ: OOT 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been suggested a few times.[11] I've not seen much interest. / edg ☺ ★ 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some things here bother me. User:RodentofDeaths posts to talk-pages, which are mainly, utterly Un-Civil in all manner of ways. They go beyond that, in their almost complete focus on attacking, personally, another editor. Yet RD's edit summaries are informative and civil. [This one] is an exception - 09:42, 4 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Human trafficking in Angeles City (if you take the time to actually read the discussion yourself instead of telling me to do it you will see that the majority think Susan Bryce is nut.)

This attack occurred on the article page. It is right to insist that both editors either co-operate appropriately on particular articles, or else face being banned. More importantly, continuing personal attacks ought not to be tolerated. If RD has any factual material to contribute, which appears to be possible, this can in no way assist wikipedia if personal attacks by RD continue. RD, though a new contributor, has done much to generate ill-will, and been reproached on the user's talk-page by a number of concerned wikipedians.

Please note, this editor has no personal affiliation or acquaintence with either editor, or any party, nor the Philipines, nor editted any of the articles in question. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the edit summary is not an attack. i am not accusing her of being a nut. if someone were to actually were to do as i asked in the summary and go back over the histories of the article and talk pages of susan's personal page, the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and the Angeles City article you will see that there are many, many editors that say either the things she is putting in the articles are completely nuts or they comment on the editor herself. i would guess that a very large number of them consist of people that are not native english speakers.

looking up the city you live in and seeing lies posted about it by someone that is running a smear campaign against your city is no way to welcome new users. no doubt they don't stick around very long and dont wish to argue the point in english. however, that does not make their opinions any less valid. RodentofDeath 08:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

response from rodentofdeath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation

I misreported something. Apparently, Susanbryce has agreed to mediation several times, most recently on my Talk page.[12]

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

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

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

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

well let's see how good this mediation process really is. susan has an obvious conflict of interest on the Human Trafficking in Angeles page. she should not be editing it. please see Talk:Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City#Campaigning. she has now reverted the page for no apparent reason other than it was last edited by me. so before this becomes a revert war i wish to know the outcome of the mediation and why she is able to revert to a biased version without discussion or consensus. RodentofDeath 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

no comments on her revert war? nobody wants to intervene? RodentofDeath 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

susan is now inserting lovely phrases such as this (referring to sexually transmitted disease and women and children) "Some men said that it served them right to be infected by men."

i'm all for assuming good faith but at what point do we call a spade a spade? is anybody going to stop this non-sense? RodentofDeath 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i just noticed susan is also pushing her attack of Angeles on the Angeles City article itself. The Senate of the Philippines has accused her of running a smear campaign here.[13] i think her bias and personal agenda against the Philippines has now been well documented. RodentofDeath 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you will participate in a mediation? Administrator's Noticeboard is not generally the place to arbitrate editors' disputes on details of article content. / edg ☺ ★ 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we say "Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a soapbox here and be done with it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If wishing made it so... / edg ☺ ★ 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous use of real name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations against THF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THF, DavidShankbone is a highly respected editor on wikipedia with many valued contributions on a variety of topics, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with you. He certainly has better things to do than forum shop just to harass you, and accusations of such are quite laughable. You might want to question whether it is your own behavior at fault here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward, as Guy mentioned. THF did the right thing by proposing his piece on the talk page. But he's gone overboard by vociferously arguing for its inclusion and trying to shout down people who object to it. It's permissible to introduce a source you've authored for consideration on the talk page, but then you have to let it stand or fail on the judgement of other, uninvolved editors. Expending this amount of energy arguing in favor of his source indicates, to me, that it lacks the approval of such uninvolved editors. The rest is just yelling. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I thought the legal name associated with the username THF looked familiar, so I did a bit of research, and it appears that this Ted Franks is likely the same Ted Franks mentioned in the Net.Legends.FAQ, who was well-known many years ago for his trolling skills in alt.folklore.urban. While "Ted Franks" is not a unique name, THF states on his user page that he "at a conservative Washington, DC, thinktank specializing in legal policy". One of the first hits on Google under "Ted Franks" is a lawyer at American Enterprise Institute who graduated from the University of Chicago with a law degree; the Ted Franks of a.f.u posted from a University of Chicago server. It appears (at least to me) quite likely that these two people are the same.

Seeing how this thread has gone on so long over an issue of dubious seriousness, I feel it is very germane to ask if (1) he is this well-known usenet personality & if he is, (2) based on this documented history, how can we be sure that he is not simply jerking everyone's chain here. Such evidence makes it hard for the rest of us to assume good faith. -- llywrch 06:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

allegations by 74.86.28.230 against THF

• Gosh. Why am I not surprised there is a section on here regarding THF?

I have contributed countless man-days to Wikipedia, without credit, and have always found contributors and admins to be more than reasonable, and flexible. Suddenly I encountered THF a few weeks ago, delving into a topic I know rather a lot about, but which he demonstrably only has superfical knowledge. I countered his extreme edits on the talk page: only to be met with a wall of 'adminspiel': reference to WP:EL as though it was not subject to interpretation (except for HIS interpretation of course).

Common sense, history, and IMPORTANTLY, the value of the article to the PUBLIC are out of the window. The blunt instrument of his, and only his, interpretation is applied. From the above, he has obviously been busy causing issues with others, but sadly today he is back with hos over-the-top, over-zealous, wielding of the edit-axe.

Is there no way of getting control of this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

74.86.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a WP:SPA, objects to my objection to his repeated insertion of WP:SPAM to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act article, which includes advertisements for SOX-related firms. I encourage administrators to evaluate the dispute, since the page is poorly policed, permitting the anon's edit-warring. I should have escalated it sooner. THF 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What I object to is the overbearing ill-considered edit attempts by this individual. He applies his interpretations of the guidelines as though no other interpretation was possible. He chops all those links en masse, yet he clearly has almost no knowledge of Sarbanes Oxley, the history of those links, or the article on Wikipedia.

It is so easy to chop any article to pieces on the basis of one stilted interpretation of WP:EL. So easy to go into robotic mode, and ignore the effect on the value of the article, or indeed, how silly it will look when certain references are chopped.

WP:EL is essential, but it is equally essential that it is applied with commpon sense, and neutral interpretation. THF fails to do this. This was crystal celar when I saw his edits. Finding this page, and seeing what others thought of his approach simply confirmed that he makes a habit of this.

The pattern is clear from above. Really, someone should address this matter and deal with the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

The links are a mixed bag. I see one that's apparently an academic study, and some others that are dodgy. Suggest both parties trim the list judiciously instead of inserting and reverting in toto. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many many academic studies. These two are from for-profit groups, and can be included in the main text to the extent they are notable. If we include every academic study in the EL, there's going to be a WP:NOT problem, and if we don't, there's a WP:WEIGHT problem. The decision to trim eight of the eleven links was judicious, and, in any event, the anon editor (who has made four reverts of two editors so far today) explicitly rejects the deletion of the plain spam link, and has rejected the consensus calling for the deletion after an RFC. THF 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is a typical example of distortion to support some other unknown agenda.

I tried the link by link approach. I selected the Sarbanes-Oxley-Forum in particular to debate simply because that has a particularly strong case and is so central to the compliance efforts of so many. So motivated was THF to chop everything, that he cited a 'typo' as evidence that it didn't belong! That level of desperation to get one's way suggests some other mission is at play with respect to him.

It is pointless debating with THF, but that particular source is extensive, and the forum section doesn't operate as standard forum, but largely as a Q&A ref some of the biggest names in the SOA arena, thus having become the biggest reference source for information on the topic!

As for academic sources, the line that 'none should appear because there are many', is like slamming a door on knowledge. Why not research and list the most useful? Or if too lazy, leave what is there?

Indeed. There is no good answer. Hence back to us questionning his REAL motives here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

First of all, external links are not references. They should be material which extends the article but cannot, for a variety of reasons, be included in the article. On a given academic topic, there will be thousands of different articles related to it; not all should be included -- only those which are directly pertinent to the article, and are probably discussed in the articles. In addition, please remember to assume good faith all around, and to sign your posts. --Haemo 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry by spammer

• Sarbanes-Oxley Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.86.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A WP:SPA who admits to "using several accounts to contribute" is repeatedly inserting links to an obscure talk-forum that consists mostly of spam in violation of WP:3RR, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and the consensus of an RFC. He rejects the talk-page consensus because the anon considers himself more of an "expert" than the three editors who removed the link. (This is irrelevant--WP:OWN--but the only stated evidence for the expertise is the anon's recognition of the alleged value of the spam-link.) Some real WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TALK violations also on the talk-page and edit summaries. Intervention needed from an administrator, as the user is ignoring dispute-resolution procedures and just about every Wikipedia policy and guideline and the page is little-trafficked. THF 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an absolutely disgraceful and scurrilous allegation. So someone, who has worked heavily on that article, disagrees with him: so out comes the name calling: a 'spammer'.

No attempt to explore the depths of the links in question. Just the usual paper thin dismissal and the abuse ('spammer').

I really think someone in the Wikipedia hierarchy should take action against THC (Ted Frank). It is exactly the approach which clearly has upset so many others before me, as we can see above. How long is he going to be allowed to continue to do this?

My inclination is to just walk away from Wikipedia. I am an honest contributor who has worked hard on this article, only for some guy to step in, delete material without justification, and then fling abuse like this. It feels like bullying, which is why I won’t walk away.

Is there no room for genuine contributors any more? Or is this just a clique for those who love to quote meta-wiki rules/regs SELECTIVELY to get their own way?

