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)

Thanks Jehochman. «You Are Okay» 15:51, 13 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)

Alleged incivility, with the accusations largely coming from extremely uncivil people (many of whom were warned off by other admins for harassment and etc.) as well as mysterious "new" editors showing up to express long-standing grudges. DreamGuy 16:09, 13 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.LOZ: OOT 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, new editors popping up out of nowhere to immediately participate in existing personal conflicts and demanding long term blocks and etc.... and people wonder why we're talking about sockpuppets. DreamGuy 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

W-W-What are y-you t-t-talking about, Dreamguy!?! I'm n-n-not a s-s-sockp-p-puppet!!!

Just kidding. I just think that this argument is going on for too long, and it's just getting ahead of itself. Sorry for butting my nose in where it didn't belong.

And after a week of constructive edits, as opposed to suddenly appearing out of God-knows-where, it's safe to assume I didn't come to Wikipedia to argue with controversial editors. I've added this page to my watchlist to see if anyone responds to me, or leave me a message on my talk page. Or better yet, just forget I was even here. LOZ: OOT 20:00, 13 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)

THF appears to be digging a hole for himself here. First he deletes this question I asked him:

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)

Then he leaves the following post on my talk page, under the section header, "WP:AGF, please":

Leaving aside the fact that the meaning of "trolling" has changed to mean something considerably more antisocial than it did 15 years ago,[11] do you really think I've made 6000 edits to 2393 individual pages as part of an elaborate troll, rather than to productively contribute to Wikipedia? Come on. THF 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I may not be the most respected Admin here, but deleting my comments on WP:AN/I, then insisting that I assume good faith (by the abbreviation, no less) is not how one makes their case to an otherwise indifferent audience. Wikipedians who want to avoid being considered troublemakers almost never do those things. THF, if you are the guy I think you are, you can come up with smarter responses than that. -- llywrch 04:00, 14 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.131.27 (talk • contribs)

User:SOXman, who is evading his one-week-block with this anon edit, has rebuffed my invitation to create a Sarbanes-Oxley Forum article on Wikipedia to see if third-party editors think it meets WP:WEB criteria: if it does, I have offered to add the information back into the article myself.

As for the frivolous COI allegation, I've never heard of the anon's spam site, and don't have any commercial interest in the SOX website market, or even in any spam site market. (Googlers please note that there is another individual with the same name as me who does run a SOX company. He lives in Ohio and I live in Virginia.) Three other editors agree the site flunks WP:EL after WP:DR. Wikipedia is a huge waste of time for my profile, which would be much better off if I stayed away from it, as I plan to do for the next few days. THF 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

THF is making false accusations against me. Having just read the text above I am merely suggesting examination of a potential conflict of interest WP:COI. My own external investigations suggest this is worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.131.27 (talk • contribs)

This is a spammer who doesn't like his forum being removed - boohoo - THF has removed it, I have removed it, a couple of other editors have seen it - nothing to see here. --Fredrick day 07:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is an editor who is blocked being permitted to violate WP:NPA and WP:SOCK? THF 12:35, 13 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 correctly denied by the medcab people and then rightly deemed 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)

Ah, I see we have some misunderstandings here. I admit I thought you denied the request, sorry for that. I did not say you attacked Oli Filth (and of course everyone knows you didn't), I just said he was attacked. I'm with you here, I think your judgement that the case was ridiculous is completely right. I also agreed with Oli Filth, I only used your comment to bring up the other point of view to this whole mishmash of an edit war. See, I said that the case was judged as ridiculous by a neutral third party. My point is that if a neutral party judges it as ridiculous, it must be ridiculous. If one of the involved parties would've judged it ridiculous, there would obviously be a conflict of interests and it wouldn't mean much. I've now reworded the message above to avoid any further misunderstandings. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Boricuaeddie 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

InfoCheck clouds the issue. The point is, that the chess variant does not belong on the Gothic Chess page. Of the 20 pieces that are not pawns, only 2 are configured identically. The claims being made that is is a "indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant" are absurd. With only a 10% correlation of the pieces matching where they are placed, how can it possibly be related? Despite several authors asking this same question, no satisfactory answer was ever given. There is a reason for this: The games are not related at all.

We have asked the "supporters" of this extremely unusal variant to show us one picture of someone playing the game. None have been provided.

That speaks to the issue. Over 50,000 Gothic Chess sets have been sold since the year 2000. There are thousands of archived games on the GothicChess.com website (for example here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/all-players-games.php ). There is a free program for downloading at http://www.GothicChess.com/vortex.zip that destroys every other program and player on the planet.

There are photos such as this one:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/GCACheck.gif

..showing someone being paid $5000 back in the year 2000 for winning a big tournament that was played at the Marshall Chess Club in New York. There are boards and pieces for sale on the website. The inventor went to Iceland to meet Bobby Fischer shown here: http://www.gothicchess.com/iceland_news.html

In short: Gothic Chess is not just an enterprise, it is a thriving one.

If the game that InfoCheck claims is better than Gothic Chess, how come he can't show one picture of one person playing the game? And, if his game is so much better, why wouldn't the "lowly" Gothic Chess people actively seek to have their game linked to his?

It is plain to see that the reverse is being sought. InfoCheck is desparately trying to attach his game to Gothic Chess and thereby "prove" something. I have no idea what that is. All I know is, that game he is trying to promote is worthless, nobody plays it, there is no dedicated website for it, there are no example games of it, there is just one PDF file where he claims it is the best thing out there.

You have to call it like you see it. That other variant has no followers. Even the game's creator has no photograph of him playing it since he can't get one other person to play it with him!

Compare that to Gothic Chess where they raised $15,000,000 last summer had the interest of Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer to play a match.

I ask you: How can anyone be fooled by the nonsense of InfoCheck ??

ChessHistorian 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ChessHistorian- If you successfully raised $15 million US, then why was the tournament that would have immortalized Gothic Chess cancelled?

Wikipedia administrator(s)- Can you imagine what it is like to deal with this caliber of nonsense upon several Wikipedia pages nonstop?

--InfoCheck

I can answer this question. First off, ChessHistorian is just a newspaper reporter. He had nothing to do with raising any money for the match. He knew nothing about Ed Trice until the game of checker was solved. Secondly, Anatoly Karpov signed the agreement to play as shown here http://www.gothicchess.com/images/Karpov_Signature.jpg so the match was underway. Thirdly, if you read their blog at http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/ you will have all of your questions answered in time. It was a very long process to get this match put together, over two years. The short answer why it came undone: Fischer wouldn't sign anything, typical Bobby. That's all. Trice and Fischer have had contact since the match fell apart. He was there to wish Fischer a happy 64th birhday for example.

GothicEnthusiast 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GothicEnthusiast- While The Gothic Chess Federation was trying to make this event materialize, I read information provided by Ed Trice that Susan Polgar was lined-up as an alternate in case either Karpov or Fischer backed-out. So, what happened?

--InfoCheck

---

ChessHistorian, the relationship has been explained to you a few times, the latest time probably being shown in this diff. Of course, you later deleted the explanation, which could be why you have the mental image that no one has explained it to you. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation is a mess. There's definitely a highly involved, tighly agreeing group working the gothic chess pages. I'm concerned by things like [[12]] this, where the owner/creator/promoter advocates letting him have more control of the images released about his own prouct. The talk page at gothic chess reads to me as thick with CoI, and not particularly willing to listen to new ideas from outside their group. Are these two ugly cousins closely related enough to be on each other's pages? Sure looks like it to me. SHould they be on each other's pages? either all of the Capablanca chess variants can cross-link freely as appropriate by article, or none of them should, instead referring readers to a list of Capablanca Chess variants. As it is unneccesarily cumbersome to avoid referencing other variants, I'd say let them be discussed freely. That a group works together to block edits ot the page by spreading their reverts around isn't ethical, it's an end run around the 3RR. When the talk page is likewise a bullying ground for a few closely aligned thinkers, it's even tougher. I don't think the 3RR Violation is blockable at this point (preventative, not punative; and editor in discussion regarding issue), I think the editor in violation should've brought the whole mess to one of WIkipedia's resources for assistance before. Probably not AN or AN/I, but maybe help desk or village pump. It's tough to hlp edit when you're hitting serious, and CoI-based, resistance. ThuranX 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX I looked at [[13]] and I just don't understand the concern. What was so morally indefensible about that discussion? It's just people chatting about an image of a board. And what is "thick with Col"?? I don't understand this terminology.

By the way, many of the people you say are "unwilling to listen" are more than willing to listen. But there is nothing of substance being offered, and the people to whom this is demonstrated do not furnish backup for the things they're trying to add to the page. For example, that one nuisance who insists on claiming his chess variant belongs there.

Why does it belong?

He claims it is similar to Gothic Chess. He, the person who made it, the person was has a POV.

The following people did not merely say "it should not belong", they offered reasons:

ChessHistorian a reporter for the Baltimore Sun

Andreas Kaufmann a highly skilled variant player from Germany who is 1 of only 4 people to have defeated the game's inventor

GothicEnthusiast myself, a strong Gothic Chess player as you can see from here http://www.gothicchesslive.com/one-players-games.php?id=174 I am just one rung below Bobby Fischer on the site, which you can see sorted by rating here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/players-games.php

GothicChessInventor who published several important papers in artifical intelligence, helped solve the game of checkers (see http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ ), who invented the game of Gothic Chess, and who understands the game and those that are similar to it more than anybody in the world.

Please note:

All of us agree that Embassy Chess belongs on there, as does Capablanca Random Chess. All of us agree that the other variant DOES NOT belong there, for the numerous reasons cited here and on the Talk page of Gothic Chess.

That other variant is a Capablanca Random Chess variant. It has no bearing, similarity, or likeness to Gothic Chess.

All of the other ranting and raving is moot. It's not the same. It doesn't belong.

Where does it belong? On the Capablanca Random Chess page. It is a CRC variant by the author's own admissions.

Let it stay there, where it belongs.

GothicEnthusiast 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. The inventor of the game is advocating that HE be in control of the images used in the article. HE regularly monitors and edits the product for his own page. HE states that HE will take the pictures to be used, and so on. This is a CoI, a Conflict of Interest, in which a person with significant financial and commercial interest in the article is shaping the way it is written, to the level where other people's contributions are being critiqued one by one and reviewed like this is an advertisement. Finally, as described above, There is the Set of Chess. there is subset, chess variants, subset Capablanca Variants, subset Gothic, Subsets Embassy and capablanca Random. As Capablanca random is a subset of Gothic as you describe, and Optimized is a subset of Capablance random, then the subset of optimized Chess is also a subset of gothic. don't see why it wouldn't belong. ThuranX 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed Trice is not saying any of those things that you mentioned. You are obviously misreading the thread. He asked people which images they liked. In effect, he called for a vote. When there was an agreement, he said he would put the image up on Wikipedia. Have you ever communicated directly with him? I have. He said he only looks at the page when he gets calls from concerned people or if he is "emailed to death" (his words) by Gothic Chess players who see something awry. Your hierarchy of sets and subsets seems off. It should be something like this

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Chess Inspired Variants (This is Gothic Chess, Capablanca Random Chess, and others)

At which point we have other branches at this level, and also below the level

Chess

All Chess Variants

Gothic Chess

Embassy Chess (Embassy was invented as a means to circumvent the Gothic Chess patent only, so it "springs from" Gothic, even though, otherwise, it would be at the same level if it was invented stand alone)

Another path would be

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Random Chess

Optimized Chess (this descends from CRC and neither Gothic nor Embassy, because Gothic pre-existed Embassy, Optimized Chess is very different from both Gothic and Embassy, and Optimized Chess came after CRC, and one can only say that Optimized Chess looks like an ordinary, random, CRC creation.)

For the above reasons, from a historical perspective (of which I am very aware) the sets you mention are not 100% reflecting the accuracy of the variants' respective chronologies.

ChessHistorian 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the subsets in terms of chronolgies, but nice attempt to recast my commentary. have to be bluntly honest here. This tactic which I've noted in the talk page there, and the AN/I here is to come back with a variant move on any ideas proposed. I address admissions of how the games evolved relative to each other, you reply that my list doesn't go chronologically, which I never implied it had. Not really an endearing behavior, but I've noticed this sort of You're talking about A, so I'll put you on the defensive by interpreting and responding to B.

To all interested parties, a related AfD is found here, regarding the Optimized Chess article, and in the discussions, the future of many, if not all of these minutely differentiated variations on the theme. ThuranX 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX how is it that this statement:

Finally, it is so well designed, it is one of only two Capablanca chess variants that has been awarded with a fault-free rating via the select CRC analysis tool.

Has you completely fooled? The guy who invented the CRC analysis tool nominated his own game for the "fault free" award. Optimized Chess has been nominated for deletion. Nobody plays the game. Not even the guy who invented it. as stated repeatedly, there is not one photograph of one person playing one game of it.

ChessHistorian 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, this condescending 'oh, look at this buffoon who's trying to get involved, yet cannot possibly be smart enough to paly OUR chess much less see that we are clearly so right nad the other so clearly wrong' attitude is getting insulting. I'm reading quite clearly. You don't like him or his game. I get it. IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid reason for much of anything here on Wikipedia. He plays his own game, I've yet to hear or see proof he doesn't, so don't use hyperbole. Second, there's no photo of Bigfoot, yet wikipedia has an article. So, we don't have a picture to go with the article isn't a reason. Ultimately, this comes down to ' I made my game, and Iwill protect my right to advertise it on wikipedia', 'We support his right to protect his advertisement on wikipedia', and 'we all don't want that guy diluting our profit margin by adding HIS info on HIS game to our advertisement on wikipedia.'. I'm really tired of this. It's quite apparent that Ed Trice is protecting his product's article on Wikipedia, to maximize his profit. that's a Conflict of Interest. It's apparent that the chess reporter for the Baltimore Sun is going to stick up for his reporting and subject of his article in a way that's frankly bizarre, and should probably be brought to the attention of his editors. That may well be another COI. So two guys with COI problems against a guy who's also talkin about HIS game. I'm done trying to sort this mess of COI out, let an admin block all of you. ThuranX 19:22, 14 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)

And another one [14] this is getting beyond a joke now.--padraig 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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,[15][16][17][18][19] 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,[20][21][22] his responses have been confined to his reverting[23][24] 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)

