Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274

Anonimu constantly calling "ultra-nationalist" people with whom he disagrees

This might seem like a minor thing, but it is gone too far. Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is contantly calling me and a couple other users (in the last 2 days User:Biruitorul, but also several others) ultra-nationalist, or if he is in a better mood, only nationalist [1].

After a previous incident that I have reported, he was forced by an admin to remove a picture that explicitely protrayed users on WP holding different oppinions than Anonimu as fascist [2]. After that he has put a banner over here [3], and every time I would live him a message b/c of his different edits on pages, he erases them and calls me nationalist pov banned from my userpage or vandal (see his talk page history).

Given the fact that he continuously makes controversial edits, I, Biruitorul, and a couple other users are trying the best to talk with him, to accomodate Anonimu's viewpoints, to propose compromize edits (he is a declared communist, and removes every critics of communism he sees in articles). We never call him "communist POV", and always are civil with him. But every time he uses "ultra-nationalist", "your nationalist POV is a fact" and refuses to stop doing so. How is it possinle to talk with such users? I can no longer bear a discussion in the talk pages with someone who every time, absolutely every time calls me "ultra-nationalist". This is total incivility! Should I just revert his edits in the article? Please, help.:Dc76\^talk 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We can take a look. Some admins will consider this kind of language uncivil and maybe even blockable if done to excess. My perspective, however, is that you can survive such language by ignoring it. I certainly would not recommend edit warring in article mainspace as retaliation for incivility on a Talk Page. That is highly disproportionate and disruptive. I would block you in a heartbeat if I thought you had done that.

I would counsel you to follow the dispute resolution process. Seek a third opinion. Issue a Request for Comment. If Anonimu is editing against consensus, that is blockable as disruptive behavior. Is calling you an ultra-nationalist an example of an uncivil personal attack? Maybe. Is it something that demands administrative action? I'll go take a look but my instinct tells me that a thicker skin and an attempt to seek consensus via WP:DR would be more appropriate than admin action.

--Richard 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

All I am asking is someone to tell him to stop calling other people "ultra-nationalist". I did not ask to block him. If you find evidence that that's necessary, you are on your own. I could definitevely ignore his language, as I did for 2 months now. But I am forced to talk with him on the talk pages, and all I want is to discuss without names. And no, I don't want to edit war with him. If I make an edit wihtout prior talk, he calls it rv even if I suggest something different. If I talk, he replies and calls me "ultra-nationalist". Can he reply without calling me "ultra-nationalist" ? I did not know about third opinion. That's an idea. Next time, I'll try that. Thanks. Is it still possible to ask him to use more civil language when addressing fellow editors? :Dc76\^talk 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "ultranationalist" that poses a problem with Anonimu. Most annoying, he is systematically involved in revert wars on Communism-related subjects. Take a look at Romanian Communist Party, to see how he is always (every other day) at the limit of 3RR, against all decent editing practices, and refusing to give a meaningful reason for his reverts. If admins did their job, he should have been blocked a long time ago for disruptive editing practices (as explained on WP:3RR). Dpotop 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"If admins did their job". Have you brought it to admin attention before? Neil ╦ 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Anonimu did it himself, when he asked for a 3RR block against me. To my surprise, I got blocked, even though I had no 4 reverts in 24 hours. Thanks to a helping admin. When I asked why I got blocked, the admin blocked my access to this page. When other users asked why I got blocked, they got no response (BTW, the admin is User:SlimVirgin). BTW, I was not able to find the 3RR report of Anonimu on WP:3RR or on the talk page of SlimVirgin. I therefore presume it was done off Wikipedia, and I can assure you it was fast. Dpotop 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the admins don't do their job: In my case, SlimVirgin trusted this user who gave false info, and did not check whether my reverts were against obvious vandalism (which is the case, anyway). Dpotop 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu should be safely ignored given the use of the term "nationalist" that seems to have been thrown around (which, 99% of the time on the Wiki, means "your POV is different"). Just looking over his contribs, he seems to forget some basic policies quite often. As the original poster said, there's a slow edit war which he's against three others reverting his changes. Also, on Talk:Chernivtsi Oblast#Romanian map, he's violating WP:V (i.e. verifiability, not truth), WP:NPA calling other editors fascist, civility concerns here, AGF and NPA concerns here and here. That's from the latest hundred contributions. I think the best course of action is to create an RFC, I think it would be easily certified. Will ^(talk) 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's easily certifiable, which I agree with, then the request of Dc76 belongs here. It's called simple vandalism, and you should interven. If not, I've already seen RfCs and I know it's a huge investment of time for little or no return. And even if a decision is reached, it lasts forever, because on subjects related to Eastern Europe, nobody seems to care. Dpotop 03:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took a look and there is clear edit warring going on at Romanian Communist Party. I'm sure this will not make Dc76 happy but the version that got protected was Anonimu's version. Please do not ask for a different version to be protected. It is our job to protect the "wrong" version and I have done that. ;^) Seriously, you need to lay out on the Talk Page what the issues are and then either ask for a third opinion or issue a request for comment. If Anonimu is "dead wrong", that will become obvious. If, however, he has some valid points, then it would behoove you to seek a compromise with him.

I should point out that there are "content RFCs" and "editor RFCs". A "content RFC" asks members of the community about a content dispute. A "editor RFC" asks members of the community to comment about the behavior of another editor. I would recommend starting with a "content RFC". You can always file the "editor RFC" later if you are just running up against a brick wall with Anonimu.

Good luck.

--Richard 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. When you don't care, create a commission, or maybe two. :) Dpotop 07:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu is a vandal that should be banned. Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) look at his edits--Causelaugh 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Banning User:Anonimu would not be a tragedy for the Wikipedia, however I would think twice before forcing him/her to stop using ad-hominem attack - this incivil language accurately labels his POV and more civil prose would only confuse the casual reader into taking him a bit more seriously. Enry Iggins 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

El Señor del Encino requires deletion. Would an admin please execute.

Resolved

 – ugen64 06:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabias (talk • contribs)

I don't see the urgency in deletion which would explain leaving a comment here. The article has an expired PROD, and will be deleted without WP:ANI intervention. Od Mishehu 07:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Request fo Ban from Wikipedia of User:Mathsci

Dear admins, the actions of the User:Mathsci overstepped all possible limits. Particularly this user transferred his edit war in other encyclopedias such as PlanetMath. Please first check this extremely offensive and intolerable post, where is used the Bulgarian flag with a gun and title of the image "Bulgarian mafia"

http://mathsci.free.fr/

Of course as I suspect User:Mathsci will soon find out that posting such "jokes" is going to be punished he will possibly delete the mentioned web page above, however I have back-up-ed a copy as evidence of his malicious actions.

Image:User-Mathsci-personal-and-natianal offence-Mafia.jpg (Image linked, not inlined, because it's not free. - Quadell)

So I have requested admind to ban this user, for edit warring, harassment, and posting lies and false content in Wikipedia. Now I add some more facts, which overstep the boundaries of normal behavior, and I reveal the identity of this vandal.

Section removed by Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC). We are not here ot "out" people

He clearly violated many times my requests to stop to post false content, here is the typical example: Talk:Sine-Gordon_equation#Unauthorised use of computer-manipulated images and I request those admins who are aware of the confrontation between User:Mathsci and me to post below their third party thinking.

I have tried to follow the advice of User:Quadell and to ignore the actions of Mathsci a.k.a. Mr. Rusty .., etc. but he does not want to ignore me. I hope he will get banned for posting offensive material in Wikipedia against me for accusing me in plagiarism and incompetence, and for making morraly unacceptible jokes with Bulgarians as a nation -- is this racism, or what?? -- see also my request here which has not been resolved, I do believe admin arbitration is necessary Danko Georgiev MD 09:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we cannot police what someone does on otther wikis or what they do on thier own websites. If he is edit warring here please give us some more diffs (The one you posted could be down to a missunderstanding). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is some evidence for edit warring, posting offenses, and false accusations by User:Mathsci despite of my requests to stop this. Florentin_Smarandache article

see - revert [4] - explanation: "rv remove irrelevant non-biographical material another revert here

Tabish Qureshi article -

here] blanking of almost everything in the original article, with the same moto: "removed non-biographical and non-verifiable material" despite of the fact he deletes peer-reviewed and published bibliography in one of the most famous physical journals "Physical Review"! (non-verifiable???).

Bill Unruh article edit - removed non-biographical material - the same reason for the edit war at Florentin Smarandache article

sine-Gordon equation article deletion of 9 high quality animation plus accusation in plagiarism here

Another charges of plagiarism of mine here of 3 images released at Andrica's_conjecture plus various other accusations.

Numerous personal attacks " Your illogical statements above suggest that either you are ill or on on medication. Is this the case?" or "If you cannot understand the meaning of simple and elementary mathematical statements, as now sadly appears to be the case, you should stop editing mathematical wikipedia articles beyond your expertise." from User_talk:Mathsci/Archive_2. Elsewhere he only provoked my replies, and in the last 30-40 days except for doing some edits at articles Hyakumangoku_Matsuri, Kanazawa#Picture_Gallery and Kanazawa_University where most of the material is just photos released by me, I was not able to do anything substantial in Wikipedia because I was involved in this war.