And yes, I have now registered from the hotel (I am working away). So there is one less stick for 'THC' to hit me with to divert from the issues. SoxMan

That's User:SOXman, not User:SoxMan, SOXman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And he has returned from his 24-hour block with a new 3RR violation, disregard of dispute resolution, and continued uncivil personal attacks on the talk page, along with misleading edit summaries. Administrative intervention is appreciated, as my pointing SOXman to Wikipedia guidelines is rejected on the grounds that I don't know anything about Sarbanes-Oxley, as demonstrated by the fact that I don't appreciate the value of the spam link he's attempting to add. THF 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly do welcome administrative intervention. Please have a good long look at the history and hostile bullying attitude of THF/TedFrank. Please read all his contributions, not just with respect to myself and SOX, but elsewhere, as evidenced even on this very page. Please also consider his motives and his mission. As a simple contributor, I am not the first to have suffered such hostility and overbearing edit-warring. I guess most contributors would have walked away by now, but that would not help Wikipedia. Please assist.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Administrators should examine a potential conflict of interest WP:COI. The one website THF disputes on this page from the whole list he deleted is highly regarded amongst Sarbanes-Oxley professionals. This regard does enhance the profile of its contributors, perhaps in the same way that THF hopes Wikipedia enhances his profile. Those contributors may be competitors of THF, in a highly competitive market.

User Scipio3000

Concerns about his previous actions have not been addressed. [14] . Fresh off his second block, he has made blanket attacks on Wikipedia [15], and appears to be claiming ownership of one of the contested articles [16] where he has a heading titled ‘On my article, Sicily'. Also, since the end of his block, Scipio3000 has accused User El C, the one who blocked him, of vandalism, threatened to report him, and said he had ‘no right to butt in’. [17] Edward321 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

How about unblocking him to try dispute resolution? We could always request that he does not edit the Sicily article for 48 hours or until the dispute has been settled. The 48 hour block, though not improper, may not be the best solution. Pascal.Tesson 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was considering this since El C's post on Scipio's talk page regarding the request not to issue a 3rr block. But today I was convinced that this block should still stand. What convinced me was this post by JodyB that provided a diff link showing that Scipio had not been truthful in saying that he had not removed talk page sections from the Talk:Sicily page. But I am still open to any other admin willing to grant the unblock.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose El C should probably make the call then since he will probably be the admin most involved in future dispute resolution with Scipio3000. By the way, I have declined his latest unblock request since this is essentially what this thread is supposed to do. Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Scipio always comes up with these heartfelt pleas each time he's warned or blocked. The first time, I bought it and thought it was genuine. Then, when he was no longer being observed, he returned to deleting parts of pages and making very strong personal insults. He is frequently lying to put himself in a more positive light. Edward321 reported a few days ago that Scipio had changed the names in a report that Edward had made to make it appear as if Edward had commited the offences Scipio had done. He claimed that his fight with me was about me claiming stuff about the Holy Roman Empire, a subject of which I have never written a word. Yesterday he was asked by a moderator if he had erased comments from the talk page on Sicily and replied no. The moderator found out that he had been lying, and that's part of the reason he became blocked again. During the last week, Scipio has deleted large parts of articles without given any explanations, violated 3RR, lied about his actions, lied about others, falsified reports and attacked other contributors over their race and religion. See the reports by Edward [18] and myself [19], [20] as well as all the information he has removed from his talk page. During my time at Wikipedia, I've come across very few users that are this disruptive and violates so many Wikipedia policies. It's a bit strange that we're discussing if the short block of two days should be lifted, I find it to be very short given his behaviour during the last few days. JdeJ 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The block was in place before I had the exchange with him about deleting sections from Talk:Sicily. I am happy to continue watching him very closely but I support the block and would not remove it. I think he could be a useful editor as he is obviously enthused and passionate about the subject. Of course he must learn to work well with others. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I thought that was the reason. It's possible that he could become a constructive editor, but I admit to being sceptical. Being hot tempered is one thing, all of us can get upset at times. That he is frequently lying about his actions and about what others have done is more serious. I'm also concerned over his edits to Sicily. It's not just that he deletes large parts of the page, what he deletes is references to Arab, African and Jewish cultures being present in Sicily. That worries me. I've recently had some harsh words thrown at me by another contributor, but I don't doubt that that user is a valuable contributor. We have different opinions in an academic question and he's hot-tempered and not very polite, but he's not delibarately lying and his edits are about an academic matter. I'm sure he will turn out to be a great contributor. As for Scipio, even trying to take WP:FAITH into consideration, I'm doubtful, but let's hope for the best. JdeJ 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Scipio3000 is still claiming ownership of Sicily on his talk page - 'On my article, Sicily'. (Difference is listed above, it was still there as of his most recent revision of his page. [21] ) Could someone please explain this policy to him, I doubt he would take it well from me. Edward321 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked JodyB to take over the case for me; he has my complete confidence and I'll back him up in whichever way he decides to proceed. El_C 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 making attacks on his talk page

Mathsci asked Scipio3000 to post comments on his (Mathsci’s) talk page, not on his (Mathsci’s) talk page archive. [22]. (Post was restored by JodyB after Scipio3000 deleted it.) Scipio responded with ‘I will delete what I want on my own talk page.’ [23]. Later, Scipio3000 called Mathsci’s post ‘crap’, ‘sarcasm’ and ‘insults’ [24] and accused him of being ‘bossy’ [25]. (Scipio is currently blocked for 3RR.) Edward321 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 did not seem willing to accept what I was telling him about the difference between a talk archive and a talk page. Post-archive additions to a talk archive would normally go completely unseen and are deprecated. --Mathsci 13:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi returns

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

I've cleaned out all the edits from this account since the date the ban was made official. The account has been active since a few days before the ban was finalized. The edits from before the ban, while technically block-evasion edits, and not ban-evasion edits, and thus are not as automatically reverable. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do people do such sloppy jobs? [26] This is why that tool should be used only if they are destroying things. Unless I am reading that wrong, it doesn't seem like mass removal had much of a point. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is enforcement of the ban, as laid out here. Conradi is banned. He is not welcome to edit on the project any longer. All his edits are subject to removal/reversal. That's part of how bans are enforced. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would also be hypocritical of us to say "you are not welcome here, but we're going to keep a few of your good edits". - Crockspot 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what happens. Articles created by banned users I am sure are not then deleted. Removing wiki linking seems pointless. Also all information submitted falls under free use. Perhaps what should be considered is more if they user just wants to edit now and avoid whatever got them banned. Exposing quiet editors who were once banned, that are editing articles in a positive way, seems counter productive to the goals here. P.S. If I have a slab of meat in my pocket, please let me know Crockspot. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles created by banned users can and are deleted. There is a specific Speedy Deletion criteria (G5) for exactly this case. I speedied a number of articles written by Conradi on his new account just this morning. In Conradi's case, yeah, he does good edits. But the general opinion at the ban discussion was that the good was not worth the bad that always seems to come with it. Many who endorsed the ban did so reluctantly, but they endorsed it none-the-less. I'll include the summary of the ban message from the ban list page below these comments.

But there is a psychological component to the systematic removal of edits by banned users. They are not welcome, and their contributions, good or bad, are no longer welcome. And by systematically removing their contributions, they will hopefully get the idea before too long that continuing to try to edit in a place that they are not welcome is simply a waste of their time. Their edits will not remain, so why make them in the first place? Will Conradi get the point? Who knows. But I at least intend to continue to make the point. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · block log), July 28 2007

Banned for continued incivility and personal attacks. Multiple second chances were given, but eventually the patience of the community regarding his tendentious editing was exhausted and, following a discussion at the community sanction noticeboard, a site ban was enacted. Additionally, he engaged in IP hopping block evasion in order to continue the attacks and incivility once blocked. (Copied ban summary)

---

No offense to you, since you did not make it up, but that is a foolish system. People wish to edit, and are creating articles, are being chased off by those who probably do not, and instead correct the work of those who actually take time to research. The silly politics on Wikipedia seems to outweigh the notion of a collection of information for the public. Not wanted? The community said so? The idea that 20 ppl who frequent this board are "the community" is further absurd. But the 20 people who make up the general posters here are probably pretty sure they represent the community well enough. If only this was really a collaborative project. I could only imagine the total rewrite I did of Cali cartel and the 11 articles I created being removed because I said something flagrant, talk about depriving others of information and to spite only yourself and the community you are trying to help prosper. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what else to say. The policy is the policy, and until/unless it is changed, it is what it is. And this is far from the right place to debate whether it should change. So, I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but... <shrug>. - TexasAndroid 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

... Yeah ... It doesnt matter I re added much of the work, thanks for giving other people work you did not feel like checking. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy is not a noose with which to hang ourselves. Removing perfectly good edits that someone is going to have to replace is biting off your nose to spite your face, and as such is a complete waste of time. Deletion for the sake of deletion is incredibly stupid. Kamryn · Talk 10:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

G5 applies only to work by banned users *while they are banned*. If a user creates significant areas of work before being banned, then they are not a banned user at the time of creation and hence G5 does not apply. Makes sense in the context. Orderinchaos 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

People are banned for a reason. They're not welcome, because they can't work in the community. It's an enforcement issue. The fact that we're even debating this is feeding the troll. You get banned, and sockpuppet, you get blocked and reverted. Too bad, so sad, should have thought of that beforehand. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To say they are not able to work with the community, or are not better wikipedia, then to go and delete X ammount of articles they may have made and revert X ammount of edits that are useful, is quite a set of contrary statements. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible harassment

Can I ask if the behaviour of User:Lonewolf BC towards me can be deemed to be harassment, as per WP:HAR? It seems to me that his actions fall into this category as he has a) followed me to other articles - from British monarchy to Rideau Hall, Monarchy in Ontario, Official residence, Royal tours of Canada, Canada Day, Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II, and now Passport - to engage in an edit war with me, which would appear to be a mild form of wikistalking, or "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target." However, more distressing is b) he has made no less that three attempts to have me blocked in the past month:

• 10 August 2007
• 7 August 2007
• 15 July 2007

This to me fits into the last part of the Wikistalking description: "...with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." The fact that we have butted heads previously (articles on Prime Ministers of Canada), along with the following:

