Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive307

Uncivil anonymous editor

Some time ago I removed an image from the article Turkic peoples. I have explained my rationale on the article's talk page. An anonymous editor keeps re-adding the image, but refuses to engage in a meaningful discussion. Instead she or he puts rude (and crude) texts on my talk page and in edit summaries:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=160912618
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=161842132 (see the edit summary)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_people&diff=prev&oldid=161934707 (see the edit summary)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=162140390]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=162335702]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=162776846] (see the edit summary)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=162777942]

The first is from 88.233.22.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the next four from 88.233.181.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and the last two from 85.101.255.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The edit patterns are so similar that I am convinced this is all the same person.  --Lambiam 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't read Turkish, the manner of edits, including use of non-english and the repeated use of Lambiam's name like it is, clearly directing edit summaries at him, then again directing even comments on Lambiam's talk page at him by name, the poor english grammar in multiple comments, and so on, incline me to concur. This isn't particularly a content dispute because there's no apparent discussion going on that multiple editors could weigh in on (because the IP uses Turkish and broken english to insult, not discuss). I'd support a rangeblock, as it looks like they're coming from the same range of IPs. (I could be wrong, my technical IP intarweb-fu is lousy, I just tighten the nuts on my intar-tubes to get less static, and turn the steamvalves for more bandwidth.) ThuranX 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Whois data, the range is 88.233.0.0/17, which is 32,000 IPs. If it continues, we can semi-protect the page. I've removed the image for the time being, citing Lambiam's talk page comment, with which I agree.--chaser - t 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edits are from the 85.101.128.0/17 range anyway.  --Lambiam 06:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All 3 IPs belong to Türk Telekom, and are routed through the router named gyt_t2_2-gyt_t1_1.ttnet.net.tr (seen from my house), so it's likely they are in the same city, but there doesn't seem to be a closer relationship between them. We can't rangeblock a major ISP. --Alvestrand 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so s a rangeblock isn't particularly viable. What other options do we have? Semi the Turkic Peoples page for a while, and Lambaim's user talk for a week? I don't like semi's on talks, as it stops legit IP's, but case-by-case, it might work for this situation? ThuranX 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can read Turkish. Translations as follows

Source	Text
[1]	“ lambiam denilen sik kafalı, senin gücün bozkurtu indirmeye yetmez, itaat et, amele Penis head known as lambiam, your power isn't enough to remove the "bozkurt" (greywolf - symbol of panturkism), obey, construction worker (a cultural slur) ”
[2]	“ git ananı parmakla lambiam go finger your mother lambiam ”
[3]	“ bu yazıya dokunanın bende anasına dokunayım I touch (can mean "to fuck" in slag) the mother of whoever touches this text ”
[4]	“ naparsın lan, netten tehdit kolay tabi, BOZKURTa sike sike itaat edeceksin senin gücün yetmez onu siteden kaldırmaya, sen terbiyeli ol. what are you doing "lan" (addition of this makes the statement rude - cant really translate), threatening over the web is of course easy, you will "sike sike" (slur) obey the "bozkurt" (greywolf - symbol of panturkism) as your power is not enough to remove it, behave yourself ”

Less than fascinating...

On the technical side a range block is a bad idea. you'd have to block an 85.101.xxx.xxx range. The IPs are dynamic so blocking a single one is rather pointless. All it takes is the reset of the modem.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:VartanM

...is assuming bad faith [5], falsely accusing me of insulting and baiting someone by my edit comment here [6]. Just want to indicate that User:RaffiKojian, who insulted me on my talk page [7], is also editor of Armeniapedia.org, a non-Wikipedia and non-neutral external Wiki, which I simply called unencyclopedic and POV in my edit comment. Atabek 12:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek has baited User:RaffiKojian here. Then when Raffi tried to defend himself he was reported to ArbCom. I am the third user in the last 24 hours to be reported by Atabek [8],[9], [10] . His assuming bad faith left and right and then reporting people when they're trying to defend themselfs. --VartanM 12:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is how [11] Raffi was "defending himself". Thanks. Atabek 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Two accounts assisting in promotion

Resolved

Brianlane‎ was recently caught mass spamming links to a website he has created. Upon further looking through his edits, he created an article on Chuck Wolber...which was then edited by Chuckwolber. That user, Chuckwolber, created the now deleted article Brian Lane (developer) and has been adding information about a Brian Lane Embedded Developer to the Brian Lane article as seen here. These two account appear to exist primarily to promote themselves and each other with a clear conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Users informed about WP:AUTO and WP:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:EdenHeroineGirl

This user just redirected her talk page into a talk page in the article space. I've talked to her before about this, so could someone else talk to her? She might listen to you guys. The Hybrid 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

message left. ThuranX 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Buh6173

Buh6173 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in quite uncivil behavior in the Talk:Konjiki no Gash Bell!! pages. This manga/anime, which is known in English as Zatch Bell!, has had some changes in the dub which he feels are so major that there should be separate pages for the Japanese and English version, despite an agreement having been reached some time ago (before I came - there are editor-only comments on the various Zatch Bell pages that bear me out) to use the English names. He disagrees vehemently, comparing the American version to stuff like Cardcaptors (which has skipped episodes and changed characterizations, something the dub has yet to do) and snidefully insulting those who defend current policy by accusing them of liking a "crappy show". Without reaching any prior consensus with anyone, he changed redirects based on the Japanese names to have their own articles which were virtually identical to their English counterparts. Most of the redirects were fixed, but it seems he's determined to have his own way. An admin might need to get involved here. JuJube 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Invisible Man

I don't run up against this sort of thing very often. Apologies if there was some protocol I missed. The following five users:

• Ralfferly (talk · contribs)
• Chazbutcher (talk · contribs)
• Invisiblemanband (talk · contribs)
• Forgottenrebel (talk · contribs)
• 74.56.141.2 (talk · contribs)

are or have been engaged in editing around the page Invisible Man (band). Chaz Butcher is the name of the guy in the band. The band is at AFD where the above accounts are getting a bit aggressive. They're also reverting me on the page Invisible Man, a really important piece of literature they're using for promotion purposes, in my opinion. I argued that the band should be deleted, but even if it's kept, I think it belongs on the disambiguation page. I'm not an admin, not familiar with how to deal with sockpuppets, and I'm an involved editor too. Could someone help me sort this out? Thanks. --JayHenry 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Chazbutcher (talk · contribs) has been blocked for persistent vandalism, but 74.56.141.2 (talk · contribs) continues to revert the same material on Invisible Man (band). Ralfferly (talk · contribs), Chazbutcher (talk · contribs), and 74.56.141.2 (talk · contribs) have all weighed in on the AfD on the band. -Jmh123 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm confused. How does Forgottenrebel fall into this? -WarthogDemon 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by that user on the Invisible Man (band) article or AfD. The only connection I can see is that User:Forgottenrebel's edits are almost all in late 2006 on the entry for the band Forgotten Rebels, which is Chaz Butcher's former band. -Jmh123 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We're now getting page blanking of the Invisible Man (band) page from various IP's--one from India, one from the Czech Republic. Could the article be semi-protected while we wait out the AfD? Thanks. -Jmh123 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew (talk · contribs)

Possibly running an automated script on his main account[12]. Carbon Monoxide 21:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User says this is not a bot, just a manually-assisted script. "AWB on wheels", he's calling it. That seems right to me, and it's harmless edits anyway. Moreschi ^Talk 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that particularily bad? He doesn't seem to be harming anything as such. HalfShadow 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's fine. As I said, harmless edits anyway even if it were a bot (which it isn't). Moreschi ^Talk 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of a user page for advertising

Maybe I'm being really, really, dense, but I can't actually find anything in policy on whether it's acceptable to use user pages for advertising. Maximus145 (talk · contribs) has (as well as some creating some really weird pages, now deleted) posted what appears to be blatant advertising as a user page. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that fall under soapboxing? HalfShadow 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed fall under WP:SOAP. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It also falls under WP:CSD#G11, one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The userpage has been speedied. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PAWNGAME

Would somebody please semi-protect PAWNGAME? It's getting hit hard by anons, I've been tyring to keep it attack-free, but it's impossible. I listed this at WP:RFPP, but it needs to be done now. Corvus cornix 22:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 24 hours; don't want to do it for longer if it's at AfD as it prevents people improving it — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it will ever be improved, but thanks. Corvus cornix 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't either (see my comments at the AfD) but what do I know - someone may find a Wired article or something about it — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Anti-anon predjudice the norm on Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A series of IP reverts today by Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) all had the edit summary "Anons don't get to decide our priority". The 'IP range' that Canadian Paul reverted is not a newbie... in fact they have been making very positive contributions to Wikipedia for quite a long time. Is this the sort of atmosphere that Wikipedia is trying to cultivate and promote? If the user were vandalising or trolling then, of course, standard edit rv's would be just fine. But the message that is being sent by Canadian Paul is the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"????? that foundation was thrown completely out the window today by Mr. Paul and his "Anons don't get to decide our priority" edit summaries. WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN all thrown out the window. Canadian Paul would do well to be reminded of that Wikipedia was built on the contributions of IP editors. 156.34.221.91 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment for context: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs)'s edits seem to have been in response to the edits by 74.105.128.49 (talk · contribs). Aecis^Brievenbus 23:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anons don't get to decide our priority" is antithetical to Wikipedia. We examine ideas based on their merits rather than on the contributor. Indeed, many registered users are just as anonymous as an IP since their accounts are not linked with a real-world identity. Rklawton 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Then again, usually, it is the members of a WikiProject who decide on an article's priority to that WikiProject, is it not? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe the "We" would be "the Wikiproject". --Haemo 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My only comment on this is that Anons don't get to decide our priority for the exact reason that registered users who aren't involved with the project don't get to decide our priority - they're not members of the project. Apparently, someone has decided to extrapolate my entire feelings about anonymous editors from a few edits. I never said "Anons don't get to edit Wikipedia" I said "they don't get to decide our priority" and that's as true for them as it is for any person, registered or not, who is not a member of our project. Feel free to check my edit history – with the exception of a fight that I had with User:Ryoung122, after which I apologized for my actions and settled the matter, I've never been uncivil on Wikipedia. Also, my contribution list shows that I've assessed hundreds of articles for WP:CANADA, so I have a solid basis behind my decisions on WP:CANADA's priorities. Cheers, CP 23:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "our" should've been replaced with WP:CANADA project to clarify to the editor he wasn't getting slammed. I am an anon(currently not at my Static IP location) But my static IP IS in fact a member of a Wiki-project... one I was invited by a Wiki-admin to join. The anon in question edits Canadian music articles frequently. His contributions should hold some merit... regardless of whether he has a make-believe name ot not. 156.34.221.91 23:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, and if so I apologize for not making myself more clear in my edit summaries. Note, however, that I never edited his priority ratings of Wikiproject:Canadian Music, just of those under Wikiproject:Canada. A certain band may be of mid, high or even top priority to Wikiproject:Canadian Music but, in the grand scheme of things, may not be as important to Wikipedia:Canada in general. Note here WP:CANADA's importance rankings. Unless they're the Canadian Beatles, it's very unlikely that any band is going to be ranked as "vital to Canada" as concepts like "Prime Minister of Canada," "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" and "Toronto." I understand your concerns, and hope that you will Assume Good Faith concerning my explanation. I'm a little disappointed that User:Rklawton, who is an admin, couldn't do that for me, but que sera sera. Also, as an incidental Canadian Paul is not a "make-believe name," but a nickname that I've had since before I was on Wikipedia. It's more likely to identify me than something arbitrary. Cheers, CP 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs only play "second fiddle" to registered editors when it comes to RfA participation, the ability to create articles, and the ability to upload images. Other than that, they are just as valuable as registered editors, and should be treated as such. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its a fair comment to says thats only true in theory. Ip's are generally much less trusted than registered editors, their comments are more likely to be ignored, any major edits are more likely to be reverted, and they are more likely to be given vandalism warnings for edits that a registered user is unlikely to be warned for. It may be against the spirit of wikipedia, but there's nothing we can do about it, so many of us do trust ip's less, myself included on occasion, its just one of those things.--Jac16888 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, just one of those facts of life things. Just look on it as "numerical profiling"! ---- WebHamster 00:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me, that in some strange way, its almost like racism, and its actually very bad that its accepted, and so common all over wikipedia, like just the other day there was a discussion on here where a editor with other 8000 edits was reverting an IP's comments because they thought it was against the rules for unregistered users to participate in !votes and discussions and afd's etc, plus there was also a comment in this discussion by another user, possibly an admin, i forget, saying that it doesn't matter because anon comments are usually discarded by closing admins. This is really quite unacceptable, i think i wil have a go at writing an essay/guideline about it tommorrow --Jac16888 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Like racism? Really, that's the comparison you're going with? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd say that it's more like ageism (I know I'm using the wrong term here, but hopefully it will be understood what I'm saying in a moment) – people who are younger generally have disadvantages such as lack of experience that allow older people to dismiss them, sometimes with good reason. Yet many many younger people have the wisdom, talent or maturity to stand alongside their older compatriots. Yet because some, maybe even a significant, amount of young people cause trouble and lack the wisdom, talent, maturity etc., young people as a whole get a bad reputation and are often dismissed. Replace "young people" with "people without accounts" and "older people" with "people with accounts" and the statement reads just as true. Cheers, CP 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference, of course, is that kids can't help being young, but anons choose to be anon. It's a null program. People who make an account are tying their edits to an audit chain, building a chain of accountability and making a statement that they stand behind their record. An anon IP makes no such investment. Anonymous editing is a cherished part of Wikipedia's heritage and future and serves a great purpose, but in the same sense that people without established credit records can't expect the same buying power in real estate, anon IPs should understand the basic difference in their status compared to folks with accounts. If I were an anon editor, I could write this and never be concerned that it might gain me some long term enemy. But were I to run for RfB some day, someone might provide this diff and use it as PROOF that I'm part of some elitist conspiracy against the peace loving peoples of Anonyia. I'm putting my words out and taking responsibility for them. Why would an anon editor expect entitlement to the same treatment without that investment? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting view, one that I'm not certain that I completely agree or disagree with. But that's probably just my accountability speaking. Haha.

Anyhow, I've defended myself twice against these accusations and hopefully shown that they are baseless without taking too much of a side in the overall debate. I'm going to stop paying attention to this incident, so if there is a serious concern from an admin who wants to talk about my behavior outside the context of this grand conspiracy of me hating everything anonymous, they can come speak to my on my talk page. Anyone who wishes to not assume good faith me can feel free to levy conspiracy theories, accusations, incivility and anything else they feel like in this little section and I won't hold them accountable, mainly because I won't see it/pay attention to it. I'm here to work on articles, not relive my high school days. I'm also removing all reminder of this nasty experience from my talk page as well. Cheers, CP 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon the area. I check out both IP and registered red-linked editors the first time they pop up on my watch list. There are always a good handful of IP contributers to science articles--I sometimes use my IP at work to make edits to various articles. I've always been treated respectfully, even with one edit that seemed like vandalism (I deleted an extra line so the article wound up saying something silly).

As for project priorities, I invite outsiders with an interest in botany to come on by to WP:Plants and help us set priorities any time you have an idea that would improve that area on Wikipedia, anons and registered users. We have now and then been driven to fix something by an anon or registered user who is not a project member, and the door should always be open to contributions by anyone in the Wikipedia community. I hope WP:Canada considers this for the future. KP Botany 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little too dramatic for my liking. The timetable is this: I make a poorly worded edit summary as I attempt to explain why I'm lowering the priority of an article. Instead of "Anons don't get to decide our priority" I should have written "Non-project members don't get to decide WPCANADA's priority." No one is "closing the door" to anons editing articles related to WP:CANADA, certainly not me who represents WPCANADA not in the capacity of founder or director, but as mere editor. What we do close the door on, from my understanding, is non-project members deciding priority, because we've had problems in the past with "my favourite band" becoming Top priority in WPCANADA. I hope WPCANADA doesn't consider it, because I've spent my time carefully reading and formulating an understanding of what each of the class and priority rankings mean, which allows me and anyone else who has proven their understanding of these criterion by joining WPCANADA (well, I suppose not proven, but at least one is showing willingness) to more effectively implement the criteria. User:EVula has missed one important other thing that anonymous editors can't do, something else I'm involved in: reviewing Good Article nominations. This is not the first time something controversial I've done has been blown out of proportion. When I nominated an article for deletion one time, I was accused of attempting to commit "supercentenarian Holocaust" on Wikipedia. I made a (small) mistake in wording and apologized for it, and once again a big issue has blown up over it – thankfully not directed towards me, just peripherally. Cheers, CP 01:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think this should be the final word on the topic. Assume good faith, people! --Haemo 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's really a matter of wheat and chaff. I often monitor IP editor recent changes. The overwhelming majority of IP edits are constructive. I'd even go so far as to say that most of the corrected misspellings and minor formatting improvements are done by IP editors. There is the one or two in ten that are vandals, but those are generally obvious. IP editors do a lot here. They should be afforded the same personal courtesy as a logged-in user. But having an account does make you more accountable for your actions, and gives you more credibility in discussion. - Crockspot 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neolestat

I speedied this new page last night because it looked like spamming, and also because it did look like the creator of this page had had several attempts to create it previously, using different user names. Page has now been deleted. Could an admin look at attempts to create this page &, well, not quite sock-puppetry? Thanks --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only been created, then deleted once... — madman bum and angel 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin's block of 172.192.43.160

Because I've previously interacted with him under another IP address, even though that interaction was removal of apparent vandalism, I'm asking review of my block. There's not enough room in "block reasons" for my reasons:

1. Adding words (not terms) which may be calques from German into the category Category:German loanwords, in spite of the clear wording of the CfD result of Category:Calques from German
2. Adding words which are clearly not from German into that category.
3. Adding redirects to that category
4. Adding all words which contain the character string "LOG" to the log article, even if not derived from the Greek.
5. Doing all of these after I've explained that I don't consider them accurate
6. Re-doing all of these while claiming to be reverting my vandalism.
7. Adding mysterious alternate spellings to articles.