People who do not respect ethics and rules of Wikipedia and post racist images in the web, are shame for everybody and should be banned from Wikipedia. I think the rules should be more strict for vandals of the type which is Mathsci a.k.a Mr.Rusty or real name [removed per Theresa Knott's example above DreamGuy 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)]-- personal war and offences concerning the educational status should not be tolerated , as a lot of Wikipedia editors do not have PhD or other higher University degrees. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried any of the typical avenues of dispute resolution?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, MathSci has been difficult to deal with and does seem to "have it in" for Danko Georgiev. Both users have made very useful contributions, and I'd much prefer to not have anyone leave or be blocked over this. I'd recommend seeking Wikipedia:Mediation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation seems appropriate, but may not be needed. Danko, do you still plan on leaving wikipedia? If so, you can pursue Mathsci through Mathworld. If not, I think your lengthy history with him definitely warrants mediation or intervention. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that among off-Wiki attacks, only personal attacks may be considered in terms of possible on-wiki remedies. General racism (if any) should not be considered.

I can see that the matter between these two editors has escalated beyond belief, and, although I believe Mathsci to have the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policies in regard the articles they have been in conflict over, and to have superior technical knowledge, that both have violated WP:NPA from time to time. The question of who did so first is irrelevant. In theory, I recommend mediation. (In practice, the only mediation in which I was a named party which opened, was dropped because the mediator went on Wiki-break. The matter in question seems to still be escalating....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall reply briefly to the query shall I leave Wikipedia -- in the past 30 days I have NO useful edits except for answering the Mathsci nasty attacks and tricky games. I just want to ask Arthur Rubin, who also happens to be an admin: "Why do you support Alan?", just because you are good friends or what? Also his clearly offensive website against Bulgarians and with the Japanese flag and his posts at PlanetMath reveal he is lacking basic understanding of math logic. Why you don't read the discussion in PlanetMatch first before you take a side in suc a debate -- I have asked clear technical question "is the Godel number of the proof of the equation 0=1 existent in w-consistent formal system F?". As this is easy question, the reply is "NO", then I ask "does the Godel number of the proof of the equation 0=1 in w-consistent formal system F has proper definition and is it meaningless?" Answer - it is NOT meaningless despite of the fact it is NOT existent. I realize that this is very complicated and advanced mathematical stuff, and possibly other wiki-editors will not understand, but I hope Arthur Rubin having PhD will see what I am saying, and will stop to defend his friend Alan Weinstein. This is not "corrupted brotherhood", this is society based on the common interest to gather knowledge in Wikipedia. If Mathsci is not banned, I see no reason why I should contribute when my edits will be reverted by Mathsci and his defenders. BTW, Mathsci aka Mr. Rusty himself revealed why he likes this nickname by extremely unethical post laughing at some person called Rusty who jumped from the 8 floor of Evans Hall where is Alan's office. I see no other resolution except for ban of Mathsci. Or, maybe there is one -- public letter of appology on my talk page, explaining and confessing in full length his malicious actions and asking for forgiveness (note: a letter not less than 2500 words signed by his exact real name, not the nickname). Then I might reconsider my request for his ban. So nobody can accuse me now that I don't want to cooperate - just there should be justice for and some form of punishment for such a ridiculous and offensive behavior - PhDs are no excuse for his actions and humiliation of Bulgarians and Japanese flag. Danko Georgiev MD 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any relevance of the website you link to for this case. First, I can't see any evidence that it is linked to the Wikipedia editor Mathsci; second, what he does on other websites is none of our business as long as it does not interfere with things that happen on Wikipedia. If you want to pursue dispute resolution further, you may escalate this to the Arbitration Committee; however, I must warn you that threats like this help to make you much closer to being banned than Mathsci. Kusma (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• [1] I did not threaten Mathsci, I asked him to stop, he did not stop, and I post his name. Fair trade.
• [2] I did not request his identity, he repeatedly tormented me, and his malicious actions are well documented, so I had to find out his real name, because cowards are very brave when anonymous. If you do crime then all rules do not apply, and criminals do not have equal rights to other citizens. Please consult the law, Mathsci himself forced me to find out who he is. Did I asked him who is he before he strated to post offenses, did I bother of his existence before he decided that he cannot peacefully co-edit with me. Did I ask who is he before he claimed ownership of the whole math field? The answers are clear - for criminals there should be a punishment, I did nothing but just defended myself.
• [3] As I did not contribute anything substantial in the past 30 days and I will possibly not edit if the mentioned user is not banned it makes no difference for me whether I shall be banned. Please do not accuse me when being a victim in taking the criminal's place.

Also it is hard to be always polite when nobody of the admins helps you, nor the person who you request many times to stop does not stop. I have even posted on his talk page the optimistic "I believe the tomahawk of war is burried". And yes, it does matter who starts first -- if somebody wants to kill you, and you kill him, this in the law is called self-defence is not a crime. Danko Georgiev MD 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for maliciously posting an editor's personal information. Others may wish to consider lengthening this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Block changed to indefinite, as he has promised to continue the same behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    Well, he said he was leaving, anyway. (Does it matter that Mathsci chose to E-mail me with proof of his identity, and it's not "Alan".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    • It's kinda like selling a cop a bag of oregano. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    Support indefinite block; outing Wikipedians real identities is completely unacceptable. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gelssam30032

Somebody please block page move vandal User:Gelssam30032. Corvus cornix 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the page moves should be deleted out of the article histories; those were some fairly obscene personal attacks. Someguy1221 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did that for the user page but I'm hesitant to do it for the talk page, which has a large history. ugen64 06:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Null link edits

Resolved

 – ugen64 06:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell what Achangeisasgoodasa (talk · contribs) is doing? The edits are marked minor with an edit summary of "link", but I can't detect what the edits are doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's adding periods to links (very hard to spot!) to correct the name of the link (F.C --> F.C.). Someguy1221 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Adding missing full-stops and bypassing redirects. At least from the first few I looked at. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ah, thanks so much !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just received an offensive email from a Wiki contributer...

I just received an offensive email from User:Gprice, because I gave him a vanalism tag (he replaced a Petey Piranha image with something else about a week ago) (the title of the email being called "Wikipedia e-mail"):

"Sorry, I made an honest mistake. I promise I won't do it again. In
the meantime you sanctimonious, teenage, Nintendo-playing, Australian
asshole, why don't you just suck my dick.

"Vandalism at Image:Petey.jpg

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you
did to Image:Petey.jpg. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hardcore gamer 48 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)" "

I'd appreciate it if someone could do something about this. I'm not about to let someone who doesn't even know me attempt to judge and offend me, and let them get away with it. In the meantime, I've removed the option for Wiki contributers to email me. Hardcore gamer 48 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it and ask an administrator to block the account permanently while revoking his "email this user" privilege. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask a stupid question, but... how exactly can I contact an administrator? o^_^o Hardcore gamer 48 11:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind; I just saw you left something for the admins for me. Thanks! Hardcore gamer 48 11:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Gprice is permablocked. With that much obvious vandalism, WP:AIV is the place to go. Looks like that article may need protection soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ^_^ Hardcore gamer 48 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

and wikilobbying doesn't have it's own article?

I was just checking my mail and...well, funny, sad--I don't think pre-emptive action is require, but I just wanted to let people know in case this became an issue. I'm including the text as it will probably be flagged down shortly.

There is a new word that describes people that go from sex site to sex site online. man or a woman they both are called the same things sexeteers, - This term will be presented at the Playboy Building ( 2nd call) before july is over. You would need to massively promote this term - Sexeteer- In fact tonight when you are l;ooking for that flame you will be acting as a sexeteer.

A sexeteer is ile one of the 3 musketeers but with sex. -

This will become a common term in the aduly world and the erotic shows There is a new word that sescribes people that go from sex site to sex site. Doesnt matter if its a man or a woman theyboth are called sexeteers, A sexeteer is ile one of the 3 musketeers but with sex. - Start to work the day we hire you

Can you get this new term to take root in society. Starting with wikipedia. If you are an internet genius and can get Sexeteer or the variatipon spelling of Sexateer some verifiable traffic as in click on a line that aske What is a sexeteer" - we want you. We need you fr 112 projects - but this is where your proving grounds would be.

Obviously if people go through with this, it won't just be a problem in terms of creating new articles (easily dealt with), but using the word in existing articles. Miss Mondegreen talk  12:19, July 20 2007 (UTC)

The only way it should get into WP is when it arrives as part of a reference source, there is no necessity for the editorship to use it. If it ever gets into common parlance then there just might be enough notability to justify a small article, but it needs to establish itself as a word, or term, or phrase first. IMO, if the word is used, uncited, in a WP article then it should be replaced. LessHeard vanU 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously--just warning people to be on the lookout for it. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:15, July 20 2007 (UTC)

They've invented this word and they can't even figure out how to spell it? In any case, file it under "STD". Baseball Bugs 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've plugged sexeteer/sexateer into Lupin's /badword directory, so Lupin's AV tool should start flagging it. Acroterion _(talk) 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird stuff

Hello, I hope this is the right place to raise this, but some weird stuff is going on at the Railpage article [5] At the suggestion of another user I had it nominated for peer review, that's now gone (been deleted), now its been nominated for deletion by an anonymous IP address user. Require Administrator assistanceTezza1 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the AFD tag due to the incomplete nomination. Not sure what else is transpiring at that article... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what the problem is... Tezza1, you added a Wikiproject tag to the main aritcle space and that was removed. That particular tag goes on the article talkpage, not in the article itself. I'm guessing that is the deletion you are talking about.--Isotope23 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it... the Wikiproject tag as well as a peer review tag linking to the peer review request you created have been added to Talk:Railpage Australia.--Isotope23 14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was sure I asked for peer review according to the guidelines. But if I didn't please advise me on my talk page.Tezza1 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need a Little Salt...