• he spends what must be a significant amount of time digging out months or years old records to try and construct a 3RR breach on my part,
• tries to smear my character so as to influence whatever admin reads his reports,
• made a "prediction" of my breaching 3RR in fututre ("I foresee more "playing chicken" with, and violations 3RR by G2bambino, before long" 1), and then himself filed the next report against me,
• he has himself recently engeged in edit wars and skirted 3RR breaches (List of palaces, Official residence, British monarchy, John Thompson (politician))
• flat out recommends I be blocked for what he personally, and hypocritically deems offensive ("I recommend blocking him for a while, though, to deter his future edit-warring over this (or other things)" 2).
• he invests his time communicating, much more collegially, with other users about me, rather than speaking to me,
• attempts on my part to communicate with him personally were ignored, with the either no reason at all or the excuse that my words weren't composed in a manner paletable to him, or in the correct location, (3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

all says to me that his intent is not to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia, but instead to target me and have me blocked so as to eliminate me as an opponent to him. I've made one request here previously that someone look into Lonewolf and his interactions with me, but nothing really came of it. I don't know how else to handle someone like this, and I'm really becoming quite disturbed by the whole affair. I'd appreciate some attention and input. Cheers. --G2bambino 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:Lonewolf BC if they would review and comment on the above here, at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to declare someone a 'harrasser', unless they've disrupted ones personal 'discussion page' (example vandalism or continuous posting when requested not to). GoodDay 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:HAR? What you just said above is clearly not true. Corvus cornix 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of 'WP:HAR' (my blunder). Sorry folks. GoodDay 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha, this complaint falls under -Wikistalking-. It never hurts to research before posting (again, my blunder). GoodDay 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...no. "Wikistalking...[is] editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress...[my italics]" — "...following another user around in order to harass them[not my italics]." "[It] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."
The reason I ended up editing a bunch of the same articles as G. is that he'd lately made the same edit across that whole bunch of articles. The edit was, if not flatly wrong, at least plainly unfitting, and I thought that this was obvious enough that G. would simply let it go. He did not, and it was perhaps my mistake not to withdraw immediately at that point (as I did very soon). Whether this actually caused G. "annoyance or distress" I don't know -- I somewhat doubt it, from his manner, which to me seems more agressive and gleeful than bothered or worried -- but if it did then that was not at all my purpose, which was only to set the articles right. -- Lonewolf BC 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My blooper; I was merely discribing G2bambino's charges. I haven't cast judgement on you (that an Administrator's duty). GoodDay 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is such a scatter-shot of complaints, here, and so little merit to any of them, that I cannot reasonably be expected to address them all. Nonsense (whether in the form of bogus accusations or otherwise) is easily made up, but takes time and trouble to show up (as nonsense). However, I shall deal with what seems to be the principal issue:
Making legitimate, truthful 3RR reports is not harassment. I am much concerned about the continual edit-warring by G2bambino, against many editors and across many articles, with frequent breaches of 3RR, and even more frequent dances up to the brink of it. For the good of Wikipedia, this must stop. To that end, I have lately troubled to report those of his 3RR violations which have come to my notice (whether because they were perpetrated in editorial disputes against myself, or for some other reason). These reports have all been carefully made and scrupulously accurate, detailing, where necessary, the precise nature of the revert. (And yes, this took me more time in the cases where some of the reverts were less straightforward, but diligence is not a vice.) The three reports that have already been handled have all been confirmed as 3RR breaches, and one resulted in a block. The fourth is (as of this writing) still pending, at AN/3RR. It includes, appended below the report, a very brief summary of the persistent pattern of behaviour that G. has shown, with links to the earlier reports. That stuff is recommended -- nay, needful -- reading for anyone judging the merits of this present "harassment" complaint.
Sooner or later, G's behaviour must stop, and better it were sooner. In order for that to happen, it must be be brought to admin attention, and its persistent nature must be made plain. That is what I have been doing. I really don't care much whether G. is actually blocked or not. So much the better if he ceases and desists from behaviour of this kind because he knows that "the jig is up" -- that his offenses will certainly be reported and their tale kept. However, I do not foresee that happening, and believe that blocking shall be needed, and is even overdue.
Although G. may find the reports "distressing", that scarcely makes them harassing. Whereas they are true, they are legitimate. If they were false then they would, I guess, be a very clumsy attempt at harassment, but in that case why would G. not just laugh them off? His worry about them only points to his knowledge of their validity. Indeed, and ironically, this whole "harassment" complaint seems to be no more than retaliation for my making the 3RR reports -- a vexatious attempt by G. to make me stop reporting his 3RR violations. However, I am sure that WP users are not liable to sanction for reporting the offences of a persistent 3RR-breaker.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I looked over the contributions of both participants before asking Lonewolf BC if they wished to respond here. I would not classify either editor as a vandal, since both appear to be operating under WP:AGF in that each believes the others edits to be "vandalistic" in nature; which is likely why there have been various reports to WP:3RR - since parties do not believe that removing "vandalsim" counts toward 3RR. I also do not see much in the way of meaningful communication between the editors. Neither appear to be willing to move from their particular stance. At the risk of irritating both editors, it seems to be a trait shared by them in respect of other subjects and editors too. I suggest that mediation, or another venue of dispute resolution, may be appropriate to enable two good (if touchy) editors to continue contributing to Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Howabout letting a 'third' editor implement his 'compromise edit' (at least until the opposing editors turn up a resolution). Stability of the article, is paramount. GoodDay 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of NPOV is that bias may be included in an article, providing that it is properly sourced, as long as verifiable counter bias is also allowed. Here we have is two editors who do not recognise the others opinion as based in "fact". However, if a neutral compromise can be found then it may be that both editors will agree - although it may be difficult to reconcile the two differing stances. What do the involved parties think? LessHeard vanU 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking about Rideau Hall specifically, I don't see the debate as one "fact" vs. another. To my mind, it was more a matter of one person seeing a fact as valid while the other first saw it as valid but unimportant, and then later changed his mind to say it wasn't valid at all. I've always been gunning for a compromise - hence the numerous variations I proposed at Talk:Rideau Hall and inserted in the article itself. Again, from my point of view, what was last done (and what now remains in the locked article) addressed Lonewolf's initial concern of importance. Unfortunately, it may not now address his concern about validity. So, in the end I'm now quite unclear as to what he really thinks or wants; he didn't invest any time at Talk expressing his concerns/desires, preferring instead, it seems, to quickly and bluntly revert any alteration I made. Having my cooperative efforts met with that led me to, regretfully, revert back in anger, thus putting in place the final component that led to the inveitable edit war.

In the end, I suppose I'm saying a compromise was what I'd been gunning for all along. What was most aggravating was that anything I did in an effort to reach that compromise was either ignored, thrown aside when the person with whom I was trying to compromise changed his grievance, or deleted by that same person; the one who then went on to target me for 3RR breaches and discuss having me blocked behind my back.

Lonewolf does seem to now be acting more collegially, which pleases me, and I do remain open to discussing a resolution that satisfies everyone involved. --G2bambino 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:65.15.77.18

I have just had to decimate subprime mortgage financial crisis after discovering that 65.15.77.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wrote most of it by copying large chunks of text from newspapers.

For example, he wrote [27]:

"On July 12, 2007, the top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan."

which apparently came from a Reuters article:

"The top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry, the lawmaker said in a statement. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan. ... "

This is just one among many examples in that single article. I have listed a number of additional uncited sources identified by Googling on Talk:Subprime mortgage financial crisis. However as 65.15.77.18 wrote most of the article, it basically needs to be restarted.

However, my additional concern is that 65.15.77.18 seems to contributed substantially to a number of other articles, and I would appreciate some help investigating these for copyvios and repairing as necessary. Dragons flight 07:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you know that its a copyright violation and you seem to know where it came from, could you not add the citation? --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't become less of a copyright violation if we say where the article came from. Using a newspaper article as a source is perfectly fine, as is quoting from an article in another work, but just copying the article with no additional commentary or analysis would be violating the terms of use. Natalie 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources is used for backing up claims with reputable source material. For example, when we state that the European Central Bank has injected €61 billion into the European financial system due to the subprime mortgage financial crisis, we must add a citation that points to the proof (for example, an article on the site of the BBC, or perhaps the ECB's own website).

Copying whole sections from an article is an entirely different thing. That would be copyright violation, since the authors of those publications hold the copyright to the sections that were copied. Citations are used only to support our own material's validity. (In response to JodyB.) —msikma (user, talk) 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if other people noticed but the editor is still active as of recently. I've informed the editor of this discussion and also told them why their behaviour is incredibly bad. While my message may have been fairly stern, IMHO in cases like these was have to be stern, don't bite and assume good faith regardless (which is not to say I didn't assume good faith, I did) Nil Einne 22:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up his work at American Freedom Mortgage, Inc., and it's a mess. He starts a paragraph with "On date x, the "Mayberry Gazette" reported..." then he pastes in a huge chunk of the content. There's little choice but to gut the article, which I am now doing. Unfortunately. - KrakatoaKatie 11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk

• Temoni prince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alameer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are both sockpuppets of:

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

— EliasAlucard|Talk 12:07 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RFCU. Not here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Or WP:SPS. Melsaran 14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential legal threat made by the owner of stickycarpet.com/dam

FYI, please see the comments made by the owner of www.stickycarpet.com/dam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#stickycarpet.com (permanent link). I'm posting this note here as a "heads up"; I do not know if any administrator action is required yet.

IP addresses:

• 194.203.91.252 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 213.123.37.252 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.122.144 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.15.230 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.221.52 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.226.59 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.243.130 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.189.8.114 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 80.2.194.51 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.108.44 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.198.147 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.208.144 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.221.41 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.24.177 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.36.200 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.125.43.141 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)
• 91.15.200.169 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • x-wiki • noticeboards • link archives || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • Google)

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not see a legal threat. I saw the blocked guy making a claim that he believes the edits to be libelous, but not "I intend to contact my lawyer or take legal action", nothing even close to that. Then, 3 or 4 other people jumped on him to stuff the legal threat policy down his throat, when he did not actually make a "threat". Remember, there are TWO WORDS to legal threat, and the second one is the most important one. There's no need to give him a lecture on the differences between libel and slander. Simply point him towards WP:NLT, and give him the OTRS email address, and it will be dealt with.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. Personally, I think it's ambiguous and could be construed either way; others, as you pointed out, took as a threat while you did not. I left all those links not to hector the guy but so he could try to figure out whether he wanted to be on a legal track or a discussion track. I'm always wary of editors using WP:LEGAL as a means of squashing dissent -- when you read the actual policy, that's not what it's about.