As my interaction with him was only in response to vandalism reports under his previous IP address, I don't think I should be considered an "involved admin". I've only reverted those changes which I consider clearly wrong; if I'm wrong, and he does understand English well, some other changes may be subtle vandalism, which will require an expert opinion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

65.188.22.40

I reverted ~6 edits of trolling by 65.188.22.40 (talk · contribs) to the talk page of apparantly-gone User:The Evil Spartan and left him a {{uw-vandalism3}} template. He replied to it by demanding arbitration. I'm not sure if he means the ArbComm or arbitration. Could an admin please look into this? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It means "you should ignore ranting and raving from a troll." HTH. Raymond Arritt 00:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it could possibly be trolling, but at least personal attacks ("You['re] odd for a [C]hristian. It explains why [C]hristians make lousy friends.")

But it certainly is curious how, before these edits to User talk:The Evil Spartan, he hadn't edited for nearly a week prior? He had been accused by TES of trolling three weeks ago, and I don't know why he was leaving comments for TES; they seemed really irrelevant to anything, so this does seem like trolling. Ksy92003(talk) 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He left this message for FloNight - he's thinking of seeking an ArbCom ruling against everyone saying he is trolling and/or vandalizing, claiming we're violating WP:NPA. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I was recently involved in a situation where somebody was telling me that it was a personal attack when I suggested that he and another user were meatpuppets... I didn't accuse them, I only suggested that it was possible. I'm not sure that you can have a strong case for somebody making personal attacks towards you if they feel you're trolling, but either way, it isn't WP:NPA if you have strong evidence that supports your accusation. Ksy92003(talk) 00:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

Username is SexTard. jonathan (talk — contribs) 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA is thataways. I'll file it for you. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And filed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How did you know about this? S/he hasn't even made any edits, so how did you know that there was a user with that name? Ksy92003(talk) 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Try Special:Recentchanges; that also covers logs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User creation log too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a "new usernames" page somewhere for seeing this stuff, plus registrations show up on the recent changes page--Jac16888 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

#cvn-wp-en also lists inappropriate names when they are created. *Cremepuff222* 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1 year block of anon making death threats

I've blocked an anon user for 1 year, anonymous users only,[13] for making death threats and other threatening comments. [14], [15]. Those edits to my user and talk pages where there untouched for nearly 3 hours. The anon didn't make any other edits after the ones made to my userpage but I felt obliged to block the address for 1 year due to the severity of the threats. I bring this action here to see if anyone disagrees with it. KOS | talk 00:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Making death threats are very serious offenses. I believe that an indefinite ban should be in order for anybody who threatens another. Ksy92003(talk) 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs are almost never indef'd unless they're proxies. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that they were anons... when I looked at the section heading, the thing that jumped out at me was "death threats" and I overlooked the "anon" word. Ksy92003(talk) 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Likely sock of User:Renandchi2, FWIW. Raymond Arritt 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Very likely. But I've shortened the block to 31 hours; it's a dynamic DSL line. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Was just going to suggest the same. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged using {{IPsock}}. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur

Hi! David Adam Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing this and a number of other Judaism-related articles to have them reflect academic and critical perspectives. While I agree that these perspectives are currently often underrepresented in articles on Jewish subjects and note that much of the material added has been of quality, I have attempted to explain to the user that traditional religious perspectives, agree with them or not, are also important perspectives in traditional religious topics and I have encouraged adding in content on more modern prespectives without overwriting material representing persepectives he disagrees with, as well as discussing major rewrites with other editors and obtaining consensus. As can be seen on User Talk:David Adam Lewis, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Recent changes, there has been an ongoing dispute covering a number of articles. The user has chosen to ignore my advice, indicating that in his view he is entitled to make these changes and WP:REVERT prohibits reverting over an edit dispute.

Because this user's edits are definitely not vandalism and if this editor could be encouraged to work with others the project might be improved, I would appreciate it if another administrator would review the dispute to determine whether I have acted appropriately. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Spammer creating multiple user accounts

• Freeweddingmusicsample (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Picturephotodigital (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Traveltraveleverywhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These new usernames have been created in the last hour or so, and each has a similar plug for a commercial website on its userpage. I've {{db-spam}}'ed the userpages and assumed the admin who deleted the userpage would take care of the name block without my having to go to WP:UAA. These accounts are likely being created by the same person, though, and more may have gotten through before I noticed these three, and there may be more on the way. Would it be proper to request a block of the underlying IP? --Dynaflow babble 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

More:

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

--Dynaflow babble 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd indef blocked one of them, with an IP block. Hopefully that ends this. --Haemo 02:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone also do a name block on Picturephotodigital and Getacaijuice per the promotional-usernames clause in WP:U? --Dynaflow babble 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SkiersBot

SkiersBot (talk · contribs) has been mistagging articles related to Dungeons & Dragons as stub-class articles of WikiProject Comics; could someone block it until User:SkierRMH sees the comments I left for him about it? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Could I get some help undoing his edits? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FreeSWITCH and comments about me personally are false.

The user Calltech has posted comments that are false and make me and our project look bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeSWITCH#86.92.134.171_comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:WPSPAM#Newbie_briankwest_.28aka_86.92.134.171.29_gone_wild

I want these comments removed as they are false. If I must i'll have the community post comments and back me up on this one.

Briankwest 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which community? —Cryptic 21:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't this be construed as an intent to disrupt the project through recruiting meatpuppets? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What comments are false? Who are you? What project? What community? If you want Wikipedia administrators to help you solve your problem, you have to state your case clearly and succinctly. You need to explain what has happened, what has been said, and what you want Wikipedia administrators to do. Until you do that (it's not very hard, I don't know why you haven't already) then it's not unreasonable that your complaint lie idle. -- 217.42.190.82 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just about everything but the first sentence of the briankwest_gone_wild link that says I'm Brian K West and I admin the FreeSWITCH.org site. The rest is totally false about me as it was some other person and NOT ME. The FreeSWITCH community is what I'm talking about. Briankwest 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I heavily doubt recruiting meatpuppets (as you say you are willing to do) is going to make your edits any more accepted. If you have a concern with regards to personal information, go see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight; don't try meatpuppetry. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 09:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Briankwest's indignant behaviour here is incredible. He and another member of the FreeSWITCH development team User:Trixter ie have been posting comments on my talk page and on the FreeSWITCH using anon IP addresses as well as their WP identities creating confusion while concealing their association with the FreeSWITCH article. Just today trixter revealed his true identity and the use of the anon ID 86.92.134.171.29 in question. They both have been employing sockpuppetry techniques to conceal their association with the project in an attempt to avoid WP:COI. They created the confusion on my talk page, one by posting under his identity and the other following up with an anon IP, appearing to be speaking as (or for) the other. Now claiming that his reputation and his project's reputation is being damaged after trixter, a member of his project team, made abusive comments here Talk:FreeSWITCH#Suggestions for Improvement is laughable. Calltech 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another member of the FreeSWITCH community User:Trixter ie admitted to using multiple IDs including IP (86.92.134.171.29) and being the source for the abusive comments that I mistakenly attributed to Brian K West. My apologies. Calltech 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, because of the high number of SPA contributions on this article's talk page and because of the apparent sockpuppetry and WP:COI tactics used by some users, a complaint was lodged here WP:COI/N#FreeSWITCH.E2.80.8E by editor Cryptic contributing at Talk:FreeSWITCH. Calltech 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko

Resolved

 – Without diffs to provide any amount of evidence, this comes across as a minor dispute between two editors. AN/I is not a step in dispute resolution. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Diffs below. Issue not resolved. Bstone 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of the adminship the user User:Leuko. Recently Leuko has been using bullying and extremely uncivil methods in an attempt to get his edits to be the final ones. Moreover, he has come to using various level 3 warnings on various editors' talk pages for "vandalism" as a first-resort when trying to get his position to take hold. These warnings imply that he is an admin and has the ability to block us. This is extremely disturbing to a casual editor such as myself. I wonder if someone might be able to take a look into this and perhaps talk to Leuko about his heavy-handed attitude and his absolute improper use of the warnings. Thank you. Bstone 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• see related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Non-admins issuing warnings -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Level 3 and 4 warnings do not insinuate that the issuer is an admin, as has been pointed out at WT:UTM. No comment about Leuko's actions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It fooled two of us. That's all I can really say about it. In addition, however, and quite separately than the "fooling" issue, is Leuko lack of civility and bullying (vis-a-vis the bogus vandalism warnings). As well, Leuko saw it fit to edit my user page just a few days ago. This was uninvited and certainly not approved by me, yet he did so anyways. In short, Leuko is a loose cannon and must be dealt with. Bstone 06:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bstone, if you really want something to be done, help everyone out and get links to the diffs that show us exactly what happened. Basically, if I could get a "I did this[1], Leuko responded with this warning[2], I did this[3], etc.", I think it would be more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to provide the diffs that show this case, but anyone who's interested in knowing what happened can start here and follow the trail. Someguy1221 07:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're unhappy about his editing your userpage (which, incidentally, you don't own; anyone is free to edit it), you should bring it up with him on his talk page, not here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not actually own my talk page, but I believe it to be clear that any unauthorized editing of my talk page can and, in this case, would be considered vandalism. One can see the changes as follows:

Leuko's unauthorized and unapproved editing (aka vandalism) of my user page[[16]]. Looking at this link one will notice the high number of bogus "warnings" issued by Leuko to me [[17]]. Bstone 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? The other editor who has harassed and bullied by Leuko hasn't gotten a chance to post here as he was probably sleeping. Please reactivate this. In addition, I will be adding the links and diffs (see above). Thank you. Bstone 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please. Reviewing the talk page of the article that this content dispute is about reveals all that is needed. Leuko was wrong to use a template regarding a content dispute. You were the first to claim his edits as vandalism, and it is clear that you knew he was not an administrator, so claiming that that is the reason you brought it here is disingenuous at best. You brought it here hoping to get a leg up in what is a content dispute in which both of you have acted inappropriately. As above, AN/I is not a step in dispute resolution. This is resolved as concerns AN/I. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bbatsell, I beg you to tell me how you know what I "knew" and what I didn't "knew". I promise you that I was under the impression that Leuko was an admin. Furthermore, I view his edit to the InfoBox in that article to be pure vandalism. The reason is simple: it has absolutely nothing to do with the article and entirely violated NPOV. Thus, I removed it. However, before closing this you should wait to hear from the other user who has been wikistalked and harassed by Leuko. This case is not resolved as Leuko has not been counseled on proper use of warnings. When that happens then this case will be resolved. Bstone 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bstone. Leuko has been issuing warnings to other editors with such authority that it gives the impression that he is some kind of administrator. Clearly, there must be a distinguishing quality between warnings issued by admins and “normal” editors, i.e., not all persons should issue such warnings. This may drive people away from editing wikipedia. I had only made one edit on a page, and I got a warning that sounded like “You will be blocked….” Additionally, Leuko needs to relax a bit and allow other editors to edit pages. If anyone goes against Leuko, they are threatened by warnings. Yep, that’s Leuko. DrGladwin 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I like how you make a big deal about how apparently only admins should make certain calls, yet ignore an admin when he tells you that this isn't an administrative issue. :P
The first diff you provided can easily be interpreted as a personal attack, meaning that a warning from him was probably justified. I see absolutely no effort in your contributions to leave a message on Leuko's talk page, which you should have done before running here. This is a personal dispute, and this board isn't the place for dispute resolution. {{resolved}} is only there to inform other admins that this doesn't require their attention, because it's a personal dispute, and not an administrative issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IP's from Mercedes-Benz headquarters in Spain vandalising Lewis Hamilton article

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

All of this IP's contributions have been vandalism to Lewis Hamilton's article. According to IP-Adress, this traces back to Madrid, Spain, but more importantly, Mercedes Benz headquarters. I suggest the IP should be blocked to avoid future edits like this; also so that this doesn't get out into the media, and possibly suggest that Mercedes aren't against Hamilton winning the 2007 Formula One title. Thanks, Davnel03 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the media would have a field day with this one--Jac16888 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected already.Rlevse 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would we hide this hilarity from the media? :) --Golbez 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to contact BBC or Sky News about this, then go head :) It would make Mercedes Benz look VERY bad. Davnel03 19:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

gosh I wouldn't want that to happen... (go Lewis!) --Golbez 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those goofy little Spaniards... HalfShadow 22:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

goofy, little and spaniards? You forgot to tell us about yourselves. -- 41.251.64.174 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What about 195.235.176.225 (talk · contribs)? See this and this vandalism from August 7, a few days after the incident between Hamilton and Alonso at the Hungarian Grand Prix. Is this Mercedes-Benz Spain as well? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that is the SERVICIOS ADMINISTRATIVOS CONTABLES Y ASEGURADORES in Aragon, Spain, whatever the hell that is; I haven't taken spanish in four years. Someguy1221 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Translated: "Administrative, Accounting and Insurance Services". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

They're in the same /16 so same telco, but as far as I can tell, not related beyond that. –Crazytales♥♥ 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary at Historical pederastic couples

Wikipedia has had some serious problems with paedophile activists in the past. I believe that this issue may have reared its ugly head again in Historical pederastic couples, which currently has a four-paragraph introduction devoid of any reliable or verifiable sources, and presenting man-boy sexual relationships in an absurdly positive light; e.g., the only "source" being an ambiguously-named author supposedly claiming that pederasty was mandated by law in antiquity, and referring to such relations in glowingly positive terms.

I deleted that material in accord with WP:V, along with several blatant BLP violations naming living people who were boys at the time that men were having sex with them, which had been removed before. I have been reverted four times now in the past two days, most recently by an editor whose edit summary is a blatant and harsh personal attack.

This raises issues which would belong on the BLP, personal attack, reliable sources, and fringe theory noticeboards. So I am raising it here in hopes that some action can be taken which will prevent bringing the project into further disrepute. Thank you. 1of3 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My first instinct is to block User:Haiduc for about 2 days to a week for a nasty personal attack. What do other people think? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just went with my instinct, still interested in what others think. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not wrong.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc's comment may have been uncalled for, but I can't say it deserves a block. Note that the previous edit summary mentioned 'men porking boys' and that 1of3 started this argument by accusing Haiduc's side of being 'boylove apologists' (see the talk page).

In addition, I'd say that his mass removal borders on vandalism. The introductory paragraphs could stand some improvement, but I see them as fairly neutral - certainly not advocacy for pederasty, as 1of3 claimed. The way, the truth, and the light 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, complaining that text is "biased in favor of men porking boys" is not a personal attack by any means. It is a critique of content, which is encouraged and not censored for minors or delicate sensibilities. Saying that, "I'm not going to be arguing the merits of something that so obviously brings the project into disrepute, especially not with 'boylove' apologists," is not an accusation of anyone in particular, and if any of the people involved do happen to be such apologists, referring to them as a group is not a personal attack. We must have the freedom to call a spade a spade when the reputation of the project is at risk. As for the text in question:

• "love affairs between adult men and adolescent boys"
• "classical pederasty ... has both love and mentoring as principal characteristics"
• "emulation of the Socratic ideal"
• "In antiquity pederasty was sometimes mandated by law, a requirement eventually superseded under the early Christians by prohibition under pain of death or castration for both partners. This move was impelled at least in part by their intent to promote Christianity.... This was accomplished by the systematic destruction of ... classical pederasty, which was an important educational and cultural aspect" -- this is where the sole reference of the introduction is given as, "In Sparta, the ephors fined any eligible man who did not love a boy, because, despite his own excellence, he failed to make a beloved 'similar to himself.' Aelian, Var. Hist., III.10" -- just how are we supposed to verify that?
• "Age-structured, in which men pair up with boys"
• "classical pederasty, shudo, and Florentine sodomy" -- note that "Florentine sodomy" is wikilinked to the separate words, leaving the term undefined
• "their sexual phase lasts only until the coming of age of the younger member. The friendship, however, may continue indefinitely and is seen as one of the chief benefits of such relationships."

If you think the text those excerpts are from isn't biased, tell me: Where is the discussion of rape, child sexual abuse, emotional trauma, abuse of positions of authority, shattered lives, destroyed reputations, and peer bullying? 1of3 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's not perfect. There are a few statements there I find biased, but overall it's simply a factual account of historical pederasty. The solution is for someone interested to fix it, not delete it.