This is an interesting situation. Since disambiguation pages aren't actually articles, fair use images shouldn't be used because of WP:NFCC #8 & #9. A fair use rationale for usage in a disambiguation would have to explain exactly why a copyrighted image is necessary, but that would be impossible because disambigs, by their very definition, already offer a GFDL text explanation of the information provided by said image. The logical conclusion, with respect to policy, would be to disallow Image:Allops.JPG. If TMP wishes to use the image, he will have to gain consensus for it at WT:NFC. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree over your opinion that this is an "interesting situation." Why does a disambiguation page need an illustration at all? Only after someone explains why one is needed for a specific disambig page (I won't deny that it is possible that one could need an image, but I'd insist on a plausible explanation first) do we reach the paradox you are fascinated by. -- llywrch 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). I can't really think of any reason to illustrate a disambig unless it serves to, well, differentiate between closely linked but distinct ideas. However this reasoning isn't even applicable to the Optimus Prime disambig. I guess my fascination was more with how no current policy (aside from common sense) addresses the feasibility of using fair use claims to illustrate disambig pages in articlespace. Maybe WP:NFCC#9 should include an explicit restriction on usage in disambigs to avoid similar conflicts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede that's a good example justifying having an image on a disambig page -- & your reasoning for it is spot on. It does appear that you & I agree that using a Fair Use image on a disambig page has two hurdles before it: convincing enough people that an image is needed in the first place, & that a Fair Use image is the best choice available. Also, seeing how the whole Fair Use/No Unfree Content dispute has been so bitter lately, I'd lean towards putting emphasis on that first justification so we don't further stoke the fires of that dispute. -- llywrch 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, TMP restored the image and added multiple bluelinks to the disambig items, although the disambig MOS (to which I've provided links on his talk page; I can dig up diffs if you'd like) pretty clearly discourages that. I previously provided a link here on his talk page, and after reverting the disambig page to the last version by user:Anetode, once again asked him to abide be policy, guidelines and consensus. This is getting annoying -- I'm sounding like a broken record, and he's shown minimal interest in engaging in discussion beyond edit summaries (when he uses them at all). --EEMeltonIV 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TMP's addition of this image is purely decorative and so far everyone else disagrees with such usage. There's no need for administrative intervention yet, but if and when the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Adding disambigs to NFCC#9 resolves into a decision, then there will be a clear policy against using copyrighted images on disambigs. Until then, I'd like to try to encourage TMP to enter in discussion either at WT:NFC or the Optimus disambig talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political soapbox

Is User:Muntuwandi an editor who uses it as such? Few talk page examples: [25] [26] [27] [28]

Few of his edits in the article: [29] (he kept putting this pic by edit warring) and adding pic of Barack Obama to the top of white people article [30] or irrelevant edits such as "have the same eye shapes as most black Africans in that they" [31]

Another editor thought he had an afrocentric agenda [32] and I agree. Is his behaviour within rules? KarenAER 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an editor who thinks that race doesn't even exist and that Barak Obama is white. Yes, this would be a problem, without a doubt. The Evil Spartan 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though, that the existence of race is in some debate right now. -Amarkov moo! 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say he's within WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and maybe sometimes has a bit of a problem with WP:AGF at times, beliefs set aside. However, I would say what you're bringing up is strictly a content dispute and as such, has no place at WP:ANI. I believe the correct route would be to ask for informal mediation, at WP:MEDCAB.--Ramdrake 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, has anybody told you yet that canvassing is usually frowned upon in such circumstances?[33][34][35]--Ramdrake 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know. Someone adding a picture of Barak Obama to a page on white people seems to be far enough out there that it's more important to protect the encyclopedia than process wonk with Medcab. As Rama once pointed out when people were trying to add a really really bad POV: you don't reference absurdities, you remove them. The Evil Spartan 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

However, User:Godongwana is the one who added the picture first, and it was reinserted once and removed twice. It's not in the article anymore, and nobody complains about this... Is there still a problem under those conditions?--Ramdrake 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Godongwana may be his puppet. It's new, with similar edit history, african name, similar positions. [36] KarenAER 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Until proven, your accusations are baseless, in the sense that you're blaming the deed of one user on another user, on the unrpoven presumption that there is sockpuppetry involved. I would suggest you start with a checkuser request, if you want to build a case. Myself, I'm rather confident the checkuser will come up negative.--Ramdrake 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. For ex, here: [37], he acknowledges the definition of white people but DISPUTES it. Editors' job is not to try to change descriptions as they see fit, but rather use it as they are used by citing reliable sources...KarenAER 22:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He acknowledges that he can tell a white person. He does not acknowledge any specific definition that I can fathom. As far as RS are concerned, there are many, diverse definitions of white, and while they agree on many points, there are many important differences. But yes, it is still a content dispute, fundamentally.--Ramdrake 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you havent read all the links? Why are you commenting then? "The problem is one of taxonomy, who are "white people". We have assumed that white people are only Europeans, that is the traditional classification." [38], he then goes on and on why this SHOULDNT be the case ACCORDING TO HIM. Based on that political perspective, he's making edits on the article and the talk page, disrupting the whole process. KarenAER 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a message at User_talk:Muntuwandi#White_People_Article about various policy and practice issues. KarenAER, let me know on my talk page if these issues continue. Ramdrake, continuing your dispute here on ANI is pointless. KarenAER wanted admin attention to to an issue. A continuous tit-for-tat about why you think this is just a content dispute and couldn't possibly be a content dispute with attendant policy considerations does not help. Usually an indication of what the problem is and where is enough, because sysops investigate claims before acting on them. Thanks.--Chaser - T 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I broke decorum, it's just that I had seen almost identical complaints on ANI very recently (there's one from yesterday even, I believe) be commented upon as a mere content dispute. It looked to me as this was more of the same stuff. I apologize if I've been disruptive myself.--Ramdrake 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and I appreciate your conciliatory tone. It's tempting to get in the last word, but usually additional comments are only necessary if there is relevant evidence that someone missed in posting to ANI. Evidence is always more persuasive than comments.--Chaser - T 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think there is more to it than a content dispute. Muntuwandi's conduct, on both the article and its talk page, has been quite disruptive and counterproductive. Muntuwandi, apparently thinking that the "white" classification involves nothing more than skin color, seems to be trying to 'discredit' the racial category through forum-ish talk pages discussions and disruptive article edits (such as this WP:POINT-violating OR comparative image).

I can understand that there may be some ambiguity over the "one-drop rule," but Muntuwandi doesn't seem interested in just writing about different RS takes on it. Instead, he makes a talk page section where he basically complains and criticizes its application based upon his personal beliefs (see Talk:White people#One drop rule on the white people article). There are numerous other such soapboxing and forum-ish posts by Muntuwandi that aren't really geared towards the article's coverage of RS but more towards discrediting the racial category itself.

In sum, I agree that there Muntuwandi has been soapboxing, and I think that this has been carried not only on the talk page but also in the article itself. I may post more examples of this disruption here (if I feel like it). The Behnam 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Until proven, your accusations are baseless, in the sense that you're blaming the deed of one user on another user, on the unrpoven presumption that there is sockpuppetry involved. I would suggest you start with a checkuser request, if you want to build a case. Myself, I'm rather confident the checkuser will come up negative.--Ramdrake 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)"

Done. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi KarenAER 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is largely a content dispute, I have issues with the way the article was being presented. I admit though that some of my views are sometimes provocative and i occasionally enjoy swimming against the tide of popular opinion. Should one jump off a cliff just because everyone else is doing so. I am not a sock and the checkuser will exonerate me. I can recall we were editing around the same time. If User:Godongwana and I agree on some edits it is coincidental. Muntuwandi 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I share KarenAERs concerns. The topic needs to stay on topic and not ramble, overdwell, make odd comparisons, or be a soapbox. There are other topics for peripheral issues. Its not a content dispute as KarenAER noted, its more soapboxing. The topic doesn't need to be a soapbox against the topic. Thomas Paine1776 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate edit summary

Resolved

note left with editor Navou ^banter 14:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this type of edit summary appropriate? [39] I happen to think it is not. Fighting for Justice 04:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is. It essentially reverts this edit: [40] and I fail to see how the editor in question is a known - you-know-what. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I sent the editor a note. Thanks, Navou ^banter 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit itself is good, the summary's trolling for a fight, unless that editor has some special knowledge to base his assertion on. XavierVE cites a wikia site as his source. That's probably not sufficient to get him out of the Libel dangers here at WP, though. And for the record, a website where anyone can say you're a pedophile? Probably not the best application of the wiki concept. Seems like too much dmaage could be done by pranksters folks with grudges. ThuranX 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit is fine, the summary sucks, and that name sounds familiar as a player in the whole pedophilia debate....might be friendly note time (if navou hasn't got there first) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Navuo got there, but perhaps a further note stating that this AN/I exists, and multiple editors aren't happy about his action would get his perception opened a bit? ThuranX 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This editor's obvious bias against pedophiles doesn't make him seem like a very neutral editor. Calling out pedophiles isn't a problem but assuming their edits are automatically wrong? Seems like he's done that a few times. Definitely not a good trait in an editor. Editmaniac 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It starts as "remove editorial" which is always a good think to do, and was what he (she?) was actually doing. That an unnecessary personal dig was thrown in is bad, but I don't see any need for admin action. If you're upset by someone's edit summaries, leave a note. If it's persistant incivility, we can talk. WilyD 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is calling out a paedophile "not a problem"? --Spankr 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He's the owner of Perverted-justice.com, according to his userpage. Sarah 14:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My my, there is a little WP:COI eh?--Isotope23 ^talk 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough, his response was to continue the pedophile comments. As such, I have blocked him 24 hours. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thuis comment where Fighting for Justice accuses Xavier of having accused an innocent wikipedian who did not make any POV edits is equally out of order, IMO. FfJ knows how to work wikipedia and her incorrect and bad faith accusation isnt really acceptable either. At best wikipedia should remain neutral on this issue and not run to help a user who appears not to be acting in good faith, SqueakBox 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually side with FFJ on this one. While the text of the revert is no problem, the edit summary is ridiculously inappropriate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. comment looks more like notifying another attacked editor than anything else. The level of COI, and POV activism from the owner of PJ would be as big as that of the pro-pedophilia activists here. Not sure if anything can be done about this stuff though, the number of zealot-edited articles and topics on WP seems to be increasing, not decreasing. ThuranX 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the general problem, I'm not sure if this is the forum to discuss it. I do feel that we as a community need to make it clearer that POV pushing is unacceptable and will not be allowed. WilyD 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:BIGCANDICEFAN

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Падший ангел blocked.--Atlan (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted this once, to which I got no reply. So I'll post it again. He's only here to make trouble and he also has several other accounts involving the name "Candice". He also vandalizes and removes comments. I suggest looking at this for once and perhaps a ban would be the way to go. He frequently disrupts articles and article talk pages by adding in unnecessary information which myself and other users have already stated was unnotable. Падший ангел 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We needs some diffs please. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one removing his comments. This was the "discussion" these two were having on the Dylan Postl talk page, right before I removed it. However poor BIGCANDICEFAN's edits may be, Падший ангел is way out of line there himself. Also, Падший ангел's edits are contentious at best. He claims he knows people in the wrestling business and it is therefore wrong to revert him or question his edits.--Atlan (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims? Excuse me? I'm the one supplying Wrestlezone with all their TNA related news pal. I knew about Dustin Runnels "Black Reign" gimmick for the past couple of weeks. Падший ангел 12:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a claim.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, bite me. Падший ангел 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that nice remark, and now this completely unrelated personal attack to someone you have no business with after being warned. Can someone block him please?--Atlan (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats - please banhammer

Resolved

editor blocked for legal threat

Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has not retracted the threats after being informed (in reply to such threats) in accordance with WP:NLT. See [41]. MER-C 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked, that diff was definitely a legal threat. Please feel free to unblock or pursue a different course, I don't want to interfere with any official action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I support keeping this one blocked, all his other edits were disruptive anyway. I have redacted the personal attacks and threats.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this vandal anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --BOT2008BOT 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu has nothing to do with this... please don't crosspost your report into other threads.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef ban evasion?

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

Strongly appears to be a sock of User:Jacksbernstein, who was indef-banned for legal threats on Richard Rossi, and who made identical edits. THF 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation Front (Macedonia)

I think, there is a problem with cleaning of sourced info and political propaganda from a user "Revisionist"! Jingby 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I need help and administrative mediation in resolving the problem with vandalism by user Лилјак and some others who are constantly vandalising and spaming all articles related with Macedonia. The article that I wrote National Liberation Front (Macedonia), was moved several times, and Nazi propagandist pictures were being imputed. Also there was constant three-revert rule violation on the article National Liberation Front (Macedonia) by users Jingby and 124.168.106.129. Needed administrative mediation. Revizionist 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu's harrasment, edit wars again, sockpuppetry

• Comment, complaint frivolously posted by Bonapate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed. See hre for details. --Irpen 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BOT2008BOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a single-purpose sock used to solicit a block[42]. No comment on Anonimu's actions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

indefinite block

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite block of Anonimu, 100% and more. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Best give Anonimu another block, he's just not getting it. reverting good faith edits as vandalistic, calling a non-banned editor banned, pot calling kettle black, and what appears to be OWNership on Nicolae Ceauşescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't think there'd be any loss in an indef-block, though. Will ^(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant the SPA that reported this. With regards to the account being reported (User:Anonimu) I haven't seen any change in his behavior whatsoever. Continued edit warring, false "rv vandal" edit summaries, ownership of articles, etc... I support any action any admin wants to take including an indefinite block if that is deemed necessary.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not an indefinite block, I don't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springeragh (talk • contribs)

Comment: I tried to remove all Bonaparte's edit. Sorry, if I missed any. see this for more. --Irpen 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pionier

Hello, I am reporting this case as I am tied up and cannot keep an eye on him. He is an extremely persistent vandal originating from Lithuanian Wikipedia, where he was blocked for personal attacks, distruptive editing, POV pushing, and absolute refusal to engage in productive discussions. He used to edit via multiple IPs on en wiki, usually to vandalize userpages of Lithuanian editors primarily active on lt wiki (see history of user:Windom, his favorite, user:Knutux, etc.) This week he moved to make massive edits on variety of biographies: adding Category:People of the KGB to people related to Venona project, {{soviet-stub}} to all people born in the Soviet Union, Category:Jewish atheists to randomized selection of articles on Jewish personalities, etc. While not something "horribly" bad that someone else would notice from first sight, it is sneaky, distruptive, unsourced and in many cases offensive. I have indef blocked the first known user account. Yesterday I bloked two of his IPs for 24 hour period. Can someone please go over and revert user:Pioner contributions and keep an eye on those articles? Thanks. Renata 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back most of the contributions.-Wafulz 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, he's back.. Special:Contributions/87.74.46.129 Thanks. --Katoa 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:XavierVE

Who recently today had become the subject of an AN/I complaint regarding his penchant for calling other editors pedophiles. (The user is the owner of perverted-justice.com. Enough is enough. He has had multiple warnings, significantly more than most editors ever get, and refuses to change his behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours and warned him that if he continues to call other editors pedophiles and take his crusade against pedophilia onto wikipedia, he will be further blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Their response is very disheartening, but hopefully they can use the next 24 hours to consider what is or isn't appropriate behaviour. Editors who are willing to seek out and keep out POV pushing on pedophilia articles are very valuable (since most of us steer clear of the topic, especially at work), but there still are behavioural standards to adhere to. WilyD 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not likely. His response:

Whoopty doo. I'll call pedophiles what they are whereever I find them. Thanks for the block though, it is a stark confirmation of the allegations against Wikipedia :) And check me out when the block expires, I'll note a few more pedophiles afterwards and then you can block me again. Oh, and crusade is such an ugly term. I'm an Atheist. Use campaign or something. We're not marching with the holy cross to Jerusalem, after all. XavierVE 15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

diff ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Disheartening. Maybe I've just too much faith in people, but I always hope they can reform. Someone's response to a block 5 minutes after it happens can be different from their response a day or a week later. I offered a little bit of counsel - I'm not sure how much good it'll do. WilyD 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