I'm glad I posted here and I will do as you've recommended. Thanks again, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy sockfarm, Batman! I'm with Swatjester: Tell him to shove off, or we'll put on some range blocks. Massive spamming, massive sockpuppetry, and legal threats for removing spam to boot. Please report back if it continues. The Evil Spartan 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already blocked some of the individual IPs, but just for 48h, however I doubt if this will continue if we just blacklist the site they are trying to spam. Tim Vickers 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding legal threats: diff. "If you wish to blacklist the site then you are free to do so but as I have a reputation to up-hold in the 'real world' being a journalist, if my identity continues to be libelled in this manner then I am going to seek guidance as to how to proceed against both yourself and Mr. Goldberg for unproven and libellous misinformation against me." Now, he or some other unknown IP did tone it down later, as I see now in hindsight, but, to me, that reads like (again, this is MY interpertation) "If you blacklist me, I'll sue". That's just my take on it, however. --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MadmanBot

Hi. MadmanBot appears to be semi-protecting articles and talkpages at random. It may need turning off. Regards SilkTork 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Errm, it's not protecting the pages, it's adding the template that shows the page is protected. And, it's not doing that task anymore. ~ Wikihermit 17:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I've just discovered that I can remove the template myself. Thanks for looking into this. SilkTork 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the template. The article is semi-protected so it should have the template. If you wish to request unprotection, then you need to make a request for that. Removing the template does not affect the protection. -- JLaTondre 17:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask a related question out of curiosity, what is the reason for ordinary users being able to use this template? Since non-admins cannot protect the pages by themselves, what is the rationale behind this mechanism that allows a non-protected page to look as if it were protected, or vice versa? --Kudret abi 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's because the software has no built-in mechanism for displaying a page's protection status, so we use templates. There's also no mechanism to prevent non-admin users from adding a template to a page that is not protected. Sandstein 18:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a bot, DumbBOT, that does remove protection templates from non-protected articles. While it's main use is for cases of expired protection, it would also catch cases where a template is used incorretly. -- JLaTondre 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fully sure what is happening here. It appears that that we have a Bot adding protection templates at random. I query it. I'm told it's just a template, that the page is not protected. I remove the template because the page is not actually protected. JLaTondre now protects a page which looks stable [28] and tells me I now need to request the protecting admin (which is LaTondre) that the page be unprotected [29]! I have already requested unprotection, then when I was informed the bot was not protecting the page, merely adding the template I removed the template myself and left an appropriate note:[30]. At this point we seem to be going in circles. I apologise if I have done something wrong along the way. Can I ask that somebody else deal with this because I am confused and at this point I'm not even sure who I should be talking to! SilkTork 18:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

JLaTondra is not protecting the page, any more than you're unprotecting it. The page is semi-protected, meaning that registered accounts which have been around longer than four days may edit it. That of course includes you, so you're perfectly able to edit it. (If you want to see how it works, log out and try to edit the page.) Only administrators can actually protect or unprotect a page, removing or adding those templates has no effect on the page's protection level. They only exist to say that the page is in fact protected. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, if you look at the protection log for the page [31], you will see that it was protected by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me on March 30th. Its not fully protected (that would mean only admins could edit it) - full protectiomn is indicated in the logs by edit=sysop. A log entry of edit=autoconfirmed means that only logged in users whose accounts have existed for several days (such as yourself) may edit the page. I'm not sure whether this level of protection is still needed, but I hope that explains to you why the Bot added a protection template to the page... WjBscribe 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the templates can be misleading occasionally. The surefire way to tell if, and when, a page is protected is to look at the page logs, as WJBscribe mentions. Just go to "history" and click on "Logs". All protections and unprotections are logged there, with the admin responsible. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the normal way of checking, but it's not conclusive. Logs can be misleading when the page was protected and then moved (where you won't see the protection in the log at the new title), or if the page has been deleted and restored since protection (where you will see the protection in the log but not the unprotection). You therefore need to also examine the log for moves and deletions as well as signs of protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when you go to edit a semiprotected page, if you're allowed to edit it, it will tell you right above the edit window that the page is semiprotected. Admins also get a message when they go to edit a fully protected page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User:PalestineRemembered

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

after a number of notes, requests, and warnings i found that i cannot resolve this issue without taking it to the noticeboard, so i issued a final notice and afterwards opened an AV/I case that was a tad ignored.

i'm reopening the case with new personal attacks made after the previous complaint and am pushing for a one week ban:

• "were you one of them?" ^{(22:20, 10 August)} - a repeated accusation that i was a fighting member in the "Jenin massacre". (he's received, and removed, a 3rd level warning on this one) ^{3rd level warning (personal style) and removal}.

-- on this one he recieved a notice that i've issued a notice about this issue to an admin inspecting my AV/I complaint.^{(15:04, 11 August)}

• this new message from 17:53, 11 August, in which User:PalestineRemembered states the following after all the previous discussions and warnings.

statements made:

1. are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?
2. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum

-- User:PalestineRemembered was made aware of my complaint^[32] yet refused to take note and continued with this baseless libelous accusation. considering this is a prolonged issue, i'm requesting a one week ban on said user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)

I don't think I have had direct notification from User:Jaakobou that he has requested the community act against me.

I don't think I have accused him of anything, however it has become necessary to ask him if there is a Conflict of interest in some articles he is editing in WP. He has had ample opportunity to deny this is the case, instead of which he chooses to ask I should be blocked for 7 days. I trust that admins will give proper consideration to his request, and the actual circumstances under which it has been presented. With best regards, including towards those with whom I will do my best to behave in a collegiate fashion in future, I am, Yours Sincerely, PalestineRemembered 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, refactored. I just noticed that Jaak had already pointed this out. I'm not exactly certain what is up with PR. He accused me on the talk page for Battle of Jenin of being hormonal cause I'm a woman. (Which amuses this catLORD to no end) Kyaa the Catlord 18:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm involved in this dispute, and have had some fairly hostile exchanges with Jaakobou, so take this as you will. Bombast and incivility are always bad, but Jaakobou still won't tell us whether he has a conflict of interest in the matter. He is an Israeli which means he's likely a reserve IDF soldier, but he won't tell us whether he was mobilized in "Defensive Shield" and whether he was involved in fighting in Jenin. A simple "no" would suffice here, rather than this extended drama. Asking the question is not an accusation, claim, or libel. Eleland 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - User:Eleland, with all due respect, you should really avoid this discussion considering our latest altercation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask editors if they have a Conflict of Interest. If the requestee refuses to answer, or engages in bluster, or requests I be blocked for 7 days, as he did here then it ceases to be a robust exchange of views between editors, it becomes a robust difference of opinion between the requestee, (User:Jaakobou) and the community. PalestineRemembered 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking if a user has a conflict of interest and accusing him of being a war criminal, however. This accusation is an amazing leap from "were you at Jenin and do you have a COI?" and "did you indiscriminately kill civilians?" Kyaa the Catlord 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to try and determine if an editor has a conflict of interest. It's another thing at all to attempt to discern another persons identity for the purpose of disparaging him, especially in emotional situations.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a neutral application of the COI rule that would forbid Jaakobou from editing because he is Israeli, but permit an editor with a name like "PalestineRemembered" to edit. If Jaakobou says he does not have a COI, WP:AGF requires that to be the end of the matter without further inquiry. If there is tendentious or disruptive POV-pushing, then address that through DR. It's a waste of time for everyone when editors (on either side) try to use WP:COI to obtain ownership of pages. THF 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - i'd appreciate the de facto libelous claims of the reported user be put into center stage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As it's phrased as a question, it's technically not libelous. It is an obnoxious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. THF 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, i disagree. for example if i ask you "are you a rapist?" in a crowded room. is that not libelous because it's phrased as a question? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered could/should have opened a report on WP:COIN. But it's still strange, that you never responded to the WP:COI charges. --Raphael1 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael, please apologize. Editors have no obligation to respond to obnoxious questions like that. THF 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors have no obligation whatsoever as they always have a Wikipedia:Right_to_leave. IMHO the question is only annoying, if there is indeed a WP:COI. What do you want me to apologize for? --Raphael1 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating the same violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL that appropriately got PR blocked. Under WP:AGF, Jaakobou, aware of the COI policy, does not have a COI unless he declares one, and Wikipedia editors are not tasked with harassing editors to determine otherwise. If there's POV-pushing, use WP:DR. Don't harass a user by demanding they answer obnoxious questions. You would presumably be justifiably upset if people were to start asking you if you provided material support to suicide bombers. WP:CIVIL fortunately prevents that sort of diversion. THF 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have a WP:COIN, if a COI can only be self-declared? And no, I wouldn't be upset, if people would ask me, whether I provided material support to suicide bombers as I can negate with a clear conscience. --Raphael1 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you would get upset if you were pestered repeatedly with the same question. We have WP:COIN for cases where editors with COIs ignore COI warnings and violate COI policy and administrative intervention is needed. There are other cases where undisclosed COI can be determined from, say, a Google search or an ARIN WHOIS search. COIN isn't for content disputes. THF 15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be, that the question was asked repeatedly, because it has never been answered. --Raphael1 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1, i think that anyone who looks to vilify his "opponent" can easily ask such similar questions and i never elicited such impressive leap of faith questions with any of my edits or statements. while the sheer question is insulting considering the POV of the person behind it, the phrasing and insinuations made it more than evident that the editor had more interest in how defamatory he can phrase himself without getting blocked than in the reply he gets. to note, PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone asked me an irrelevant and obnoxious question that violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF, like you're doing now to Jaakobou, Raphael1, I might not answer either. If you want to ask irrelevant and intrusive questions, please become an employment lawyer rather than use that tactic on Wikipedia. THF 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you keep describing these claims as "libellous", Jaakobou, does this mean that you are intending to begin some kind of legal proceedings? Tim Vickers 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, i'm fairly sure that being alleged, out of the blue, to be a war criminal and asked if i'm seeking asylum, is pretty damn close to the legal description of libel. am i planning to pursue legal proceedings because of an internet talk page clash? no. am i requesting the user blocked for a week due to his insistence on soapbox behavior and baseless libelous attacks? yes, considering he was warned and patently repeated the offense on more than one occasion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaak, please don't use the term libel, it makes things very close to legal issues. Please just stick in terms of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. That said, I've blocked PR for 24 hours. This comment in particular is well beyond what could possibly be ever acceptable. We may wish to reconsider whether PR is an editor that we want to have on this project, considering these remarks and his extensive block record. JoshuaZ 00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

i'll avoid that wording in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence.^{static version} Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