As for not mentioning negative aspects of pederasty, that's just not the topic of the article. A short section treating those in historical context, and linking to other articles about the topic, would not be a bad addition - but again, someone needs to write it. I'm not going to be the one to do it; the article simply isn't in my particular interest. The way, the truth, and the light 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Jimbo has a different opinion. Since when are negative aspects "just not the topic" of an article about relationships? Are you going to tell me that Marriage should not refer to divorce? I doubt it. 1of3 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That message by Jimbo has absolutely nothing to do with my reply. As for negative aspects, I explicitly said that it would be desirable to include something about them - just not to make them the central subject of the article. The way, the truth, and the light 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was way too harsh--especially if this is the user's first offense. The edit summary was uncalled for, but I can think of more than one user (all of them admins) who regularly communicate just as abusively in their edits summaries. A warning would have sufficed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin (just putting in my 3 cents) but I think for something like the above, it should be longer than a week, but hopefully that week will give Haiduc time to realize you just don't put crap like that on Wikipeda...or anywhere for that matter. I think Until(1 == 2) was right in blocking Haiduc. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Crap like" what? Are you referring to the personal attack or the user's editorial focus?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit comment was not only so offensive I thought it was likely to cause disruption by driving off contributors, but it also stays in the edit history of that article forever. That sort of nastiness cannot be allowed, and if you know other editors who regularly talk that way, let me know about them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, believe me, you already know about them, and they have never been blocked and never will be. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not a first offense. I was implied to be "like a feudal lord issuing fiats and pillaging and burning" on the talk page, after which I specifically cautioned against such attacks. 1of3 04:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Temporary fix for BLP concerns:, I have commented out the section on the 20th and 21st century, pending further discussion. I recognize not all the people are living, that some of the relationships were freely acknowledged, that a few may have been sufficiently documented and notable to be included in any event. I also realise that not all of them were in fact sexual, but including them in an article on "pederastic couples' when they many not meet that definition would seem to be itself a BLP violation. I will have no hesitation in blocking anyone who reverts this section as a while, pending the necessary discussion. Anyone who reverts a particular item should be very sure of the justification, and should discuss it on the article talk page first. I regard this as a temporary fix, not a solution. DGG (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support unblocking Haiduc so he can participate in the discussion, if he agrees not to edit the article in the interim. DGG (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As the aggrieved party, I would agree with this. 1of3 04:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So it was never about the personal attack, was it? It was just an excuse to get rid of someone you disagreed with on an article. Isn't that dishonest? The way, the truth, and the light 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't even ask for a block. And he wanted the person back to discuss the matter. So... no, not dishonest. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not want a block; what could possibly help defuse tensions any less? I was hoping for someone to revert back to my version, protect the page for edit warring, and give Haiduc a stern talking to about BLP, V, and RS concerns on the article's talk page. 1of3 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for any improper assumption about you. I conflated the motives of you and the blocking admin, assuming you were in essential agreement. The way, the truth, and the light 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think that a week's block is rather excessive in this situation. Yes, Haiduc's edit summary was a personal attack, and a bad move. However, 1of3 provoked Haiduc by callling him a "boylove apologist" (the comment is clearly directed at Haiduc, the primary contributor to that article). 1of3 also completely failed to assume good faith (as can be seen in the discussion at Talk:Historical pederastic couples#The intro). I think that there's fault on both sides here, and the best thing would be for everyone involved to take a deep breath and try to engage politely. Yes, 1of3, you do have to discuss this with Haiduc and any other interested editors. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and it's all the more important on controversial topics that editors discuss major changes rather than edit warring.
  I think that Haiduc's block should either be removed or shortened to about 24 hours — that would seem more commensurate to the offence.
  Disclaimer: I have had past dealings with Haiduc at Homosexuality in ancient Greece when that article was subject to disruptive editing and edit warring by a persistent problem editor. That editor eventually resorted to a death threat in an attempt to get his way, and was banned. During that (quite stressful) period, Haiduc maintained an even keel and behaved admirably. He also did a fine job providing reliable sources for that article as the problem editor demanded. Based on that experience, I would expect that Haiduc would work to improve Historical pederastic couples and resolve the NPOV concerns to everyone's satisfaction. It seems to me that 1of3's unilateral approach caused unnecessary drama and tension; I hope that the situation can be resolved without further name-calling or personal attacks from anyone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also had a previous encounter with Haiduc and I get the impression that he can be difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, he seems to be a predominantly good contributor (seeing his history) - I agree with you on that. The way, the truth, and the light 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I take exception to this accusation that I directed any sort of comment at Haiduc. When I said, "I'm not going to be arguing ... with 'boylove' apologists," Haiduc hadn't yet reverted me. At that point he hadn't edited any of the article since my first edit to it, so how was I supposed to know that he was a major let alone the primary contributor? I didn't even know that until I read the above comments just now. The two editors who had reverted me at the point I made the "boylove" comment were User:Welland R and User:The Wikipedist, and without regard to any motives that people might impugn upon me, I was certainly not calling either of them boylove apologists. As should be abundantly clear from the sentence structure ("I'm not going to be arguing the merits of something that so obviously brings the project into disrepute, especially not with 'boylove' apologists.") the only people I thought might be the apologists were the people who wrote the terribly biased introduction to that article. It is no secret that pedophile activists have in the past knowingly collaborated to bias pertinent Wikipedia articles. Must my assumption of good faith be so broad as to forget everything I know about those incidents and deny that they might ever repeat? Does assuming good faith mean I must believe that those who have glorified pederasty in several paragraphs of unsourced and highly questionable text can have no ulterior motives for doing so? I do not think so. My initial assumption of good faith was utterly abolished when I saw that the obvious BLP violations removed weeks ago had been re-inserted. Nevertheless, I hold no ill will towards Haiduc; that I reserve solely for his biased edits. I hope that we are still afforded the opportunity to call edits biased when we see them as such, or is that no longer considered civil by those with the necessary saintliness to pass RFA? 1of3 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's fine to identify bias in edits, but don't attribute motivations to the authors of those edits unless you've got solid evidence. I don't see that here. (Incidentally, removing this sentence from your comment was a good move — the opinion it suggests is, I believe, unsupported by the scholarship on the subject.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Where did I attribute motivations to any author personally? I know full well that we can describe groups such as "boylove apologists" which may or may not be empty, and doing so is not a personal attack. Are you saying it is, or that it's not civil to do so, or something else? What do we civilly call groups with suspect motivations in that regard, then? 1of3 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1of3, what "group" are you referring to when you talk of "boylove apologists" in this context? Is it the group of editors who have contributed to the article? I believe your comment is defamatory, uncivil and unsupported by the context of the debate. I deleted your comment from the article's talk page in order to protect both you and Wikipedia from disruption or legal threats, and left an appropriate warning message on your talk page. You chose to both ignore the warning and re-insert your comment. Emotive subjects (such as the article in question) require IMO a very high standard of civility in order to facilitate positive encyclopaedic edits. Comments which could defame or wrongly label editors are counter-productive. DuncanHill 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They are nothing more than what the indefinite noun phrase specifies, just like "Rotary Club members who advocate wife-beating" may or may not be an empty group. There is no personal attack or incivility in either hypothesizing that group's existence or stating opinions about them, and you would never suggest there was until edits start appearing in articles, claiming that the first Rotary Clubs mandated wife-beating in their by-laws. Then suddenly it becomes "defamatory and uncivil" to even suggest they exist. Poppycock! Such a claim strikes a blow against the project's ability to defend it's mission. Please review WP:NPA with particular attention to the difference between referring to persons, "individual contributors," and groups, for whom there is no such prohibition and with good reason. Have you, per chance, ever used the term "vandals?" To whom were you referring? 1of3 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I am no longer able to maintain my assumption of good faith I am withdrawing from this debate. I shall remove the article and its talk page from my watchlist, and shall cease adding wikilinks or removing obviously inappropriate entries from it (which I have done in the past). I have indeed used the term "vandal" - but only in reference to editors who have been obviously vandalising Wikipedia, and only in a way that is appropriate to the context of its use. DuncanHill 16:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Who doesn't wish for a bright-line rule for vandalism, which is often not clear cut, or POV advocacy, which is almost always not clear cut? 1of3 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Haiduc lost his temper in any already heated dispute (1of3 was hardly saintly in his use of edit summaries) - it happens. The comment was totally out of line but it was however a first block so I think a week is rather harsh. I agree that 24 hours would seem appropriate. WjBscribe 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm frankly surprised that nobody warned 1 of 3 for his vandalising of the article. He deleted almost half the article on more than one occasion. Just because material is not verifiable online does not mean it is not verifiable at all, and the article cites extensive references. I support unblocking Haiduc, who obviously lost his temper in the edit summary. He is a solid, scholarly contributer who has helped the project immeasurably. This one block seems clearly punitive to me. Also, as to the BLP concerns, I fail to see how deleting every entry in the subsection 20th and 21st century helps the article or project. Many entries were not BLP violations at all, and the article about Alexander Ziegler, whose entry in the pedarsty article so concerned a few editors, mentions the scandal and name of the youth in question. It seems clear to me that this issue compels people into knee jerk reactions, and I would invite people to look at the article (and its editors) dispassionately. Jeffpw 08:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when is removing any amount of unsourced material considered vandalism? The only source provided in the material I removed, apart from the obvious BLP violations, was a citation to "Aelian, Var. Hist., III.10." Given that there are three Aelians, that is not even a verifiable reference and thus is also subject to removal as WP:V plainly states. Moreover, even if some classics expert can verify it, it was used in support of statements which it does not support, as is clear from the sentence at the beginning of its footnote, which refers to Spartans exclusively, and saying nothing about Christians. 1of3 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Aelian, Var. Hist." refers to the Varia Historia of Claudius Aelianus. I've disambiguated the Aelian link in the article. It doesn't look to me as if the citation is trying to support anything about Christians; it's supporting the clause "In antiquity pederasty was sometimes mandated by law". But this is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article's talk page, not here. Many of the comments you've tagged as problematic could be seen as supported by later cited material in the article. You should have raised your concerns with the article's editors, rather than deleting the entire introduction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Claudius_Aelianus#Varia_Historia says, "He is not perfectly trustworthy in details, and his agenda is always to inculcate culturally "correct" Stoic opinions, perhaps so that his readers will not feel guilty." Is anyone seriously purporting that this is a reliable source? 1of3 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

True, the editors using the source need to make the readers aware of this. But that requires careful judgment, so much in fact that we should probably defer to qualified secondary sources to interpret Claudius Aelianus for us. To be clear, historical works like this should be treated with caution, but equally you will need a secondary source to back up the assertion (probably correct) that Aelianus was writing with an agenda. The concept of reliable sources is a tricky one to apply to primary historical sources. In one sense they are all unreliable unless a secondary source interprets them. In another sense they are less prone to POV interpretation by the same secondary sources. It is often best to present both the primary material and any conflicting secondary interpretations by later writers (in this case that could be any later writer from the time of Aelianus up to the present day). No-one ever said history, or writing an encyclopedia, was simple. Carcharoth 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 1of3 was a bit uncivil to say the least in his own edit summaries, even if they can't be classified as personal attacks per se -- he meant his comment as an insult and that is a sentiment that showed through brilliantly. His edits could've been summarized by simply explaining the need for those edits. It wasn't necessary to refer to the other editor, especially in the way that he did, which generally will end up inviting more edit warring (not to say the other editor wasn't also guilty of the same thing). That said, the intro was in desperate need of cleanup because it sounded like an article you might find in a pro-pedophilia newsletter. This should definitely not have been remedied by deleting nearly the entire thing though. I tried to clean it up as best I could, by removing the POV remarks and conclusions while leaving only the facts, even if many of them are in need of sources.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:46, 10/8/2007

Not to nitpick here, but the article does not lack either sources or references. What it lacks, and has been tagged as such, are inline citations. I haven't a doubt that Haiduc would be fixing that problem were he not blocked. The other articles he has edited, while contentious, have certainly been grounded in fact. Jeffpw 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, someone above says they are surprised that no-one warned 1of3, in fact I did, specifically about his defamatory comments accusing Wikipedia editors of being "boylove apologists". I also removed his comment to that effect from the article talk page for that reason, however he subsequently reverted and restored his comment. I did not get further involved as I do not wish to get into a dispute with an editor who uses such language. DuncanHill 10:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill. I just saw your warning to 1 of 3 on his talkpage. It's nice to see that somebody looking at this dispute was able to remain objective. Jeffpw 12:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I note the version Halduc reverted to included such fine encyclopaedic content as "drama teacher David Le Brocq, twenty seven at the time, returned the love shown him by Karl Donaldson, his fifteen year old pupil, engaging in a six-month long relationship". The article is, at the moment, rubbish. Every unreferenced "couple" in that article should be removed; a section entitled "known or presumed pederastic couples" is also inherently non-neutral. It should be "known" only, and avoid presuming anything. Neil ム 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As User:Until(1 == 2) was asking for opinions on the block, I think the block was a bit hasty and a stern warning would have been sufficient. As others have said, it is also a bit long. How about reducing the block to 24 or 48 hours? As other have pointed out, Haiduc has done good work on articles in this area. Carcharoth 12:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In deference to the wishes to discuss BLP issues with Haiduc and concerns about sternness, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. It is still not an appropriate response though, but 1 week for a first offense is perhaps a little long, so I reconsidered. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish we could relieve wikistress as easily as we block users. 1of3 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempted harassment measures

Resolved

 – Being handled on OTRS. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Frater210 has indicated on his talk page after uncivilly responding about NPOV violations that he is attempting to find information about me and ThuranX to harass us, as seen at this forum thread. This seems to cross the line into potential harassment, and I would like some input on the matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To expand on this report, the user, who identifies himself as the American film producer Don Murphy, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of ColScott. I've researched this situation further, and I found previous discussion on this matter here, here, and here. There is also discussion at Talk:Don Murphy about inclusion of his official site due to examples on his forum of his attempts to find out information about users with whom he enters disputes -- such threads on his official forum are found at the aforementioned forum thread and here as well. His grudge seems to be centered on the fact that his article has been vandalized a few times, leading him to rail against Wikipedia and attempt to put his own article up for AfD. From what I've seen in discussions, there's obviously vigilance against this user and his sockpuppets, but what concerns me is the attempt to acquire personal information, the conduct of which implies intended harassment. What are the options in which off-wiki legal action can be taken against this malicious behavior? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Being handled on OTRS. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citations

User:Comatose51 has recently removed/deleted a bunch of citations with the (seemingly false) statement "Remove Stratfor link and the statement it references because it requires a paid login. Stop linking to them. It is against Wikipedia policy.". As WP:V doesn't seem to suggest there is any such policy, and it seems counter-productive and against the rules of common sense (we often reference New York Times articles which require a membership to view, as valid citations - we just get other members to vouch for the contents of the web archive if we have any doubts) - I'd request that these edits all be reverted. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems we've recently made our Wikipedia:External links page less clear, and that as a result it was being applied to references. I've explained to the user in question why that's wrong, and I believe all the changes made under that mistaken application have now been undone. - Nunh-huh 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading that the NYT archives will soon (or already are) free to view. It seems that the "pay for access" model (for newspapers at least) is finally giving way to the "get the money through advertising" model. Carcharoth 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite that clear cut - the NY Times is making everything pre-1923 free, because that's all public domain, and they are also making everything since 1981 free, presumably since that stuff's all digitized already. Confusingly, for articles that were published between 1923 and 1981, some will be free and some will not. Natalie 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Donreed

This user has a history of adding unsourced info and has been warned on numerous occasions, including quite recently. I've just found these [18], [19] & [20] and reverted because, yet again unsourced speculation. Quite frankly, it's tiresome and he has been warned that he could be blocked. Also, he almost never leaves an edit summary. The difficulty is some of his edits are useful, grammar & punctuation changes; some just crass- changing mdash to "--", for example. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 07:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Activist POV promotions

Incidents involving possible activist POV edits by 198.168.27.224 (Aleut IP user) on at least four separate stubish articles on ethnic groups in eastern Russia that have been reportedd to be have transgender individuals by the user in question. The user repeatedly sites an African anthropologist Hermann Baumann ethnic studies cited in the book Transgender Warriors written by Leslie Feinberg always on page 40. I have reverted the Koryaks and Aleut then finding that the Chukchi and Yukaghir have the same information and citation I ask an administrator to arbitrate. These exact edits may be a lot more numerous. Unsure if it is Feinberg Leslie promoting his activism or book in the articles, or some random user using Leslie's book. The citation may very well be false on page 40. -- Kain Nihil 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to have my former user page and talk page deleted.

Hi!

Sorry to bother you guys with this but I'm currently experiencing real life stalking by my ex-girlfriend who is datamining the Internet to search for clues to my current whereabouts and workplace.

I recently changed accounts to this account from User:MartinDK due to my wish to disengage permanently from former disputes and my own past actions in those disputes. I regret those disputes and scrambled my password so I can't log in to MartinDK. Due to the severity of my situation is there a way for me to have my past user page and talk page including subpages deleted or possibly moved to my current talk page as subpages for full scrutiny? A checkuser will reveal that MartinDK is me beyond any doubt as I have been editing from a static IP belonging to me before I recently moved and the current IP is also static though shared but there are very few other edits to Wikipedia from that IP and none of those edits are to anything that I normally edit.

I'm sorry for all of this, I really did not ask for it to happen to me and I certainly don't want to avoid public scrutiny. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted all your userspace from MartinDK. Do you also want to rename the account? If yes, to what name, and you or I can ask a bureaucrat to do the change. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!! I've filed a request for renaming it. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

64.40.108.168

This IP address has been warned multiple times about vandalism to multiple New England Patriots-related Patriots, including Super Bowl XXXIX and Super Bowl XXXVI. Similar (and in many cases exactly the same) vandalism was made to those pages, as well as New England Patriots, New England Patriots strategy, Super Bowl XXXVIII, Robert Kraft, etc., causing some of these pages to be protected during that mid-September period. Also during that time my user page was vandalized by this IP address, as well as my talk page by the same IP and by another IP with a similar edit history. This vandalism ceased until today, when 64.40.108.168 began its vandalism again on Super Bowl XXXVIII and Super Bowl XXXIX. The latter vandalism made references to the page protections as well as protection to my user page that was accepted. I am requesting that action be taken against this IP. Thanks. Pats1 ^T/C 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block. For now. --Alvestrand 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm565 complain for Adam Cuerden.