However much we may support (or not) the off-Wiki work of this individual, his on-Wiki behavior has been extremely confrontational and uncivil. If he could change his behvaior he could be a helpful editor. If not, he may be too disruptive. WP:TIGER appears to apply. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ILIKEIT votes, Simtropolis

Simtropolis was nominated for deletion, though not by me. The problem is that the web site has been canvassing votes. What's the best way of dealing with this? The person who nominated it for deletion has suggested perhaps a semi-protection of the AfD discussion page would help but neither he nor I are sure this is a good idea. I have never dealt with a situation like this. I've seen warnings placed on AfD pages before indicating that it isn't a vote, if you've been asked to come here and vote, please don't, etc., but I'm not sure which template that was. So, suggestions? --Yamla 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it for the moment. Unless the page is being barraged by vandalism, it's fine. At worst we'll have a lot of repetition in the discussion.-Wafulz 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned them about canvassing on the website. His username is TheListUpdater, as it said on the website, and I think he should get blocked for canvassing...  Jonjonbt 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

here's a tip - if you go offsite to "warn" people off - do it in a polite manner, your post over at their forum You guys are doing what we in Wikipedia call canvassing, and that will get you blocked. I will go to the extra mile to get you blocked. Either stop canvassing, and get the page deleted, or you can continue canvassing, and you will be blocked. I am Jonjonbt on Wikipedia, and feel free to attack me on my talk page. It'll get you even closer to a block! Have a nice day! Jonjonbt PS... I know a few admins who can block you... comes across like a bullyboy and does no favours for wikipedia. --Fredrick day 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded to Frederick day - that was an extremely poor choice of words by Jonjonbt. Миша13 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I recommend you go and edit your post if you can.-Wafulz 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am current engaging with the community over there and trying to help them establish what reliable sources are there plus explain why canvessing and WP:ILIKEIT type !votes would not be help. Any block of TheListUpdater would be puntitive rather than preventive at this stage so that would not be help and I would Oppose such a move. I see no further action required at present and no need for any admin intervention at this stage. --Fredrick day 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user:Klaksonn

Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have indefinitely blocked Klaksonn for persistent disruptive editing, incivility, refusal to seek consensus, and repeated sectarian personal attacks on other editors. Full explanation with links at User talk:Klaksonn#Indefinitely_blocked; admins may also want to review a previous ANI discussion on Klaksonn, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive273#Bigoted_comments_on_my_talk_page.

Some admins may regard an indefinite bock as an excessive step for a single admin to take, so I am happy for the block be lifted or shortened if there is a consensus here to do so. However, I would ask other admins to please review the history of Klaksonn's conduct before reaching any conclusions. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the block (before this was posted here) and found it appropriate. That said, I do not have much familiarity with the articles in question here. It is clear to me that this user is abusive and does not even attempt to reach consensus, or even to seriously discuss the matter (see, for example, this where the discussion involves Klaksonn states, "Maybe you should live with the fact that Umar was a sick murderer and refrain from vandalizing the article by adding things like "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)"."). --Yamla 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, this edit in response to the denial of his unblock request, shows he has no regard for other Wikipedians. → AA ^(talk) — 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This individual's participation is a net negative to the project. More admins should have your fortitude. Raymond Arritt 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Klaksonn has now been protected by me due to continued incivility and personal attacks after warnings. --Yamla 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well done - I would've done it myself after one more edit in this manner. There must be a line drawn somewhere, after which it's enough with "second chances". My only reply to people who "have things to do other than [...] edit an already untrusted encyclopedia", is "then get the hell outta here!" Albeit uncivil, hits the spot in cases of continuously disgruntled and counterproductive people such as Klaksonn. Миша13 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really have a problem with the block. In principle, I generally feel that indefinte blocks are ineffective as they lead to sockpuppetry. I prefer shorter blocks, perhaps a month of 45 days. Saying that, I won't shorten the block. Pepsidrinka 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If a person wants to use socks, that person will use socks no matter how long the block is. —Kurykh 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has quite recently been involved in several content disputes, which he has instigated. The issue began at 20:57, August 9, 2007, when Jmfangio was blocked for violating the three-revert rule. During the duration of this block, I requested an edit on the protected Peyton Manning article, which was fulfilled. The edit was to merge a separate section which was on another page back to the main article. Jmfangio began a discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning, saying that per WP:CONSENSUS, he had a consensus to split up the article. I kept asking him where the consensus was, but he denied my request. He later said that he could do what he did because seven other articles followed the same format, and he said that gave him consensus. I was being friendly and was trying to help him understand what WP:CONSENSUS was; I was trying to help him understand something that it didn't appear that he understood. In this edit ([43]), he asked me to "stop attacking [him]," when I haven't even attacked him once. His exact words were "stop attacking me, I know exactly what this means." His previous posts showed that he didn't know what it meant, and I was only trying to help him clarify this. Jmfangio eventually leaves the discussion, saying it's not going to help anything.

This spread over to Talk:Brett Favre, but on another issue with that article, completely unrelated to the content dispute discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning. Aviper2k7 made a comment, "Can we agree on the section names? Can't we do both for now? Are you skirting this?" Jmfangio then replied with "Stop making uncivil statements - nobody is skirting anything here and you guys really need to stop with those comments. I do not want this to end up at WP:ANI because of personal attacks." Nobody was making any civil attacks on him, so it's beyond me why he responded this way. Later, he says "Okay guys - i'm done discussing. I didn't say you personally attacked me. I said these comments are drifting toward personal attacks. Your edit summaries and your comments are creating a hostile environment. All three of you do the same thing. I'm not going to put up with it anymore. Either discuss the content or move on," a comment which is even more bizarre because he created the discussion to "discuss the content," then leaves the discussion when we begin to "discuss the content." His final comment was "I don't agree with anything, I'm removing myself from this conversation because you have an inability to discuss things without saying things that are down right uncivil and rude." Still, nobody left a single rude or uncivil comment or personal attack.

At the ANI page, in this edit ([44]), he said "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." The comment I left before was in response to his original post at ANI, an edit in which I was defending myself, and Jmfangio declares me obnoxious and bullying because I'm defending myself. Ever since his block expired on Friday, his behavior has been completely bothersome to me; he's accused me of civil attacks, bullying him, being obnoxious, etc. when I haven't done anything at all. All the discussions were once that he instigated, and he leaves the discussion because all of us (besides him) share the same opinion, and he accuses us of being rude, uncivil, making personal attacks, etc. It is really disturbing, and his behavior has disturbed me so much. Ksy92003(talk) 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Might I recommend a User Conduct request for comments? Then there is this and this. An RFC might be the way to go from here. Respectfully, Navou ^banter 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I've looked at the WP:RFC format in the past, and I'm not at all clear on how to even use that. If I would have to do that, I would need somebody to help me understand what to do. Ksy92003(talk) 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Instructions are here. Please feel free to ask for help on the format on my talk page. You will probably get better results on RFC then here vis a vis this dispute. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine... I suppose I'll go there. Navou, if I still have any confusion on this, can I ask you for assistance? Ksy92003(talk) 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll assist on the format. The merits, will be yours however. Navou ^banter 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all that I'm asking. Thank you, Navou. Ksy92003(talk) 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I take no position on the underlying controversy, but admins should note that the accused user responded on this page and Ksy92003 has deleted his response. THF 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I accidentally removed that part of the discussion. Here is the removed comment, in whole: Ksy92003(talk) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I think I've restored it with the formatting intact, if I did not restore your comment, please restore it. I tried my best. Navou ^banter 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't even know what to say other than you guys have been nothing but rude and I have gone out of my way to try and get those discussions focused on content and not report you for your WP:UNCIVIL behavior. I'm sorry that you are disturbed so much. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• And one point of clarification, I did not say that because WP:CON is what led me to expunge the information. WP:LENGTH and WP:SS (which are a result of WP:CON being in place) did, and this was complimented by the fact that other articles had the same thing done to them and it was accepted by multiple editors. You can see them at Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What other steps in Dispute Resolution have been employed and exactly what are you asking administrators to do? --ElKevbo 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone to Dispute Resolution yet... I don't know what can be done about this situation, but it's just so frustrating to be accused of something when I haven't done anything bad. Jmfangio has been really disruptive to both me and Chrisjnelson in the past couple days, including claiming consensus, and then refusing to show the consensus, accusing other users of making personal attacks and leaving rude, uncivil comments when there weren't any, and threatening to take me and Chrisjnelson to ANI for those uncivil comments. In my opinion, his behavior is completely unacceptable, and the way that Jmfangio has gone about this situation has frustrated both me and Chrisjnelson. Jmfangio still maintains that we (I and Chrisjnelson) have done more wrong things than he has, and hasn't even been able to say what it is that we have done to him, like what we said that offended him. I took the view that Jmfangio just wants to argue for the sake of arguing, and as far as the rude, uncivil comments and personal attacks, I don't know where he got that from. Nobody has attacked him in any way whatsoever, yet Jmfangio maintains that he has. His behavior hsa been completely disturbing to both Chrisjnelson and myself, and is completely unacceptable. Ksy92003(talk) 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• ElKevbo None, although I suggested that very early on and was told this was not an issue for dispute resolution. I told them I would gladly participate in the DR process. I'm a bit warn out on the personal attacks and uncivil edits, so I'm not sure how long I'd be willing to go with it at this point, but I'd give it a shot if someone else wants to start the process. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Jmfangio... I'm gonna ask you something very calmly, and if you answer calmly, then that would greatly help out... could you please tell me what are the personal attacks and uncivil edits you have referred to? I need to know so I can understand your situation. Ksy92003(talk) 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI to others - this is being discussed now on Ksy's tp. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is User:Jmfangio using the name of a dead celebrity in his signature? Corvus cornix 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He isn't. His signature is Juan Miguel Fangio not Juan Manuel Fangio. Perhaps it's his real name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm sorry. Never mind. Corvus cornix 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quick interjection - Funny thing is - JM Fangio is awesome so my sig and my user name is a "lose" tribute to him. I didn't want to "copy it" for that exact reason. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) says that this is being discussed on Ksy's talk page; however I see nothing there, so I will just post here. My first encounter with Jmfangio (talk · contribs) was on Peyton Manning, when he redid a large portion of the article. While most of the changes he did unquestionably improved the article, there are a couple that have been disputed. Jmfangio (talk · contribs) changed the link for "College Team" in Manning's NFL Box to link to University of Tennessee, as opposed to the more specific Tennessee Volunteers football, its original state. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) repeatedly tried to revert this change, but Jmfangio (talk · contribs) kept reverting this back, with comments such as "STOP IT!!!" and "Please do not edit articles while someone is currently working on them.", showing definite signs of WP:OWN. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) and Jmfangio (talk · contribs) eventually got the article protected due to the edit warring, but not before Jmfangio (talk · contribs) made another controversial change. The awards and honors section was split off into another article without discussion, although it has since been restored. On Talk:Peyton Manning, Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has tried to give rationale for this change, although none of the reasons he gives make sense. WP:LENGTH was cited has the major reason, despite the fact that the article was nowhere near long enough to warrant splitting the article. WP:CON was also cited, as he claimed he had consensus for such a split. Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) repeatedly asked for a link to show consensus for such an action; Jmfangio (talk · contribs) never provided an such evidence, and instead complained the Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) was becoming "hostile" (he was not). As an additional note, W.marsh (talk · contribs), who has edited Peyton Manning on several occasions in the past agreed that there was reason for the split to occur. Looking at Jmfangio (talk · contribs)'s edit history, I noticed he had made the same changes to Michael Vick and Brett Favre, both of which were reverted. Looking at the discussion, I noticed a similar pattern to what occured at Talk:Peyton Manning. Jmfangio (talk · contribs) falsely claimed multiple Wikipedia policies as supporting his edits; when others pointed out that the policies cited said no such thing, he would complain that he was being personally attacked, and then leave the discussion. The same thing happened in another Brett Favre discussion here.

While Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has certainly contributed to Wikipedia, it seems clear to me that he has trouble working with others, often falsely citing Wikipedia policies and claiming that he is being personally attacked when he cannot get his way. This cannot be allowed.

Dlong 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Amazing that this keeps happening. Dlong - you are the one that engaged in uncivil behavior. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that I made changes that do fall under the guidelines laid out at WP:LENGTH and WP:SS. You failed to adhere to WP:CIV and WP:AGF and all i did was move on. There is no revert war, and as I told you - I left the conversation. As for that user's talk page - he refractored the entire conversation. You can easily see it in the history of his tp. I don't have trouble working with others, I have trouble working with others who don't want to politely discuss things. For the most part, I just move on - but in certain cases, I try and have the situation dealt with by outside users. You can call me disruptive all you want, but I can provide edit history backed by guideline pages and other editors WP:CON. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We have been constantly trying to discuss the issue at hand. Your remarks are the ones that provoke us. We have all tried to politely discuss those, and despite you being involved in the conversation, we all have remained calm and civil. We haven't been uncivil at all, thus we are adhering to WP:CIVIL, and since there was no reverting at all and no harmful edits, none of us could've possibly violated WP:AGF. And we all agree that the article isn't long enough to be affected by WP:LENGTH.