68.91.113.55 (talk · contribs)

There seems to be some vandalism from this IP mixed in with good-faith or constructive edits. Just64helpin 19:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:FSX-2007

This user is disrupting Wikipedia by adding "confirmed" tracks to the Exclusive track listing. He/she proceeds to add the "confirmed" tracks with a source (catch is, the source does not confirm the tracks, just shows Brown in the studio with a piece of paper which has a list of tracks on it, thus being not confirmed and WP:BALL). Only five songs have been confirmed, which are listed in the current article table and they are from MTV and Chris Brown's official fan club. The user does not understand WP:BALL even though he received numerous warnings on his talk page. Here are some diffs (in order - newest to oldest):

• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]

References

--Ayoleftyz 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I removed a report on WP:AIV against Ayolefyz made by FSX-2007. Unimportantly, that one wasn't signed either. Could someone with more knowledge of this subject matter look over this? LessHeard vanU 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not originally signing my complaint, it's fixed. --Ayoleftyz 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo

Sherzo's has taken a course of actions that I feel need investigating at a higher level. He has been offensive and rude to users and assumed a superior position to other users in order to push forward his point of view.

When I got involved with the debate over the notability of Glasgow University Student Television, it appeared to me that Sherzo was trying to railroad the article towards deletion. That being said, the article had not been re nominated for deletion by any user. When I next saw the article, Sherzo had, on his own authority, wiped the article with a re-direct to an new article he created that he took from another users userspace. I have restored the article and marked it for deletion so that the matter can be resolved correctly and within the rules.

I then got involved in the debate over the changing of the name of British Student Television. Sherzo preceded to personally attack myself and CR7 in an inappropriate manner. He gave the opinion to me that he thought he owned Wikipedia, and the article in question was his own personal property. In the time I have entered debates on matters, I have always assumed good faith, but I fear my assumptions were wrong. I have never suffered such personal attacks from another user, whos methods include vandalism and not keeping to a neutral point of view. TorstenGuise 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I never once claim "ownership of any article" despite tortenguise frequent accusations, in fact asked him many times to contribution towards the article rather than just berate me for not being British Sherzo 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I left out the personal attack before too and in the previous thread no administrators looked at Sherzo's 'ownership' of British Student Television. Sherzo's tactic of changing the main page to support his stance on the renaming discussion is blatant vandalism. CR7 (message me) 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

no i changed it back from an edit by TortenGuise to support his argument, so perhaps your accusing the wrong person of vandalism Sherzo 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo has vandalized List of US Presidents by miltary service for at least the 8th time. This is unwarranted. Bush's service is questionable, yet it is still a controversy and not proven fact that he was AWOL. That is why it has no business being placed on that page.Bluecord 12:11, 12 August 2007

Please be sure to read this too. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The link above that ¿Qué? has posted is now defunct. I have archived it below. TorstenGuise 09:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, as Sherzo is changing content controversially without a concencus, he is now on his final warning. If he changes content in a similar manner again, please report it. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo has now opened an incident report for TorstenGuise below to counteract this report. CR7 (message me) 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archive of a previous entry to this section. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made after this. No further edits should be made to this section.

Resolved

Hi, I requested that the article British Student Television be moved on its talk page. So far Sherzo has been the only objector. He is reverting the main page as if he owns it and is also being very uncivil about the 'discussion' about the renaming - eg. you thought it meant northern ireland despite saying Dublin? don't they teach geography in the UK anymore? outside of fringe of vocal lunatics on the internet the british isles is an oft use term in the rest of the world. Please can someone drop into the talk page and make a definate decision and/or can Sherzo be sanctioned? On another note he's also been edit warring on List of United States Presidents by military service against Bluecord. CR7 (message me) 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No wonder that discussion is sitting on WP:RM's backlog. Obviously not the best model chosen for discussing a move proposal. I'm closing it as inconclusive.--Húsönd 01:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo refuses to accept that Ireland is not part of Britain. The name of the article is geographically and politically incorrect and is as such unneutral. CR7 (message me) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo continues to vandalize List of United States Presidents by military service. His vandalism is biased and politically motivated. Ronald Regan served in the U.S. Army Reserve and on active duty during WWII. George W. Bush served in the U.S. Air National Guard during Vietnam. He continually deletes Reagan's service because it offends him that Reagan served in Hollywood making propoganda and training films for the Army. Reagan is not the only WWII veteran that recieved stateside service. He can not help that he was ordered there by the Army. He continues to revert Bush's status as AWOL even though that is still under dispute. My contention is, being a History teacher and a veteran myself, that you can not take service away from someone and both of these men served no matter what your personal feelings are of that service. There are clearly questions in relation to the service of some democrats, most notably Clinton and his deferment, however, Sherzo does not even want to admit that. This is what makes this a political point of view on his part. He is basically revising history to meet his own personal beliefs. He also leaves pretty nasty messages on other peoples talk pages.Bluecord

That's pretty ridiculous; especially the Reagan part. I've watchlisted the article. --Haemo 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also watchlisted it, and since he's changing it from the original content without a concencus, his edits in question will be considered vandalism by me. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a previous discussion in this section. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made after this. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

• GUST debate.Talk:Glasgow University Student Television
• British Student Television debate.Talk:British Student Television
• Abuse on TorstenGuise talk page. User_talk:TorstenGuise#British_Student_Television
• Complimentary debate to the above abuse User_talk:Sherzo#British_Student_Television

Richard Rossi (BLP concerns)

Resolved

There seems to be an ongoing issue with this article - various new accounts and IP addresses seem to be popping up to put in unsource and what appear to be libelous claims - some extra eyes would be appreciated. --Fredrick day 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. JoshuaZ 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Some research suggests the incident is true; the anon edit-warrior appears to be adding this (so it's really a copyright violation, too). I'll get better sourcing, since Shepherd draws all his stuff from newspaper accounts.

In the future, WP:BLP/N and WP:RPP are the places to go. THF 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've researched and sourced the material. THF 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages for deletion

Resolved

For some reason this obvious attack page is sitting for a long time waiting to be deleted, and was being discussed without removing all of the attacks.

It discusses this, without references, about its subject: he challenges experts in fields which he has no formal training himself.... All of his argument's have the underlying themes of poor reasoning, use of non-existent "factual" data, and ill-formed grammatical structures.... he has attained an unaccredited pastoral ordination ... which required nothing more of him than to simply apply for one. He hopes to develop (his enterprise to include) a special "pastor's house" in a tropical beach setting. He is a self-described believer in a number of new age ideas that are considered by the vast majority of the scientific community to be rooted in unscientific and pseudoscientific approaches. He is a self-proclaimed "Hell of a man." He is known to refer to himself as "a gifted man" and "a freaking genius."