Resolved

 – article already protected, editor warned

(forum-shopping redacted) by ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

I deleted Sm565's POV tags because he just simply tagged any bit of criticism as POV, and then refused to say anything actually wrong with it when asked, other than it was unfair to criticise homeopathy. He then spent most of the last week making facile and pointless objections wasting all the editor's time. I tried to archive some sections, but was repeatedly reverted, so I just did what is done with other examples of trolling on heavily-trolled pages, and put it in a {{hat}} {{hab}} to try and allow editors who aren't a meatpuppet for George Vithoulkas like all the ones we had descending a few months ago to actually edit productively. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not anything wrong. I did not revert anything besides the tag POV ONLY after other users you agree with removed the statement which the main editor ( AFTER reaching a consensus) put in the article. You did not take any action against that. Whoever visits the talk page in homeopathy he will understand. --Sm565 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

His actions seem to me within the boundaries of civility, making this nothing more than a content dispute. Follow dispute resolution if needed. Please be warned that attempting to place homeopathic practicers on the same pedestal of reliability as the NIH or the AMA, as well as attempting to dismiss modern science as mere theory, will be generally fruitless. Someguy1221 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• The essay by Sm above was posted to WP:RPP; I turned it into a protection request for him in good faith. If anyone objects to me making the request, feel free to get rid of it. Sm, forum-shopping is very much frowned upon on Wikipedia. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article is already protected anyway. Adam Cuerden is correct; a quick scan of the article history and talkpages reveals quite clearly that the only tendentious editing is occurring from User:Sms565 and other POV-pushers, amongst other things adding {fact} tags to clearly cited material. Thus, I have redacted the forum-shopping posting above, make a comment on Sms565's talk page, and marked this item as resolved. ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is totally unfair and inappropriate.Only the fact that you avoid addressing Adams behavior in the talk page which the main complain is a sign that you reading is not in good faith.

A good faith reader who will go through the discussion , my complain and the request will not find the EliminatorJR|< statament objective. The request is to protect the under dispute sign in the article and to restore my comments. "a quick scan of the article history and talkpages?" how you went through so quickly it is a extremely long discussionin which I have participated only for a month!

Whoever sees the quality of the comments of the group of the editors including Adam he will agree with this.

Tendentious editing??: The cited sources dont state what is claimed in the article. Thats why I had to copy and paste them in the talk page and explain why. Even Adam agreed. Examples: [21] [22]

Please another administrator intervene - NPOV needed--Sm565 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to ask another parent. Although the essay here predates WP:RPP's essay, you're simply trying to find a way to get Adam in trouble. Do all of us the honor and drop it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate to hide other users comments - its not about anyone. My report was vanished and nonone can tell what I was talking about. --Sm565 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because you were forum-shopping, which is (at the least) hated on Wikipedia. However, the post here predates the RFPP essay by about thirty minutes, and the essay is linked on the Homeopathy prot request I filed, if it's still there. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a report about unacceptable behavior. Nonone has the right to edit others opinions.I had to give examples and explain. Using this excuse you can remove everything from this board if you dont agree with some editors view. --Sm565 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh... Sm, posting an essay to several different pages in a hope that someone will take action in favor of you is explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. Your essay here was removed when I pointed out you posted the exact same one to WP:RPP. Just drop the axe. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The report was about censorship both in the homeopathy talk page and here with the absurd excuse of forum shopping. If an obective administrator decides to explore he/she will see it immediately.I m a new user and not familiar with all the tricks........--Sm565 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll explain why your essay was removed. If you post an essay begging for action to be taken against someone in more than one public forum here (talk pages, here, WP:RPP, WP:COI/N, etc.), the chance of that action being taken plummets like a rock, and the chance of your complaint being acted on also drops by about as much. People here call that "forum-shopping", and they do not like it because it makes you look like you're trying to get someone banned or blocked to fulfil a personal goal. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted someone banned I would make a report for this (as I as told) and I assure you if an administrator decides to look then he/she will find out that the shopping forum exscuce it is absurd. My only request is to not consider the case resolved as it were my mistake.IF you are curius look into it and you will see.--Sm565 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding users WesleyDodds, Doczilla and J Greb

Recently I've been contributing highly to popular superhero articles, Batman, Superman (Kal-L) and Green Lantern. Firstly, here are the massive edits I did to Batman - shortly, WesleyDodds disagreed with one or two changes of mine yet, for no reason, chose to revert everything, including all of my other helpful edits. Then, I restored to my revision to Batman, revealing I followed WP:CMX/E guideline yet WesleyDodds returned and reverted everything again, even though he really disagreed with one or two things I did. At Kal-L, I contributed ok to the page (could have done a mistake or two accidentally, see [23], [24]) then Doczilla also probably saw one or two things incorrect and, instead of fixing it manually, had every single one of my useful edits reverted. Just because this user too felt one or two things I did may not have been correct he did not have just revert to the last revision. This had me very upset me. All of these users did not revert manually and, to save themselves time, chose to revert nonchalantly to the most recent revision. And finally for Green Lantern I did a major update, had probably one thing incorrect, and then Doczilla reverted it all pretty much because he saw one thing wrong, I had the word "fictional" taken out. During these times, Doczilla "threatens" me to not edit all at once or else I'll get flat-out reverted. Then says more in regards. J Greb does the same, he also tells me to now edit all at once. And similar warnings went on for a while, see my talk page. Honestly, there is no rule claiming that its disruptive to add a mass amount of edits in one instance and these users continue to enforce this upon me, tell me to stop or it will all get reverted just because they do not wanna manually correct what actually needs to be corrected. I again I restored the data to Green Lantern with the word "fictional" in, and Doczilla reverted all of my appropiate edits once more, telling me to stop making so many edits at one time.

What I would like is for someone to tell these users that it is perfectly okay for me to perform a massive amount of edits at once and that if they disagree with anything, they can edit the page manually instead of undoing all of my other appropiate edits. Please tell them to stop reverting the whole page because it is unfair and seems a bit like WP:OWN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this today at Kal-L, even stepping in to figure out one point of contention, the DABlink section. However, most of Sesshomaru's edits consist of adding blank spaces in some places, removing them in others, and various contentions about the word 'fictional' and various conjugations/tenses/parts of speech of the 'fict-' root. WP:COMIC calls for the implementation of 'Fictional' as a qualifier/descriptor to maintain 'out of universe' writing style. In regards to the Batman, I thoroughly concur with Wesley Dodds, I too would've reverted wholesale; there's no explanatino for the extra spacing and removed spaces, the word fictional's a part of guidelines, and so on. As for the other articles and arguments, they seem to be the same. I'd suggest that if the user is trying the same thing at different articles, and multiple editors continue to independently revert him, then perhaps it's not them who are at fault?

Finally, I can personally attest to the quality of all three accused editors in working towards consensus on talk pages. I've had agreements and disagreements with all three, but all are great editors who conduct themselves well.

(one postscript - I found this because I watch AN/I, not because I'm also aware Sesshomaru would be coming here, in fact, he said that a while ago, and I didn't see it, and so figured he'd dropped it, then my watchlist popped with this.) ThuranX 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I must thank ThuranX for letting me know about this, since Sesshomaru did not notify me after starting this. When someone makes a lot of changes to an article in a single posting with blatant errors, yes, that can get flatly reverted by people who know MOS, who know WikiProject guidelines, and who know from experience how these comic articles get edited. We know the history behind the guidelines and we know what kind of changes will simply get reverted by others. When one person makes a lot of changes all at once, the sheer volume of red lettering makes it very difficult to tease the exact changes apart. We have to read the entirety of both versions line by line every single time. What's ironic about this complaint is that, if you'll look at the edit history, you can see that after reverting, I did then go through examining Sess's changes and incorporating many of them into the articles.

This complaint is awfully premature. Looking at the edit history, anyone can see how little time has been spent trying to work these things out among ourselves. Sess hurled a WP:OWN complaint at me. Glancing at the edit history, I don't see that I'd worked on the Kal-L article since one day in January. Likewise, I have no particular history with the Green Lantern article.

To stick up for others getting this accusation, I must say that Wesley watches the Batman article very regularly. But frankly, the article needs it as it gets frequently vandalized and, due to the character's fame, frequently edited by newcomers who don't yet know how things work around here. It needs the ongoing attention of someone who really knows the article, who really knows its edit history, and who really knows our style guidelines. I can think of no one I'd rather have watching the Batman article than WesleyDodds. We want WesleyDodds watching Batman, we need WesleyDodds watching Batman, and that's a truth worth handling.

Sess asked for more feedback regarding what we didn't like about his edits, and yet he/she then gets up at arms because we took the time to answer. Looking at Sess's edit history, you'll see how little effort was made to work this out before jumping to AN/I. Sess came to my talk page to gripe about a revert I made, even though someone else reverted after me and therefore the reversion I'd previously made no longer applied before he/she even raised the issue. I edited one sentence after that without re-reverting anything, and that is when Sess started fussing at me. Doczilla 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'd say something more in support of J Greb too, but Sess's complaint against J Greb wasn't even enough of a complaint with substance to respond to, beyond what my edits in support of J Greb's edits have already effectively said. (Here's a weird aside: Sess-whatsit griped that I use too many talk page section headings during the very same weekend that somebody else griped that I should a lot more, one per comment.) Doczilla 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo ThuranX's comments. I can vouch for all three editors as being some of the best in the comics project. Equally those edits are actually pretty minor (odd messing around with spaces) and where they aren't they go against comics guidelines and I would also have reverted some of those edits if I'd seen them first.

I also feel other avenues should have been explored more thoroughly before bringing this up on the admin noticeboard. (Emperor 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

(ec) - Ok, I just went over the edits. Nothing spectacular in the revert. Though beyond what TX said above, I note that the user also apparently removed things like the default sort for the categories. I think at this point, the user should attempt to start a talk page duscussion about "Characters" vs. "Fictional characters" (Probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.) Incidentally, I vaguely recall such a discussion in the past, and the concerns were that there are characterisations of real people in comics, as opposed to truly fictional characters. But anyway, I look forward to the discussion. - jc37 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted the past relevant WikiProject Comics talk page discussions on Sesshomaru's talk page. Here they are: [25], [26], [27], [28] WesleyDodds 11:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood what I did wrong. From now on, I'll start a discussion on talk pages instead of warring or coming here to report fellow editors. Is this over? May I go about my own way? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla is presently warring on my talk page, see for example [29], [30], [31], [32]. I gave my final response here and yet, he replies that this thread isn't over, disruptively. I'd like for someone to confirm that this discussion will not continue. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts do not an edit war make. You shouldn't go deleting the evidence while the AN/I discussion is still in progress. Yes, it can still be found via edit history, but there's no reason to make people hunt through the history to figure this mess out. And again, bringing this here is premature. Doczilla 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Posting four "see for example" links could be construed as misrepresentation since it could give the impression that there were four reverts. Two of those links are to minor edits on my own remark. Doczilla 19:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting independent review of an arbcom enforcement request

This has been on the arbcom enforcement board for two days without a response. I think it's legit and enforceable, but since I've blocked this editor more than once before it may be a better deterrent if a completely different sysop intervenes this time. Durova^Charge! 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't look like obvious reverts to me (especially as they are not the same edit, seem correct, and are well explained), but could be seen as such. I will tell him to be careful and remember his restrictions in future. Neil ム 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, it would be a good thing if a few more admins watchlisted and responded to reports at WP:AE. We have just a couple of people specializing there (Thatcher131 has been the most active), but it's labor-intensive, burnout-inducing duty if performed in excess and needs to be spread around more. (I try to deal with some of them myself, but since the editors involved are often people I've had to be giving procedural advice to with my clerk hat on, often I'm not the best one for it.) Newyorkbrad 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd already placed a block and was trying to state that on the various pages this issue has been raised when Neil reached his differing conclusion above. I do think it was a clear '2RR violation' (as, in fact, the user himself admits). Normally I might have left that for someone else to block if they felt the need as I'm not big on blocks in general and found the 'forum shopping' on this slightly distasteful, but he'd just been warned about the same thing a few days ago so I went ahead. Others can certainly disagree and/or reverse as I internally debated and researched the matter for quite some time myself. By the letter I think a block is warranted, by the spirit it's a marginal case. --CBD 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment it seems to be mostly myself for the Armenia-Azeri stuff and a few other things, ElC (currently taking a break from this AFAIK) for Armenia-Azeri, and Thatcher131 doing damn near everything else. It's a nice place, AE, calm and peaceful. Consider it a relaxing break from ANI, but do think about what you do there and try to be fair. Moreschi ^Talk 12:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But the two edits were the same. The second revert just had a few additional edits made to it, which just disguised the revert. This user admitted that he did it, and said "guess I deserve a block" which serves to prove that Chris knows about this restriction, and yet still violated it. He was only warned about it about a couple weeks ago.

The restriction also doesn't make a ruling about whether or not the edits were correct. Unless it's obvious vandalism, the edit needs to be discussed on the talk page and be limited to one revert. Chris began the discussion after he had made two reverts. I wasn't aware that there were exceptions other than vandalism. What other exceptions are there? By Chris' own admission, he violated it and was open about receiving a block.

One more time: the two edits were the same, and they were disputed, so it wasn't just obvious vandalism. Ksy92003(talk) 13:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He did get blocked - what's your point? Neil ム 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kys92003, a bit of unsolicited advice... you and Chrisjnelson seem to have a bit of history. It might be a good idea to find some other areas that interest you if you possibly can, and edit there, because it might be best to leave the advocacy of what to do in this case to those that might be viewed as somewhat more dispassionate than you are. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. First of all, I didn't think that Chris was blocked; the comments on his talk page, as well as the lack of a "You've been blocked" template led me to believe that he wasn't blocked. So forget those comments.
2. Secondly, I didn't have anything to do with this originally. After Chris violated his restriction, Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs) reported this to the ArbCom enforcement page. While looking at her contributions, I saw that she had gone to ArbCom enforcement about Chris. After two days had past, and nobody had left any comments about this, I decided to leave a comment on Sasha's talk page. I suggested to her that, if nobody responded soon, then to ask Durova about it and let Durova decide how to go about the situation (because she has experience with all the Chris conflicts in the past). After some more time had past, and Sasha hadn't made any more edits, I assumed that she wasn't gonna get back on and decided to go ahead and leave a comment for Durova, and that's how we got here.

So, that's how I got involved with this particular situation. I didn't even know that Chris had made two reverts on that article until after I read what Sasha had said. Believe me, if I had known earlier, I would've been the one to report it, rather than Sasha. I didn't even know until about three days after, and I only got involved when I saw from Sasha's edit that he had violated it, and didn't know earlier, and my actions in this situation were only to make certain that it got somebody's attention. As Durova said earlier here, "This has been on the arbcom enforcement board for two days without a response. I think it's legit and enforceable." Ksy92003(talk) 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Raja

• Wiki Raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Netmonger/UserBoxes/Terrorism (diff);. This user is continuously harassing me with undue posts in talk pages, I was blocked after he sent an email to admin claiming it was sent to him by me, the admin unblocked me after realizing it was a mistake. see my block log here and discussion at ANI here. Please look into this NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment To admin, please take a look at the e-mail or previous e-mail belonging to Netmonger (if he has changed it after the report). If you want, I can forward you the e-mail he sent me for clarification. Thank you. Wiki Raja 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For any admins interested, Netmonger's story is not the first situation of this kind concerning Wiki Raja.Bakaman 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandal: 172.202.58.167

Why does 172.202.58.167 keep removing referenced and accurate and informative text from George Michael? How do I block this anonymous vandals? Darkieboy236 14:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected for 72 hours due to edit warring over "English"/"UK". Please talk it out and establish consensus on the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, and thank you. As the UK is the correct name of the country, I believe that having this info is correct, although I accept that England is not incorrect. Darkieboy236 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, 172.202.58.167 appears to be going through the list of article that I edit and has changed the nationalities of people from British to English. As English in itself is not a legal nationality this user is causing problems. This user is preventing conversation and discussion about this matter as he/she is anonymous. Please can you block this IP address to avoid further incorrect edit and to prevent the user from edit warring. The user has already changed the George Michael article more than three times and will not engaged in discussion. Thank you for your time. Darkieboy236 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I only see one edit from 172.202.58.167. Are there any other IPs involved? BTW, it is not uncommon for Brittish citizens to be called English, Welch or Scottish... it's a matter of pride I guess. For example, Gordon Ramsay is Scottish, but has the Brittish nationality. — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, user 172.143.79.68 has now removed my edits from a number of the articles I edit. This is getting annoying. You are right, many people in the UK refer to themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish. Althought I have no particular problem with this, when it comes to an encyclopedia, it is factually incorrect to refer to these as their nationality. Any person born in these four regions is British and from the United Kingdom. We have UK passports and not English passports. It is extremely problematic to refer to a person in the UK as being English, because many people have parentage from more than one of the four regions. For example, Tony Blair, who has Scottish, English and Irish ancestory...what would be listed for him? Well, his Wiki entry states that he is British and then goes on to specify in more detail the breakdown. How would you list someone with an English father and a Scottish mother that who was born in Wales? The Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende states that he is from The Netherlands, not North Holland or South Holland. You state that it is a matter of pride, this might be true, but the accuracy lies with UK and British: this is correct and what should be stated. No one from Germany would list someone as being from Bavaria without stating Germany. Many immigrants see themselves as British and not English, etc.Darkieboy236 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article the ANONYMOUS user refers to is from America. This is from a nation that thinks the United Kingdom (the parent nation of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) is in the Middle East according to a survey. This does not make the article incorrect, but not accurate when stating George Michael's correct nationality. His nationality is always British, and will remain so until the day the UK is disbanded. Therefore, the article should state his nationality as British and not English. There is only one fact. Darkieboy236 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Darkieboy236" regularly goes through articles adding UK and changing English decriptions to British. The George Michael article had GM described as English with a reference with quotes from GM himself for quite some time! After asking this user to stop reverting back to his version as he was altering statements that were backed up with references he then added several useless references from unofficial websites so that he could use the same arguement. This user has repeatedly changed the article back to his version - this user has also been blocked previously for edit warring on a similar subject. I belive there was also a consensus met a year or so ago not to add UK to every geographical description as it is unncessary and looks stupid. 172.143.116.15 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Serial rulebreaking, borderline vandalism by User:DivaNtrainin

User:DivaNtrainin refuses to abide by WP rules and will not participate in discussion re: Copwatch.