And I did remove the discussion from my talk page because I only had that because Jmfangio wanted to know why I made those quote/unquote "personal attacks." I replied to each claim he made, and you can look my edit history for that information. Ksy92003(talk) 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Impersonator

Can someone please indef block 82.53.117.47 as he is impersonating me, see this. Davnel03 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A pretty minor issue for an indef block, no? — Moe ε 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked 4 days ago for an issue 4 days ago. There's nothing much we can do now, except laugh at the IP's obvious stupidity. —Kurykh 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He's doing this, which could in effect get me blocked for no reason. Look at his contributions, the last six, which are on userpages, he is impersonating me. Davnel03 17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedians will look at both the edit and the person making the edit. They will realize a disconnection between your editing patterns. Anyway, we can't block IPs indefinitely in the first place. If worse comes to worse and you do get blocked for those edits, Checkuser will exonerate you, unless you edit via open proxies. You can make a note on your or the IP's talk page if you wish, but there isn't really anything we can do. —Kurykh 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They impersonated other users so its not just you Davnel03. Just ignore it and all will be fine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Davnel03 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, a quick perusing through the edit history would quickly show it was impesronation. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also consider it vandalism of my talk page. Bearian 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I, and I imagine more if not all other admins click on the mythical block button means we block the person who makes the edit, people have different names on their signatures, they often lead to a different account or userpage they're "cyber squatting" so it's always preferable to make a block based on who the software says is responsible for the edit rather than who the user says is responsible. So, to make a long story short, you've nothing at all to worry about. Nick 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Racially offensive words

User:Matthew has been continually adding the word Jebus to show his disgust at something over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK). I initially removed the word and placed a warning on his talk page, both of these edits were reverted-[45][46]. The user has continually re-added the word-[47][48] and has accused me of "trolling" for adding warnings to his talk page-[49]. Thanks, Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What "race" or racial characteristic does "Jebus" make reference to ? --Fredrick day 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think he should be blocked for at least a week until it calms down. He seems to of removed the warnings off his talkpage. Davnel03 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebus on Wikipedia. We're all in trouble if that's racially offensive. Furrfu. THF 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's a perfectly cromulent word. Will ^(talk) 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Right... it's a Simpsons joke. I've no idea in what context Matthew (talk · contribs) was attempting to use it there, but honestly I don't see how it is offensive, particularly since it is linked for meaning. It isn't offensive, just pointless... though no more pointless than the edit war over it that is now happening at that FA request. Don't make me embiggin the both of you.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be offensive to people with bright yellow skin and/or giant blue hair. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now that I know that it's related to the Simpsons (!!!) I don't think a block is required. Davnel03 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of context here as I'm familiar with the article being argued over... Matthew (talk · contribs) has been constantly counter-productive and patronising on that particular FAC page. Whilst this particular flare-up might not be anything to worry about, the overall situation definitely needs some intervention. Seaserpent85 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I alluded to above... the edit warring and removal of comments by editors that I see going on at the FAC page is a far bigger deal than "Jebus".--Isotope23 ^talk 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't block him. Just slap the Sejebus out of him. Baseball Bugs 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. He's engaging in Wikiality. I thought that was just a joke used to incite vandalism. MessedRocker (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Jebus" is a classical minced oath: [50]. Digwuren 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

biographylist.com copyright issues

After blocking Uromax (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for repeated copyright infringement and linkspamming, I did an external link search on biographylist.com. I've found that some links, like their entry on J. M. Barrie are extremely similar to our articles, and one is definitely copied from the other. I'm not sure if it's our entries being plagiarized, or us plagiarizing them. The article on Buckminster Fuller has similar content as well, but our content contains citations.-Wafulz 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that biographylist.com was only registered on April 24, 2007 [51] and our articles (at least the two you mentioned) existed in their current format before that, it would seem that we're being copied and not the other way around. Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Para

Paradisal (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks, as reported here previously. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an administrator matter only as far as noting that whenever Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is involved in anything that requires admin attention, the admin needs to have the patience to go through the entirety of the issue, including the repetitive bludgeoning. I don't think that's what's happened in the {{coord}} modification proposal so far for example, as it's still on hold because of the bludgeoning, despite the supporting majority. On this accusation here, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence#Andy_Mabbett_twists_WP_policies_for_his_own_ends highlights this NPA-yelling-behaviour quite well. The arbitration committee has found his behaviour disruptive at least once already, and soon yet again. Everything on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition_of_disruptive_editing_and_editors indeed matches, in addition to referring to a crank. How clearly does it need to be pointed out before it sinks in? Must you bark every time someone brings it up, instead of accepting that that's how the Wikipedia community sees your actions, and try to change? --Para 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how right you are, I don't see how calling someone a loudmouth or a crank is either productive or compliant with WP:CIVIL. If the other editor is as disruptive as you say, then getting into a mudfight with him only makes it harder to recognize his wrongdoing. The fact that an editor has been in arbitration does not make him an outlaw for whom collaboration guidelines don't apply. Please be civil, avoid personal attacks, and use DR. Instead of calling someone a loudmouth or a crank, use DR and diffs to demonstrate improper crankocity. And be patient; it looks from the arb that he'll be banned for a year shortly. THF 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It only repeats what others have said before, in the same sense if not in those exact words. It is not a personal attack when disruptive behaviour is pointed out, especially when it's exact repetition of previously noted behaviour, and when it's someone with whom arbcom enforcement has already taken place and failed. Though I have lately just ignored most everything this particular editor has had to say and am not interested in mudfights, when someone brings up an issue where the resolution is blocked because of a loudmouth stalling things by making admins ignore not only him but everyone else in the discussion, I won't hesitate pointing that out and hopefully get some new views, dependless on which side they end up on. Formal dispute resolution and other remedies would come in due time, but in the discussions I've been involved in, that time hasn't come yet. I can't think of many things more unpleasant than going through anyone's correspondence with this particular editor, so I will not get personally involved with anything related to looking for diffs unless absolutely necessary. It is much easier copying diffs from others, who have for example noted that as a year's ban already failed as a remedy, another might not be effective, especially when the user has admitted[52][53] to using sockpuppets during his previous blocks. Be on the lookout for more socks. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, you are a liar. I have admitted no such thing. Will an admin please take action over this wholly unwarranted accusation? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para's incivility continues. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, just stop stalking Andy's contribs, whether or not a ban is inevitable. Will ^(talk) 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't help that he does his damaging edits in areas I'm involved in. It's impossible to be patient and just watch the damage being done until the ban is effective. I could perhaps reconsider some actions if you point out what could be seen as stalking. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominating {{kml}} nine minutes after creation. Will ^(talk) 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's part of a WP:GEO project to reduce the number of geographical coordinate templates, and another to work on GeoTemplate design instead of forking other alternatives. That's standard procedure for cleaning out the cruft from Wikipedia, not stalking. But while we're on the kml topic, shouldn't good admins close deletion nominations with a reason that can be later used as a precedent? Such a long discussion did no good with this non-result. --Para 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the nomination, I'm talking about the timeframe. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, consider that you (and others) are guilty of the same behaviours which Andy is being blocked for. He has been around longer and edited more and thus has racked up a longer list of enemies and conflicts... but that doesn't make him 'worse' than the people he is fighting with when they stoop to name calling, accusations, threats, stalking, harassment, et cetera. You note that Andy was blocked for an extended period once before... it is worth considering that several of the people he was in conflict with there eventually ended up being blocked themselves. As my parents used to say ad nauseum, "It takes two to argue". If you were behaving in a reasonable and impartial manner this mess simply couldn't exist. You help to make it what it is... and if you don't change that then sooner or later it will be a problem for you too. --CBD 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by Totonaco and an associated IP address

Totnaco (talk · contribs) has been fairly consistent in repeatedly vandalizing Mormonism with the same basic phrase, emphasizing that Mormons and Catholics don't allow homosexual men or women to be priests or members. I and a number of other users have posted the series of vandalism warnings. Now that he's hit warning #4, which says "this is your last warning", the same vandalism is being made by 166.89.54.30 (talk · contribs). I suggest that both be blocked, as he's had numerous warnings over a period of months. In the past, he was active in similarly vandalizing Roman Catholic Church. –SESmith 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomasthetankengine

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine found likely sockpuppetry between user:Elvisandhismagicpelvis and user:Tomasthetankengine. the clerk who processed the rfcu also commented at user|his talk page that

1. Moretimefor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Serendipitouscontributor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Grooveyyoutuber (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Tosserandmasterdebater (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Russellthelovemussell (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Senibleconext (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

are all the same person.

I also wrote at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elvisandhismagicpelvis:

Elvisandhismagicpelvis is an editor who has a fondness for rugby league that crosses over to POV pushing and disruptive editing. For the latter he was blocked for a week for 'WP:EW|edit warring]] on multiple articles, despite being warned to stop. This is utterly disruptive behaviour.'.

The block period has now expired, but a new user, Tomasthetankengine, has arrived and is apparently going through recent edits of mine and another user, Tancred and editing in a similarly disruptive way.

For example, the insistence on referring to rugby league as rugby league football is characteristic.

See Tomasthetankengine's edit of Sydney Football Stadium and Elvisandhismagicpelvis's edit of Sport in Australia.

Essentially all other edits have been to disrupt pages that either Tancred or I work on from time to time with the aim of pushing a pro rugby league POV.

I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to suspect that this user is also User:Rugby_666, User:Ehinger222, User:Licinius, User:J is me and User:NSWelshman - all of which have engaged in the same sort of disruptive POV pushing. Some of the sockpuppets go about making constructive edits for a time but the common thread is wilful and repetitive POV pushing and incivility.

Each time an account gets knocked off, even for a short time, the user goes and creates a new one essentially to bring the warning processes back to the start. It's not fun or funny to have edit wars crop up time and time again because one person can't stop repeating the same destructive behaviour. This person has been blocked countless times and returns constantly. It makes a mockery of WP's structure of sanctions and bans. It needs to be stopped.

That pretty much sums it up - I'd like to see some action taken as this has been going on for more than a year and a half, with numerous editors (user:CambridgeBayWeather, user:Chuq, user:Tancred, user:Grant65 and myself to name a few) at different periods in that time spending vastly more time than should be necessary to correct her/his vandalism and disruption. Dibo ^{T | C} 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama disambiguation

I think this mess needs to be looked at by admins. At least six editors have said that they think Obama should continue to redirect to Barack Obama, and Barack Obama should have a pointer to Obama (disambiguation), with reasoned arguments given - including that the FA Barack Obama has been among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia in recent months, and is likely what people are looking for when they type in "Obama". The other opinion is that he is an unimportant "minor" American politician who is unknown in the rest of the world, that Wikipiedia is not a "tool of the USA" , and that the other uses of Obama are as well known - particularly the Prime minister of Equatorial Guinea who may or may not actually even be known as Obama - so they want Obama to go to the dab page. Other pages, like Chirac, Trudeau, Yeltsin use the same approach as Obama → Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the page has been changed back and forth and we're not getting anywhere. Tvoz |talk 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? This might appear to a suspicious mind to be canvassing... --ElKevbo 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, ElKevbo? Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, try not being suspicious then. I'm asking for some neutral help in sorting out a mess. If I were canvassing, I might not post it on an admin board, you know? Duh. Tvoz |talk 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that this could have all been handled much tidier. The initial change of Obama as a disambig page to Obama (disambiguation) occurred in Decmeber, 2006. That was reverted and re-reverted several times between then and May 2007, *:when I started to get involved. Due to the number of re- and re-reverts, it seemed like something which needed to be addressed in a requested move, since there were some feelings about the default link. Until a rational discussion could be held, I have been trying to keep the pages at their original locations (pre 12/2006; and, a majority of the time since then — where Obama was (or redirected to) the disambig page). For some reason, the proper move request was never brought up at WP:RM, and yesterday, *: shit hit the fan when a hybrid move was brought there. Despite the six editors mentioned above, a thorough reading of the talk page will reveal that more than six appear to favor the Obama as disambig: Neier, SRMach5B, SNPBrown, Midemer, Nihonjoe, Chrishomingtang, Endroit, and John_Smith's. So, I agree that something should be done. My opinion is that the "something" should be to restore Obama as a disambig page, and if someone wants to change it to a redirect, then the proper WP:RM procedures to move Obama to Obama (disambiguation) can be followed. Neier 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing holy or sacred about the state of a page ten months ago. Reverting that far back simply on grounds of "that's the way it was 10 months ago" makes no sense whatsoever. Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the point. The status quo is that Obama is a disambig page. At various times, against process you and others have tried a controversial move without discussion and this has usually been reverted within several days. If and when a consensus is reached to change Obama into a redirect then this becomes the new status quo. Until then, it is wikipedia policy that controversial moves require discussion and editors oppose to the controvesial move are quite correct in reversing controversial moves that take place without discussion Nil Einne 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally misunderstood the situation but after more careful reading I think I now know what's been going on. Also I have never been involved in this move discussion before this AFAIK. I support Neier here. From what I can tell, the current mess is mostly the fault of Tvoz and others who support Obama as a redirect to Barack Obama. Obama started as a redirect to the city in Japan. When Barack Obama became popular, it was turned into a disambig for Barack Obama the US Senator and the Japanese city. Mostly the status quo has been Obama as a disambig since then. At various times, without discussion editors have gone agaisnt the status quo and turned Obama into a redirect. It should be quite clear to them that this is a controversial move as their move is usually reverted. Nevertheless, they have never started a move proposal in accordance with policy for controversial moves. Neier who supports the status quo finally took the situation into hand and protected the status quo while initiating a move proposal. However those who were opposed to the status quo refused to participate in this discussion so it was ended early. It is unfortunate that editors, particular those opposed to the status quo keep ignoring policy and trying a controversial move without discusion & refuse to take part when discussion is attempted. I have reverted to the status quo for now Nil Einne 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I again ask: Why is this being discussed here? What admin actions are being requested? This appears to be a run-of-the-mill content dispute as far as I can tell. --ElKevbo 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I've recused myself and stopped watching the pages. I also closed my attempt at coming to a consensus there as Italiavivi completely destroyed any sense of anyone being able to figure out what was going on. I'm sick of the bad-faith assumptions on the part of Italiavivi (right from the beginning, I might add). I have better things to do with my time then repeating myself over and over and over again to someone who refuses to even pay attention to anything I write other than to read more into my comments and actions than is actually there. So, have fun, all. Maybe I'll check back on it in a few months. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Nil Einne, I'm afraid you do not have it quite right. And I don't see how this was my fault. Here are the facts, taken from the Barack Obama page of which I am one of the editors. I did a monthly check of the page status to see what in fact the status quo has been:

• December 2, 2006 tag says "Obama" redirects here. This article is about the United States Senator. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• December 2, 2006 tag is changed to "Obama" redirects here. This article is about the United States Senator. For the city in Japan, see Obama, Fukui.

• January 1, 2007 tag says “Obama" redirects here. For the city in Japan, see Obama, Fukui.

• February 1, 2007 tag says “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• March 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• April 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• until April 10, 2007 when, without any edit summary or explanation on talk, SRMach5B removed the redirect tag, but apparently did not change the redirect itself

• I replaced the tag, same day, because the redirect was still in place from Obama to Barack Obama, as it had been for months, and I saw no reason, and none was given, to have removed the correct tag.

• May 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• June 1, 2007 same tag

• until June 17, 2007 when the tag is removed again, with an edit summary pointing to this cryptic exchange on the admin's talk page - no indication or explanation on Barack Obama as far as I recall
  • Please go read again what I wrote there. All I did was move Obama (disambiguation) to Obama, which had been redirecting to Obama (disambiguation) at the point at which I moved it. Can you really not see why I did that? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But Obama was redirecting to Barack Obama prior to that - as of June 1 it still was, I believe. So who changed that, and with whose agreement? I am not seeing it in the history. Tvoz |talk 06:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• And apparently on June 17 admin Nihonjoe made this change without consensus or discussion, and without WP:RM as far as I know.

Since then, there has been a lot of back and forth. But to characterize Neier's changes in any way as a return to the status quo is incorrect, in my opinion. The status quo, from the perspective of the Barack Obama page, was that Obama redirected to Barack Obama, with a pointer there to Obama (disambiguation). It seems to me that more of an attempt to discuss this should have been made before making the June 17 change - and then when comments were posted on the Dab talk page disagreeing with it, they should have been considered, not ignored. And as far as I know there was no RM initiated by Neier or Nihonjoe. So why blame me?

And ElKevbo, this is not a content dispute at all. I brought this here because I felt we needed some objective administrators to look at it - Nihonjoe was involved in the dispute and his recusal is a good idea, I think. When no progress is being made on a problem, I think that asking for help is a good thing. If it bothers you, maybe you should stop reading it.