Resolved

I was just patrolling new pages to see if any met the criteria for speedy deletion. I came across The Kahoos, which I tagged as under CSD A7. When I went to notify the page's creator Thewrench101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I noticed that he had created a page called the the kahoos, which had been created by Thewrench101 5 times and deleted each time. (Logs for kahoos). Because of this I gave thewrench a final warning for creating inappropriate pages, and I think it might be time for an admin to salt the page.

Thanks New England ^{(C) (H)} 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Salted with one click. Maxim 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't salt as a non-admin. New England ^{(C) (H)} 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I know... but the Twinkle tab is probably the most effecient Twinkle fuction, IMO. --Maxim 14:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Starblind

 Done

Could someone please delete this and block the several trolls editing it? An "abusive" Starblind sock was created (contributions: editing own userpage with a {{sockpuppet}} tag), and this spa came along and filed this rfcu. The Evil Spartan 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thatcher131 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Stillstudying

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.

---

Guys, this happened days ago now, let's forget it and move on - prolonging things is not only a waste of time, but also making the situation worse. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough of attempting to put up with this user now. I believe User:Stillstudying is a sockpuppet of User:Oldwindybear, but I am giving Oldwindybear a chance to respond to the accusation before I bring it here. However, Stillstudying is now being disruptive in his own right. In the above thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block on New England, Stillstudying was irrationally demanding an apology from New England for claiming it wasn't Stillstudying that nominated Oldwindybear for adminship. In the middle of complaining about New England not apologising on User talk:Stillstudying, he then proceeded to vote oppose on an RfA that New England had supported, giving vague concerns about a lack of experience. Stillstudying now has a nice rant on his user talk page claiming how I retaliate at anyone who "dares to speak up against me". I've had about enough of this now, and I need uninvolved admins to help with this situation. --Deskana (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify- I need uninvolved admins to do something about this user before I do something I may later regret out of anger. --Deskana (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an SSP on oldwindybear and Stillstudying in May '06 that never seems to have been addressed once it devolved into a mess. MSJapan 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't a checkuser being done? Or was there and I missed it? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana is probably stressed due to reasons that are partially my fault. Yesterday, I asked him to help me deal with my suspicion that Stillstudying is Oldwindybear's sockpuppet. I was (and am) not terribly familiar with the SSP/RFCU process, and don't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia this week, so he seems to have tried to pick up the slack. It isn't fair of me to hide behind him, and is probably adding to a large workload. Plus, it makes me out as a bit of a coward.

Please note that this is not a simple Deskana vs. Stillstudying dispute. I will officially file an SSP or RFCU report or something as soon as I get a reasonably long break from work today, and as soon as I can figure out how to do it. Deskana, you need not deal with this anymore, and sorry I dumped it on you. My own suggestion is to temporarily put his RfA comment back (no rush, it closes in the future), close this thread, let him yell at the top of his lungs on his user talk page, and wait for me to get my bearings. --barneca (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm clearly the evil guilty party, I've unstruck Stillstudying's vote from the RfA. No doubt Oldwindybear will agree with Stillstudying, as he always does. For the record, User:DeskanaTest agrees with me. But meatpuppets aren't allowed... or so I thought. --Deskana (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will respectfully suggest that given the past history here ([6], [7]), this is not an accusation to be bandied about lightly. Presumably you have some evidence for this beyond the fact that they're both quite upset over what happened with the recent RfA? (It's not like they're the only ones, after all; they just happen to be the most vocal.)

In any case, the better approach here is to try and defuse the situation rather than inflaming it further. Following Stillstudying around and publically striking his comments—in a case where they aren't likely to matter, no less—is rather unhelpful, in my opinion. Kirill 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please close this thread and nip it in the bud? I promise I will file an RFCU before Oldwindybear starts posting this evening. I don't see how this thread helps anything. --barneca (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have advised User:Stillstudying of this thread, as it would appear no-one else has, which I find a bit discourteous. Pedro |  Chat  14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro, and you're right, I'm sorry, wasn't planning on doing this today and am a bit flustered. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No problems at all. Pedro |  Chat  14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Some significant evidence of sock/meatpuppetry can be found but contrib evidence alone is inconclusive. They seem to edit many of the same articles, often ask each other for help, agree with each other and there have been previous concerns raised, very suspicious first edit. Also, both start replies to comments with the sig of the user they are replying to. I would perhaps not consider this evidence as significant as I have if it were not the case that one of the users is an admin who seems to have only a single action so far. To sum up, very concerning but inconclusive and I would support a checkuser being carried out. GDonato (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed that both do indeed start replies by using the name of the user they are replying to. However I note the OWB tends (not always but mainly) to use the unadorned signature (i.e. Pedro) whereas SS tends to cut and paste the code of the sig out (I noticed this as he misses the <span> style from the HTML of my sig, resulting in it going large and losing the padding.) So it would seem reasonable, on that at least, that SS ran into the way OWB starts his replies and just thought he'd follow a "convention". Pedro |  Chat  14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFCU filed I have filed a request for check user. It can be found here. I have notified the suspected accounts. barneca (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Open question, since this thread isn't going away: Am I supposed to file an SSP now, or wait for the RFCU, or what? --barneca (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an SSP was opened up previously (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear). It doesn't look like it was really fully investigated, though. -- Merope 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and a claim was made he was Pocklington Dan, also. I am sort of bemused by how I got involved in this. I do not approve of Stillstudying's comments, and do not support him in what happened yesterday or today. I support check user if it will resolve this. I do not use sock puppets - my only question echos kirill's, which is, how did I get caught up in this? I cannot see any evidence I am doing anything. (This is my only posting, let the system work! I trook off to go to the Library of Congress to research my Republic of Texas series, and am going, though I will not edit till this is resolved) {sorry! had to change computers, and forgot to sign in!} old windy bear 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to jump in with oil on the fire, but... having examined oldwindybear and Stillstudying's contributions back as far as I can, I can find no overlap at all. Now, I may have missed an edit here or there, but it's extremely odd that two people in the same time zone would never be editing simultaneously. Stillstudying tends to contribute in blocks in the middle of the day (UCT) - and interestingly, contributes primarily on weekdays and rarely on weekends or holidays (e.g. July 4th). A little odd for a grad student, but maybe they like to get outside. Oldwindybear contributes heavily in the evening and on weekends, and occasioanlly states he can't log in because he's at work. A suspicious person would add this up: their contribs never overlap despite living in the same time zone; one contributes on weekdays and the other on weeknights, weekends, and holidays; they follow each other around; Oldwindybear won't log on with his account from work; one logs in from DC and one from suburban Maryland ([8]); they're overly defensive about who nominated whom... there are rational explanations for any of these in isolation. Together they concern me. If these are two accounts, one being used from work and one from home, then checkuser is going to have a tough time. Something doesn't smell right here. Hopefully I'm just being overly paranoid. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppy is paranoid too, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Possibly un-checkuserable as noted, however, unless one or the other has slipped up in the past few weeks. Thatcher131 18:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to give in to my tendency to sarcasm, because innocent people are involved in this. Please do checkuser. It will show that the last year and a half, over 500 edits, I am no one but me. I have concentrated on books and movies. My only involvement with sites used by the bear is where he asked me, such as military history. One thing is clear to me: this situation is intolerable. People are now saying that checkuser won't show the truth. I am leaving wikipedia, today, and this is my last edit. I do ask you do checkuser to show the truth. But I am not going to be harrassed, and I don't want innocent people harassed. Stillstudying 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this, too. To be even more paranoid - on the days when both edit - 17 July, SS edits 79 minutes after OW's last edit. 16 July - 59 minutes. 12/7 - OW edits 81 minutes after SS's last edit. 10/7 - SS edits 64 minutes after OW's last in the morning, OW edits 102 minutes after SS's last in the evening. 29/6 - 85 minutes... etc. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report. This is what I've been trying to organize in coherent form. --barneca (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