In particular she keeps adding the same 2 edits, over and over again, even though neither satisfies WP criteria and both have been removed (with explanation) numerous times by numerous users. One of the edits, in fairness, is true and USED to be sourced, but the material supporting the statement has been removed from the attributed source and no replacement source has been provided. The other edit is probably true but has never been reliably sourced. Regardless, she ignores the verifiability criteria AND completely ignores all other users, refusing any discussion and even vandalizing or deleting the Talk comments of other users.

I posted a comment on her talk page asking to stop this behavior. She blanked the page, made no response, and went back to the Copwatch article to add the same unsourced material AGAIN. When I saw this, I went and reposted the comment on her Talk page. She responded by blanking the page AGAIN and then took the comment I left on her talk page, re-pasted it on MY talk page, and signed it, as if she were the one making the complaint. Then just for good measure, she went back to Copwatch and posted the same unsourced statements again. These same statement have been reposted without correction 9 times in the past week alone.Factchecker atyourservice 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. Report at WP:AIV if it continues. — Edokter • Talk • 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Bushcarrot

Bushcarrot has been harassing myself and Summerluvin, called us names, reverted edits and stuff, randomly accused users of being sockpuppets and is an all around nasty person. Even signed his name as "Bush Motherf*cking Carrot" on my talk page. Nasty business this. † Tyler † ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

...diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Bushcarrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for three hours for personal attacks. Tyler Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs to learn to be more civil too, especially with this victory dance. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, incivility in response to incivility doesn't get anybody anywhere. –Crazytales♥♥ 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned smearer

Someone (Bigleaguer), and before him an anonymous editor, is posting silly material about a living person over at Joel Beinin, and on the Talk Page. The Talk page edits are never signed or dated, but appear in bold. How is that done? The automatic signing software for otherwise anonymous edits doesn't seem to be doing its job.

The automatic functioning of Sinebot in such instances seems to be blocked because the editor always writes his comments in bold, with the following technique. .. . text... Italic text.

p.s. the anonymous poster takes me for the subject of the site, Joel Beinin.

Nishidani 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article may be the anon which resolves to Cairo, which was removing the controversies section a couple of weeks ago. Corvus cornix 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User name policy or COI violation in Taslima Nasrin

Taslimanasrin (talk · contribs) is removing large chunks of text from Taslima Nasrin. I don't know if the user is actually Ms. Nasrin, but if not, this username violates the User name policy in WP. On the other hand, if the user IS Ms. Nasrin, then this would violate the WP:COI policy.

Now, about the chunks this user is removing: the text was first introduced by this edit. The paragraphs are largely unreferenced, so I have added {{unreferenced}} on the sections. I think the tone is bad enough to warrant removal per BLP. Thanks. --Ragib 21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a fair amount of weasling going on too in the text that was removed. Whether Taslimanasrin is or isn't who she purports to be her edits seemed very reasonable and are certainly within the rules. As you state though, her username does breach WP guidelines regardless of whether she's the real deal or not. ---- WebHamster 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed ... I've removed the text per BLP, but the COI or username issue still persists. --Ragib 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now this editor has just pasted biographical information right off Nasrin's personal site. I've reverted that and left a note on the user page. I think per WP:COI and Username policies, this user should be cautioned against editing the bio. --Ragib 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dsarokin

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

Discussed at length in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jesse_James.

Dsarokin runs xooxleanswers.com and firstmention.com. [33]

In response to spam and coi warnings for adding xooxleanswers.com links, he said on 11 June 2007 that he would "link no more to any sites I am involved with." [34]. His next edit, 27 June 2007 [35], included a link to firstmention.com. He has continued to add this link to all the articles he's edited since. Ronz 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I sort of know Dsarokin from a previous life. Anyone mind if I try to talk with him once more before admin action is taken? I can see the COI noticeboard conversation didn't go anywhere fast, and I'm quite surprised; he's always struck me as an upright fair-minded person. No guarantees of success, but I'd like to give it one more chance. I'll ask him not to post anything more in mainspace until after we've talked. If he does, then I'll throw my hands up in despair and leave him to the wolves. OK? --barneca (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this reply enough to mark it as resolved for now? My reputation is involved now, too, so if something goes wrong I'll be the first to report it. --barneca (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me, though it might be good to hear from some of the editors more active in the COIN report. --Ronz 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that he make an outright promise not to post links to any of his own sites. The statement that he just made on Barneca's talk is reminiscent of his past vague answers in the WP:COIN discussion, none of which led to an end to the postings. Under our conflict of interest rules it is not up to him to judge the value or necessity of links to his own site, and he is refusing to defer to the consensus expressed to him at the COI noticeboard. EdJohnston 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I interpret his comment (on his talk page, not mine, in case someone goes looking) as an outright promise not to do so in October. I don't think he will promise, at this time, not to do so after that, as he thinks he is in the right. That's what I'm going to try to convince him to do. I'm basically asking for a postponement of this thread until then. I'm willing to put in some time discussing with him. If we get nowhere, we can come back to ANI at the first unwanted spammy post. If it happens in October, I'll be at the head of the pitchfork brigade for making me look bad. --barneca (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with having you negotiate with him on our behalf, but why would you think this is a good agreement? The COI rules are not negotiable. He can't start deciding to ignore them in November. We should get a clear answer now that he intends to follow the rules, permanently. EdJohnston 02:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to negotiate for Wikipedia, nor do I have the desire to. I'd just like the chance to explain things to him once more, if possible direct his energy towards policy talk pages if that is the problem, or see if it's still possible there is a failure to communicate in here somewhere. Right now, I believe (and keep in mind I'm putting words in his mouth) he thinks the rules are wrong/unfair/whatever. If I can't convince him otherwise, he's getting blocked. If I can, we've gained a smart, valuable contributor. --barneca (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated trolling and violations of WP:POINT

User:Use headphones in green jack created some article about some things he thought up in class. I have told the kid many many times why, and he's going on a crusade to get his list on Wikipedia. He even says he wants to "change the policies." He even made an AN report about his article saying, "please ban the admins who deleted it." It's crazy, please block him. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(Revert, warn, ignore)x3+(Revert, block, ignore)x1 = solved — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Enigmabooks

Is adding links in biography articles to no notable books published by Enigma Books. Gareth E Kegg 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) :Note left on talk page that this user can do revert these himself until & unless it gets out of hand. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back and account blocked per username guidelines. ELIMINATORJR 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Insistent POV pushing and possible abuse in Talk:Salian Mythology

A campaign is going on to discredit the article Salian Franks. Self- proclaimed "experts" in Salian Frankish affaires: Almirena who carefully erased her original introduction as an opera singer [36], and johanthon that also indulges in enumerating titles and authors, started a violent attack while ignoring sourced information and arguments. They insist on information that should be included, but so far I have not seen a single quote. I suspect a kind of sockpuppetry and vandalism in favor of strong POV pushing towards the deletion of this (presumably pagan) article. Never seen anything similar. It's impossible to contribute like this. Rokus01 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Bulk revert on windows articles

I need a bulk revert from various Windows articles, per WP:COI:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&diff=162986223&oldid=162195060 is an edit from a user, where a URL closely matches the username.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Me&diff=prev&oldid=163214612 shows a similar edit from an IP Address with similar URLS.

A list of Windows articles edited is shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.169.213.105

Some of the edit summaries claim the links contain further information - which is rather minimalistic. --Sigma 7 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling dynamic IP

71.31.85.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -> 67.140.58.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -> now 67.140.61.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been visiting Talk:Akatsuki for a while. This guy, who is apparently unfamiliar with the fact that we can check page history, has been attempting to get us to add speculation to the semiprotected article using a nickname rather than his IP. When this did not work, the same user started making alter-egos (still using the same IP address), apparently to debate himself, including one with a redlinked name (which I assume was for the purpose of emulating the signature of established users).[37] [38] [39]. Even after his original topic was removed and his address changed, he started a new thread and continued with this trend.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Not getting his way, he even tried "impersonating" an admin. [47] We did attempt to reason with him on his (previous) talk page, and the result was just the same kind of crap there as it was on Talk:Akatsuki. The last straw was this attempt to convince other users that I had agreed with his reasoning, which I did not even suggest to him. You Can't See Me! 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Block IP 211.181.244.128

Could an admin please block the IP address 211.181.244.128?

A look at all of his contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/211.181.244.128) dating from May 2 2007 to the present shows that every single one of them has been disruptive in nature. Cmcfarland 01:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Big fat beer belly

An apparent sock of Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs), going around semi-vandalizing article talk pages and then labeling other socks for us. Seems to be editing as an IP right now, hopping in a narrow range ( 86.29.249.242 (talk · contribs) recently. Acroterion _(talk) 02:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gethomas3

Gethomas3 has consistantly reverted edits to Harem (genre) to include a list of examples. I have brought the issue up on the article talk page, his user talk page, and the Wikiproject talk page (where I was supported in my efforts of keeping the list off of the article). At no point has the user made any discussion anywhere, including edit summaries. Since the user seems to ignore all warnings and attempts to communicate, I request that the user be blocked.--SeizureDog 03:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will place a warning in his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't Sleep Clowns Will Eat Me and Legislative violence

Resolved

The above user reverted an edit without discussion on the above article after I requested that we discuss it on the talk page [48]. I would like to talk to the user above this reversion except his talk page is locked to new and unregistered users. Is there anyway to contact him, and is this the best policy for the talk page of an admin (particularly if an unregistered user like myself or a newbie wants to ask a question to an experienced user).

Just to clarify, I am not making a complaint or anything like that as the issue is an edit dispute and this is not the place to discuss it, I just want to contact the user and cannot because his talk page is locked. Can someone send him a message or something informing him of this. Thankyou 58.164.33.106 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at his talk page directing him to Talk:Legislative violence. You two can discuss the reversions and sourcing issues there.  :-) Cheers, --Iamunknown 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks 58.164.33.106 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:M.V.E.i.

Based on the number of blocks this user has received, I would like to propose a permanent ban. Block log:[49] Recent example of abuse: [50] Thoughts? Rklawton 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this, I assumed it would be about his recent atrocious rant on this very page. It was a dense, all-bold paragraph with such gems as, "i will tell you something about those "Palestinians". They dont work, and live on the money of Israel ... there is no such people Palestinians. They are Syrian and Egtptian Arabs ... They were first refered to as Palastinians by Hittler ... from the age of zero they are tought they live to kill Jews and fight for the Jihad. Here in Israel they teach us noncense that we have to 'respect them and try to achieve peace with them'". Amusingly, it was in the context of a proposed topic-ban of someone for alleged anti-Israel soapboxing! <eleland/talkedits> 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Complicated; as someone who's had a fair share of run-ins with this editor recently (check the talk page), I wouldn't be in the least sorry to see an end to their racist trolling & extreme POV-pushing (this and its edit summary is pretty representative), but they do make some valid edits as well. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How about progressively escalating blocks. He's acquired a long list of 24 to 48 hour blocks, so those clearly are not having the intended effect. I'd recommend that his next block be one week, then after that two weeks, then four weeks, eight weeks, sixteen weeks, etc. Maybe at some point he'll get the message; if not, it will eventually become a de facto ban. Raymond Arritt 20:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean. This user has a long list of blocks and an unambiguous history of abuse. Who is supposed to be getting the message, us or M.V.E.i.? Rklawton 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what Raymond's trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is that MVEI does make valid edits as well, so maybe a long block will encourage them to stick to those and stop trolling. A glance over the laundry-list of warnings on the talk page is not encouraging, though. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's what I meant. I didn't notice the 48 day block, though (misread it as 48 hours). Raymond Arritt 21:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just protected his talk page due to continued abuse.[51] Rklawton 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

On further inspection of the block log, there's a 48 day block in there. If that didn't do the trick, I don't see what else will; maybe one final chance after this, then indefblock if any more foolishness — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion for previous block is here. As the one, who initiated that discussion, I must say that until very recently it seemed M.V.E.i. had come to his senses and was well on his way to become a good editor, albeit with some strange ideas - and I am sad to see it did not go that way. -- Sander Säde 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also discussion here after his indefinite block. -- Sander Säde 21:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) As an editor who went right to MVEi and warned him about that sort of provocation and it's futility, only to see him effectively repost the same trolling crapfest on his talk, I'd support an immediate TWO WEEK block. NOt punitively, but preventatively. It's clear he's so irate about this that after a revert he found another avenue for his hateful rant, and will likely do it again and again until he's really stopped long enough to think about whether or not to continue here. 24 and 48 hour blocks only let him stew and brew, 2 weeks will certainly give him time to cool off. ThuranX 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was amusing that he was complaining about "false propaganda". True propaganda is, of course, fine. Doubtless it's an unintentional slip but a revealing one nonetheless. -- ChrisO 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh... Might be, might not be. remember, there's a lot of propaganda from the APA, AMA, and the .gov regarding the dangers of smoking. it's all true, but the bombastic presentations make it propaganda...ThuranX 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hate the concept of voting on a permablock. I was devoting some soul-searching to the issue, until I hit on the idea of mentally replacing his comments about Arabs with equivalent remarks about Jews. After that, it was a wonder I'd ever thought about it at all:

• I dont even care if i'l get blocked. I'm tyred. Why those little shitty Hebrews just fuck all day and bring more shit to the world...the majority of Europe thinks of them as humans and wants to make peace with them. THEY ARE HORSE SHIT. Till all those Jews are shot-dead there wont be peace. They are the new Stallin, they even supported him at WW2![52]

The ban should obviously be extended indefinitely. <eleland/talkedits> 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That rant is really quite inappropriate, and I can't imagine how he thought posting it would be anything but inflammatory. Looking over this issue, I am in favor of a longer block (longer than the current 31 hours) to give him time to cool off. I disagree, however, that it is time for an indefinite ban, but agree that these 1-2 day blocks are not having the desired effect. Would anyone object to me reblocking for 2 weeks? I'll implement it if there are no objections. If he comes back with renewed incivility after that, then I might support an indefinite block, but not yet. Picaroon (t) 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Object? hah, I explicitly support it! (let my support cancel out one no vote. lol) ThuranX 21:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a year

This is unacceptable, see also his recent edit-summaries and given the long history of blocks for personal attacks, edit-warring and harassment, I've rewarded his bile with a really lengthy block. Raving like that is patent trolling and should not be permitted, and I hardly think his editing is POV-free either, if that's a specimen of his personal feelings. We would not permit anti-Semitism like this: nor should we allow Arabophobia, if that's a word. Moreschi ^Talk 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Xenophobia. HalfShadow 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur in the block. The more I dig into his edits, the worse it looks. Raymond Arritt 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I would have done this myself had I been following this discussion. -- John Reaves 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the long block as well. It seems like this kind of behavior is going to cause a lot more damage to the project than any positive edits will help. delldot talk 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, isn't it still anti-Semitism, since Arabs are Semites too? Anyway, I agree with the block - that sort of conduct is beyond the pale. -- ChrisO 21:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

HalfShadow has already put some shadow over it and called it xenophobia instead. He is a wikipedian and he knows a lot. -- 41.251.64.174 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note: the only reason I have not blocked indefinitely is because, apparently, this fella makes productive contributions. If in 12 months he's ready to come back and edit civilly and without POV-pushing/edit-warring, that's fine. If not, this is the final sanction before we ban him for good. Moreschi ^Talk 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the year block. So, see you lot in 13 months time for the perma-banned discussion? LessHeard vanU 21:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Battleground-like edits by far overshadow the productive ones. Frankly, I wouldn't have minded an indefinite block, but I suppose that we can revisit the issue in 2008. — TKD::Talk 22:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be the place for this hate campaigns. I would block indef after all the warnings received and the time invested from many of the community to deal with his inappropriate behavior, 1 year block is second best. Neozoon 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A year is a good warning, in 2008 when he comes back, we keep a high standard for the guy. Next block should be indef. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Long overdue. MastCell ^Talk 05:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone should remove his racist rants on his talk page and at least mention that he's been blocked for a year. Right now it says he's blocked for only 31 hours.--Atlan (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The user page notes the one-year block. I've blanked his talk page and denied his (e-mailed) unblock request. Rklawton 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I indef blocked this user back in June for similar editing, personal attacks, racism and sockpuppeting to avoid blocks. A few admins who should have known better all jumped in to defend him at the time and reduce his block. Thoroughly endorse, long overdue. Expect much sockpuppeting and IPs pleading for unblocks because we didn't understand his point, and see you all in 1 year and about a week for the indef block discussion (assuming he hasn't sockpuppeted his way to one before then. Neil ム 12:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's shame that it came to this, I also endorse the block of the user. He is the only editor whose behavior I brought to administrator attention, and I received a lot of flak for posting on ANI about it a few months ago here. I'm just glad it's been resolved. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From my crossing of paths, definitely not an editor interested in furthering Wikipedia. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the block, all they've done is repeatedly restore the material in question to their talk page. I've deleted the offending section (but not the rest of the talk page) and full-protected it; if anyone thinks that's too harsh, do feel free to unprotect it — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Insistent reinsertion of gossip in Death of Marilyn Monroe

An IP and the two near-SPAs "Bobtoo" and "USA1812" have been curiously insistent about the insertion of some titillating tidbit about the death of Monroe. (A gossip columnist says that some obscure producer of a documentary that doesn't yet exist told him that an old and ill ex-cop told him blah blah blah. Gossip indeed!)