Meanwhile, I hope someone will take the time to actually look at what went on here and suggest some action. Tvoz |talk 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to keep this off of AN/I, I have corrected some of the mistakes above on the talk page of the article. Basically, there seems to be a disjoint between what the Barack Obama article said about Obama, and what the Obama article actually contained. For much of the time above, Obama was a disambig page, even though the Barack article said that it was redirecting to Barack. More details are on the talk page, if anyone still cares at this point. Neier 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it, Neier, if you wouldn't dismiss my request here for an admin to take a look at this. As you know, you were one of the people who removed the redirect to Barack Obama with no comprehensible edit summary or discussion, and without following through on Barack Obama by removing the redirect tag and telling the editors what and why you did it - all appearances were that the redirect from Obama → Barack Obama was in place. So if there was a "disjoint" it was because those changes were done in a stealth manner, not out front for editors to consider. We had no opportunity to discuss and you had no consensus for your unilateral change, and you still have no consensus. So, I think administrative intervention is called for. Tvoz |talk 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bird feeding

At Bird feeding, an anonymous user has been repeatedly inserting unsupported assertions (that bird feeding is controversial). The vast majority of the edits since about March 2007 are insertion or reversion of the material. [54]

After a warning didn't help [55], I was told [56] here at ANI to escalate the warnings and then take it to WP:AIV. But the IP started shifting around, so it didn't seem possible to leave warnings on the editor's talk page. I then requested semi-protection for the page but this was denied by WJBscribe, who thought the issue was a content dispute and said I should discuss before reverting more [57]. But I have attempted to discuss, and got exactly one reply which I couldn't make any sense of, and no reply after 13 days to my latest comment (see discussion). So yes, it started as a content dispute, but the anonymous editor's persistence against all four other editors, refusal to discuss, and lack of sources for the material now make it, to me, a textbook example of WP:DISRUPT. But that policy doesn't appear to address anonymous editors.

This kind of situation (disruption from a shifting IP) must have been dealt with many times before. What's the right procedure? Thanks for your help. --Nethgirb 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of the article is one possibility. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Raymond. --Nethgirb 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

QuakeSim

I am a new user here at wikipedia and have been wanting to create an article about the NASA QuakeSim project. My complaint is about user:Ryulong who has been giving me reasons for deleting my article that I do not see as a problem regarding the QuakeSim article I had posted. I am an employee that works with the project and together with a group of fellow employees we created a document we would like to post on wikipedia as an article about QuakeSim. My complaint about user Ryulong is that he seems to present reasons for deleting the QuakeSim article that do not really have to do with the article. He mentions there are no secondary resources other than the quakesim.org and nasa site but there are and all the links provided there are to allow for people to obtain more information. When I presented him with this information that there are secondary resources he brought up the idea that the fact that I am an employee and writing the article on my own project has to do with the CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES that wikipedia.org has. This is when I felt a complaint was necessary because I felt insulted. My entire purpose for this article is to inform the public about the NASA QUAKESIM PROJECT. Nowhere in the article is there any signs showing or implying that I was doing this for personal benefit and personal promotion. I am not advertising nor am I asking for donations. I am merely providing information and resources for the QUAKESIM project and other geological information. Why I feel insulted is that user RYULONG, I feel, deleted the article without taking a couple minutes to read it and realize that the article's purpose is to inform the public and does not break any rules or policies presented by wikipedia.org. Also, user Ryulong never actually told me how I should fix the article content so that the "problems" he found would be corrected. I do not appreciate the difficult time I am having with this article because of USER RYULONG's comments and actions on the article. Please look into this matter because I want to be able to post the article without having to worry about it being deleted. I will be more than happy to send the content over and fix any problems it might have. I understand user Ryulong is trying to do that but the problems he is presenting do not make sense to me and it seems as though he does not want to help me in solving them so that I can post the article.

QuakeSim 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize this in less than 200 words. Admins are loathe to read long passages. —Kurykh 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My summary: QuakeSim is a NASA project. This NASA employee made an article about it which Ryulong deleted, citing conflict-of-interest and notability issues, and User:QuakeSim disagrees with the validity of these reasons. Personally it sounds okay to me; if some other editors joined in we could get rid of the COI problem, and surely NASA projects are notable. --Masamage ♫ 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't say "tl;dr" here. I will say that if Ryulong and you are having a disagreement on if the content belongs on Wikipedia or not, that you're having a dispute. Disputes are handled using Dispute Resolution, not asking admins to sort out your problems for you. If you insist on having an admin resolve the dispute between you two, then I'd point out that Ryulong is, in fact, one of our hard-working volunteer admins, and I doubt you'd appreciate it if he ruled in his own favor.

Your best bet is to simply follow the same dispute resolution procedures that everyone else has to follow. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedural issues aside, I'll just chime in and say that QuakeSim definitely is notable. I'm not in that exact field but I'm somewhat familiar with it. Raymond Arritt 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the editor is a new at this, I'd say he's done well to get this far without finding his account blocked. Sorting out the dispute resolution is pushing the bounds of reasonableness. I've reviewed the article. It needs work, but that's nothing new. The organization is notable. The topic is notable. The project is leading-edge applied science. The information is sourced. As a result, I've restored the article. Rklawton 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've procedurally nominated it at AFD. I have no objection to it being speedy closed if a sufficient consensus of those just showing up elect to keep it, but let's not edit or wheel-war over this thing, please.--Chaser - T 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call! --Masamage ♫ 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what is going to happen now? I know my article is back up but there is still a chance of being deleted. I did have a dispute that needed ot be resolved but the reason I brought it to this discussion is because I did not like the way things were presented to me by the user. I understand there is another place for dispute resolutions but I felt I needed to bring it to this discussion for the reason mentioned earlier. I apologize for any inconveniences. I was not happy with the way things were presented to me and frustrated with the fact that my article was deleted and I was not told exactly why it was deleted and how to fix it so that it is not deleted again. Please update me on the status of the article and what I need to fix since one of the above users mentioned there is some work that needs to be done. Thank You. QuakeSim 01:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This incident is an example of how WP:COI violates the "comment on content, not contributor" principle. If the content is really bad, there is no need to call a COI. The Behnam 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely to be deleted; it's already got a lot of 'keep' votes. The nomination was just made in order to collect those votes so that we could be sure there was a consensus to keep the thing. --Masamage ♫

For those just reading, the nomination resulted in speedy keep. The Behnam 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

COI should not be used for deletion. That's a major misconception that should be nailed. Charles Matthews 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Guitar and edit warring

Hi folks, I've blocked a couple of editors for 24 hours over their behaviour on Guitar and I've semi-protected the page to stop any of the two changing IP addresses and resuming (given an IP address is involved). I'm off for the night, so if folks would like to keep an eye on the article and make any unblocks or adjustments to the block as you feel necessary, you've got my full blessing. Nick 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 (talk · contribs) odd behavior

Since Matt57's participation in Elonka's recent RfA he seems to have become obsessed. First, he added articles about her ancestors to his user page calling it "Articles to clean up for Elonka" [58]. Today he's been going through some of those articles stubbifying them with claims of OR and the inability to verify references that do not host an online copy (newspapers from the 1940's so this is hardly surprising). Despite several other editors trying to reason with him and even cleaning up the articles and providing inline citations for clarity [59] he continued to revert. He's now created the sock User:MiiMiiM to continue reverting, especially since he'd reached 3 reverts on Antoni Dunin. It very telling that this new account responds "I can and I will" to me asking Matt not to remove references just because they don't have an online source (old Detroit News, New York Times etc.) [60].

I've been involved reverting his actions and cleaning up the articles, so I don't want to block him myself. Can someone take a look and help out please? He's feeling that everyone who's tried to talk to him so far is biased, so perhaps an uninvolved party can try reasoning with him before this gets further out of hand? Shell ^babelfish 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort this out. Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stopped editing at 03:33 today, then MiiMiiM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was born at 03:37 and immediately began editing the same articles. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked two socks and the main account for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a few ofthe articles to before Matt57/MiiMiiM's edits, per multiple editors (across all pages) assertions that citation, not inline citation, nor online citation, is what is needed. since all articles seem mostly sourced, the use of a few cite needed tags is probably what is in order for contested areas, not rampant blankings... ThuranX 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first edits of User:MiiMiis suggest that Matt57 may have been set up by one of our resident banned jokesters: this is hardly a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now semi-protected affected articles and unblocked Matt57 until the checkuser comes back. There's a credible claim that Matt didn't create the other accounts.--Chaser - T 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I stand by my reverts though, as they address the underlying problem, that Matt57 seems to be 'after' Elonka, regardless of the actual policies about citation, which will continue to be problematic, regardless of sock activity and frame-ups. that issue should still be resolved. ThuranX 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a growing issue here aside from this sockpuppetry. I would appreciate an uninvolved admin reviewing Matt57's recent behaviour regarding Elonka and articles connected to her. He seems to be alone in the approach he is taking to those articles, and willing to edit war with the numerous editors who have reverted him. In my opinion, at best he's being obstinate and heavy handed, at worse the narrow minded focus on an editor he has been in conflict with is amounting to harassment. WjBscribe 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those "sockpuppets" seem like sure set-ups, but in any case Matt's conduct falls quite soundly into his pattern of wikistalking editors that he has had content disputes with (he stalked me, SlimVirgin, and others). Essentially he has been wikistalking Elonka because she disagreed with including unnecessary (but offensive to some Muslims) pictures of Mohammad in some article. Aggressive opposition at her RfA can be expected, but going on to tear apart articles about her relations and herself is just going way too far. It is hard to assume good faith considering the previous incidents. This is definitely the most severe case of wikistalking I have seen from this editor, and it is quite disappointing that he has done this even after being warned after his past violation [61]. Editors are supposed to cut down on such behavior after receiving a community warning instead of stepping it up a notch. The Behnam 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So... week long block for him to cool off and evaluate if he really wants to continue to work on Wikipedia? If it's so upseetting to him to work with some editors, he needs to figure out his feelings on the project. ThuranX 06:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate response to an editor who continues such misconduct even after a stern warning. He needs to learn that he must show respect for other editors, even if he disagrees with them, if he wants to volunteer here. I've tried to think of some sort of creative alternative, such as a topical ban on anything Dunin-related, but I fear that would be more of a treatment than a cure. A traditional block seems the best next step towards a cure in this situation. The warning (the first step) was ignored. Anyway, I'll stop here and leave it to the admins to decide what is the best approach. Thanks in advance for any attempts to deal with this problem. Regards, The Behnam 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A week is way to harsh. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 is a smart fellow who, I believe, has no intention operating outside of the law, so to speak. As far as I can discern, he believes he is doing the right thing by challenging what he sees as vanity material. Though for my part I assume that Elonka should have made a fine adminstrator (and perhaps will be one not too long from today,) there may be some merit to what Matt57 is doing, even if and though it is socially ill-advised - everyone is feeling bad for Elonka, Matt57 was pretty rough on her during the RfA, and now he's after "her articles"…but then the acceptance of that last connection sort of admits that there might be the very same problem here that Matt57 is perceiving. I suggest instead an RfC or similar mode of discussion on this issue, either of Matt57's behavior, or the Dunin articles, or both.

COI concerns played a significant role in the RfA, and nearly led me to oppose. The problem isn't going away on its own, and, though I see the social problem, I'm tempted to credit him for taking the initiative to bringing it to the fore. Sympathy over a narrowly-failed (and socked to significant effect) RfA isn't a good reason to maintain material in mainspace, actuall, and, given the tone of this thread, I don't think that it can reasonably be denied that this plays a role here. If Matt57 is said to be harassing Elonka, we should be able to show this without reference to the "Elonka articles" [sic.] (though naturally were he adding negative material, this would be a different story, per WP:BLP.)Proabivouac 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I admire the impartiality of this analysis, it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor. The answer, I think, was that Matt had been rejecting feedback from a variety of people who were attempting to counsel him. There are better ways to resolve an issue than the methods he tried, and both the timing and specificity suggest he was personalizing a dispute rather than acting upon principle. (Caveats: I conominated Elonka's RFA and disagree with Matt's policy interpretation on Muhammad images). It's also important to bear in mind that one editor's attribution of a set of biographies as the "Elonka articles" doesn't mean she's violating any guideline or policy; she hasn't edited those pages in over a year. I don't think Matt's acting in genuine bad faith, yet one thing that makes this difficult is that an editor who did act in bad faith would choose precisely this strategy to undermine her. She's damned if she does edit, damned if she doesn't, and the community's attention gets focused around the proposal that she's doing something wrong. She can't help that she's descended from European nobility any more than I can change being descended from a long line of beer drinking peasants. The latter heritage appears to be an advantage at this site. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"...it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor." No, and I don't find your analysis completely convincing. There seems to be an ironic asymmetry in the assumption of good faith we extend to new and to established users. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Proabivouac's take on the situation, but I'd like to point out that Matt was also removing third-party sources like the New York Times because he couldn't read it online. Had he researched the references and removed any unsourced material (even if that material was only sourced to elonka.com), I would be more inclined to support his actions, however, this behavior steps a bit past the bounds of dealing with supposed COI issues. Choosing to edit war with multiple editors on multiple articles even while discussions and cleanup of the articles was ongoing wasn't the best course of action, but if he's agreed to stop the disruption and engage in discussion again, there shouldn't be any reason to punitively block him. Shell ^babelfish 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I came across Matt57 quite recently on an unrelated matter. My final conclusion was that he needed to learn how to relate to other people. He gave me orders as to what to AfD, then orders as to what to do with the time I spend online, and folllowed this up by accusing me of lying, quite out of the blue (at which I finally flipped). I was not surprised to see this thread, the message of which seems to be that Matt57 needs to learn the meaning of the word tact. Wikipedia is a project where we simply have to be able to work with each other, at least from time to time. Moreschi ^Talk 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Probivouac: I had no idea about the RfA stuff till I read through this. I watch AN/I as a nosy non-admin. My biggest concerns with this report were the sock use, which has been resolved, at least as relates to Matt57's actions, though who's trying to 'get' Matt57 needs resolution), and the BLP/citation issue. Matt57's refusal to listen regarding both inline and on-line citation requirements for articles, and that you don't need either, so long as you have good citation is a problem to me. Then, in reading through all this stuff, and seeing that he's established a category of articles to 'get', all of which connect directly to an editor with whom he's got an aze to grind, all looks bad. I have NO clue, nor do I really feel like looking back through archives and histories to figure it all out. All I see is:

There is an editor who maintains a list of articles related to another editor, with whome the first has big problems. He regularly blanks vast portions of the articles on that list claiming they lack citation. His interpretation of lack of citation is a lack of inline citations, and/or an inability to instantly verify citations via internet links.