Frankly, if GUY were editing this would have been deleted before I had to wade through the speedy delete incomprehensible jargon to request its deletion, much less watch it sit on Wikipedia this long, posted by an editor and his sock puppet. And why is an administrator putting this up on AfD instead of deleting it? Look at my edit history to find it, instead of announcing it in yet another place for everyone to read. Could someone just delete this crap now? KP Botany 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and closed the AfD. The AfD itself was an overwhelming delete, and the article does appear to meet speedy criteria as a page created primarily to disparage its subject. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to take this to DRV, but I would suggest that speedying was inappropriate inasmuch as, even if the article was created primarily to disparage its subject and at one point took a form that might have merited deletion, its nature at the time of deletion surely did not contravene BLP. Although in its stub form it may not have made an assertion of notability, such that A7 might have applied, speedy deletion was not counseled by BLP, and no harm would have been done by our allowing the AfD, which might have borne out sources to establish notability (AfD often serves, after all, to improve articles that are thereafter kept, which is why we tend not to close "early" AfDs that trend toward deletion, especially where deletion is suggested because a subject is non-notable or because sources toward his/her/their/its notability are not adduced), even as it was tending toward delete as non-notability, to proceed, with the provision that one might have deleted the problematic edits, as KP suggested at the AfD (to be clear, I don't think it necessary for us to remove every BLP-non-compliant version of an article from its edit history, and I don't find there to be any consensus for the view that we ought to excise all egregious BLP-non-compliant edits, but selective deletion might have helped to assuage concerns here). Joe 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. If anyone can explain how any of the revisions of that article were in any way appropriate for the encyclopedia, I'll undelete it. The article can, of course, be recreated at any time if actual sources appear. If you'd like to take it on, I'm happy to provide you with any of the less defamatory deleted revisions to work with. But an unsourced article created expressly for the purpose of defaming its subject is an excellent candidate for rapid deletion, in my opinion. There was no sourced, non-defamatory content to save. We do need Guy back. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion was right. As it is, an inappropriate version of the article is the first thing that appears in a google search on the name. Tyrenius 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No strong opinion on whether deletion was correct but I will comment that if I understand how most search engines operate whether we deleted the article or replaced it with an ok version wouldn't change how quickly that updated. JoshuaZ 00:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that to show how important it is that such problems need to be attended to immediately, as there are wider repercussions than the material just appearing on wiki (which is bad enough). Tyrenius 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the deletion occurred after the really problematic material was removed. Once that has occurred, the deletion isn't that relevant. In that regard, quick removal of the problematic material is not different than speedy deletion. JoshuaZ 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just making an additional observation, not directly applicable to the deletion per se (as you point out). Sorry for any confusion. Here's another point, that the edit history would need (at least selective) deletion. Tyrenius 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, and I don't have any particular problem with that. It seems quite silly to me, though, and quite inconsistent with BLP, to take an attack article that happens to assert the notability of its subject, stub it in a BLP-compliant fashion, and then speedy it as an attack page (its genesis and the reasons for its creation are, at that point, irrelevant). Once it has been stubbed, as Josh observes, there is an acceptable version in the edit history, and there is absolutely no point to speedying (unless, of course, the removal of all uncited or dubious material renders the article entirely without an assertion of notability, I guess). In this instance, there appears to have been no damage done, since the AfD was unquestionably going to result in deletion (I, for one, in a cursory search find nothing that I could adduce at AfD toward notability), but it needs once more to be said, I imagine, that one should always opt, of all the possible actions that clearly comport with BLP, for that which is least disruptive/unconstructive. Joe 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comment about this below. KP Botany 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article can be restarted as a stub, but BLP policy is clear that if there is no clean version in the edit history, it must be deleted. I left it as a stub, but that left a long edit history of pure crap that would have had to be deleted. In addition, it was being discussed at AfD in a completely inapropriate version. The person who nominated, who I thought was an admin, should have edited it down to at least the level I left it at before posting the AfD. The "really problematic" material may have been removed, but what was left when I looked at the article was shockingly inappropriate for Wikipedia, so there was still "problematic" material for a BLP. It would have required almost no effort to add it anew as a stub without any edit history. Thank you MastCell. KP Botany 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Just to be clear, if you're smearing the hell out of a living person in a Wikipedia article, it has to be sourced with 100% reliable sources, every word of the crap. It's edit history clearly showed there were two editors, probably a puppetmaster and his sock, who would write and say anything about this guy, just to get it on Wikipedia, without ANY references, accuracy, or concern other than to smear this person--that is an attack page. KP Botany 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the final version you produced before deletion? If your contention is that, your best efforts to the contrary notwithstanding, the article continued, by the very fact of its existence in view of its creation as an entirely negative unsourced biography and its practical inability to be anything substantive but that, to violate BLP, then I understand your point, even as I probably disagree with you. I gathered that you were saying that whilst your stub was BLP-compliant (which, to my mind, it was), because the article was created as an attack piece and because without the problematic material we were left with very little, speedy deletion was alright. It is, of course, true that a stub could be recreated without reference to any of the prior, largely uncited material, but we don't speedily delete simply because an article has problematic versions in its history and because discussion of it at AfD is problematic; we remove the offending material from the AfD and from the edit history of the article, provided that there is an acceptable version to which to revert, as there was, setting aside for the moment GFDL concerns, here. Joe 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The detailed version was an attack page. The stub did not assert notability. There were never any independent, reliable secondary sources, in any revision. Ten experienced editors (or so) had weighed in at the AfD in favor of deletion, none with any arguments to keep. If anyone can produce any reliable secondary sources on which to base an encyclopedic article, I'll support recreating it. If this is just about process for process' sake, when we all agree on the outcome, then consider it a case of WP:IAR. MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it still violated BLP as the stub I left it as, because there were no independent sources in the article, and there was no version in the history of the article that had any independent sources.

I do leave rather negative articles up and allow them to go through AfD if there are any sources, even if I think they should be deleted due to notability, although I edit them down to stubs to remove attack material that is poorly or unsourced.

This was simply not the case for this article--there was no acceptable reversion material, because I don't count anything I write without sourcing it on Wikipedia to be acceptable material for an article. I've never heard of the guy and don't know anything about him. I'm not sure whether the guy could be an article or not, because I didn't research him because of the nature of the article itself--I'm not going to do anything, ever, to support and assist someone's efforts to use Wikipedia for their own personal attack site. So, no, anything I write on Wikipedia that is completely unsourced about a living person is not acceptable material for a stub. If you think the guy could be an article, though, and belongs on Wikipedia, e-mail his name to me, and I will look him up and start a stub or start class article if I find adequate resources. There are plenty of folks with tons of bad things to say about them, that could responsibly be properly researched BLPs on Wikipedia. KP Botany 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

wikistalking by User:Jeeny

I need to bring attention to a harassment case. User Jeeny seems to be on mission to stalk different wikieditors including me. She watches their talk pages then follows them around to pages they contribute to, then blindly reverts them if they disagree with someone else. Usually these articles are about things that she doesn't frequent at all and doesn't seem to understand. Most recently, User Laternix was working out a style issue about the page Coptic with User Paxsimius on their talk pages, and Jeeny without comment and without ever contributing to their discussion reverted Lanternix [39] 20 minutes after Paxsimius left a comment on Lanternix's Talk page [40]. This was another incident [41] on another page. In that she's following User Taharqa's style, the person that she helps edit war on a couple of Egyptian articles. Egyegy 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can someone fix HMS Fawn (A325) - beyond my technical capability..I didn't break it...honest. Aatomic1 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I dont think this was the correct venue to ask this question, however. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ty -panicked will check back to my welcome message in future Aatomic1 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to White people by User: Baron von Washington

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked.

Good evening. I've noted that User: Baron von Washington seems to be trying to push a non-neutral point of view. He will alternate between listing an image of a Schutzstaffel soldier as an example of a "typical white man" and removes Image:Light skin colors.jpg. Please see the edits listed:

• [42]
• [43]
• [44]

I'm passing him off here to avoid a revert war. The picture of the SS soldier is designed to be inflammatory, and the second picture removed is a valid one.

Thank you for your attention.

-- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

His tactics have escalated. There is a report on WP:AIV since it is a clearcut case of POV pushing and vandalism. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all referenced, the article is being hijacked by cajuns, possibly Communist spies. --Baron von Washington 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And finally, a WP:3RR violation. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked, which I fully support. MastCell ^Talk 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I second the block, someone got him just before I did. DarthGriz98 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Recurrent stealth vandalism from 65.60.157.168

Static or stable non-shared IP 65.60.157.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3 edits, 3 vandalisms):

• One month ago, 11 June 2007 stealth vandalism : changing a valid </ref> into an invalid </kref>, makes the opening REF gobble a whole part of the article until the next closing /REF. Only one character to type for the vandal with plausible denial, but a possibly large piece of an article has just become invisible, very hard to notice: the trick made this heavily-edited article stay stealth-vandalized for one week before someone eventually noticed something (18 June 2007 restoration of the hidden part).

• Ten days ago and a few hours ago, petty vandalism but proving the IP stability: 2 August 2007 "Ethan" vandalism and 12 August 2007 "Ethan" vandalism both on Winston Churchill.

The dates show it's a nasty one on a static or stable IP, working smooth and long-term vandalism: he just comes from time to time, bullseye with a stealth vandalism trick, and can leave an article vandalized for one week just by having changed a single character where it hurts. (Unlogged, I don't wan't to be wikistalked by those beasts.) 62.147.38.181 03:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot we can do unless he's vandalized more than once in one day with a final warning, looks like just some person coming by, and vandalizing every once and awhile. They only have three edits spread out over a few months, but I'll keep an eye on it. DarthGriz98 03:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology

Resolved

(move-vandalism) --Chaser - T 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

???--Cheszmastre 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)--Cheszmastre 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --DarkFalls ^talk 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

how do i fix it myself for next time--Cheszmastre 04:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Help:Moving a page. The harder moves may require an administrator's attention though... --DarkFalls ^talk 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule

Esteemed collegues:

If you examine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_chess&action=history

You will see that InfoCheck has repeatedly, much more often than thrice, inserted a link in the "See Also" section, despite the consense to leave this link off of the Gothic Chess page. This user is insisting that a chess variant that he devised is very similar to the game of Gothic Chess which has been in existance for seven years. He is therefore requesting links back to his personal home pages, his personal PDF files, and his personal analysis, none of which has undergone the peer review process common in academic circles. Gothic Chess has been so scrutinized, and has been published, in both hardback textbooks and other periodicals dealing with Artificial Intelligence. References of these published works are provided on the Gothic Chess page.

The user InfoCheck repeatedly imposes his own links, vioating neutral point of view, and violating the 3 revert rule as previously mentioned. Judge not only the history of posts, judge the two games for yourself:

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Gothic Chess of which a great deal of material has been published.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Optimized Chess which has no followers aside from its creator.

It is obvious that:

1. Only the kings are in the same place, on the f1/f8 squares. This is the only similarity between the two games.

2. The Queen in "optimized chess" starts on the wrong color (White Queens are always on light squares, Black Queen are always on dark squares.)

3. The Knights and Rooks in "optimized chess" have exchanged places, not even on the same relative squares as regular 8x8 chess.

4. The Bishops in "optimized chess" can't reach the "long diagonals" (a1-h8 via being placed on b2, or j1-c8 via being placed on i2.) Placing Bishops on long diagonals is a very common motiff that chess players strive to do fairly often, and Gothic Chess players enjoy it as well.

5. The Bishop on the Queen's side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

6. The Bishop on the Kings side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

With so many obvious differences, myself and several others feel this user InfoCheck is doing nothing constructive. He is just trying to publicize a game of no interest at the expense of detracting from the Gothic Chess article.

I recommend him for banning for the 24 hour period for all of the aforementioned reasons.

ChessHistorian 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"You and several others" refers to a gang of Gothic Chess fans, about three editors here. At least equally many neutral editors are for the inclusion of the Optimized Chess link. You yourself have been violating the three revert rule at least equally much as InfoCheck. You even just deleted InfoCheck's arguments for inclusion from the talk page (accidentally, I'm sure), without an explanation. Luckily I have just restored them. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're calling the inventor of the game a fan? You're calling only one of four people in the world who won a game against the inventor (who has over a 96% win ratio) a fan? You're calling me, a reporter for two city newspapers a fan? It would be more correct to say that 2 biased, anti-Gothic Chess people, with no interest in the game, no talent for playing the game, are just trying to detract from it by playing the role of spoilers. Well, guess what? We're sick of your illogical remarks. We're sick of you sub-standard, low-achievers claiming superiority over a published artificial intelliegence researcher who has several college degrees. You can't just insert meaningless links to a well constructed page and say they belong there. That other variant is complete crap. You were asked to find ONE PHOTOGRAPH of anybody playing that game, and you couldn't do it. So drop it. Go somewhere else. You're not wanted on the Gothic Chess page. You're not needed. You're statements are biased, inaccurate, and ludicrous. But we gave you your voice, however wrong it is, you have said what you needed to say, and the the people have spoken. They said get your links off of that page. So do it.