Monroe, her death and her links to the Kennedys are of infinitesimal interest to me. (She could have been Khruschev's mistress for all I care. Moreover, I tend to think articles like this should all be deleted.) However, I am interested in keeping gossip-column-"sourced" factoids out of WP. This of course means that IP-Bobtoo-USA1812 regards me as an adversary. And I'll admit that I haven't always been able to resist the temptation to treat his/their allegations that I must be in the pay of the Kennedys (etc etc) with a po face becoming to an administrator. (I think such allegations are hilarious. Sackloads of such talk appear in the article's talk page.) All in all I think I'm not the right person to remove this drivel yet again and to warn this user (or, conceivably, these users) that any reinsertion will lead to a block on the perp. Anyway, I'm bored by all of this. Some other administrator might step in, with a mop, bucket and truncheon. Good night! -- Hoary 11:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Bobtoo (talk · contribs) et al have also accused Hoary and I of being the same person (in addition to being government and/or Kennedy family operatives). Among the most recent participants is 68.175.71.240 (talk · contribs), with whom I've already had a particularly memorable encounter requiring Oversight-L's involvement, regarding this same article. Bobtoo has been previously challenged concerning (non-)verifiability (see Takashi Oyama). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI I have blocked Bobtoo for 24 hours for 3RR. (It's actually 5RR if we stretch it to 25 hours.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of popups by Martinphi in an edit war

This user - in spite of being the subject of an RfA - has just misused popups in an edit war. [53] This is not the first such misuse as is evident from this user's edit history. -- Fyslee / talk 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinpfi made one revert. Popups is just an editing tool that anyone can use; it does not give him any special powers. I see no abuse here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I reported one misuse, but use of popups in edit wars is a very poor practice and I've previously seen other users stripped of their right to use popups in such situations. POV warriors don't need technological help to enable them in their edit warring, which is itself an abusive situation that should not be aided and abetted by the use of popups. -- Fyslee / talk 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You should focus on the content of his edits, not on how he made them. The fact that he uses Popups has no bearing on the validity of his edits. — Edokter • Talk • 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw man.... I am talking about edit warring regardless of content, and then automating the ability to edit war. If you think that's alright then I won't bother you anymore. (BTW, I am not an involved party to the named edit war. I would just like to see an even playing field without an escalation of the conflict by the use of stronger "weapons".) -- Fyslee / talk 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you bring this up in the RfAr if it gets accepted if you want to make a general argument about Martinphi's behavior, but this seems by itself a bit minor for ANI. JoshuaZ 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this was the wrong place to bring it up. I wouldn't even have been aware of it as a problem if I hadn't previously seen another edit warrior chastised by an administrator for the same behavior, including having their right to use popups revoked. It seemed that the combination of edit warring (which is itself problematic) and then automating it by the use of popups was the problem. People who are inclined to be trigger happy should not be armed with a machine gun. Instead they should be disarmed.

I don't intend to pursue this matter further here since edit warring seems to be considered of no consequence here. -- Fyslee / talk 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... he reverted a single edit and he used an edit summary. This is silly. --B 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just a content dispute, you can expect to be reverted sometimes on Wikipedia. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential real life emergency

Resolved

[54] Please can an administrator deal with this accordingly and immediately. The phone number listed is in the Cincinnati area. Thank you ~Eliz81^(C) 19:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. She knows how to ask a parent or teacher for help... just trolling, and probably not the phone number of the person who posted it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That was 100% weird/random. WAVY 10 Fan 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)With all due respect, we have been treating such comments as serious and with immediate notification of the police (as per a recent mailing list discussion). We can in no way evaluate the seriousness of this threat, only the authorities can. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elizabeth here. Perhaps this person can't ask people she knows in real life for help, or some other extenuating circumstances. I would err on the side of caution here, just in case she is serious. It is a possibility. Neranei (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies about previous comment. But why is she asking here for help? WAVY 10 Fan 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How emo =( Additionally I just sent an email to Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight... just in case it IS a childish prank being played on some poor 12-yo girl. Hypothetically, she doesn't need her phone# published on Wikipedia.Factchecker atyourservice 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the police bureau for the city of Portland Oregon, and would agree that notifying the proper Law Enforcement Authority is the most appropriate thing to do. You do not know if the user is serious. Tiptoety 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have been oversighted. Never got to see what it was, but I can't actually imagine why you'd need to post your phone number on Wikipedia so that someone else could call the police. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that the edit has been oversighted. I hope that this will not impede notification of the authorities (I have the # and the IP should still be known.) ~Eliz81^(C) 19:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also sent out word on the mailing list for users based in Cincinnati. Has anyone notified the police yet? ~Eliz81^(C) 19:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to the organization the IP address belongs to, informing them of the situation. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have access to a phone atm, perhaps you do? Mercury 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As a seasoned EMT with many, many psych patients whom I have treated, I highly suggest not to take anything lightly when it comes to a threat of life and limb (even your own). While I do not know what the message above is as the link says the page doesn't exist, I can assume it may be something serious. Call the local police and let them know what's going on. They can summon an ambulance which will transport a person to a psych hospital for treatment. Bstone 19:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Eliz81, why is this an admin matter? Anyone who contacts the police about this should do so either as a concerned private individual (any Wikipedia reader or editor can do this, not just admins), or as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. Admins have no special authority or remit to deal with this kind of thing. They may be more likely to deal with it, but you will also get some admins and onlookers who will talk about it, rather than do anything (as shown by the above thread). In any case, there should be a proper place to report things like this. Things like this regularly crop up on this noticeboard, and the same discussions occur time and time again, and the actual action from case to case is likely wildly inconsistent. Carcharoth 19:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well said, I'm tagging this with {{resolved}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • (very ironic edit conflict!) As an example, what would you do if a phone number or details were posted from some place a long way away from the USA? Move heaven and earth to notify the authorities in Outer Mongolia? (That's a place often used when wanting to name some remote region). Carcharoth 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Understood. I figured it certainly qualified as an 'incident' in any case. If I may request, where is an appropriate place to post such information in the future? ~Eliz81^(C) 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • AN/I. I have to disagree with Carcharoth: visibility is important in these kinds of situations. The only more proper thing I can think of is to notify the Foundation by emailing Bastique, but I do not see the harm in these discussions being posted here. Would you post them on the Village Pump? On the Help Desk? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Dito. If here is not the place, then where? --Ezeu 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I must agree that this is the place for such a report. Things like this do not need to be shoved off in some obscure corner where nobody will see the comments. Bring it here. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure, post here saying that you have noticed something. But don't expect admins to deal with it. The advice may very well be: "this is what we think you should do" - in which case the original poster will then have the information necessary to go and do it, whether that be trying to contact other people in that area to make phone calls, or picking up the phone themselves. It shouldn't be a case of "please deal with this", but "please help me deal with this". Does that make sense. Carcharoth 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Responding to Eliz81, The correct response is to make phone calls yourself. In the past, people have (I think) called their own local law enforcement agencies. They are generally told to contact the law enforcement agencies in the area concerned, which is why you get people scrambling to find the right phone numbers on various webpages. Seriously, if you call your local authorities and explain things, they would be able to advise you much better than we can. Most people can't be bothered to do this (including me, mainly because I'm not in the US and I got here too late to see the now oversighted page). You may be told by the person on the other end of the phone line that they get 100s of such calls every week, and they need more information than you have providied. Carcharoth 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the edits in question were removed from the page history. See here. Rather than oversighted. Though I can't tell for sure. Maybe someone should notify User:Mercury of this thread? I'll do that. Carcharoth 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Second suicide note?

Just noticed this while patrolling Lupin's IP recent edits tool: User talk:67.159.45.209. Edit needs to be deleted. Davnel03 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is the second time it has happened, I think it should be dealt with properly. I vaguely remember IRC being mentioned at one point as a way to get a really fast response. Let's sort out what should have happened later, and concentrate on getting this properly resolved. Carcharoth 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I emailed both the domain owner and the foundation about this. This is even more serious, since it is a direct threat. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for a year. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How often do these kind of incidents occur? Have any turned out to be legitimate? If they're pranks, they aren't funny (some stuff shouldn't be joked about) and if they're real, well, that's unfortunate too. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the fourth since last December. Remember that there's an intermediate ground between suicide-in-progress and hoax. Some threats come from troubled individuals who need counseling and other social services. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this proposal. This needs to be addressed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it resolved?

This doesn't seem to be resolved, only the link deleted. Reading the responses below, there isn't any messages that say "I will call the police". Breakdown in process can result in people dying, though there is no way to assess if this is such a case because the link to the page is broken.

Resolved

 – Potentially serious as this may be, it isn't an administrative matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that this is not an administrative matter is incorrect. This page sees a lot of traffic so it is the place for time urgent matters. Administrators also have or should have a sense of commitment so I don't think it's ethical to say "it's not in my job description, matter ignored". There is no urgent Non-Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. I hope everything is ok in Cincinnati. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason it is not an admin matter is because it is an individual matter. Admins have no more moral, ethical or legal responsibility than you personally, to pick up the phone and call the Wikipedia office or some police authority somewhere. If the edits have been oversighted, then admins can't see them. If they've been deleted from the page history, then admins can help. The danger here is that people will feel encouraged to offload such things on WP:AN, which has a response time varying from fast to slow, and a track record varying from good to bad. It is more consistent to take responsibility yourself. And, yes, we should have a page to point people at to explain all this next time. Carcharoth 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the link has been deleted by an admin. If that admin did not follow through on the message, this could be as serious as if he/she let the person die. I propose:

1. Have the deleting admin state that they did or did not follow through with the message. Was someone notified? This is the most important of the 4 steps.
2. Indefin. block the poster of the cry for help if determined to be a hoax.
3. Revoke sysop privileges for the admin if he/she deleted it without either follow through to the authorities if no discussion was made with others.
4. Indef. block admin is they deleted the note, did nothing, and someone died. I hope no one died. My guess is that this is a hoax but there has been a few cases of people with real emergencies writing for help on the internet. After all, WP see a lot of traffic. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, admins can't delete edits, only oversighters can. As I said before on EVula's talk page, talk to the original posting user, get the phone number, and call the person to see if it's a hoax. I cannot do this due to the fact that I'm a minor. Thank you very much for your concern. Neranei (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm correct, and the edits were deleted by User:Mercury, then it wasn't oversight. Only a very limited number of people have oversight rights. See WP:OVERSIGHT. What admins can do is something called selective restoration of a page history. They delete the page and then restore all the revisions except the offending one. Hey presto! Edit gone from page history and diff no longer works. This is why it is incorrect to refer to ordinary editing of a page to remove information as "deletion". The difference between this and oversight (I think) is that only those with oversight rights can see what was oversighted. With page history deletion, any one of the 1000+ admins can pull up the deleted page and see the edit that was deleted from the page history. This is hopefully explained at Wikipedia:Page history. Carcharoth 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good Lord, you're grossly overreacting with #s 3 and 4. I'm sorry, but I'm not morally bound to hop every single time someone makes a cry for help. Am I bad person for it? Quite possibly. Should I have my sysop bit removed and be indefinitely blocked from the site? Hell no. Geez, I'm not sure how much more obvious a hoax this could be. Good job reacting exactly the way that the person likely wanted you to. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

EVula, I have to disagree with you about this being a hoax. It could be someone using this as a last-ditch cry for help, you never really know. I think Elizabeth was right to be concerned; it is wise to take life-threatening stuff like that seriously. Neranei (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike other well known website like YouTube and MySpace, anyone can make comments and stuff on Wikipedia - we should never take these things like a hoax. For all we know, the person could be reading this topic right now. Davnel03 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, I agree. Neranei (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

...what? How does that prove your point? If anything, the "anyone can make comments" bit makes this just as likely as being a hoax. Heartless Bastard // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Evula, it's fairly likely that most of these types of posts are hoaxes. But we, as non-police member editors, are absolutely unqualified to judge what counts as a hoax and as a credible threat. We are duty-bound to treat all threats as credible, and subsequently all proven hoax threats with great severity as well. I wish I could find the link, but please see the September 2007 Wikipedia-en-l mailing list for a discussion about this very problem. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Stuff like suicide notes shant be taken lightly, I should know because I've attempted it before..... † Tyler † ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done now. Davnel03 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup Mercury 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)You're right, but I can't do anything; I don't have the number and I'm a minor. You know, the only way to figure out if this is really a hoax is to call the number. That would clear things up. There could be someone waiting beside the phone for someone to call. Neranei (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I just saw what that person posted, I honestly think we should at least take a look. They could have killed themselves just because no one called them. Neranei (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Mercury has blocked the IP address, but they are still posting suicide threats on their talk page. Whether this is trolling or real, this thread is no longer helping and may be inflaming the situation, and blanking the thread might be a good move after it has been resolved. I think more meta-commentary will be unhelpful. Enough people are seeing this that something should get done. Can I just ask that people who do e-mail/phone someone, make a note of what they do here. Carcharoth 20:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that editors are for editing articles and administrators are for moderating standard Wikipedia activity and discussion/disputes among editors. This incident doesn't really fall under either category... it's more of an issue of ethical conduct and possible legal liability for Wikipedia as a corporate entity. In my opinion, either take it very seriously and have a fairly robust procedure for dealing with such issues (e.g. have it handled by a salaried employee or corporate liason, or at least someone whose real-life identity is known to the corporate entity) --- or don't deal with it at all, and accept the possibility that such a large body of mostly unmoderated content is going to be the scene of some nasty accidents, misunderstandings, and surprises.

For this particular case, since there seems to be no procedure for dealing with this type of issue, it would probably be good for individual editors to step in, although I will be the first to acknowledge my own indifference toward the situation: I plan to take no action other than discuss it here. But just as an admin above mentioned that it's not a good idea to EXPECT an administrator to do anything about this, it's an even worse idea to expect such initiative from the LOWER ranks of VOLUNTEERS. Again, as an entity, I think Wikipedia should either take this very seriously, and have a correspondingly serious procedure for dealing with it... or else have a policy that explicitly ignores this kind of stuff or advises users to take action on their own time and at their own risk. It seems this situation is not without potential legal ramifications. It may seem like a cheesy example, but a half-baked ambulance service could EASILY end up being worse than none at all, when people might depend on a perceived reliability that simply doesn't exist.

Of course I'm new to Wikipedia and have only read a small portion of the rules.Factchecker atyourservice 21:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Foundation employees may take a long time to reach in situations where time is of the essence. If I send an email (which I've done) for a situation similar to this (not quite as time sensitive), I always just make sure that I make it explicitly clear I am not an official representative of the Foundation, just a concerned citizen. You bring up ethical/legal issues, I don't see how it could be an ethical/legal issue if we do react properly, only if we don't. As long as we only contact authorities and not the person involved or try to do the work of the authorities, we should be fine, the authorities can deal with whether it is credible or not. Mr.Z-man 21:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia has not responded to a phone call or email. One of the domain owners emailed me once, but the other hasn't gotten back to me. I'll see if I can phone the domain owners. ~Eliz81^(C) 21:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would Wikimedia want to get involved? If they did, it would become a full-time job. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• There was a similar incident posted to the mailing list a week ago. It was resolved in less time than this incident has been running, with the police being contacted from immediately. One important thing that was mentioned then, and seems to be being unconscionably ignored now, is that none of us is qualified to make the judgment between what is a hoax and what is a genuine threat. Only the police can do that, and can deal with hoaxers much more effectively than we can.