As such, I see a personal conflict affecting Wikipedia articles. I see blanking vandalism. (Not in the first edit, but in the reversions to blanked versions after he's been counseled.) And I see deliberate ostrich behavior regarding policy (citation). All three are problems which can result in blocks. All three together from an established editor is significantly block-worthy. If a week is too harsh, 72 hours. But to let this pass is farcical. And citing that time has passed while this was debated isn't fair either. I agree that discussion eliminated a major concern, sock puppetry. but the rest is clearly Matt57's own actions, for which he should recieve consequences, and quickly. ThuranX 14:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Cheszmastre (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who created Matt57's sockpuppet page, is likely a sockpuppet of User:His excellency.Proabivouac 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre is clearly His excellency. I have indefinitely blocked the account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom harrison. Meanwhile, the checkuser is back: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matt57Proabivouac 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Continous anti-german POV pushing by Rex Germanus

Rex Germanus is displaying a strong anti-German POV in his edits, using edit summaries like "germanic europeans? Where are we, the fuehrer bunker?"[62], removing german related content from articles without any explanation[63], adding a bias to existing article [64] [65], moving articles with german words without comment [66], tedious editing (for example see the discussion on his talkpage regarding Wiener Wurst/Würst/Würstchen) and generally painting Germans and German related things in the worst possible light, especially if WW 2 is involved. To sum it up, Rex is strong pushing an anti-German POV on most (if not all) article he edits - somewhat understandable considering the history of Germany and the Netherlands in WW2 - but not acceptable. 84.145.203.241 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I was going to just warn him (her), but he's got a block log as long as my arm for past similar offenses. A month's R&R for now but looks like he's barreling headlong toward an indefblock. Raymond Arritt 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for a whole month with as rationale "persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc" seems however a bit too harsh for this incident, the more so as the block reason (persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc) does not match the notice (anti German pov pushing) Arnoutf 10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth coming from an anon, I revoke my call for a shorter sentence, seeing the way he doesn't learn from anything and keeps being uncivil. Also, the probation thing. 82.157.149.162 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Arnout.

• Jumping from an intended warning to a 1 month block because previous blocks exist seems indeed to be a weird leap.
• An R&R block (Rest and Recuperation I presume) is certainly not going to be used as such by this user (see his sandbox article while previously blocked).

Let me clarify that by "R&R" I meant giving everyone else a rest from his behavior. Apologies for the unclear wording. Raymond Arritt 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually looking at the difs provided by the IP, though the edit summaries are far from tactful, I don’t see blockable issues with the edits themselves at all. --Van helsing 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

• Why wasn’t Rex notified of this ANI post, or invited to comment on it?
• See defense by Rex on his talk page
• What happened to the "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"? Despite Rex’s history, if 84.145.203.241 has an issue with another user, why wasn’t (s)he advised to follow the WP:DR steps first, for instance: talk with the user, which I can’t see ever happened. --Van helsing 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is on parole and probation following an Arbitration case. He has 'already been through the full dispute resolution process. This noticeboard or WP:AE are appropriate places to ask that the remedies in the Arbitration case be enforced. Thatcher131 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is already on probation and parole for one year

As some people who do not know his history seem to believe that Rex is an "innocent newcomer" or similar, I have to point out once again that according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz, Rex was placed on Probation and on revert parole for one year last November. According to "After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year", he should not be blocked for only a month, as he has been blocked 6 times since been put on probation/parole.

Since June, Rex was reported several times at ANI by several users. He got away several times, like at Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot, Rex Germanus, and Rex Germanus. In Rex Germanus user page he finally got blocked for two weeks in July. Among the first things he did after his return was stalking me [67], a habit he continued [68]. Rex Germanus' anti-German stance shows in many instances, e.g. when removing [69] the section explaining the name of the American Gesundheit! Institute. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't specifically endorse blocks for "POV pushing", however, Rex has violated his 1 revert per week parole on at least two articles (moving Ethnic Germans to German Diaspora and on Dutch (ethnic group). A month block is appropriate per the previous record of blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz. Thatcher131 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think most of his blocks were deserved but this one seems a bit over the top. Also note that between March and the July block (which was also on a relatively minor issue compared to some of his previous blocks) he has been editing without problems. While the parole allows for a full month block, I wonder whether the punishment is not unreasonably harsh for a relaively minor breach of conduct (see reported case above), even for someone with Rex history. Arnoutf 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 3 articles he has been editing within the last two weeks and found violations of his revert parole on two of the three. If he feels he is being provoked he should attempt to address content disputes through RFC, third opinion, or by contacting the various Wikiprojects that have tagged these articles. (Frankly, if the Wikiprojects do not exist to provide expert and experienced help and guidance on the articles within their claimed "sphere", then what the heck are they good for, but that's a side issue.) A minimum of two weeks is called for as Rex has repeatedly shown that he does not or can not work collaboratively. (And that does not even address the "fuhrer" comment.) Thatcher131 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for the block was along the lines of Thatcher131. In addition to the incivility and the "fuhrer" edit summary, Rex had deleted plainly factual material from articles, such as statements that certain languages were Germanic. I'm not sure whether that's called borderline vandalism or hyperaggressive POV-pushing; either way, it's destructive to the articles and to goodwill between editors. His history shows he is unwilling or unable to modify this behavior despite blocks and parole. I'll agree to reduction of the block if that's community consensus. But how long are we willing to tolerate this behavior and the poisonous atmosphere it creates before we say "enough"? Raymond Arritt 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the use Germanic can have nasty Nazi ideological connotation in any but old history and linguistic situations. But your answer is for the rest fair enough. Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I say "enough", and I'm sure there are many others who would agree. I've got the impression some already have left Wikipedia, or (try to) stay away from articles "owned" by Rex. See User:Ulritz or User:Kingjeff, or the IP accused by Rex in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. I've repeatedly paused to edit, or tried to ignore Rex's edits on my watchlist, but he follows me around, even to Piotrus' RfA. User:Molobo has been blocked for a year, how many lives and second chances does Rex get? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another case of incivility: [70] , and more in the history of that page, against kingjeff. 82.157.149.162 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Kingjeff and (especially) Ulritz have been reprimanded for luring Rex into edit warring (in the Ulritz - Rex case arbcom put slightly more of the blame to Ulritz, and recent edits of Kingjeff on Rex talk page are pretty unfair). Please do not use these editors as facts in a case against Rex. He makes enemies I grant you (Matthead probably being one of them), but it takes two sides to engage in a conflict. I have had my problems with Rex but not more than with some other editors; remaining civil and consistently discussing actions has solved these (although with a lot of effort). Rex behaviour is at its worst when other editors respond in kind to his actions sending page into a spiralling edit war; but even then it takes two to Tango. Many of the sentiments aired here (not by the blocking admins btw) seem to be those of Rex old enemies, kicking while down (also the reason why I defend him here, to prevent an unchallenged view of his enemies going on record). Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody persuade User:Digwuren to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

I was trying to explain to User:Digwuren that it is uncivil to revert good faith edits of established user's with the edit summaries like that or that or to remove sourced info like that with the only explanation: "removing someditor's propaganda". I guess I failed. Since I have a few editorial conflicts with the user he might assume bad faith from my part.

It also seem to be a recurring problem. Recently he was blocked for a week for incivility then unblocked with the summary having consulted blocking admin, this user is unblocked to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY. reblock if user abuses this trust. I do not see much of a participation in the RfC mentioned, but see other admins complaining about false vandal accusations as well as him been just under the 3RR limit on a number of articles. Can some neutral admin do something about him? Alex Bakharev 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I request that any admin evaluating this, would take a deep hard look into matters before deciding. Alex is rather biased in this matter...--Alexia Death 06:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex is not truthful either, claiming Digwuren was blocked for one week for "incivility", he has never been blocked for incivility as the block log indicates:[71]. Martintg 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for "tendentious editing and edit warring" which for all intents and purposes is the same thing in the context. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The task is hopeless. Only the community block will solve the problem. Especially as there are scores of meatpuppets ("Tartu University accounts") who support Digwuren's tendentious activities and effectively encourage his disruptive behaviour in the project. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I second an opinion about hopelessness of the task but, being relatively newbie to wikipedia, am not sure what community block means. From technical viewpoint, I (very weakly)support an idea that any edit from Tartu Uni IP address (or even from any user who ever used Tartu Uni's IP) must be scrutinized closely, as this group has well proven track of disruptive behaviour. But I don't put much faith in the technical measures here. Group's insistence on presenting any Estonia-related viewpoint only through eyes of Estonian commentators (as in [72] and [73] and [74]) speaks for it's organic inability to grasp the very concept of difference in opinions. And I believe that student (or former student) of Tartu University can google "proxy server"RJ CG 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Alex's request, this user is constantly disrupting a whole segment of WP. I suggest some uninvolved admins look into this matter closer. Besides, Deskana unblocked him only "to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY." and adding that one should "reblock if user abuses this trust" (see unblock summary). I believe it is the case here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That condition of the block expired along with the initial block that was for two weeks, leaving one week under this condition. Digwuren may be a bit strong at times but so are the opponents. The admin ruling on this better be neutral...--Alexia Death 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Opponents?" Gee whiz, but I thought we were all fellow editors. If you come here to fight your opponents, then you're coming here for the wrong reason. Uninvolved admins have investigated, and they blocked. This is a repeat of previous bad behavior. Geogre 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, three uninvolved administrators have blocked this account in the past, and all three did so for the same issues: such zeal to a particularly contentious and controversial point of view that it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Given the number of people blocking, this may be best handled at Community Blocks than AN/I. It would be good, though, to hear from Deskana and FassalF. Geogre 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must note that Alex's report is a bit exaggerated. I don't see clear signs of incivility but instead i do see that those edits summaries as signs of non-stop disruptive editing. It seems that Digwuren hasn't learned anything from previous blocks.

I must also note that during his block period back on July, my connected laptop faced intrusion attempts from Tallinn (i'm keeping more details to myself). If any admin (preferably an uninvolved admin) would like to see this evidence s/he'd just drop me an email. Note also that i haven't even intended to talk about this incident as i considered it part of "Digwuren being mad about being blocked" but now i see that Digwuren is still using questionable tactics to deal w/ situations here.

Alexia! Opponents? No, please have a look at WP:BATTLE. Digwuren, you stop that behavior of calling others vandals immediately or you'll find yourself on the bench again. I am afraid this time it would be hard to swallow. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of some estonian trying to hack you for the block are very strong and shouldn't be thrown around so easily. Suva 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

IF your'e having a dispute with someone, that someone is your OPPONENT. Whats wrong with that? In every debate there are opponents. I don't understand what it has to do with WP:BATTLE.--Alexia Death the Grey 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to tell you about the exact location of the intruder? No, i am sorry. I told you above that any admin is free to pursue this and verify it. I've got all the supported material. I've also told you that i had no intention to talk about this. So what do you mean by so easily? Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I want to know the exact location of intruder. AFAIK most other editors except me are located in Tartu, and I don't remember trying to intrude anyones laptop at that period of time. Also, this kind of accusation would leave pretty bad mark on someones reputation. And I don't want my and other honest editors reputation to be touched for something we haven't done. Suva 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. And, as for what Ghirla so endearingly calls us "Tartu University accounts" (always failing to give any proof whatsoever... but that is his tactic to make others look bad, I guess), I think I am the only user out of those who has a Tallinn IP occasionally.

As for Digwuren, considering what he has been forced to go though by these single-purpose POV-pushers... you really cannot condemn him. Sure, his edit summaries could be much more civil - that has been told to him repeatedly. I recommend an admin to make a clear warning about those - and then follow his edit summaries for a month, blocking or warning him as needed. Other then that, I see no difference in comparison with RJ CG behavior - except that Digwuren is not blindly pushing his personal POV, but attempts to show facts/arguments from both sides. Sander Säde 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. I've told you above that i've got all the supported material. I am telling you again that these are secondary things to me. What i believe is that repetitive and disruptive editing means a block. Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yawwn... Should I respond with accusation of POV-pushing too? Probably I should, at least in order to prevent any future occurence of banning on the grounds so unique and laughable some completely unrelated wikipedian ridiculed them on my talk page [75]? But this is so booring, to go through the same song in the millionth time. Instead I'll try once more to summarize my view on a possible resolution of this mess. Let's agree that we all have our POVs and we're not in a totalitarian country, where having a POV is a crime. Let's also agree that my POV may be different from yours, which is OK. I also understand that such topic as Estonia's role in WWII (fight for independence, unlike in let's say, Poland, was so interwoven with collaboration that same event can be viewed as either freedom fighting or quislingism, so to speak) is controversial by it's nature. Therefore I propose to let both POVs co-exist in an article. For example, Estonians want to commemorate Erna? Fine. But let's add the Russian position here without pro-Estonian edits. If the Russian arguments are laughable and controversy artificial, it will be evident. If they have merits, they will be assessed as such. But it is up to reader to decide. Wikipedia is neither Russian nor Estonian propaganda tool. I believe this approach (imperfectly) works for articles dealing with a Middle Eastern conflict, why shouldn't it here.RJ CG 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the recent appearance of Ptrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an SPA solely devoted to support Digwuren in edit wars. --Irpen 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Do I understand correctly that I have somehow stepped over a certain invisible border, questioning some topics or edits from people, which or who are obviously not to be questioned? My apologies for my appearance (like I see, that is considered really bad) and having opinions that are considered not acceptable. Thank you. Ptrt 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to your edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptrt]. 1st hit [76] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 2nd hit [77] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 3rd and 4th [78] hits - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 5th and 6th hits [79] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. All edits are reverts of my edits. Then one unrelated edit, bunch of reverts to protect Digwuren in an edit disputes and flurry of activity here. Grand total of not acting as stalker of yours truly and Digwuren's supporter - one. Don't you see a trend yourself? RJ CG 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Before continuing here, I'd still would like at least one of the accusers be bold enough and state clearly, what have I done wrong? Disagreeing with their views (what coincidentally did look like supporting their arch-enemy, the dreaded Digwuren)? I was thinking that Wikipedia was more about content then social network, so I have not thought very much about supporting (or confronting) of other users, it's more about their edits and content they create.
Irpen, I presume that you would like to include also me in your RfAr (as my name appears there) - but then I have to politely ask you to change the name of your case to reflect more that it's really about. This could be disappointment for you, but I'm not from Tartu, I'm never studied at Tartu University, I have never belonged to any Korp! and (last but not least) have never met nor communicated otherwise with users who seem to share these constant accusations (what is interesting: always from one certain group of users, with strikingly similar thinking and world view), almost always for "not writing like we'd like it" (sorry, but that's the only common enough reason I could find). Ptrt 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And the immediate appearance of this "new" account here should be noted too. --Irpen 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. My mistake that before starting active participation, I took some time to discover where different topics are discussed. And I'm really sorry about having found this handy watchlist thing, I now see that using something like that is also considered bad. I'll try to avoid anything like this in future. Ptrt 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Case submitted to ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Digwuren and Tartu based accounts. --Irpen 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kappa (talk · contribs) AFD/DRV disruption

Kappa (talk · contribs) seems to have a history of incivility and edit warring, based on his user talk page and contribution history. Last week, he was given a final warning for incivil remarks, harassment, and personal attacks, although he wasn't blocked. However, lately he has been disrupting several "List of X" AFDs in response to my nominating List of Rajputs for AFD - while constantly baiting myself and others on that AFD, he proceeded to PROD List of Latvians, disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs (see these particularly incivil remarks). Not to mention he's been going around to lists and posting messages saying that they'll be "next" (he has repeatedly been accusing people in these AFDs of having an agenda).