ChessHistorian 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a noticeboard for violations of the three revert rule right here. We also have article talk pages for content discussions. This is not the place for either, and I also strongly encourage both of you to review the guidelines on civil discussion and personal attacks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Protected Gothic chess: Enough edit-warring. Discuss things on the talkpage, wait for this to expire, or visit WP:RFPP [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC))" Please note that The Wrong Version of this article has been protected. Please do not request unprotection on my talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if chesshistorian is claiming to be the inventor of gothic chess or not, but that rant above with all the NPA and CIV vios seems to also be admission of a CoI. Anyone else reading it that way, or is it just late and I'm tired? ThuranX 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ChessHistorian is not the inventor of Gothic Chess, User:GothicChessInventor is. (PS. I decrypted the bunch of acronyms that you just threw in by adding links to them, hope you don't mind. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. Thanks for the clarification. ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I am the inventor of Gothic Chess. I got a call at about 4 AM from a Gothic Chess player from Australia letting me know what was going on at the Gothic Chess page regarding these edit wars. While I did appreciate his diligence, this is not how I would like to be informed when the Gothic Chess page is being vandalized by other variant authors. ChessHistorian is a newspaper reporter from the Baltimore Sun who interviewed me a few weeks ago when the game of checkers was announced as being solved. If you perform this google search you can find him:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Ed+Trice%22+%22Baltimore+Sun%22&btnG=Search

Anyway, it looks to me like the correct version of the page is protected now. Thank you for this.

If I may shed some light on this from my own observations: Gothic Chess is a very popular chess variant that tens of thousands of people play. Other variants are virtually unknown. Sometimes a person that creates a new chess variant tries to force a "piggy back" association with another variant as a means to try and "trick" people into thinking it is played much more widely than it really is. This is clearly the case here. InfoCheck is the one who is trying to mislead Wikipedia readers with his announcement of an implicit strategic alignment between my game and his.

Objectively speaking, and as cited above, of the 10 pieces in the back row of each games' setup, only the Kings are in the same location.

The games are completely different. There is no reason to have his variant mentioned on the Gothic Chess page.

Furthermore, whereas I have gone through the recalcitrant process of obtaining a patent on my game (due to its uniqueness and the potential desire for many other chess manufactures to try and get a hold of it) and had several scientific periodicals print my published analysis of artifical intelligence papers that I had written on this (and other) subjects, the person known as InfoCheck has merely created a PDF file that he has on his website, and he continues to claim that his information is more accurate, "better", more realistic, etc., than my own. When I offered to submit his paper for him to the artificial researchers I know that would review it, he then reverts his claims, and stop spewing forth his ill-found rhetoric.

So we have a clear case of InfoCheck just looking for a soapbox on which to stand and say a great deal of things that are untrue, unproven, and just plain unfactual.

He is using Wikipedia as a means to broadcast this misinformation, the highest form of treason.

The administrators have the power to positively impact the material presented herein. I have a great deal of respect for your constant vigilence in countering page vandalism. I urge you to support ChessHistorian and understand some of his retaliatory remarks are just a function of his own weariness in dealing with InfoCheck. We have people on three continents agreeing that the material submitted by InfoCheck just does not belong. We also have people who are jealous of the popularity of Gothic Chess and try to do anything to detract from it. I do not understand these people. Just by reading their comments on the History page, you can see they are nothing more than unsupported conjecture that has no basis. As one of the Gothic Chess supporters summarized:

You can call a cat a fish, but it will not swim.

That is their case in microcosm: They furnish false statements without any backup. It is as if they are trying to tell Wikipedia Administrators that cats have gills and live in the water.

In closing, InfoCheck violated several Wikipedia policies, and should be dealt with accordingly. The people whose comments on the History page are nothing more than ignoratio elenchi will be easy for the administrators to find. I know you will do the right thing and take the appropriate actions.

I thank you for your time.

Inventor of Gothic Chess, Ed Trice

GothicChessInventor 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. (by the way, I didn't do anything to protect the page, as yout talk page note seems to suggest.) Now that we've got someone claiming to be the inventor, who claims to have a clear view of the situation, I guess the only thing left to do is validate his identity to support his claims, then edit the page accordingly? thoughts? Have I oversimplified? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my position that I was baited into violating the 3-revert rule by a small gang of editors on the Gothic Chess page who were repeatedly throwing-out Optimized Chess which is indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant. These few people are zealots (not merely players) who are extremely prejudicial and unfair to other chess variants. It is significant that in tandem with this malicious action against me, a malicious attempt to have Optimized Chess, despite its established significance, thrown-out of Wikipedia is also underway.

All of these acts are financially-motivated to prevent a free game of excellent quality Optimized Chess from being available to people on Wikipedia who casually look at a commercial product Gothic Chess. This agenda violates the charter of Wikipedia to the extreme. To be sure, you are being lied to on a large scale in every paragraph by the opposition on this issue. You must spend some time and effort to discern exactly how and when.

The bizarre edit history and talk page entries at Gothic Chess and Ed Trice as well as Optimized Chess and Embassy Chess say much more than I can concisely about what honest editors go thru daily in fighting-off the actions of dishonest editors. This is where to begin to investigate in order to discover the truth.

Frankly, I am unconcerned about being blocked for a time if Wikipedia administrators are locked-in by the rules regardless of the circumstances. I did what I had to under difficult, stressful, unjust conditions. However, I am certain that I am normally a responsible, conscientious editor who acts constructively and should not be blocked. My edit history proves that.

--InfoCheck

ThuranX (and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia admins), please do not make up your mind on this issue based on what is said on this page only. Fully read Talk:Gothic chess starting from, say, the Number of example games section. Then see how User:Oli Filth was attacked using a mediation request which was denied as "ridiculous and pointless" by a neutral third party, User:Boricuaeddie. I know all that is a lot of reading but I find it necessary to understand the extent this edit war has gone to. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Please check your facts before making claims such as this. Firstly, I did not deny that request; the people at WP:MEDCAB did. Secondly, I did not attack Oli Filth. In fact, I agreed with him. Thirdly, it was ridiculous. The first party wanted to "ban" the other from editing the article; that's ridiculous. Therefore, creating a request for mediation because of this is pointless. Please assume good faith, man. --Boricuaeddie 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement Edit POV

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

---

This is a content dispute; does not require admin attention Haemo 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Are you an administrator Haemo? I looked at you page and didn't see that. Are you allowed to close this discussion? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC) No, he isn't, but I am. This is a content dispute, and does not require admin attention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a belief in this 9/11 demolition stuff but this edit is way too POV and I think not allowed. Link Please check and see if my changing back to NPOV is Okay. I don't want to war about this. Even though I don't believe this I know some who do and most of them and I think most overall are spending money not making money. It seems that Morton is on the war-path over that PrisonPlanet thing. Link Bmedley Sutler 07:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't left a message for the editor nor have you made a comment on the talk page. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? It sounds like you want an RfC? The edit you linked to is not an "incident" but rather a content dispute. The talk page should be your first stop. --Tbeatty 07:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just left a message on Mortons page and left a note in the edit box too. That edit is so far out of line and POV that I thought I should report it. I would almost call it 'vandalism' but that is NPA. It is a non-sense edit though and not real, so I thought to report it here. Isn't that OK? Where do I learn all these regulations about where to post what? I had this page bookmarked. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 07:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These edit are currently under discussion on the talk page, as Tbeatty alluded to above. I am unsure why you felt the need to complain on this noticeboard before going to the talk page. This is unecessarily taking up space on the noticeboard. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

At the top of this page, between the Title and the Table of Contents is a description of what this page is. There is a sentence or two on content disputes. --Tbeatty 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I've marked this as resolved. --Haemo 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it. This is an 'incident' and the page says: "Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please make your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting. I followed that all. Bmedley Sutler 07:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a content dispute that doesn't belong here. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its an 'incident' and that adminstrators should look at it. Sorry that we disagree. Maybe some people don't want administrators to look at that edit! That's what I think. (edit conlicts) Please let an admimistrator close this discussion. Thanks.Bmedley Sutler 07:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. Admins can look at it, but only as normal editors. There's not allegation of wrong-doing here, beyond making a POV edit. That's not something you need admin attention to deal with. Admins are not police, and they're not grand arbiters of what is, and is not POV. WP:ANI cannot help you with this problem — I do not need to be an admin to mark a clear content dispute as resolved when two other editors have already told you as much; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Haemo 07:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We disagree on that. An administrator can decide if it's an 'incident' or not. I say the edit was not 'good faith' and more like non-sense and trolling and thus a violation. An administrator can decide, not you please. Please leave this discussion open for an administrator. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 07:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Haemo. Bmedley Sutler 07:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an admin problem - simply warn the user, and if they continue to add the material, report them to AIV after a final warning. Until then, no admin attention is necessary. Also, this is a content dispute or reasonably blatant vandalism - neither is applicable here. Easiest method is to discuss on the talk page, or to file an RfC. Also, non admins have NO extra authority, apart from the ability to press a few more buttons. They are not superior. Any user can close this discussion. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I is not the forum for simple content disputes like this. Administrators are no higher than regular users when it comes to mediating disputes; we simply have a couple of extra buttons for maintenance-related tasks. Please bring this to a more appropriate forum. --Krimpet 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The improper use of this venue, while obviously unintentional, is becoming something of a trend. This is for incidences that require discussions, not for content dispute. I'm starting a thread on the talk. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Qst sockblock review: Rännilar (talk · contribs)