Also, it was a serious mistake to oversight the edit in question before confirmation that it has been resolved; it may be needed as evidence. —CComMack (t–c) 21:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The edits weren't oversighted, just deleted. The real point here is that people expect there to be a place to go to get a reliable response. Or even a page where a process to follow is described. There seems to be neither. In that other case, see the block log. Carcharoth 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and neither page history deletion plus selective restoration, nor oversighting, loses evidence. It just makes it less visible, but it is still there and can be restored or retrieved for evidentiary purposes. Carcharoth 22:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Local authorities notified

I spoke on the phone with the appropriate local police department regarding the first threat. I will be contacting the second department for the second, more explicit threat, and will update hear as soon as I hear anything definitive on this situation. ~Eliz81^(C) 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Changing subject slightly, I think someone above has also provided a link to the mailing list thread you were referring to earlier. Carcharoth 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Eliz81 pay no attention to any of the users who are stating that you are doing wrong by reporting and discussing this incident, like i said above, i am a Police Officer and threats like this one need to be taken seriously, and it does not hurt to call and make a report. I thank you for your efforts! Tiptoety 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the ideal process would be that when a user sees something like this, they are encouraged to find and contact the local police in that area, or ask others to help them do so, or do so in their stead. That let's the police deal with it if the threat is real, and as someone on the recent mailing list discussion said, trolls are not likely to do this sort of thing if they know that it will result in a visit from the police. Carcharoth 22:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And, second police department contacted. Since both of them have the relevant IPs and information, I guess it's out of our hands now. Oh my god do I need to decompress. This has been one of the most stressful days I've had in a long time. And let's hope no one is hurt. ~Eliz81^(C) 22:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We all appreciate your hard work! Good job! Tiptoety 22:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

God and Goddess bless, Elizabeth. Thank you for taking the initiative; I hope that you have made a difference. Love, Neranei (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the police departments emailed me back! This was so kind of them. A little spooky, since I only ever gave my first name and not an email address, but anyway.... I'm so glad to hear they're following up with me and coordinating with the police department in Cincinnati where the number is registered. ~Eliz81^(C) 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The police know everything, anyways, i am glad to hear that, and once again Good Work! Tiptoety 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this stresses you out, but that does sound spooky. Do the police know everything? I'd be more inclined to think that either you gave them enough information for them to work out your e-mail address (they should have asked you for some contact information), or someone following this thread has used Special:Emailuser and either they are from that police department or are pretending to be. Or maybe some of the e-mails you sent to ISPs got forwarded to the police? Rule of thumb - if it seems spooky, double-check the e-mail is really coming from who is says it is. Carcharoth 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait did you email the police or just call them? I can't say I have ever emailed an RP back, also contact calls for service by phone, or in person... sounds kind of weird to me, (I wish I knew everything, could clear this warrant backlog out :P, but CLETS, NLETS, and NCIC only do so much for me) I would check into that, mind you I work for a very small department, and we handle everything, I know some departments are more online then we are. Dureo 10:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to Eliz81. Just for the record, the way to handle this is notify the authorities promptly and put a yearlong block on an IP address or an indef with an e-mail block on a registered account. Then remove any personally identifiable information the individual has posted. Preferably with as little fanfare as possible. Let the professionals do their job; this type of matter is outside our scope. I've handled these matters this way since last December. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this be documented somewhere, so people can point to it next time? Tips on who to contact and how to locate IP addresses, and when admin assistance is required (eg. if a registered account is posting the threats with no indication of location - wouldn't that require checkuser?). And where to post/e-mail to ensure rapid response times. And personal versus collective responsibility. Along with something clearly explaining the difference between an ordinary user removing information from a page, an admin removing edits from the page history, and an oversighter making stuff available to even fewer people? Oh, and the important point about people noting what they've done so others reading know that something has been done. I think that some of the removal of personal information was done without any indication that any contact with the authorities had been made - which is less than ideal. This sort of thing will happen if people half-know what to do and half-do the wrong bits... Hmm. This might turn out to be a long document. Carcharoth 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT, WP:BEANS. This has happened exactly four times in the last twelve months. But for the record, I'm willing to contact the police if it originates anywhere in the United States. I've done it before. Durova^Charge! 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that, but the pattern is the same. Worried user rolls up at a noticeboard, or on the mailing list. If the right people are around it gets dealt with smoothly and efficiently. If not, things go a bit chaotic and pear-shaped and lots of headless chickens start squawking and running around. There must be a better way, surely? Carcharoth 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Some editors tried to write a guideline after last spring's incident. It went down in flames. The trouble is, anything in Wikipedia space that can be found will also be seen and acted upon by the wrong people, thus intensifying the problem. Durova^Charge! 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Off topic, but how does a headless chicken... squawk? ;) Mercury 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike the Headless Chicken: "His crowing, though, was less impressive and consisted of a gurgling sound made in his throat..." - nice. Carcharoth 13:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's Attitude

I have been observing(not stalking) Swatjester's edits over the last few weeks. He started attacking the Article Rescue Squadron - ("Article Rescue Squadron is crap and doesn't work" (clearly it does)) after an article he listed for AfD was taged for rescue. He has attempted to disrupt the ARS's work and, as an admin, his general attitude to other users can be rather poor ("I'll be counting the days until you are banned", "I would admonish you to not be a fuckhead", "I don't know who you think you are") He also seems to have issues with centain types of articles ("kill all pop culture articles in the face)". It would seem he classifies his adminship/account/contributions/himself as a weapon. As a matter of full disclosure, he has taken out an Incident against me in the past ("I'm requesting an outside source come knock some good faith and clue back into Fosnez over this"). This is not a vendetta, but I believe he does need to be pulled back into line in regards to his attitude. I expect there will be a argument over this, but I don't think this is the kind of behaviour an admin should be displaying to the rest of the community. - Fosnez 03:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You might try the dispute resolution area. To include RFC, and if the conduct includes administrative use of the tools, admin conduct rfc. Other than that, I'm not sure what intervention I could give? Mercury 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U Viridae^Talk 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vendetta? That's why I was on your Users to keep an eye on list? That's why you made no effort to attempt to contact me first? Riiiiight. Funny how you magically seem to show up at the last several AFD's that I have made, funny how you seem to have randomly taken my edits out of context in areas I would not typically expect to see you. In fact, I think a good argument could be made that this constitutes Wikistalking. For not towards people, the "don't be a fuckhead" edit comes from a dispute that two OTHER users than I were having about User:David Gerard's essay "Don't be a fuckhead." But, of course, that is taken out of context here, just as "my calling myself a weapon" comes from User:Radiant's page where he has admins voluntarily classify themselves humorously by what their name means (for instance an admin called Banana would go under fruit). I would argue that this IS a vendetta, that this IS wikistalking by Fosnez, and I'm quite sick of it. He snapped out of control at me the first time we met, causing an [WP:AN/I]] thread that many people agreed with my actions. And now he's pursuing a vendetta by Wikistalking me, taking my quotes out of context to try and make me look bad, without the common courtesy of trying to discuss it with me first. Wow, just wow.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The first time I discussed anything with you, you lodged an Incident against me after two comments, and last time you refused to listen to me. Discussion with you is pointless. Your attitude towards me and the ARS in general stinks and thats all there is to say about it. - Fosnez 04:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree with the above assessment. This sounds like Wikistalking to me, or at the very least an incredibly irritating vendetta. However, whatever it is, I don't think this is really the venue. Try some dispute resolution, maybe -- rather than posting out-of-context quotes in an effort to stir up trouble, without notifying the user in question. --Haemo 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the "Wow, just wow." Initially just reading the text I was thinking, "Hmm... there may be an issue here, which seems strange knowing what I know about Swat." Aaaand then I checked the links. Rofl. So much stalking, so much taking things out of context in a pretty clear attempt to malign Swatjester... I really recommend Fosnez move on quickly. Frivolous "reports" such as this aren't cool at all. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So we want to encourage comments like "Article Rescue Squadron is crap and doesn't work" from administrators? Nice... Fosnez 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not involved in this but I still can't stop from commenting. I think it is rather ironic that Swatjester is saying that his words are being taken out of context. When back in July he took information from my userpage "always on the victims side" and stated wikipedia is not. I never said it did. And that I was trying to push a POV for victims when I did no such and then he abused his administration power and blocked me for 48 hrs, while letting another user who argued with me scott-free. Irony you gotta love it. Fighting for Justice 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that's not in the slightest what happened there, other than that I did block you (for 3RR I believe it was, and a valid block I believe as well, my memory is a bit hazy), but once again, that's not the point here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over the links that Fosnez gave us, I'd have to echo Bbatsell's assessment. I'd also recommend that Fosnez remove the Users to keep an eye on section from his user page; editors shouldn't be keeping enemies lists in their userspace. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sections a requested, it was nice of you to ask me to do it, instead of just editing my page... like as been done before. - Fosnez 04:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I too support a WTFBBQORLYKTHX attitude. the Fuckhead thing's probably not the highest order of civility, but in response to an editor who also mentions it, I can't see actual incivility. As to the weapon thing... just read the list. It organizes based on NAMES, not on any metaphysical self-identification, hence the moose and bull and ram in the ungulates category. Swatjester's a busy admin who takes a steaming pile of crap for it on a near daily basis. I applaud his efforts. Although i've been known to criticize admins in other cases, this time, swatjester's totally in the clear though. ThuranX 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion I would like to offer does pertain to the removal of the rescue tags. If you believe they belong on the talk pages, then please do not just remove them from the article and not also place them on the talk page, which I subsequently did. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RFC, WP:RFM and WP:RFAr are → that way. Nothing really for us to do here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone is going to RFC Swatjester I'll be along for the laughs. He may have gotten a bit carried away before but this sure isn't one of those times. Also, told you so. There, I said it out loud ;) EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Darkzamora

Resolved

See Special:Contributions/Darkzamora. The image of Monica Leigh that the user uploaded is copyrighted. It's owned by Playboy. I'd add the appropriate tags but I'm at work and I'd rather not risk another viewing of the image in order to do so. I barely got away with it the first time. My co-workers would most definitely find offense in the image. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 06:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it. --Cheeser1 06:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 07:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Adanesne (talk · contribs)

I blocked Adanesne (talk · contribs) indefinitely based on the following: [55], [56], [57], [58], and [59]. As blocks are not punitive but preventive, I felt that allowing any chance of Adanesne (talk · contribs) continuing his/her actions would become a liability and disruption for the community. nat^tang 07:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm. He doesn't seem to listen to prior warnings and is clearly set on putting his POV across. I'd support a block until such a time he can convince us that he is ready and willing to adhere to our policies and contribute constructively and civilly. Rockpocket 07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the talk page should be salted, too, although User:Onorem is baiting him slightly. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say baiting, although I suppose I am feeding the troll a bit. I've often found that responding to an insult with a little self-deprecation often ends the issue faster. If he knows it doesn't bother me, it won't be any fun for him to continue. --Onorem♠Dil 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick image question

Resolved

Aside from WP:IFD, is there anywhere to grab an admin who is experienced with image issues, to delete multiple images that violate copyrights? Giannis87gr has uploaded multiple copyrighted images downloaded from the web, to which he's adding graffiti, and then claiming he is the copyright holder. Some examples are Image:Sean combs 100807 05.jpg, Image:Nicole-kidman-breast-35 copy.jpg, Image:Gisele-bundchen-gq-italy-01 copy.jpg (copyrighted GQ cover), Image:Lindsay-lohan-dad-rehab-pose copy.jpg, and the list goes on and on. It seems to me that there is not a single image this editor has uploaded that is appropriate for Wikipedia use, and it would be proper to have an administrator delete them all, rather than going through the IfD process. If I'm wrong, that's fine, I freely admit my experience with image deletion is quite limited (I've reported several obvious copyrighted images, but I had the URLs they came from). This editor has not provided any source for the origin of the photographs, and yet obviously they were not taken by the editor in question. Any suggestions or help is much appreciated! Ariel♥Gold 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ariel. If you haven't met him, After Midnight pretty much pwns everyone at image deleting. On IRC, he showed me his deletion log, and there were at least three pages of image deletes! I see the images above have been deleted, but I'd try him in the future. :) *Cremepuff222* 14:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cremepuff! Thanks for the note, and a big thanks to DragonflySixtyseven who went ahead and took care of all of these silly images! I'll put AM on my watched list if I run across something like this in the future, thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, no problem. :) *Cremepuff222* 14:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed- Vanadalism Of Malayalee Article By User:Vivin

A background abt the issue.

Its belived that Malayalam developed independently having more influence from Tamil. But it has not proved that Malayalam evolved out of Tamil. Malayalam language has similarities with other languages in South India. Malayalam has loaned words from Sanskrit and many foriegn languages. Script is more similar to Tulu(another Indian Language of South India) Script.

The First issue

The word Malayalee said to be derived from the words Mala and aali which are there are in many languages in south india and foreign languages like Sinhala. Its not duly asserted where these words come from any particular language. The editor User:Vivin could not varify with any reference in which it says the words came from Tamil Language. We have removed his claims. But he revrting our edits.

The second Issue

The artilce is flooded with numeral castes and races like ezhava, Nair etc. This has been cleaned by removing some unwanted content.(we should remember that all these castes like ezhava, Nair etc have article in Wiki itself). However User:Vivin is trying to add a lot of content from respective articles and it has become very tedious to maintain the article Malayalee. We have revrted his edits as Malayalee is not the article that you can list out all the customs and tradition of all Malayalee communities. You have separate articles where you can add details. However User:Vivin is not agreeing to that and continuously reverting the changes. please look into Malayalee article. Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page due to edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Mrtobacco

Resolved

 – directed towards WP:COIN east.718 at 22:24, 10/9/2007

Moved from WP:AIV Nishkid64 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mrtobacco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Hello, I would like to call to the Wiki community's attention, a user who has been using Wikipedia to stealth market his companies smoking products. The user MrTobacco has a history full of controversial edits and has clashed with several wikipedians who have called him out on his spamming. Each time he is accused, he uses a circular logic, calling his accusers the real stealth marketers. It is my strong belief that he is directly employeed by HBI, or gains some payment for his service here on wikipedia, and other online communities which he advertises. I have found him posting on the cannabisculture forums, with the same rhetoric, promoting HBI brand papers, and telling the users about the evil Bambu Rolling paper company (a competitor of HBI): [60] [61]

I do not work for Bambu or any tobacco company. I work freelance doing graphic design for a scale company which is in competition with HBI, I will admit. But we do not compete with them on tobacco products. I signed up for wikipedia firstly to remove the link on the Weighing Scales entry, which linked to digitalscale.com - a shill marketing site made by MyWeigh Scales (A division of HBI). The site is a fake review site, and used to create a false enthusiasm for their products. I removed it as advertising spam. After I discovered who added the link, I checked their history, which is when I discovered all the edits this HBI shill has been making over the years. My intentions have only been to stop MrTobacco from continuing his unethical marketing practices.

Once I began challenging MrTobacco, he made several sock-puppets such as "stredler" (Steve Redler - owner of digitalscale.com) which he used to harass me with on my talk page. I also believe that the user "joshmann" is another sock-puppet of his. He claims that this one is the real owner of HBI, and engages in fake arguments with him, which he has done to cause confusion, and make it seem like he (mrtobacco) is also against HBI advertising on wiki.

He now makes it an almost daily effort to bully people who remove his advertisements or slander. He constantly reports users for vandalism, even though they are merely removing his slander. He adds warning tags, improperly, to every users page who tried to remove his advertising. He is always trying to lock pages down which contain slander of competitors, or praise of HBI. He has been warned about advertising, but each time he claims that he is a retired ex-tobacco industry person who occasionally contributes to smoking publications. Below are a list of edits, starting with the initial one I came to remove as advertising.

Here he adds links to HBI International's electronic scale websites MyWeigh, JScale, and digitalscale.com (a fake review site). This is the edit that I signed up to remove: [62]

Here he creates a page for his employer HBI International: [63]

He added the Juicy Jay's (another HBI product) image without listing the source, because that would reveal that he obtained it through HBI International, his employer. Another wikipedian called him out on this in the discussion, and he pulled the same argument on them, saying that THEY must be working for some competitors company, and just trying to make HBI look bad. Later he claims that he emailed the webmaster at HBI and asked permission.: [64]

He created the RAW rolling papers page (another HBI product): [65] [66]

Here he writes that RAW Rolling papers are superior, and actually the healthiest papers to use. His reference link leads to a "health consultant's" report on bleached paper, but mentions no research data, nor does it mention anything about RAW rolling papers: [67]

Adding references to the HBI rolling paper Elements, on the Element page: [68]

Here the Elements Rolling Papers page is flagged for spam by another Wikipedian. Of course MrTobacco tries to fight this: [69]

Supposedly, smoking is good for you, according to MrTobacco. I just thought this one was funny: [70]

---

Slandering Competition-----

Here he begins to add negative information about his competitor Bambu Rolling Papers: [71]

-Here he is accusing Lostsociety of working for Bambu - he has been obsessed with this user since. He has even accused me of working for tobacco companies, whenever I try to call him out on his stealth marketing activities. [72]

Here is more fighing between MrTobacco (HBI International) and Lostsociety (maybe Bambu), obviously they don't have the best intentions here: [73]

Here he adds more slander against his competitor Bambu Rolling Papers, adding that their rolling papers contain carcinogenic materials. He now makes it a daily effort to make sure this info is kept on the Bambu Page. Anytime someone removes it, he threatens them with Wiki Warnings, saying that they will be banned if they make any edits to Wikipedia.: [74] [75]

[76] It is revealed that the Spanish article which MrTobacco links to refers to the Smoking brand rolling papers, and not Bambu. This of course doesn't matter to MrTobacco, because its not about informing people of products which may contain carcinogens, its about making Bambu look bad. Onyx86 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To begin, I tagged HBI International for speedy deletion under CSD11-spam. I've also left MrTobacco a {{uw-coi}} message to advise him about our conflict of interest concerns. Hopefully he will get the message and won't cause further problems. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---> The conflict of interest noticeboard is that way. east.718 at 16:31, 10/9/2007

And keep it brief and to the point, please. Noticeboards aren't the place for novellas. Raymond Arritt 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New York Review of Books = gossip?