This all comes on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, which I deleted and he recreated three times, though the article was later restored after a DRV he thoroughly disrupted by attacking users endorsing the G4 speedy deletions of his recreations: [80], [81], [82], [83]. I would say Kappa deserves to be blocked for some length of time, possibly for as long as a week or two. This behavior cannot continue, and he's had a chance. --Coredesat 08:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not actually blocked yet. I'd like to know if I can go let the editors of List of Greeks etc know that List of Poles is up for deletion, or if that would be disruption of the process. Kappa 09:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the behaviour at DRV merits a block. Kappa doesn't really have a "history of incivility of edit warring", but he is one of the most principled supporters of inclusionism, which is probably not a very fun position to have in the current AFD climate. Kappa, whenever you feel frustration about the victory of the deletionists, please try not to vent that frustration by trolling or by violations of WP:POINT. Accusing other editors of having an agenda is not likely going to help your cause. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kappa, you know better. Take a break if you need it, but you do need to dial down the hostility and incivility you've been showing around AFD recently. Dragons flight 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please! "Deletionist" and "inclusionist?" Sheesh. I do not agree with Kappa. I have pretty much never agreed with Kappa. There is no "history of incivility" stuff, though. There is/are national issues at war surrounding the Polish editors, and who is at fault or how it can be settled is not an appropriate topic here. No, no blocking of Kappa. Geogre 13:25, 14 August 200:7 (UTC)

"You bastards" is civil? Wow, news to me. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if they killed Kenny. >Radiant< 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that calling something "shitty" or "POV deletionist bullshit", saying that "civility is more than you deserve", and accusing editors of "lacking the ability to grasp the problem" qualifies as incivility. --Coredesat 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Given my rounds of AfD and DRV, I do entreat Kappa to be more civil in discussion. Incivility and ad hominem arguments (I have seen quite a few of them) only serve to weaken your case. —Kurykh 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be hard pressed to find an instance where I've ever agreed with anything Kappa (talk · contribs) has stated at XFD discussions (at least in regards to arguments about keeping or deleting articles. That said, I have not frequented XFDs in a while, but when I did I don't recall Kappa (talk · contribs) being enormously incivil; less stringent about what we should actually be covering here perhaps, but not incivil. Of course some of the quotes above exhibits less than ideal discourse, but I'd agree with Geogre; no block needed at this time though I'd caution Kappa (talk · contribs) to try and reign it in a bit even when he gets heated over an XFD debate.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Having only recently become acquainted with Kappa, I'm afraid I'd have to agree with those who believe him to be rather incivil as of late. However, I feel it prudent to mention that he's also been somewhat Jekyll-Hyde. For example:

• Kappa was quite civil for the most part during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian women (2nd nomination).

• However, as pointed out, Kappa did a complete 180 and started attacking editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs.

• Kappa then became civil during his contributions to our list guidelines debate (even if his response to the invitation was decidedly less than civil), but then turned right around and nominated a list for deletion based on grounds he had decried during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs - possibly to make a WP:POINT.

I wonder - are we dealing with more than one person using Kappa's name? Is there maybe a deeper problem? I'll be honest, I can't figure the guy out. Sidatio 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I rather had the impression that Kappa was just very disenchanted with wikipedia at the moment and this behaviour is probably a function of that. What concerns me most is that Kappa is being very intolerant of inexperienced editors and this has to stop. To an extent established editors have to accept thet xFD discussions can get very heated but new users stumbling into discussions must always be treated with respect and calm explanations rather then profanity and anger otherwise they can get driven away. Kappa needs to stop this side of their contributions immediately otherwise they probably cannot continue to contribute. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC). This is what I'm on about. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That warning's actually why I came here in the first place. It's clear that Kappa has no intent to stop his behavior, although he does act civil from time to time. --Coredesat 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

indefinite block; User:Anonimu's harrasment, edit wars again, sockpuppetry

• Trolling removed. --Irpen 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user had been screwing around with Anonimu's user page and talk page and then made that comment signing with an IP address that isn't correct. I gave him/her a 24 hour block. IrishGuy ^talk 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this settles it. --Irpen 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spot of trouble with User:Tmayes1999

Tim ( Tmayes1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ) has escalated a problem with his formatting and choice of comment locations to vandalism of my userpage. Diff: [84]

See also the edit histories of User talk:Tmayes1999 and Talk:Fat Man for other disruption.

I just had to sit on my hand and not block him on discovering his vandalism of my userpage, as I am anything but uninvolved and impartial at the moment, but I would like some uninvolved admin reviews. Georgewilliamherbert 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did have a look, and noted your comments regarding cross posting, non signing, etc, in regard to his experience. Do you contend his edits are wilfully disruptive, or that he is unwilling/unable to properly use WP rules/guidelines? I would also ask if you feel his article edits (I am no expert) have any validity - inappropriate placing notwithstanding - or are as poorly conceived as his communications? I am trying to find out if this is a well meaning if misguided contributor or a plain or garden vandal.

Fellow admins (or other party), please feel free to act upon any reply - I am going to bed in a few minutes. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User Page move.

Resolved

My user page (user:nate1481) has been moved to Mov4 tried to fix it and messed up could I have some help please, --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. violet/riga (t) 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing questions being blanked at Crockspot's RfA

Resolved

Would someone please have a look at this?[85][86] If that isn't RfA misconduct I don't know what is. ←Ben^B4 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the disturbing questions, or of the blanking of them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he was complaining about the blanking. But they came back and were rephrased in a less personal-attacky way, and seem to be sticking now without being deleted again. Georgewilliamherbert 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears the blanking is the problem, rather than the questions, given BenB4's comments on the RfA. Nick 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He's replied to the questions. ←Ben^B4 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Can somebody please take care of this? It's been sitting untouched for an hour. (I'm also wondering why Image:I15storm3.jpg or another photo wasn't added, but there might be a reason for that.) --NE2 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Leo III

User:Leo III has been posting copyrighted material into several articles (see [87] as an example, taken from [88]. They claim that they are the copyright holder, but it seems doubtfull. Can someone investigate, as I'm not really sure else I can do other than continuing to revert the changes. Markh 11:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate "user name change"

Phbasketball6 (talk · contribs) moved his user page and user talk page to User:Phfootball6 on October 31, 2006 citing that he wished to change the sport in his user name. His proper user page (the basketball one) has existed as a redirect to the football page since that day. His talk page was a redirect up until the 2nd of February when a bot notified him of an image proper and removed the redirect in the process. So right now he has two active user talk pages and one redirect to the other user name. This, however, is inappropriate as it was a self-fulfilled username change and it was never done through the bureaucrat system.

I left the user a note about this several days ago but he seems to have ignored it based on his numerous edits since then. How should this be handled now? I gave him suggestions on what to do but it doesn't appear like it got through to him. Metros 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why he can't register a new account and start using that one, as long as he's honest about it. >Radiant< 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the thing...he hasn't. There is no Phfootball6 (talk · contribs). There's just a guy who has parked his user page and user talk page there. Metros 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to leave him a note and recommend that he register an account. No issues with this so long as he is honest. I don't really think there is anything an administrator can do here. Best regards, Navou ^banter 13:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Metros is correct, though, that he can't leave things as he has done. We can, should, and must delete his parked page, if he doesn't establish a new account with the proper name, and Metros is right to warn/exhort him. Perhaps in two to three days, if he hasn't made the move legitimate, place a CSD tag on the moved user page. It shouldn't come down to that, of course, but it is what would happen if he doesn't get the new account. Geogre 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at here, I guess I didn't state it well enough. In theory, I could have deleted it right away under WP:CSD#U2 as a non-existent user but the fact that he's an established user and that there was substantive conversations on his new user talk page made me go through this process of trying to talk to him then bringing it here after no response. Metros 13:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good... I left a note. Navou ^banter 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose that a Rouge Bureaucrat would perform a username change treating this behavior as a de facto request....? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a possibility except the user might not realized that his username has been changed and will get frustrated when he can't log in under his normal user name. Metros 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to be renamed, he should at least register the new name (or someone could register it and send him the password). As it is now, someone could sign up for that name and he would have no recourse ... which is probably not what he wants. --B 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the userpage back to the proper place, and I will be move protecting the page and user talk, and deleting the parked page as there's no user by that name (as well as merging talk page history).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User

Resolved

TimDuncanSupportsTRNC (talk · contribs) is a obvious sock of a banned editor: [89] --Vonones 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User Megaman89

Resolved

I need some administrator intervention with Megaman89. He has mysteriously shown up in the last week or so and started repeating contentious edits from previous banned user(s). For example he made this edit on George Pendle which is the same as this edit by banned user User talk:FoolsRushIn, and this one on Charles Manson which is the same as this one by FoolsRushIn. He is uncivil as you can see on his talk page and for some reason likes to make personal attacks as seen here. Thank you for your time. --Chuck Sirloin 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User violated the 3RR rule, was reported and is now crying. Bah. Megaman89 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Megaman89 is now blocked for 48 hours for his incivility. If he continues, he's going to get longer and longer blocks it appears. Metros 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note this nonsense [90] here too, which of course, gets emails the foundation from the subject. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I reverted that trolling as soon as I saw it. I've now indef'd Megaman89 per this cute edit as a sock of FoolsRushIn (talk · contribs).--Isotope23 ^talk 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed this is User:ColScott as well. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated

Not exactly an incident, but this page has not been used for a while and seems to just be sitting there for no reason. Is anything going to be done with it? Davnel03 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – User retracted legal threat, duly unblocked. Silly flap over - and I will continue to do exactly this for legal threats in future. Moreschi ^Talk 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Vinay Jha has apparently had enough of the content dispute at Talk:Rigveda and is now threatening User:Dbachmann with a libel suit:[91] Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If Vinjay Jha doesn't apologise, a indef block is needed. Davnel03 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef until he retracts that. Moreschi ^Talk 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

wow, that was quick. Actually, I would have thought it appropriate to inform him of WP:LEGAL first. This is a very confused editor. His behaviour has been deteriorating the more he found that rambling and random complaints didn't get him his way, and the legal threat is just the latest iteration of that process. This user would need a patient mentor, otherwise we're just looking at a protracted and frustrating waste of time for him and others with a zero result. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He should know better than not to legally threaten others. Davnel03 15:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

that was a great sentence, Davnel03. Are you a lawyer by any chance? (don't sue me :op) dab (𒁳) 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not actually. I don't even have a job, I still go to secondary school (as says my template on my userpage!). But it's true - he should know better than try to legally threaten others. Davnel03 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Without any comment on the issue of his conflict with dab, I must say that this block by Moreschi is hasty and uncalled for. The user is new and obviously doesnt know about WP:LEGAL. All that it would have taken was to have perhaps reverted his comments and let him know politely not to do it again. While we require that users warned first even for WP:3RR, its galling that admins can throw their weight around for WP:LEGAL without even letting the editor know! Also a legal threat isnt exactly a threat of physical harm or something... it is at best, stupid. I request that the block be undone, Moreschi apologise for biting and that Vinay be asked to apologize to dab and retract the legal threat. What purpose is this gratuitous block supposed to serve, other than leave a newbie trying to find his feet here more confused and more angry. (I am sure, he's at the moment he's wondering how the hell he can apologise when he's blocked! I am not sure that he even knows that he can edit his own page when he's blocked). Since when did blocks get punitive, anyway? Sarvagnya 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was leaving the user a warning, in hopes that he would retract the threat before getting blocked, but my warning edit conflicted with the block notice. I doubt serious would have come from warning the editor and giving him a short time to retract the threat, but there's also not much harm in blocking him until the threat is retracted. I think swift blocks are customary for legal threats. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be customary in case of editors who've been here a while or who you would reasonably be sure are aware of the policy. Unlike other policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc., WP:LEGAL isnt exactly an 'intuitive' or 'commonsense' policy and I dont think there's any way a newbie can know without being pointed to it. this is also not something that comes up on talk pages all too often and it is bad faith to assume that a newbie should be aware of this policy. I request that the block be undone immediately and also that the blocking admin apologise to him. Not just the block, but even the message that he/she has left on Vinay's page reeks of arrogance. Sarvagnya 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, the reason why I suggested indef block is because I threatened Yamla legally, which got me indef blocked. I apologised several months later, and my block was lifted. I think that this user should apologise for his actions because behaviour like that should not, no matter what, be tolerated here on Wikipedia. Why should us editors have to put up with things like that? If he apologises, block lifted, if he refuses to apologise, he should stay indef blocked. Davnel03 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And so of course another wikinoob must be tortured the same way. Moreschi's judgment is clouded, as has been suggested before by other admins. I do not believe his actions were correct, and am beginning to see that his understanding of WP:BLOCK is especially poor.Bakaman 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All he has to do is retract the legal threat, and he will be unblocked with no further penalties - and we can forget about all this. Simple as that. It is common practice to block indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding. Really, all he has to do is apologise (and yes, he should know better, it is common sense not to threaten your fellow editors with lawsuits). Moreschi ^Talk 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If all he has to do is apologise and retract, then all you had to do was point him to the policy and tell him to apologise and retract. You dont block someone simply because you can block. That would be the bullying you accuse the newbie of. Sarvagnya 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. We don't tolerate legal threats, ever, from anyone. That's probably the worst form of user conduct there is on-wiki. Note: we're currently discussing this via email, and I believe the "you are blocked" templates make it quite clear you can edit your own talk page, but I think he wants to resolve this privately. Hopefully this can be sorted amicably. Moreschi ^Talk 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We dont tolerate legal threats. We dont tolerate vandalism either. Or personal attacks. Or incivility. Or 3RR. or a host of other things. But even rank vandals get warnings before being blocked for the offence. Vios of 3RR, NPA, CIVIL all invite warnings first and then blocks. What makes you think WP:LEGAL ought to be different? Read up WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK first. Sarvagnya 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In no other case will the block be instantly undone if the user retracts. Legal threats are different. Moreschi ^Talk 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. I've seen 3RR blocks being undone after editors promised to stay away from the article for a day or two. In any case, which part of you didnt need to block are you having difficulty understanding? What makes you think he wouldnt have apologised and retracted if you had simply asked him to do so (instead of blocking)? You owe the well intentioned newbie editor an apology. Sarvagnya 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well-intentioned? I think I'll reserve my own judgment on that. Amongst other things, this user recently compared Dbachmann to Hitler (or, certainly, that's how it came across). When users make unambiguous legal threats (if you revert me, I'll sue you), they are blocked indefinitely. It's as simple as that: we cannot permit free editing of Wikipedia to be impaired. Moreover, "if you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." That's not hard to understand. If he retracts (which, if you give us a few matters to discuss this via email, I'm quite sure he will) I will happily unblock, and make it quite clear this is an editor in good standing with no stain on his character. Moreschi ^Talk 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking in this case seems like a fairly sensible option, in all fairness. The user can be prevented from making further legal threats whilst the whole policy about making legal threats is explained to the user. Nick 18:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. No Legal Threats, is a 100% clear policy. It is to protect users from receiving or being placed into fear from these threats, and to block the editor, at a minimum, until that threat is resolved. If the user makes the threat, they have already violated the principle behind the rule, as well as the rule itself. It's that simple. I support Moreschi's block, and I would have done the same.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is absolutely nothing wrong about Moreschi's block. However, Dbachmann doesn't seem to want this user blocked. His judgement should be weighed duly because he is here to build an encyclopedia more than anybody else discussing here. Those poodles of Mimsy clucking here, they are best left unanswered. Vikatovski 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think legal threats are highly disruptive, and blocking users for making them is justifiable. However since the user was probably unaware of WP:LEGAL, I think giving him a second chance may be appropriate. Therefore I have posted a block review request on the users page. If he is unblocked, I hope that he realizes that such behavior is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Abecedare 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary, he's just retracted the threat to me via email. Will now unblock. Thank you all for remaining ever so calm. Moreschi ^Talk 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Baoli notes