I blocked this user indefinitely after I spotted him using TWINKLE to troll UAA. Not only that: checking the contributions before blocking, I realised this was an obvious abusive sockpuppet; he'd added TWINKLE into his monobook on his 3rd edit, in addition to making edits like this. As to who this abusive sockpuppet might be, IMO this is community-banned user Qst (or, less likely, Molag Bal). If anyone wishes to request checkuser, they have my blessings. Moreschi ^Talk 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have quite a knowledge of this case (as do you Moreshi, that is for sure), and Rlest/Qst's final statement on his talk page seemed to indicate that he was no longer interested in Wikipedia diff, and he has been on a downward spiral ever since late July - I can't see him picking up again and reverting vandalism as normal. Still, might be worth a look. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He has said many things in the past which have turned out to be rather untrue. He suggested he wouldn't use sockpuppets again shortly before creating Ds.mt and said he was going on a break until September time, again, untrue. The account Moreschi blocked is clearly a sockpuppet and Qst is a very likely candidate. I'd like a checkuser to confirm though, it'll give us some idea as to whether Qst intends to circumvent his ban. Nick 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick's right; he's said many things, and, lately, most of them have not been true. The editing pattern is very similar; nobody installs TW as their third edit and starts reporting usernames in their first day of active editing. I agree with the idea of a Checkuser. --Boricuaeddie 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: A checkuser has been filed. --Boricuaeddie 16:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

←Boy, I missed all this...I support the bannination, by the way, and this account seems to fit in with the editor's pattern. My recent interactions with (now-blocked) Defender 911 (talk · contribs) reminded me of Tellyaddict or the Retinio Virginian account, too...Did anyone else get that feeling? — Scientizzle 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, I hadn't thought of that - I don't think so, purely because more bile would have been thrown in my direction if that were the case. Daniel Bryant reckoned that account was User:Geo.plrd, which is probably a closer guess. Kind of fits. Moreschi ^Talk 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has been cleared by checkuser (see [45]). I really thought Qst was this one also. The evidence was pretty convincing. --Boricuaeddie 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

However, whoever this user was, he was part of a massive sock farm that Voice of All caught and blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonny Buffer

User seems to be asserting that he's another sockpuppet of User:Jonny Cache. Somebody take a look, please. --Jack Merridew 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for vandalism/trolling, and noted that the editor is a possible sockpuppet. I'm not convinced, since it is too obvious a name and admission, which is why I blocked on the basis of vandalism. Please would another admin check over the contribs and undo the various merges/redirects? LessHeard vanU 13:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user evading block

AGENT 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked twice for removing maintenance templates on substandard articles he/she created. Now back doing the same ([46], [47] , [48], [49], [50]) via various Greek IP addresses:

• 85.75.41.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.74.181.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.203.168.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.75.14.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.74.144.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.202.47.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a newish user who needs a cluebat: adding large quantities of unreferenced material, in poor English, on Salamis Island topics, and refusing to take the hint or enter into discussion about editing practice here. Gordonofcartoon 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist

[51]- It seems defamatory to me without a specific neutral source saying that a particular living person is anti-Zionist, but I don't care, so I'll leave it to you guys to sort out and will refrain from reverting this IP editor again. Cheers, Alec ✉_{﹌ }^۞ 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's my general guideline that unless they say they're Anti-(whatever) or Pro-(whatever), it's not right to claim that unless there's a source which describes them as such; and it should be phrased as "Considered by X to be a Y" or so forth. Allowing biographies to contain (seemingly as fact) contentious information is certainly against BLP. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Advice Me

Can I use photos with the tag - {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} for my magazine.Kaystar 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The link in the box will explain the terms of the agreement. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TorstenGuise

frequently insults editors for not being British as somehow inferior Sherzo 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please could you provide some examples? - Papa November 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note the above discussion. Thanks, CR7 (message me) 17:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Physik

This editor continues to make nonsense edits be creating hoax articles about fake sequals to video games [52], making poor decisions page moving, like this and when I confronted him about it, he makes attacks. [53] I suggest something be done, because he's continued in this disruptive behavior in the past and he shows no signs that he is learning from it [54]. Previously blocked for disruption, vandalism, civilty, harrassment, how much more should we tolerate? — Moe ε 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning. If he continues like this, he's on the fast track to banville, and I just might be driving the train. Grandmasterka 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information

Two articles, List of Iranian states and empires and List of Turkic states and empires have had sourced information continuously removed from them.

On List of Turkic states and empires, User:Lima6 has continuously removed sourced information: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]

On List of Iranian states and empires, User:Denizz and User:A.Garnet has continuously removed sourced information:

User:Denizz: [63] (commenting out a bunch of sourced information), [64] (again commenting out a bunch of sourced information), [65] (again commenting out a bunch of sourced information), [66], [67]

User:A.Garnet: [68], [69], [70]

Please look into this, this seems like vandalism.Hajji Piruz 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Public records legal threats?

Resolved

 – blocked⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins may need to look into this edit to see if there are any legal issues or practical issues for Wikipedia (protect the article, block the IP, etc.). --ElKevbo 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And also send its editor back to grade-school English class. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a sock of Psthi (talk · contribs) who apparently feels he has a right to spam us; and who seemingly makes threats, which this (reverted) may be an attempt to carry out. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected by another admin. -- Gogo Dodo 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On King Edward VI Aston (I'm about to step away from my PC). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User:Azizbekov is attacking others at [71] using inappropriate language. This user has been registered for merely a week, and already made a number of accusations against users who were blocked 4 months ago [72]. So it's quite likely that User:Azizbekov is a sock of an experienced contributor. Atabek 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of socking and revert warring we've seen from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, I wouldn't doubt it in the slightest. Obvious sock. Unfortunately, I'm not acquainted with the edit war; you would know better than I who it is. The Evil Spartan 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please advise

See: 81.79.203.71 not sure if this is related to a similar problem I had Here that I reported the other day but I have another anon IP reverting my edits again.--padraig 20:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for page protection. Obvious sock. The Evil Spartan 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--padraig 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Squash Racket

Hello. User:Squash Racket is currently involved in a revert war, in which he/she has already violated 3RR. This violation despite a warning on the user talk page has been reported by User:Roamataa.[73] Squash Racket has not been blocked yet and he/she is using his/her time to post personal attacks on my talk page. The attack can be found here, my response, in which I asked Squash Racket not to resort to personal attacks here. As he/she keeps reverting my removal of the personal attacks on my own talk page, I would like to ask someone either to block him/her, so he/she has time to cool down (Squash Racket has already violated 3RR anyway) or to protect my talk page against his/her spam. Tankred 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR aside, I think you really need some form of dispute resolution rather than administrator intervention here. Nick 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting done by "Diesel 10"

The user User:Diesel 10 (whom hasn't yet created his userpage) has been reverting the formats of the episode lists for "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" to sloppy versions that:

• Give away too much of storylines
• Carry redundant and unsorted information, as well as original research
• Used insults and rude commands to stop the edits (Please see his comments in the history page for Thomas and Friends - Season 8.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rusty5 (talk • contribs).

Need help dealing with disambig image, FUR

user:The Matrix Prime continues to revert Optimus Prime (disambiguation) to include an Image:Allops.JPG. The two posts to the talk page are, first, me asking TMP (or anyone) to provide an explanation for how a collage of a dozen+ characters helps someone who hits that disambig. page choose between the three listed there and, second, a summary for RfC that's not been responded to. Additionally, the image -- which TMP uploaded -- does not have a FUR for use on the disambig page, only the main character article (where it is not included). I've tried engaging this editor repeatedly on his talk page,[74][75][76][77][78] pointed him toward relevant policies regarding images on disambig pages and the need for FUR on all non-free images, and suggested an alternative home for his image (i.e. on the Optimus Prime page, for which the FUR applies). However, other than an early initial exchange,[79][80][81] his responses have been confined to his reverting[82][83] edit summaries, when he includes them, that (to use the most recent example) assert that the "picture is self-explanitory as is the fair-use rational". Some of the diffs above are me trying to explain that there is no such thing as a "self-explanatory" FUR, and I disagree with his assertion earlier in the edit summary that the image's presence "has already been discussed".
Anyhow, as I mentioned, the RfC has not been Ced upon. I have become frustrated trying to explain the fair-use policy -- and, in other circumstances I'd be happy to write the missing FUR myself, but I really don't think the image should be on the page. Anyone out there with more experience have any particular pointers? I'm almost to the point of nixing the disambig page and just adding some seealso's to the top of Optimus Prime, but I think that might just be me being spiteful, esp. after a similar move AfDing a List of... over which TMP and I had similar back-and-forth about "implied fair-use rationales". Anyhow. Help? --EEMeltonIV 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NPA, CIVILITY, EDIT WARRING, refusing to accept DR involvement

I continue to have problems with Chrisjnelson. I have been attacked (blatantly) several times and reported his actions here and through all of the stops at WP:DR. I'm asking someone to please step in and have this person leave me alone. His latest attack is to title a section on my talk page and title it "Childish behavior". [84] It was a refractored comment from this page. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You accuse everybody of doing every bad thing possible, when you're the one who instigated this whole thing. I tried to have a discussion with you about a content dispute we had, and you deliberately refused to even listen to me. This carried over to Talk:Brett Favre; Aviper2k7 and I tried to discuss a content dispute with you, and again you refused to have part of it. You're the one who has issues with the content, begin a discussion about it, and then refuse to even listen to us. It makes me wonder what's the point of even talking with him? You have caused me a lot of tension, no doubt, but I haven't even done anything wrong. You accuse Chrisjnelson of doing something, when you're no cleaner than he is. You cause everybody a lot of tension with your very disruptive behavior, and then try to turn us in. I don't see how you can accuse anybody of anything when you're the true instigator. Ksy92003(talk) 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ksy92003 - I am giving you an opportunity to leave me alone. You too have been ridiculously uncivil as has the other person involved. You guys are bullying me and being so incredibly obnoxious. Leave it be please. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)