At Richard Roberts (evangelist) a user keeps reverting material added claiming that a book written by a person involved sourced with a citation from the New York Review of Books is "gossip" and "violates BLP". Can someone have a look? This person has repeatedly reverted my additions. C56C 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[77] seems to be the addition in question. While it may be referenced, C56C, I don't see how the content would greater aid the reader's understanding of Richard Roberts' life or his work. It may not be a BLP issue, as it's referenced, but it's definitely gossipy and non-neutral. Wikipedia:Undue weight may be of interest. Neil ム 17:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agreem with Neil A, if this is encyclopedic it belongs in Oral's biography unless some effect on Richard can be shown - he did continue in the ministry (but no showing that Oral's alleged comments were the reason) and did conclude their divorce, so the relevance is minor in comparison to the overall biography. If a sourced comment that Richard stayed in the ministry because dad said what he allegedly said, then it becomes relevant because Richard's ministry is an important part of his bio and reasons for staying in it are relevant. Carlossuarez46 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cryptic and edits to Template:Deletiontools

Resolved

I added parameters to this template to enable it to be optionally condensed if the whole thing isn't needed. User:Cryptic isn't too keen on the class changes I added afterwards (labelling it as "exceedingly ugly") and reverted the whole lot to a week-old version. Five minutes later we're on 3RR and apparently "the onus is on me" to explain why at least the paramaters should be kept (with the old markup, so it's identical for any currently linked articles) even though (a) I've already done so and (b) Cryptic hasn't advanced any more arguments than "it's difficult to use", while making two edits without summaries.

The argument appears to be that because this template has fairly heavy use in userspace, messing with it amounts to scribbling on people's pages and messing with their workflow. I don't buy this, because it's not labelled as a userspace template and there's no reason that people happy with the current version can't maintain their own (it being used for their own workflow, you'd imagine they'd want to customise it). I've already suggested (to no avail) that this version at least keeps the parameters for those who want them while leaving the look of the article the same, but I don't want to rv to this version for fear of being smacked with a 3RR block. Input? Chris Cunningham 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The immediate dispute seems to have been resolved for now. Meanwhile, I've drafted what I'd consider a more flexible version of Chris's parametrization scheme in my user space and have proposed it on Template talk:Deletiontools. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:QuarterDimeNickel‎

Obvious sockpuppet of Burgz33 (talk · contribs) is now threatening another user with a lawsuit for placing a sockpuppet tag on his user page.[78]. I've warned the user, however based on the evidence I've gathered, this account should be blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. See User talk:QuarterDimeNickel for details. Note that this is not the first instance of this user creating a sockpuppet user account that closely resembles my own user name. See Quartertet (talk · contribs). Thanks --Quartet 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by someone determined to attack a BLP User:Abuse truth

Can someone warn and block this user, at least until he understands the legal threat policy, User:Abuse truth who is inserting unsourced material in the Elizabeth Loftus article (BLP), and using both this account and an account that appears to be his real name for this purpose? He made an edit to the article,[79] as User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), then commented about the edit he just made in his alter ego, User:Abuse truth.[[80]] He now threatening to report me (to God knows whom) for libel for removing idiotic ranting on the Elizabeth Loftus talk page which have simply been put on the talk page in an additional attempt to defame her. She's a fairly controversial person, and there are plenty of excellent mainstream sources about her than can be legitimately put in the article. But web blogs and unreported case settlements aren't part of BLP.

I can't warn him because I'm rather busy, and, guess what, the page about legal threats, does not include the warning to give, as is usually the case on Wikipedia policy pages. Thanks to whomever for looking into this matter. KP Botany 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the warning, and put it up. I don't think he's going to stop, but maybe he will. KP Botany 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, then, the substantive issues of the underlying matter aside, you believe Abuse truth to be a sock of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )? Joe 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The threat is kind of borderline, "I will report you for libel" could just mean to administrators here. I would suggest that if his next edit does not somehow address the threat that he be blocked. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Joe, if you look at the diffs, you'll see that Richard Arthur Norton made the deletion of "famous" in the article, then Abuse truth discussed his deletion of "famous" from the article, so clearly it appears to be a sock puppet account.

Yes, Mr.Z-man, it is borderline, and it may have meant he would report me to AN/I as I have just done to him, so if it's not an issue with him, a legal threat that is, it's not an issue with me. The only reason I took it as one is his use of legal language, "libel," in the post. Thanks to both. KP Botany 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as Abuse truth has, it appears, edited disruptively from time to time, such that, were it a sock, its use would be disfavored, I have alerted Richard to this thread, although I recognize that, should there be no further issues with Abuse truth, this issue might be regarded as settled irrespective of sockpuppet issues. Joe 03:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ha! Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is me! I am not User:Abuse truth. I have even left messages to User:Abuse truth that made him/her angry. We just have a common interest in "allegations of Satanic abuse vs. actual Satanic abuse", and differ of which is which. We are opposite side of the same coin. I think you can look at my history and see my main interest is in aviation pioneers, and scientific topics, and biographies. An IP trace will show me in New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As an admin who has interacted with Richard, I find it a bit hard to believe sockpuppetry is involved here...I would suggest that unless someone wants to request a checkuser, focus should be on issues with Abuse truth. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That was, for what it's worth, essentially my thinking as well. Joe 03:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I remain confused about the sock puppetry, but wanted to post it also considering the nature of Abuse truth's edits in general. KP Botany 04:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can see here the two of us reversing edits, and sparring on the talk page. Her: [81] We have an adversarial relationship. I wrote this on their page: [82] and they then wrote this to me: [83]. Lesson learned for us all: editing good, paranoia bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact remains that Richard Arthur Norton removed the word "famous" from the article, and Abuse truth discussed the edit as if he had made it on the talk page. However, I'm not really concerned about the sock puppetry, unless these user(s) use it to game the system in some way. The issue is the libelous content on the article's talk page being posted to get around posting it in the BLP, and the legal threat, and these are being handled. KP Botany 04:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, I find Richard's argument persuasive and do not think he is using another account. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in editing Satanic ritual abuse with R.A.N., and Abuse truth has showed up there as well. Their POV's are diametrically opposed and they sometimes revert each other. RAN is a solid, competent good faith editor and Abuse truth is an axe-grinding SPA with a poor grasp of policy. Whatever is going on here, I find it extremely hard to believe that RAN is Abuse truth. <eleland/talkedits> 05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe I am sleepwikiediting. Looking at it, its is oddly written. I thought I may have written it, and not signed it, then Abuse wrote under me, but the log shows I didn't. Then I thought Abuse may have taken my summary and cut and paste it in the talk page, but it looks like that isn't correct either, so I am at a loss. Either way, Abuse must be smiling because we are pitted against each other, and acting paranoid. [[--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, see, it clearly shows you made the edit. What the heck, you say you didn't, I believe you, and this issue is not of concern. However, please, would people stop defending Richard as if he stands accused of something. I suggested repeatedly that the sock puppetry is not an issue, although it clearly shows by the edits that sock puppetry is worth suspicion. But, since I'm not accusing Richard of anything, the sock puppetry is not currently nefarious, and Abuse truth is the problematic editor, continuing to run in and defend Richard as if he's in need of defense is looking poorly. I'm not the least bit concerned about Richard's actions in any of this. I am wondering about the edit, now, because it certainly seems that Richard knows nothing about it. Very strange. KP Botany 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see any "legal" threat made by Abuse. The exact quote, since deleted by KP was "I will be reporting KP Botany for libel". There is no mention of courts or lawyers, just "reporting". I think tempers are getting put of control and maybe they should both take a vacation from editing the article they are fighting over. I don't want to be collateral damage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't sleep edit, you wouldn't be in any danger now, would you? No fear, I have no issues with you, and didn't have any. The only thing I have issues with is libelous statements in BLPs, and I can't back down from this. KP Botany 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Abuse Truth's reply: Please find below what I sent to the Elizabeth Loftus talk page yesterday. It has since been deleted.

threats and unfounded accusations

I recently received this at my talk page (of Abuse Truth):

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at talk:Elizabeth Loftus. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't put the unsourced material on the talk page to get it on Wikipedia instead of in the article--it's the same thing. And cut out the sock-puppetry also, use only one account, so I don't have to warn all your sock puppet accounts. KP Botany 22:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To address point one:

I reverted the edit by KP Botany because I believed much of that information was sourced and valid. I stated "Talk pages are the place to hash these issues out. I believe that much of the information below is well sourced. I am requesting that this data stay on the talk page until a discussion takes place."

Instead of a discussion of the information, I was threatened with being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Most of the information in the edited section was from "TREATING ABUSE TODAY magazine."

One article was at owt.com page, a copy of a journal article from ETHICS & BEHAVIOR

The second url http://kspope.com/memory/index.php Memory & Abuse: The Recovered Memory Controversy, doesn't even mention Elizabeth Loftus.

Yet this whole section was edited out of this page without discussion.

The second point:

that this user is using "sock-puppetry," is false and defamatory. I only have one account and am unsure which other person KP Botany is even talking about. If this statement is not immediately retracted, both on my talk page and this page, I will be reporting KP Botany for libel. (Abuse Truth)

As you can from the above, I originally reverted KP Botany's edits because I believed that these journal articles and their urls should be included in the talk page. And as the reader can tell from the above, Richard Arthur Norton and I are totally different people with different IP addresses. This shows that the accusation of sock-puppetry is false.

And what R.A.N. stated above is true ("I also don't see any "legal" threat made by Abuse.") No legal threat of any sort was ever made. What I meant was that I would be reporting KP Botany to Wikipedia at info-en@wikipedia.org (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel "If you believe that you are the subject of a libellous statement on Wikipedia, please: E-mail us with details of the article and error.") I am willing to drop this issue entirely, if KP Botany retracts his statement on my talk page that I was involved in sock-puppetry.Abuse truth 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment

65.247.55.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has "signed" my autograph book twice, but each time has signed as Bwjs (talk · contribs)--(first time and second time). BWJS has removed the comment each time, and has claimed the user isn't him. However, Im not so sure, considering this comment he left me on my talkpage and this one to my autograph book. Sasha Callahan 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Those first two comments I sent Sasha were mistakes. I would never want to do anything to harm her. Bwjs 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All of those comments are inappropriate, don't do it again. Mr.Z-man 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be appropriate to request a checkuser to see if 65.247.55.12 (talk · contribs) and Bwjs (talk · contribs) are the person? Or should I file a request? Sasha Callahan 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  When did he deny it was him? It looks pretty obvious they're the same - probably too obvious for a checkuser request. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  I assumed that by removing the comment, he was saying "I didn't leave it". Sasha Callahan 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  This and this say otherwise. At best, it was some friend of his leaving a filthy comment and him removing it. Regardless, some very long blocks will be unleashed if any more of that nonsense recurs. Unacceptable. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed, I don't think BWJS should be blocked, but if he continues he should be. Given the block log of 65.247.55.12, a block may be in order for them.

  And while were on it, if an admin has a minute, could they delete the edits I listed in the first paragraph of this section? Sasha Callahan 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  I think I got them all. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  You didn't need to remove BWJS's legit signing, but if he wants he can re-sign the page. Thanks. And I love the summary you put in the page logs. Sasha Callahan 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP was hardblocked for a week earlier today, a block I endorse. Sometimes a hardblock is as good as a checkuser ;) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And I don't recommend Bwjs bother signing your page or contacting you in any way. He needs to play on a different side of the encyclopedia starting now. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Rackabello

• This was newbie biting, and the statement on lack of context was nonsense (not that it couldn't have been made clearer by additional information).
• This edit asserted that the page was "unquestionably" a copyright violation. Nonsense; a terse statement on what positions a professor holds is not subject to copyright.
• This edit was irresponsible. The article clearly did not fail to assert notability. The fact that someone didn't understand the assertion of notability does not justify requesting speedy deletion; one should do that only if one KNOWS there is none. One of the world's most eminent scientists was the author of this Wikipedia entry and it was clear he was going to add more.

This user goes around tagging for speedy deletion all short new articles that, in his ignorance, he doesn't understand. In some cases just checking google scholar would clear up his benightedness. Michael Hardy 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I can't speak about the last two, but the first one as is was a clear nocontext speedy. The author is responsible for providing his or her own references. JuJube 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Point 2 is a word for word copy of the first sentence of the externally linked bio, so technically that is indeed a copyvio and therefore the CSD is justifiable. It's then up to the deleting admin to decide on whether the technicality is enough. Point 3 again is borderline. Merely inventing a mathematical equation is not necessarily an assertion of notability. A New Page Patroller isn't a mindreader and can't know what the next edit is going to be so has no idea if references are going to be given. So again this is a borderline decision which would be caught by the deleting admin. Personally I can't see why an ANI was called for.WebHamster 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, giving someone the instruction to "back off" can hardly be described as being civil. May I ask why you didn't use your right to remove the CSD tags? ---- WebHamster 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rackabello hasn't edited since getting talk page messages about this a few hours ago. I think this ANI thread is premature.--chaser - t 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The best course of action in these situations is to talk to the user first. Every person I have clarified CSD for or corrected on tag usage has taken it really well, and I've had some great conversations with people of the nuances of deletion. I see that you left Rackabello a message, but you were kind of mean to him. That message certainly wouldn't make me want to have a conversation with you. Natalie 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at the edits in question, in Rackabello's defense, one should not have to look up a topic elsewhere on the internet to know what the article is about. Wikipedia articles "go live" and should be ready for public consumption from the first time you click "Save page." If an average person (Wikipedia's target audience) cannot understand an article without doing a Google search in addition to reading it, the article probably does not have adequate context. If you can't provide enough info in the first save ("Show preview" is really helpful for this), you may want to consider starting it in a user subpage before moving it to articlespace. Mr.Z-man 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the claim about "no context" is nonsense. Look at the article. Anyone can tell what the context is. It's about the anatomy of the brain, and a model of it. As for copyright violation: that is wrong. Such terse statements of fact are not copyrightable. Nobody said "merely inventing a mathematical equation" asserts notability. If you don't even know enough not to use the word "equation" in that way, then you shouldn't be judging such a thing, and if someone who doesn't know even such secondary-school things as what an equation is deletes such an article, that is abuse; it is vandalism. I don't ask for mindreaders; I ask those who ought to know they don't understand an article not to do such things. I can't believe some people don't find that obvious. Michael Hardy 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't need to know the subject matter to be able to issue a CSD, one only needs to know the WP guidelines. Notability is not subjective. An article that doesn't assert notability is liable for deletion at anytime regardless of the subject matter. Words are copyrightable, all it took was to rearrange them. A quick cut and paste from another website is a copyvio whether you like it or not. When it all comes down to it a CSD is just another maintenance tag. It's up to an Admin to decide whether it's warranted or not. A non-bad faith CSD tagging is not vandalism regardless of your chagrin and upset sensibilities. Either way there is nothing to stop you from removing the CSD tags. Either way it's not an ANI matter. Rackabello is not out of order issuing these CSD notices, he hasn't breached the rules. It's as simple as that. Whereas you have with your uncivil berating of him on his own talk page. ---- WebHamster 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone can tell"? I had no idea, but I guess that just makes me an idiot in your eyes. Your position makes it sound as though people shouldn't be chastized for writing patent nonsense because, after all, it makes sense to them. You're acting pretty smarmy right now. JuJube 20:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it wasn't just me. The term "condescension" was what sprang to my mind, but smarmy works too :) ---- WebHamster 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said notability is subjective. But obviously you need some background knowledge to assess notability in some cases. Those who lack the knowledge of the subject needed to assess notability of an article should (obviously!) leave it alone. JuJube, are you saying you actually had no idea that the article titled visual feature array is about the anatomy of the brain? I am very very remote from that subject and even I understood that. The visual cortex is a part of the brain. As for "condescension": It is reasonable for me to require those who can't understand the word equation not to lecture me about judging notability in math articles. Michael Hardy 04:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a video game console spec. JuJube 04:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Persistant harassment by Winky Bill (talk · contribs)

This user was blocked 3 days ago for harassment and disruptive editing. He has continued to harass me, and placed false AfD listings on articles I have either created or contributed to. Not to mention the fact that this user is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user Jetwave Dave (talk · contribs). Please take action on this obvious attempt to circumvent an indefinite blocking. This last bit (the circumvention of an indefinite block part) was apparently ignored the last time I posted here. Parsecboy 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was the admin who blocked him last time. Winky started a series of AFDs all of which were immediately reverted (and stopped when I asked him to explain[84]). Other than that, I cannot clearly see any harassment that Parsecboy is pointing at. Is there some background I'm missing? All I see are some articles created and some page moves. Parsecboy, maybe you should consider asking for a checkuser. If it is in fact Jetwave Dave, then he will (plus any other socks) be blocked immediately and indefinitely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Winky also saw fit to remove this thread [85] rather than comment on it. Just a passing observation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough for me. Blocked indefinitely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, that first diff cited (linky) was the addition of Parsecboy's name as a "sexual assault" victim. Combined with all the rest of the disruption to Parsecboy's page and articles that he started, as well as the probable sockpuppetry = plenty for an indef block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The first diff was the earlier (in retrospect, way too light) block. Apologies, but I couldn't find any Jetwave Dave history to compare. All I had was a series of "please block him indefinitely" requests. I don't even know what was wrong with all the articles created. Is there some place where the background on Jetwave Dave could be found? It would help if I see him again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Diff: 00:45, October 9, 2007

Block: 08:08, October 6, 2007

Your block was over Winky's edits to Parsecboy's userpage. He just didn't stop and stepped it up a notch. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)