barneca (talk Well Barneca, I looked over your "evidence" and the fact that you say - and I am not convinced, I have not looked at every edit - that SS and I do not edit at the same time is "evidence" we are the same person. I ask in return, what about the pattern of editing? We don't edit the same topics, except where I tried to get him interested in military history, AS I DO FOR MANY EDITORS. (ask Jonas and Ewulp, to name two I did the same thing for!) A detailed look at his contributions show a different style, and different interests, his are primarily movies and books, while mine rarely enter into those areas. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to override check-user by saying it is possible, since we both, admittedly, live in the same metropolitan area, (by our talk pages), to be the same person. To support this, no offense, and to override the fact we had different basic interests, you say since he edited during the day, and I the evening, that we must, epso de facto, be the same person. No offense, but that is CRAZY. Would you like to offer a thought what I had to gain by editing over 500 edits, in different areas, over a year? 66 people, 64 if you discount the two you have identified, thought enough of me to vote me unopposed for admin. You pretty much concede that check-user will not support any charges, so you say to heck with that, if they didn't edit the same time - never mind they were editing different things most of the time - they must be the same person. I am sorry, but that is plain crazy. Finally, I will offer that if anyone contacts Jonashart, he will verify that while SS was arguing with people in wikipedia, I emailed him, telling him no good would come of it, and asking him to post a message asking SS to email me from my profile. Are you also saying then that I was similitaneously emailing Jonas to leave messages for myself while answring them? I am sorry, but you pretty much concede there is NO evidence except we may, if the two talk pages are correct, live within the same general metropolitan area. I am sorry, but that is really stretching it, and as Kirill says, this has become a fishing expedition. I have tried to be patient, but this has gone into the realm of the downright silly. Bluntly, you have not even offered enough real evidence to even warrant check-user, but as you probably know check-user won't show us to be the same, you are now saying, ah-hah, they planned this out, and what evidence is there? Where are the same interests, the same type edits? His shining achievement was a rewrite of The Searchers, the film, and if you study that rewrite, and the peer review, it is totally different from my style of writing. We are supposed to assume good faith, to override it, to go big brother, to quote you, to have compelling evidence. You have NO evidence, except the admitted fact we may live within the same 10 million person metropolitan area! This is sad. old windy bear 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear:
" Confirmed that Stillstudying is the same user as Finishedwithschool. (Not too surprising, given the names.)
Jonashart and Oldwindybear are  Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two. Other than Jonashart, they're all in the same major metropolitan area."
See Herefor the diff. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Stillstudying and Finishedwithschool both supported OWB at WP:RFA. That's sock abuse. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also double voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation and consensus stacking here and here and here. And now the little exchange at User talk:Finishedwithschool#Please look at The Searchers is a bit spooky. No wonder Stillstudying apparently left Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that open up the possibility of OWB going to Arbcom. And the argument could be made that OWB is a Meatpuppet. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow that line of reasoning. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First the arbcom thing: since his RFA was initiated by a sockpuppeteer who commited vote fraud, it could mean his RFA was "not kosher". And OWB and SS could be meatpuppets, or not the same user but two different users acting together. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As to the RFA, an extra vote doesn't overturn a 66-0-1 RFA.--Chaser - T 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the template {{sockpuppet}} be added to SS and JFS user pages? And what, if any, punishment will SS/JFS be subject too? New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't punish, as we're not sadomasochists. —Kurykh 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't one of them be blocked so this activity doesn't happen? And what about template {{sockpuppet}}? New England ^{(C) (H)} 04:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Stillstudying for 24 hours and Finishedwithschool indefinitely. (Other admins: please adjust the former as appropriate, as I don't usually block in this area.) This isn't punitive. It's more of a warning, but it seems to be standard practice to block for some time.--Chaser - T 04:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Like MastCell, Killer Chihuahua and others - and having supported Oldwindybear's successful RfA - I can only concur that on its face this is all very suspicious. The CU result only increases the appearance of impropriety by showing that Stillstudying and Finishedwithschool are the same user, while confirming that all are in the same Metropolitan area - a result totally consistent with the work/home scenario suggested above. I suggest relisting the WP:SSP report and linking it to this thread. I will closely examine the report, as will others. That page needs more attention, anyhow, and we need a method to identify sockpuppets when Checkuser can't or won't give the answer.Proabivouac 06:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't make too much of the Metropolitan area thing. I live in the Tampa Bay area which consists of more than two million people - including Wikimedia. I.e., I'm in the same metropolitan area as Jimbo Wales! That doesn't mean that I am Jimbo Wales or that I know Jimbo Wales or anyone else that runs this organization... Let's not get paranoid. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, and I don’t want to spam multiple pages. Since this is more or less addressed to everyone, I’ll put it on this page and copy on OWB’s talk page; anyone interested will likely have one or the other watch listed.

First, and most important, I truly apologize to the community, including Oldwindybear, for bringing this up before I had all my ducks in a row. I was originally trying to avoid drama, and quietly do just that, but I managed (through a combination of inexperience with the SSP/RFCU process, concern I had put Deskana in a bad position, adrenaline, and run-of-the-mill stupidity, not necessarily in that order), to do exactly the opposite. I dislike wikidrama, and apologize for creating it.

I feel a little like the boy saying that the emperor has no clothes; it really amazes me that what I am saying is not readily apparent to everyone else. A wise person would take this as evidence that they should at least re-evaluate their opinion. I am doing so. But this is not a reason to go along and say that the emperor does, indeed, have a magnificent ermine robe.

OWB says he is vindicated, so he’s happy. I assume he can survive without a direct apology from me for thinking him a puppeteer; he will have to settle for the apology above. At least one sock puppet was uncovered, so there is some tiny silver lining. I also see Deskana is back, which was a concern of mine.

I’m going to delete my draft SSP report from my user space, and do it on my own computer, in word, so it isn’t a magnet for anyone, or possibly interpreted as an attack page. The way I should have in the first place. OWB may want to save the rebuttal he inserted there someplace else; it may come in handy. I’ll db-user that page this evening, when I think he’s had a chance to do that. If anyone wants to handle it on-wiki in some other way, be my guest.

OWB, I had never heard of you before I took a fleeting notice of your RfA, and had no real interest in your editing habits until you exploded and misused your admin tools and piqued my curiosity. Therefore, it is safe to assume we will not cross paths editing the same pages in the future, and will not need to discuss anything. Even when you are acting politely, I think it best if we have no further contact, including on my talk page. It distresses me, and will do neither of us any good.

Once more, I’m sorry to everyone for the drama. I’ll leave the spotlight for a while. --barneca (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, your behaviour has been sensitive and professional throughout. ElinorD (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't repeat the entire posting I made on my talk page, but I want to apologize for not answering more promptly. As to the metropolitan area thing, I live in Maryland, which is no secret from my posting, and Stillstudying said he lived in Washington DC on his user page. Yes, we are technically in the same metroplex, but that is hundreds of square miles, (the area referred to is from Fredericksburg in Virginia, through DC, and all the way north to the Pennsylvania border!), and nearly 40 miles for me to hit DC proper. For anyone who lives around here, the traffic is truly incredible, and I only wish I could live close enough to work to actually make it in some of the times listed in order to maintain joint accounts. (by the way, I should also say, I do not work in DC, I work in Maryland precisely because I don't want to deal with the traffic! I do to DC primarily when I am doing community research at the wonderful Library of Congress) Having said all that, it appears the community accepts that I did not sock puppet/meat puppet, (or at least most are willing to give me trust I hope years of hard work have earned!). Given that, I feel that we have not fully addressed the conduct issues involved with Stillstudying 's truly nasty editing with Deskana . Kurykh said, and he is absolutely correct, that we do not punish, but we have to maintain civility, and those edits went way beyond what is civil. That needs to be addressed. I learned from my problem with New England, and I am too involved with this situation to address it directly as an admin. So I came here and raised the issue of the enormous incivility, and my feeling it needs to be addressed. New England , I agree with you that I would prefer not to count Stillstudying 's votes for me in my election as an admin. But as to that, you yourself insisted that he did not nominate me, Tom did. And 64 unsockpuppeting people supported it with no opposition. So deleting the improper votes won't change my election. I have apologized to you for my addressing a situation I was involved in, and that mistake is precisly why I came here to raise the issue of what should be done about the enormous incivility, against our most basic rules of wikipedia good faith. old windy bear 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To give a quick follow-up, Mastcell extended the block on StillStudying an additional 3 days for his abusive sockpuppetry. New England ^{(C) (H)} 11:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Oldwindybear, apologies if this has been addressed, but would you be willing to clarify the nature of your relationship (if any) to the individual posting as User:Stillstudying/User:Finishedwithschool?Proabivouac 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac I do not mind at all, I consider it a very reasonable request, given all that has occurred. I do not know the person posting as User:Stillstudying/User:Finishedwithschool except through online interaction via wikipedia. Unlike some editors, who communicate with me by email, he/she did not. In the beginning, he first appeared during the Bonnie and Clyde rewrite in April of 2006. He then went mainly to editing in movies and books, where I do not do a lot of editing at all. I attempted to use him occasionally to review my new articles, (that I had written) so as not to overuse Ewulp who I have asked for help in reviewing/rewriting my articles virtually since I first came on board, (and who is still helping me). His/her edit history shows his most recent work was in movie and book rewrites, (which he did ask me to review) with some interaction on one of my new articles in the Texas series. Because of what has occurred, if and when this user returns, I have asked that he/she not review my work, or ask for my assistance. I frankly hope not to have any interaction with the person posting as User:Stillstudying/User:Finishedwithschool again. I hope this clarifies the nature of my relationship with this person. I don't know them, and frankly, don't want to. old windy bear 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have another question: Why did you just the other day write,

"…I do wonder why I am involved with this, since the last time Stillstudying was previously accused of being a sock puppet, he was accused of being Pocklington Dan I am not him, but I also do humbly ask why I was accused this way? I do not take the same tone he does, and I am at a loss – since last time he was accused of being Pocklington Dan – why I am accused this time?…But I really don't understand how my name got involved."[9]

when you knew, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear, that this allegation had been around since Stillstudying's very first edits of last year?Proabivouac 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I did not think about it. It was dismissed as being unfounded, and he was subsequently accused of being Pocklington Dan. Not a word about that came up for over a year. I only know this: as Deskana very wisely advised me, I am not having anything further to do with him, period. If he wants an admin's help, he can ask someone else. I don't want to be involved. old windy bear 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find both User:Barneca/Draft_SSP_report(this version in the history]) and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Oldwindybear together quite convincing, still more so in light of the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear. Having independently reviewed a good number of contributions, there is no doubt in my mind that one individual is behind all three usernames. There are other pieces of evidence which have not yet been presented which will make the case even clearer.