I am still not sure if this belongs here, but the page Baoli notes appears to be sheer nonsense with an image that is a potential copyright violation; however, any tags placed on the page are immediately removed by User:Baolim (see his talk page). I have tried replacing the tags but I fear I may have violated 3RR. Eran of Arcadia 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the Baoli notes. Lets wait a few day to clear the copyright status of the image Alex Bakharev 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Sicily

After I made some good faith restoration of deleted info on the page, I removed a section that violated copyright from http://www.bestofsicily.com/food.htm [92] and http://www.bestofsicily.com/wine.htm [93]. After which, Scipio3000 reverted, in spite of this promise he made during a previous incident [94]. He also left this response on my talk page [95]. Edward321 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and the response on his ttalk page was asking him to discuss our problems like others have told me to do, because this is the 3rd time I have had a problem with him..thats all I did I asked him to work on this together and come to a resolution he refuses to do so and instead goes out of his way to undo all my work or find the tiniest fault with what I am doing and reports me, he is constantly harrassing me! Please help me!(Scipio3000 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

NOT true, me and 2 others of Sicilian descent approved these changes we have been working on this all night and I did not get to that citation yet! I added over 10 pics and 5 new sections on the Sicily page yesterday alone. I needed a break and fell asleep before I got to do it last night, I was going to do it today, but he has vandalised the page so bad, sections are gone and others are merged, IT IS A MESS..After all this work! And he never consulted any of us. Please check the cuisine section and you will see the damage he has done! Edward321 has relentlessy attacked me constantly he thwarts everything I am trying to do..I reported him on Sunday for erasing only the sentence I worked on in the "Italian People" page, he deleted my exact line and only my line. He has no knowledge on Sicilain history nor is he sicilian, he never made any contributions to the Italian or Sicilian page before this and now the only thing he deletes is what I am doing! The page is now so messed up after what he did that the whole sport section is gone and two of the sub-sections on the cuisine are gone along with the mafia heading which now merges with my cuisine section...I spent HOURS doing this last night and had approval from 2 other Sicilians working on this. I have tried on 3 occasions to contact Edward321 and resolve our difference he refuses! I got blocked for doing at lot less than that please check the page it is now a mess!!(Scipio3000 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Do not copy text from other websites unless these other websites clearly say their text was in the public domain, or licensed under the GFDL. You are violating the copyright of www.bestofsicily.com. Adding the site as a source doesn't help much; you're copying way too much to claim "fair use" as a short quotation, and the context doesn't call for such quoting anyway. What you are doing is not acceptable at Wikipedia.

By all means, add a section on Sicilian cuisine, but use your own words. The adspeek you copied from that website isn't encyclopedic anyway. Lupo 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have attempted to explain the copyright issue to Scipio and I have explained that he must be more civil and not attack those who disagree with him. The edits can be changed to avoid copyvios but it could still be reverted if consensus agrees. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Scipio3000 for 72 hours for this diff] where he referred to an editor as a "White boy." I believe you will see in the context that this is an unacceptable racial swipe. I would encourage others to take a careful look at Scipio's user contributions and see all of the issues he has created. I have attempted to encourage better conduct but have obviously failed. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats on his talk page

He has now implied he's seeking legal action ([96], [97]), as ridiculous as that may sound. Someone please block indef until he retracts.--Atlan (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He does not wish to retract, by the way ([98]).--Atlan (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He only adds more and more legal nonsense on his talk page. Add to the that soapboxing about how he's blocked because of anti-Italian sentiments on Wikipedia warrants a talk page protect if you ask me, lest all these editors keep wasting their time there. It's getting out of hand.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 has also been editing my talk page as User:72.23.157.21. Mathsci 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction he put his remarks on my USER PAGE. No comment. Mathsci 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to protect the page until I saw this joyful comment. I've now fully protected the page for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully this is enough time for Scipio3000 to calm down. - auburnpilot talk

After speaking with Scipio3000 via email, I have removed the protection from his talk page. He has assured me he intends to retract any legal threats, but I am going to be away from the computer. If a retraction is made, feel free to reduce the current indef block to the original block by JodyB (talk · contribs) without contacting me. - auburnpilot talk 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit and the note AuburnPilot just left here, I have taken the liberty to reduce the block back to JodyB's 72 hour one.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Wikipedia League

Resolved

User:The_Professor_(of_Faith) is promoting the Anti-Wikipedia League which is kind of a POV pushing attack against the encyclopedia. Miranda 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked him indefinetly. No signs of good faith contributions Alex Bakharev 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Camilo Valdivieso and user Explorador 33

User talk:Explorador 33, whom I suspect to be the subject of the article Camilo Valdivieso, his own creation (and pratically single contribution), recorrently deletes the {{Autobiography}}, {{Notability}}, {{Refimprove}} and {{pov}} tags I placed in the article. He has done so in 3 acasions ([99], [100], [101]). I'm reverting once more, but I believe this needs attention from and administrator, since he will probably not rest. Thank you. The Ogre 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Warn him appropriately if he vandalises, conform with policy, particularly WP:VANDAL, and then, if he does not desist, report to WP:ANI -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I shall. Thank you. The Ogre 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot war!

Resolved

See User talk:Polbot. User:CorenSearchBot thinks User:Polbot is copying stuff from www.infoplease.com, when in fact what has happened is that both www.infoplease.com and Polbot, have copied stuff from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. What should be done here? Should User:CorenSearchBot be blocked and the tags it has put on those US Congress politician bios removed? Carcharoth 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Ignore that. According to User talk:Coren#Your bot 2, the bot has already been shut off. Carcharoth 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:R:128.40.76.3

Some (but by now means all) of the edits documented below is several months old, I mention them to illustrate the continuing nature of this user's problem behaviour.

• This editor continues to engage in disruptive sockpuppetry

For recent evidence that User:R:128.40.76.3 & User:A.J.1.5.2/User:Curious Gregor and User:Tim.Boyle/User:Mad kemist are the same editor, see the histories of the Bennelong, Bennelong Society and Bennelong Medal (currently a redirect) pages. Clearly User:R:128.40.76.3 & A.J.1.5.2 are not independent editors, while these all claim to be different individuals editing from the same machine, with similar interests note however that in the first few days following the creation of the Peter L. Hurd article that their edits are clustered within minutes. See the old Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor for evidence supporting the conclusion that Curious Gregor (now known as A.J.1.5.2), Mad kemist & ip 128.40.76.3 are the same editor (note that here ip 128.40.76.3 edits the SSP case about, about 6 months after it was closed, changing the spelling on links so that they no longer points to the AfD that sparked the case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle). This editor's sockpuppetry and protestations of innocence are disruptive, see e.g. Aug 7, Aug 9th, yesterday, & today.

• This editor impersonates academics while editing on wikipedia:

here ip 89.104.35.216 claims to be User:R:128.40.76.3, and admits to using the sock account User:Iconoclast4ever. He also states that the account Tim.Boyle is a sockpuppet of Mad kemist and an impersonation of their PhD supervisor, chemistry prof Tim Boyle (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle for more drama). In this diff [102] on the page User:Curious Gregor (which was deleted 12:14, 15 June 2007 by Phaedriel) Curious Gregor (now A.J.1.5.2) signs a self-awarded barnstar as "Greg Fu" which seems a clear attempt to impersonate MIT Chemistry Professor Greg Fu. This editor has impersonated two academics on WP, which can only discredit the project in the outside community.

• This editor creates biographies of academics in furtherance of suspect purposes

This editor created an academic biography (the deleted Timothy Boyle) which apparently made spurious claims (such as a previous career as a professional soccer player). They have also created a biography of me (now at Peter L. Hurd) presumably as a target for harassment and vandalism (e.g. [103]). This editor claims that the creation of this article is a good faith creation of a notable scientist's biography, it's hard to believe this given that he once filed a bogus SSP case against me (the now deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd, for which he was blocked [104]). It's just plain harassment.

User:Phaedriel (who is attempting wikibreak) has been dealing with this mess, it seems unkind to drag her back to WP for this nonsense. The editor does have some constructive ability in him but has, and is, sapping a considerable amount of effort from other consistently productive participants. I'll file a user conduct RfC if that's the most productive way of dealing with this clown, but I invite an admin to take some more efficient action. Pete.Hurd 17:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

just a note that regardless of the motivation in creating the bio, it survived an AfD and is not currently abusive.DGG (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous Legal Issue With Current Vandalizer

It has been brought to my attention that someone with whom I have previously won a slander/libel lawsuit from 2003 is now causing trouble on a page here. I would like to privately discuss this matter with an administrator. Can someone tell me what are the next steps?

Thank you.

GothicChessInventor 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NLT. Anything you do w/ the law needs to take place off site. If you solicit any action with that as the basis here, you will be blocked with no further warning. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to email me the details, I am willing to take a look and tell you what options (if any) you may have here. As Chairboy notes, though everyone has the right to pursue legal action, we have a strict policy against using Wikipedia to threaten legal action. Please keep that in mind. Dragons flight 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have anything to do with this would it?--Isotope23 ^talk 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a legal concern that needs to be brought up with Wikimedia, you can send it to info-en@wikimedia.org but as Dragons_flight and chairboy noted earlier, it needs to stay off Wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

noticing strong personal attacks

I came to this talk page User_talk:Mirrori1#Salaam_baradar and noticed some strong personal attacks against unknown users. It seems that the attention of an administrator is necessary. --Pejman47 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left this warning on the user's talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbie user with literally hundreds of copyvio article creations

User:NoGringo, a newish user, has clearly spent a lot of time creating several hundred articles on Telephone numbering systems, creating categories, templates, and all. However, every single last one of them that I have read through is a copyvio of http://findphonenumber.info/different_dialing_plan.htm, not to mention probably a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:NOT#INFO. Somebody please handle this whole thing, as going through and tagging all of them as db-copyvio would be a waste, rather than just having someone click the delete button.The Evil Spartan 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the end of webpage you link to, it states "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but instead that site is reusing Wikipedia content. -- JLaTondre 19:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the users contribution log. Drumpler 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but is it possible this person is simply trying to link-spam to boost his/her Page Rank? jddphd (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is page rank if you do not mind me asking --SevenOfDiamonds 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PageRank --Nethgirb 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is breaking Telephone numbering in Europe (which that website has copied) into individual articles. There is no copyvio & no link-spaming. Another site is using our content. There is no indication that he's associated with that site. -- JLaTondre 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the website posted above pretty clearly states the info is from Wikipedia, so that would indicate no copyvio.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

block evasion?

Moving this from AIV where I mistakenly put it:

Akbak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be same editor as the indef blocked 12va34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also appears to have been editing under several dynamic IPs, making identical quirky, invalid edits in evasion of the block.

For example, compare this to this and also this to this including typo.

The IPs I believe are being used by this same editor to make similar edits include:

71.156.34.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

71.156.39.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.1.243.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.1.251.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.2.218.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.2.220.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and probably others, fwiw. Tvoz |talk 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO edit warring

Resolved

 – editor blocked for revert-warring on multiple articles - Alison ☺ 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO edit warring/vandalizing (removing valid content) once again in the Scientology articles.

Or being about to. 2RR/3RR so far and counting.

Scientology and the legal system

David Miscavige

Scientology

The usual, he got blocked a couple of times w/o any change in behavior. Misou 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: There we go. 3RR. Anybody around here? Misou 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look and they look to be just inside 3RR. Can you provide some diffs, please or maybe file a report on WP:AN3? - Alison ☺ 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - blocked now for revert-warring on multiple articles. That guy is out of control and is completely uncommunicative - Alison ☺ 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with editor before. He's not willing to discuss any changes he makes and makes then to point towards a particular point of view which was already addressed somewhere in the article before. Uncommunicative is the word of the day. — Moe ε 00:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Misou 01:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Socks at Rfa

A number of only marginally active editors have resurfaced at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot and they all seem to have the same style. I'll list them.

• MonsterShouter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...first edit in 5 days...no edits since.
• BernardL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...first edit in two weeks...no edits since.
• Dureo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)....first edit since last Rfa participation, 11 days ago...no edits since.
• HiDrNick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)..first edit in two weeks...no edits since. If nothing else, it's pretty obvious these votes must have been spammed via email.--MONGO 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems some canvasy spam is quite different matter than sock stacking an Rfa. Is there more to it than gaps in editing, and some similar viewpoints? Or do you have other suspicions of stocking wearing by those folks? There is a lot of unpleasant behavior as part of that discussion, it's a shame to elevate the fairly polite incivility if it's not needed. --Rocksanddirt 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't request checkuser until the Rfa as ended.--MONGO 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above users are socks, but a checkuser might be performed on newly-created SPA User:MrGibblets, as his only non-userspace edits are to the RFA in question. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for MrGibblets (talk · contribs), I'm inclined to block and strike his/her comment as a thinly-veiled personal attack by an obviously disruptive sock. Thoughts? — Scientizzle 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice...WP:AGF WP:NPA such high, lofty ideas, but here on the factory floor, the sausage is made in a different way. I would suggest you keep with the subject and not launch personal attacks as to my qualification's to make a comment on this. I accuse you of disruptive behavior per WP:BITE MrGibblets 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A new user well versed in our policies? Marvelous. --Deskana (banana) 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with reading...unless it's SOP not to read the HELP link Such statement implies "assume bad faith". Lovely.MrGibblets 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[ec]A user that can properly link a picture on his/her 1st edit[105], edits an RfA on the 3rd edit and posts at ANI by the 5th edit (with a link to WP:BITE)...? I thought that referring to Crockspot as "Crackspot" was a personal attack. I now see that you're just not good at spelling. Fine. I won't block or strike your RfA comment. But I am curious about a possible checkuser. — Scientizzle 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Threaten,intimidate and insult. Nice to treat a newbie so well... I'm impressed.MrGibblets 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Though its never good to jump the gun, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a new user who read a policy or two before creating an account or feels like voting in a RFA. Its just a bit strange that you found this page so instantly and very easily? This isn't the page that a typical new user would want to swing around the first, second, or third day...how exactly did you decide to go to this page?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• As other people have said, this is being discussed on the mailing list, which could draw in some inactive editors. -Amarkov moo! 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

MonsterShouter has made over 50 meaningful edits scattered over the 3 months previous to this RdA, BernardL over 1500 edits, several hundred at different times in 2007, Dureo has commented on many RfAs in the last month, HiDrNick has 600 edits since April 2007 including other RfAs. They all look genuine to me. DGG (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And the opposes, other than being the solitary recent edit for each are all different in style & content, IMO. — Scientizzle 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am wrong then...nothing suspicious here...nope, nada. All the more reason, as I have openly stated previously, that IRC and the mailing list are for those whose main effort is something other than writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that as if it's a terrible thing. My main effort is something other than writing an encyclopedia, and I'll freely admit it. I could do a lot more for the encyclopedia if I didn't care about editing being an enjoyable pasttime, but I do care about that. Frankly, very few people have devotion enough to making an encyclopedia that it's their top priority, so we really have to take what we can get.-Amarkov moo! 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My, what an astoundingly useful comment. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's pray the media didn't catch that. bibliomaniac15 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)