No one disputes that you are a valuable editor, and I might be inclined to overlook all this were it not for for this episode - the first and only block of your adminship, and a terrible one, by all accounts - in which the coinvolvement of your sockpuppet is indisputably abusive.Proabivouac 23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac my friend, my first concern is always the encyclopedia. I have tried and tried to do my best to reassure you, and anyone else concerned over this sad mess that I am not anyone else, and never used sock puppets or meat puppets. But if I cannot, and the majority of my co-admins share your sentiments, I will quietly resign and go away. Not because I am guilty of anything, I am not. But because it is detracting from the encyclopedia. Is this what you wish me to do, as a group? I simply don't want to waste everyone's time debating this, and frankly, it is not something I want to deal with for years. (I agree, by the way, that my handling of the NE situation was lousy - I am 56, had been up all night ill, and was exhausted. That is not an excuse for poor judgement, but it is the truth. SS's behavior was terrible, and I do not endorse it, period.)old windy bear 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac I have done all I can to assure you I am myself, and no other. That is the simple truth. I am going to go to bed, please forgive me, I have some health issues, and I need to rest. I will check back in the morning, and if this is the will of the community, it needs to be laid to rest. I have done all I can to persude people I am myself and no other. But if you feel, as a group, otherwise, I must go. The project always has to come first! (I didn't want anyone thinking I was not answering if they posted tonight - I simply am exhausted, and need to lay down. I will check this tomorrow.) old windy bear 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else has feelings on this, I would like to know them. I would like to either close this matter, and return to my work, (such as on Council House Fight that I was working on) or if the majority believes this, wrap it up. One way or the other, it needs some sort of resolution. I have done all I can, (in attempting to prove my innocence) and wait on the will of the community. Thanks again. old windy bear 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldwindybear, Barneca, Deskana, MastCell, KillerChihuahua, Thatcher131, EliminatorJR and New England have all expressed misgivings above. I'd also like to clarify that no one has asked you to leave the project. I am certain that I am not alone in respecting your very substantial contributions, and in hoping they continue. Were adminship the same as "respected editor," there would be no issue here. However, I no longer trust you with the tools. There is no need for you to admit guilt. Setting them aside without a fuss - and with your honor intact - will circumvent the need for a fuller presentation of the evidence.Proabivouac 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac My friend, I appreciate your courtesy, but here is my feeling: if I set aside the tools, I am doing the same as admitting I sock puppetted, which I did not. I understand and appreciate that you must do what you feel is right, and so must I. If all of you here feel the same as Proabivouac then I need to resign, period, from the project. I have been very ginger with the tools since the NE incident, (I deleted an article yesterday, but I don't think there was any controversy in it!). I am not trying to give you all a headache, but this needs to be resolved with me either getting the benefit of wikipedia: assume good faith, and continue working, with all of you of course watching to see that the tools are appropriately used, or I need to shut down, and go completely. Personally, I don't want a sock puppeteer doing substantial contributions! The last I heard from Deskana he did not tell me that he felt this way - if he does, and if the others agree, I will quietly go. I have to go to work, but when I come home, if the majority feels this way, I will shut down for the good of the project. I don't honestly believe there can be a halfway solution here. If I stay, I have to stay and function normally, which admitting to wrongdoing without admitting it would certainly not be. Does any of this make sense? I am tired. This has taken an awful toll on me. I am older, and not as well. I wait on the will of the group, which is what we all strive for here, I think. I appreciate your courtesy. old windy bear 09:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Arb. unidet Proabivouac, what use will oldwindybear setting aside his tools serve? Surely either he is a puppetmaster of the various identities highlighted (and given the history, blocks, those i.d.'s voting at his RFA etc etc if that is so then the community needs to take firm action and with regret block his account). Alternatively, as per the checkuser, OWB is not a puppetmaster and as his RFA passed unanimously and recently, asking him to set aside the tools because of one ill advised block seems to serve no purpose in helping the community and wikipedia. I can't see your suggested middle of the road approach (although sensetive) is a way forward. For what it's worth I have allways supported OWB and so far my faith in him has not been abused. I trust him with the tools. Simple. Pedro |  Chat  10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is equally that I am personally keen to avoid laborious procedures if they are avoidable, even if a compromise is not ideal for wikipedia. It should also be emphasized that OWB is a valuable and respected editor, and a result which includes an editing block and/or a communal dress-down may not be ideal.Proabivouac 10:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac I will add before I go I am not trying to force you all to rehash arguments over and over. If folks truly feel as Proabivouac does, then I truly do need to resign from the project in order to keep my honor. NO good person would stay if they are not trusted. I will abide by the will of the group for the good of the project. old windy bear 10:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Thanks for your continuing support. I am not trying to put Proabivouac in a hard place. I just see it as you do - either I need to go, period, because sock puppeteers should not be rewriting entire sections of military history as I am preparing to do for the project, or I need to work. I will abide by the majority's feeling. i must sign off now and go to work, but will check back this evening, before beginning any editing. Thanks!old windy bear 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was sockish behavior afoot and the socks have been rooted out and destroyed. Now we're left with one questionable block which OWB admits was ill-advised. Let's WP:AGF and leave him alone now. If a shared multi-million-person major metro area is proof of sockness, then I am a sock of Jimbo Wales, CFIF, Ebyabe, and countless others. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There have already been two reports which didn't refer to CU (which hadn't been done) at all, but only contribs (see User:Barneca/Draft SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear.)Proabivouac 11:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac I understand your position and respect your comments above regarding OWB's editing quality. But I urge you, as per Wkight94, to assume the faith that this is over and done with, or bring certain and conclusived evidence that OWB is a puppetmaster so that this can be ended without further ado. please, I see nothing but harm to the work as a whole by dragging this out. Cheers and best! Pedro |  Chat  11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser found no IP-relationship between OWB and the two socks. Since the request for checkuser said none was expected, this is not surprising. The request was based on behavior, and similarity of editing patterns; having looked at them I can see why. At this point there seems to be no interest in taking it any further, so we have to hope there are no further grounds for suspicion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My previous reviews of the contributions of all three accounts were to look for similarities in writing style and editing history; style rather than substance. Having reviewed yesterday the content of OWB’s contributions as well, I agree that it would be a blow to the encyclopedia to lose such a valuable and prolific editor.

I’m not a "co admin", and I know some think I have a horse in this race, but I will for the record say that in this case, I believe we are best served if OWB steps down as an admin, but remains as an editor. At this point, OWB, I think I can safely say that absolutely no one who thinks you are being treated unfairly would see your resignation of adminship as an admission of anything, while those of us who think it best that you are not an admin would be pleased to have you continue to contribute and improve the encyclopedia.

Sometimes, a solution that does not please anyone 100% is still the optimal solution. --barneca (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of him stepping down as an admin? Other than one questionable block and living within the same several hundred square mile of a sockpuppeteer, when has his admin status caused a problem? If there is something else, start an ArbCom case or something. Just berating him here until he gives up and quits altogether is not an appropriate course of action IMHO. Let's wrap this up already. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Wknight94. For OWB to remain an admin does no harm and can only add benefit to this encyclopedia. For him to step down brings no benefit to the encyclopedia. I respect your opinion Barneca, I really do, but until OWB goes on a rampage and put's "I AM USER STILLSTUDYING AFTER ALL HA HA HA" across the main page (unlikely I feel) I think it's best he keeps the tools, keeps his head high, and we all stop editing this thread so it can get archived off. Pedro |  Chat  14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that...

I find it funny that StillStudying was never disciplined for violations of WP:NPA (he was blocked fo an unrelated matter). Here is some nice reading for everyone 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (I'll stop at ten for now). You know what's even funnier, OldWindyBear blocked me for violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but for some reason holds people he likes (or liked at the time) to a much lower standard. And lest we forget that OWB intitiated this whole situation by asking SS to give an opinion on TomStar's RFA right here. New England ^{(C) (H)} 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse someone of making personal attacks, can you at least provide diffs that show it? There's nothing in the diffs that you provided that show personal attacks or and incivility for that matter - simply attempts at discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from the diffs I provided:

• "Let me put this in simple words, that even you can understand"
• "Heimstern Läufer DanielIt appears that you both endorse open lying
• "I nominated oldwindybear, as anyone who could read would know"
• "do not, please, forget the 66 of us who supported you for admin, and let one pathological liar drive the best editor on wikipedia off of it"
• "I cannot and will not stay in a place that endorses the kinds of lying involved in this"

If those aren't personal attacks, than what are? Besides OWB blocked me for much less, and therefore is using a double standard when it comes to using his admin powers. New England ^{(C) (H)} 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New England I am home early from work, what a surprise, I don't feel well. I have apologized to you for the block. It was wrong. I also asked for disciplinary action for SS's incivility, if you read this page. I disqualified myself from acting on it due to being too closely involved. I have offered to resign in toto from the community if that is what the community feels is best. I will not resign as an admin for one poor decision, taken after I was up sick all night at 56. I would ask a crat to look at this matter, and if they feel I should go, tell me in plain english, and I will wind it up. In the interim, I have some material from my last trip to research to post, in what may be my last posts, so I will go work on the encyclopedia to improve articles until this is decided. old windy bear 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No one said here (or anywhere else I believe) not to block SS for his incivility. I'm just saying its amusing that he hasn't been blocked for it yet. As for the part about the double standard you seem to be applying, I'm just a little bit curious that you would encourage SS's comments (by asking for his opinion on the matter), then fail to act to stop them (by, I don't know, blocking him--like you did to me). New England ^{(C) (H)} 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New England Actually, you and I are in complete agreement that his general manner, and especially the entire thread of comments to Deskana and to you, went way over what I consider acceptable. I believe it warrants an additional 72 hour block for the incivility. Wikipedia is a community built on trust, and consensus, and I absolutely agree with you that those comments went way over the line. Why didn't I block him? Because the paramount lesson I learned from mis-blocking you was never act as an admin in a situation I am personally involved in, but come here - and I hope you notice I was the first person to bring up the issue here of the existing block not addressing the terrible incivility. And, for the record, I was at work, where I cannot log in to wikipedia, (there is monitoring of sites we log on to, so while you can read the site with a fair degree of safety, it is not only outside policy to log in to it, it triggers a record of misuse of IT priviledges) when his comments were going on. I did the only thing I could, I emailed someone and asked them to post a note asking him to email me. I was extremely upset by what I was reading, and felt it was awful. I did try to stop it the only way I could. old windy bear 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, OWB, I doubt anyone would object to you blocking StillStudying. New England ^{(C) (H)} 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would. A block made several days after the personal attacks, and made for the purpose of showing that Oldwindybear doesn't condone the attacks, rather than for the purpose of stopping the attacks, would not only be pointless; it would border on being abusive. It's also true that any blocks issued in this case should not be issued by Oldwindybear. I doubt if Stillstudying will be back anyway. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New England Probably, but I think first, we need to wrap this up - if the community feels my membership is causing problems, I need to go. Period. Not just as an admin, but go. If we are going to accept that I owed you a huge apology, which I have given, and need to be careful to not misuse tools which were entrusted to me, and wrap this thread up, I would ask for consensus on an additional 72 hour block for the gross incivility, and ask the original blocking admin (on SS) to impose it. While you folks decide that, I will edit on the articles I was finishing up in my new Texas/Comanche series, so, if I am working, I can begin rewriting the entire Mongol Expansion Era. By the way, (not to plug my own work, but it is true) if anyone who is interested in Native American history wants a truly tragic and sad story to read, go read my article on the Battle of Pease River. You will it unbelievably sad. old windy bear 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, I should point out that StillStudying has a history of threatening to leave when accused of violating policy, only to come back. He's been considering leaving the project since his fifteenth edit, in May of 2006. New England ^{(C) (H)} 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point I think the only rational approach is this: let Oldwindybear alone, and let him go back to editing and adminning without this thread hanging over his head. I think we've all said our piece. At some point in the future, if evidence is assembled by Barneca or others, then a formal WP:SSP case could be opened - but until then, it doesn't make sense for this to drag on endlessly without resolution, and it's not fair to Oldwindybear to have this sort of informal cloud hanging over his head. To Oldwindybear, I know we've all expressed our opinions and this is a difficult issue, but please remember that your encyclopedic contributions are highly valued, and that in the end it's just Wikipedia. Wikistress is inevitable, but I hate to see it get to the point where it's affecting people's real-life health or outlook. Now that we've all said our piece, let's close this thread, let Oldwindybear get back to editing, and if and when evidence is formally assembled, it will be dealt with through the appropriate channels. I don't see further resolution coming through this venue, though. Does that seem like a reasonable approach to preserve everyone's sanity? MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree approximately 1000%. --barneca (talk) 21:25, 20 July 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.

Minutes to Rise sock

Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently indefblocked because Checkuser confirmed he was a sock of a vandal. Minutes to Rise was an SPA intended to provoke edit wars over music genres, and now he has continued under the IP 87.167.210.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm sure it is him because he continued trolling over the same articles as Minutes to Rise did, and his IP is in the same range as a confirmed sock of his (87.167.226.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). SalaSkan 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that looks to be a sockpuppet, but it also looks like a dynamic IP address, and they've probably moved on to another address, by now. =\ Best we can do is keep an eye out and block on sight, protecting as needed, I think. Looks like this has been ongoing for at least a week or so, by this point. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful not to revert talk page questions and comments from this user but to engage them in dialogue where possible and especially where they have made an effort. Their edits and particularly the revert-warring are clearly disruptive, but they appear not to be made totally without reason. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much genuine desire to improve articles with contribs like this. ThuranX 06:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This and this indicate a certain level of logic and good faith. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. This user does nothing but blatantly revert, and occasionally leave an insult comment on a talk page like this. It is an indefblocked user evading their block, anyway. SalaSkan 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A little concerned

I am a little bit concerned about the behavior of User:EEMeltonIV and where it is leading. I recently learned that he created a subpage where he is "watching" every edit coming out of a VPN account operated by a U.S. military computer lab in the Middle East [10]. I think I know exactly why he is doing this, first and formost he believes a single editor who he has had issues with in the past is using this account. Melton was approached about this in the past but talk page discussions are usually unanswered or met with heavy sarcasim. The one time someone actually told him that these were computer lab accounts he all but called them a flat up liar [11]. So can anything be done at this stage? EEM hasnt done anything wrong...yet...but creating a watch list, buried away on a user subpage is disturbing and harboring grudges against users is more disturbing still. Honestly, this is almost a bit scary. Will EEmelton next take this into the real world with some kind of off-Wikipedia action? I wish he would come and state what his beef is, make a complaint through formal Wikipedia channels if one is to be had, and get over whatever is bothering him. -38.119.112.186 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He claims he's doing this to watch the contributions of an IP user who he feels makes contributions he disagrees with. Any reason to doubt this? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No reason to doubt at this stage. ty -38.119.112.188 13:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about two things here; I have checked EEMeltonIV's talkpage and seen no response, so how is his intentions known (what is the source of communication between Melton & Morven)? What is the purpose of watching contributions he might disagree with? This appears to be a potential case of Wiki-stalking. Unless the edits violate WP rules, policies or guidelines there is no reason for them to be watched, and if they do violate them then it should be bought to the attention of WP and not be the project of one self appointed individual. I must say that the lack of communication from EEMeltonIV with regard to this does not reflect well. LessHeard vanU 12:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I responded at User_talk:EEMeltonIV/Watch. As I and an administrator posted at one of this editor's talk pages -- -.187, I think -- it appears that this editor is a departed and de-sysoped editor who pushes non-NPOV and uncited material on various Star Trek pages (and a few others, such as this recent anonymous addition which is nearly identical to a contribution by the registered user). I purged many of those Star Trek pages from my watchlist, so instead jotted down the contribution links lest uncited additions/non-NPOV linger on those relatively obscure, low-traffic pages. But since -186/-7/-8/-9/-90 and LessHeard van U are worried it might be stalking, I've readded those pages to my watchlist and removed the contributions links. --EEMeltonIV 21:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My personal preference is that all communication should be on the primary talk pages, it makes things easier to look over and lessens the non AGF concerns that "something is happening somewhere involving someone...", but to each their own. LessHeard vanU 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm chagrined that this editor has expressed concern about some sort of real-world issue when one of his edits was recently excised from a talk page because it revealed real-world information about me that I have not posted on Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Plastic pressure pipe systems

We need uphold the {{advert}} banner until this article is encyclopedic and not a mix between a plastic pipe industry public relations site and a troll’s pet hoax site. I am struggling to comprehend as good faith and not mischief Drpipe’s assertions ,that a multi-national multi-billion dollar industry with 2,140,000 ghits is a small niche industry with little published about it., . Aatomic1 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well...a lot of it seems to be cut and paste from http://www.pipestock.com/ --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has a rich history of WP:OWN, tendentious editing and sockpuppetry issues and has seen several sets of regular editors go in to "clean it up" at various times. See the talk page archives for the previous rounds.--A. B. ^(talk) 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing reads like a manufacturer's catalogue. I'm itching to slap a {{db-spam}} or {{db-copyvio}} on it. Can't decide which one... --Edokter (Talk) 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet there was copyvio from those books in it. In any case, I shredded the article for anything ad-like, and rewrote the lead. you'll either get a complaint, or it will get fixed. MSJapan 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi going on wheels

SanchiTachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a rampage for the last hour or so from anon IPs. He claims that he has a right to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Space Marines. One problem--sockpuppets are not allowed to contribute at all. I've already reported three IPs ... but could use some help playing whack-a-mole with this guy. Blueboy96 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could let him put his little vote in there. It's going to be ignored by the closing admin anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's started to attack my talk page as well 4.139.78.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wildthing61476 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch the pages. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If that becomes a larger problem, we can sprotect your talk page. We could sprotect the AFD page too but I'm less keen on that idea. Blocking an IP moving over such a huge range is probably not warranted at this time. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's ok, I was on regular recent change patrol and saw an edit he made and reverted it, not knowing this was going on. I don't figure it'll be more than a random comment or two that I can get rid of. Wildthing61476 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(post edit conflicts) He's been at it, on and off, even since he was blocked in the first place (see the CheckUser requests, although there's quite a few not listed there). The trouble is he's on what looks like a /17 range of dynamic IPs (4.139.128.0/17), so blocking is probably not really practical. He's really only interested in Warhammer 40,000 related articles though and most of the regulars in that area know just to ignore him. --Pak21 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD as speedy keep, socks are not allowed to start AfD's. If he starts up again, let an admin know. SirFozzie 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for closing it. The pages are clearly notable. I'm sure that guy is really pissed off though. Btw, who deleted my request for unblock? I have a serious grounds, as the original block had no reason according to the blocking policy. Even admin aren't allowed to delete requests for unblock, so it is a serious violation. Do I need to report this to Jimbo like when Isotope stole one of my user pages and merged it into another? And so you know fozzie, its not "socks" that aren't allowed to start AfDs, its socks that are in violation of the sock policy. As an admin you should know the difference, unlike the kid over there. 4.139.24.55 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I almost laughed at this. Almost. --Deskana (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see the diff where I did that.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Georgia College & State University

Resolved

 – ugen64 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My question: Is is all right to copy and paste from a copyrighted source if you have permission of the copyright holder? Bryjack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added material from to Georgia College & State University that came straight from the college's website (and frankly reads like advertisement). I removed the material and he restored it, stating in his edit summary that, "information provided directly by the University's Office of Communications". There was no template added to the discussion page stating permission was granted. I do not want to get into an edit war with this contributor. How should I proceed? Cynrin 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A copyvio is a copyvio and spam is spam, neither belongs on Wikipedia. You should never take an editor's word for it that copyright permission is granted under the GNU Free Documentation License (or another free liscence) unless an email is sent from an address associated with the university and listed on their website. Email should be sent to [email protected]. The relevent explanatory page is Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Also make sure that the editor is aware that permission must be granted under a free licence, as all material on Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, and may be reproduced in a variety of other media. Someguy1221 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And a good place for this type of report is the conflict of interest noticeboard. Although I like to think of universities as the ivory tower, this isn't the first time I've seen a university attempt at PR through Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering and for pointing me in the direction of conflict of interest noticeboard. Cynrin 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote [12]. I will keep an eye on this. Please mark this resolved. Thanks. Cynrin 00:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from permission and conflict of interest, copied material needs to be attributed to its author to avoid plagiarism. Also, copied material may not have the "encyclopedic tone" requiring copyediting or even re-writing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

doubleblue.info attack site resurfaces with a new domain name

doubleblue.info was blacklisted last year as an "attack site" listing and criticizing editors of Christianity-related articles that it characterized as "DWEECs". There were also user blocks, sockpuppets and other drama involved. In the course of investigating and cleaning up an extensive spam problem today, I found this site has re-surfaced with a new domain, dweec.com, and is likely connected to other domains spammed extensively (500+ links) across multiple Wikipedias. The investigation write-up is at:

• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#languedoc-france.info (permanent link)

The doubleblue.info part is at the end of the long section. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Current list of links: Special:Linksearch/*.dweec.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up now (by other users). Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs: [13][14] --A. B. ^(talk) 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWeidman, RalphLender, DPeterson, JohnsenRon, SamDavidson, MarkWood, JonesRD - admin self-check

A heads up, and request in advance for comment to ensure I don't inadvertantly act unfairly.

The above 7 editors presently face Arbcom over some rather serious allegations, including puppetry, subtle vandalism, personal attack, ownership, POV warring, false accusations, using Wikipedia for defamation, and breach of almost every serious policy that POV warriors get up to. The case (WP:RFArb/Attachment Therapy) is in evidence phase but has not yet moved to voting.

The editors concerned have continued their activities during Arbcom, which is documented, and that's fine, that's up to Arbcom to address too. But they are also moving to start the same on other articles, and there is already evidence in the first few edits of POV warring via puppetry (RalphLender joins article 6 July ... DPeterson joins talk page 16 July ... Ralphlender joins talk page 19 July) and BITing concerns (email).

The evidence of warring seems evident, but Arbcom have not yet ruled on this group of editors. The historic tactic these editors have employed includes counter accusation and "playing victim", and refusal to change conduct. I have therefore taken the very unusual step of making a very blunt and detailed warning, here. This is the first time I have done this, ever. I feel it's justified, on the basis of tendentious disruptive editing beyond any sane limit, and apparently uncaring as to communal concerns or standards.

I'm posting this so that other admins can review the warning (which is remarkably blunt and unsubtle) and confirm to me whether I have acted reasonably and in good faith, and to add anything that ought to be said to make sure it is fair and balanced, before anything actually happens (if it does).

The "short term blocks" I would propose would be 24 hours, rising to 7 days, repeated at that level if necessary. I would probably warn first, unless it is a blatent and unquestioningly unreasonable breach.

Feedback is sought here, from others, to confirm I'm using admin discretion appropriately, and a sanity check that I am acting fairly and in a way that the community would expect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note that despite these patterns of behavior, my neutrality is evidenced at Arbcom, where I also noted evidence for these editors where encountered. - FT2)

I think you've gone too far with the warning. I've checkusered the accounts, and it appears that User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:MarkWood, and User:JohnsonRon are all accounts of one individual. User:DPeterson and User:RalphLender seem to be different accounts, at least according to checkuser. If I were you I'd simply block User:SamDavidson, User:MarkWood, and User:JohnsonRon, tell User:JonesRD that his edits are restricted to the Arbitration case until its conclusion, and that he'll be blocked if he edits anywhere else, and see how the other two accounts behave themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Some explanation: I took into account the exceptional behavioral evidence uncovered (including many very exceptional and uncommon spelling errors shared in common), clear meatpuppetry (arriving in common, dominating articles in common), and other indications of misconduct and severe edit warring in common, that can't show up on an IP based check alone. The warning applies to all the accounts, since even if the IPs are different, they have each edit warred tightly in common, with common strategy, and are apparently extending that edit war to new articles even now, while the case is under arbcom. (Which is why the stern warning.) That said, that doesn't change that I have asked for advice, and will indeed accept it if it's appropriate. I'd value other input too, though, just to check I don't jump on the first comment, but have some sense of other input as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: 4 of these 7 now finally and formally ID'ed as confirmed socks by checkuser - thanks Jayjg :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Update 2: make it 5 of 7 confirmed by checkuser. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jpgordon is correct, and I'm sorry for slipping up. I would block all of the puppets besides the DPeterson account, and allow that one to only edit the Arbitration pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from requests for arbitration

I, Entre-Nos, just corrected in Birmania Rios article, some wikimarks, changed a word for another one, added some information, and I've received personal attacks, threats, and insults from the userXLR8TION , unnecessarily. I've tried to communicate with him in good faith, but it's been a hassle. I didn't start this discussion, but I had to defend myself from his personal attacks. I'm copying and pasting for you his letters and mine for you to analyze. I hope this comes to an end, because I'm a peaceful person, and I don't like people insulting me for the sake of it. Thank you very much for your attention.

XLR8TION 's letters and Entre-Nos replies:

Birmania Rios

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE!!!! You have made MANY unconstructive edits and are replacing her nationality (Dominican) with Latin. She has always identified herself as Dominican American. Furthermore DO NOT ADD flag icons to an article. Further unconstructive edits will be reported to a site administrator. --XLR8TION 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "VANDALIZING" this article, on the contrary, I'm correcting information. Where does it say in the article that she has always identified herself as Dominican American? Is that a statement? Maybe it should be added to the article, because, as I've read it, I noticed that she was born in Manhattan, New York and then at the age of 4 she moved to Puerto Rico, where she was raised. So, what does Dominican Republic has to do with her upbringing? That's not her NATIONALITY. The reason for the statement that she considers herself as a Dominican American is not clear. If it's true and stated, no problem with me, but it's not.

Why shouldn't I add flag icons to an article? Is it prohibited? Please explain, because if it is, there are a lot of international articles with flag icons. What's the meaning of unconstructive to you? I added to Miriam Colon that she is Puerto Rican; is that unconstructive? I changed the red links for the proper wiki markups, for cleaning purposes; I added her to the category of "People from New York"... isn't she?... and that's about it... is that unconstructive? I don't think so. Can you explain this throughly? I hope so, because if not, you're wrong. As I've noticed in the past, you love to threaten to report to the site administrator. That's ok if there's a reason for it but (?). So, I would love to know your answers to my questions. Best regards--Entre-Nos 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

She was born in New York and her parents are Dominican. Please take a look at the external links to see her nationality. Simply an ignorant person would delete that and replace that she is Latin American. That's not only ignorant but racist as well. Flag icons only go inside infoboxes. They do not go in the general article. If you have placed flags you must remove them according to the site's rules. Further unconstructive edits will be reported. Please stop vandalizing the article!--XLR8TION 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I've read her external links, but that her parents are dominican doesn't mean that her NATIONALITY is dominican. She was born in New York and raised in Puerto Rico as a fact. You only answered the question about the Flag icons, and forgot the other ones. That means I was right in my statements. Besides that, you've insulted me calling me IGNORANT and RACIST. That's not fair. It's out of the question. Not NEUTRAL at all, as you're supposed to be. That, I would report, but my style is not your style. I would like to know what you mean by UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS, and furthermore, I've never vandalized that article, I repeat. Be kind and assertive, not threatening and offensive. It's an unconstructive approach. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things:

(1) Ignorance and stupid questions will not be addressed. Please stop with the unconstructive edits and concentrate on your articles.

(2) Do not write anything on my page.

Further unconstructive edits or vandalism will be reported. --XLR8TION 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found out he deleted my last reply in his talk page and mine, I don't know why, I was just asking him to cool down concerning his statement that he owned the article. It's not fair and not in good faith from his part. After XLR8TION deleted my reply on both pages and in the history page, he wrote this letter in my talk page and his:

Unconstructive Edits Remember you have been reported due to many unconstructive edits and vandalism. Your multiple sock puppet accounts only validates this. (1) DO NOT WRITE ON MY PAGE! (2) I wil revert any and all unconstructive edits. (3) Concentrate on improving your poor English language skills and your poorly written articles on no-bodies. (3) Take some English language courses at Berlitz language academy as MANY editors have told me you are a nightmarish editor; (4) DO NOT CONTACT ME!

YOU DO NOT OWN ARTICLES EITHER! However I dont bother improving your articles as they are on non-important, non-notables and only would be of interest to those who cherish banility.

You have been warned. Please take this into consideration as I do not have time to deal with simpletons.--XLR8TION 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sad about this. He keeps accusing me about things I haven't done, and furthermore he offends me, insulting me without any reason. Since his first letter, I haven't even read again Birmania Rios page.

It's not my style to do this, but I've been threatened and insulted without any reason. Thank you again for your time and I hope this user doesn't offend me anymore. I just informed him about this report in his talk page and in mine too. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

P.D. I just received another insulting letter fromXLR8TION. I really don't know how to stop him from his false accusations. You can read it below:

You have been reported for repeatedly refusing to stop vanadalizing my page. You apparently do not under stand English, therefore, I will repeat the same message in Spanish: NO ESRIBES NADA EN MI PAGINA! Understand? Electronic harassment is a violation of federal law. Let's not go there because I will file a grievance with the powers that be. --XLR8TION 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted. I don't know what this user is talking about. I hope you can do something about it. I edited Birmania Rios page only once, and then he started writing his harrassing letters to my talk page. Furthermore, my edits weren't violations. I'm tired of this, really. Sorry to bother you so much with my worries. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved to the incident noticeboard by me. Picaroon (Talk) 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussed above

• This has basically already been archived above.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tim Osman - copyvio and POV-pushing

User was reported to AIV for incivility and other questionable edits regarding Joseph C. Wilson, and while looking through contribs. said user has also uploaded two images Image:Plame Memo.jpg and Image:Plame Memo2.jpg, which he claims he scanned from a Congressional report (when it has clearly been censored under FOI) and asserts copyright because he scanned it. MSJapan 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into the incivility & POV issues, the images are clearly {{PD-USGov}}. So Tim Osman has given them the wrong copyright tag, but they are something which can be used in Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of them needs to go; they're duplicates, and they're orphaned to boot. Moreover, they aren't "his", no matter what he thinks. MSJapan 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And now that I look at the case, User:NYScholar should be blocked for 5RR, and falsely characterizing Tim Osman's edits as BLP violations and vandalism. Osman's claims were sourced and did not extend beyond the statements of his sources; NYScholar is POV-pushing by refusing to accept Osman's sources. One copy of the image should be retained. Argyriou (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged 2 as it did not have the highlight. MSJapan 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked per AIV, contrib history and talkpage warnings. If you need me to unblock/reduce tarrif please let me know at my talkpage. Any other admin who wants to review and action accordingly, please do so. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock ring - cleanup alert

During the period May 2006 - July 2007, around 40 articles were the subject of POV warfare by a sock-user. The sock accounts were:

• DPeterson (talk · contribs)
• JohnsonRon (talk · contribs)
• SamDavidson (talk · contribs)
• MarkWood (talk · contribs)
• JonesRD (talk · contribs)

(The status of two other accounts that routinely edited in common with these, user:RalphLender and user:AWeidman, is still under discussion at Arbcom)

The list of articles they POV-warred on (WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SOCK, WP:TE, WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:VANDAL) are as follows:

• Adoption
• Advocates for Children in Therapy
• Attachment disorder
• Attachment in children
• Attachment theory
• Attachment Therapy
• Bipolar disorder
• Bipolar disorder in children
• Borderline personality disorder
• Candace Newmaker
• Caseworker

• Child abuse
• Child sexual abuse
• Child welfare
• Cognitive behavioral therapy
• Complex post-traumatic stress disorder
• Creativity and mental illness
• Domestic violence
• Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
• Emotional dysregulation
• Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing
• Foster care

• John Bowlby
• Mary Ainsworth
• Mental illness
• Post-traumatic stress disorder
• Psychoanalysis
• Psychotherapy
• Reactive attachment disorder
• Schizophrenia
• Social work
• Theraplay

Sockpuppetry findings are confirmed at the header of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Workshop:

"All edits by DPeterson, MarkWood, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and JonesRD should be considered the work of DPeterson, per recent sockpuppetry findings."

If there's any editors who have had concerns over POV slanting or disturbing editing patterns on any of these articles in the last year, it might be worth reviewing the articles' editing history and talk pages, to help identify and clean up the effects of any "votes", edits, slants or deletions which may have been improperly influenced or in breach of WP:NPOV etc, if they still impact the neutrality of the article.

Posted on ANI as the simplest way for this sock-ring to come to the attention of editors involved in cleanup of those articles. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Girl article ownership

VictoriaGirl has violated 3RR at Douglas Kinsella. 209.217.93.166 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct venue for that is WP:AN3RR. The report needs to be filed properly. Please review the instructions at the top and bottom of that page. Peace.Lsi john 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a content dispute bordering on a BLP violation, assuming the statement is correct in the first place. MSJapan 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just a blatant BLP violation to say that someone has fetal alcohol syndrome without a source. shotwell 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

209.217.93.166 (talk · contribs) has been reported to AIV already for their edits to Douglas Kinsella. It's basically a BLP & 3RR issue. See their talk page - Alison ☺ 22:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is almost certainly the banned User:Arthur Ellis who regularly vandalizes pages from which he was banned by WP:RFAR/Warren_Kinsella, including Warren Kinsella, Shit From Hell (Kinsella's rock band), and now Douglas Kinsella (apparently Warren Kinsella's father). Typical edits include trying to insert some insult into the page in question. A semi-protect will work for a little while, but he'll reset his IP and create a few socks and re-appear in a few days. If a couple admins can watch these pages, revert and block, I'm sure that he'll eventually get bored. Bucketsofg 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah! They're all on my list now & I've sprot'd the usual suspect articles. See how things go .... - Alison ☺ 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

JBAK

This banned neo-nazi user is now carrying out an anonymous revert war on Battle of Ventersdorp - making it clear he plans to disrupt further: see [15]. In this charming edit [16], he makes his intention clear: "I have 6 other computers I can, and am, using and 13 other accounts, all working toward my goal of a conservative, nazi wikipedia, in different areas. 14/88" (the numbers are neo-nazi symbols). There is not much to be gained by blocking his IPs as they changes daily. Please semi-protect the Battle of Ventersdorp and Talk:Battle of Ventersdorp as a start. What else can be done? Zaian 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try Requests for page protection instead of here. R. Baley 22:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. What about the "what else can be done?" question? I've approached WP:ANI several times before about this user (it's not nice having him accusing me of rape), but never had any response. WP:AIV is generally not much better. Generally they won't act without a level 4 warning, which is hard because he only edits once or twice per IP; anyhow, in his case, talk page warnings seem to be equivalent to feeding the troll. It's very frustrating... Zaian 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

From RFPP: Page has been semi-protected for 45 days [17] by User:Nihiltres. R. Baley 23:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into in in a few days... I've got a few ideas.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico

I've been reverting a copyvio for two days now. Just now was the fifth time I have deleted it out of the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico article. The information is coming direct from the University's website. I have left messages at User talk:24.175.200.29 and at User talk:Jmhpapo, who I am pretty sure are the same editor, and have gotten no responses and the editor continues to re-add the copyright violation. Do I have to keep adding four levels of warning on the Talk page of every IP and User name that this editor uses, before I can ask that they be blocked? Corvus cornix 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now make it six reverts.  :( They'll have violated the uw-v4 level soon under this account, and I won't have to worry about getting a reply here. Corvus cornix 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Article has been protected.-Wafulz 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet more edit warring over team colors for individual players

This has been going on for months, and is the subject of multiple ANI reports. I would like to request an administartor start giving out blocks simply for edit warring. It's gone across multiple pages, and involves possibly some sockpuppetry. Worst of all, it's an extremely lame edit war. In all, it's involved User:Mghabmw (currently at about 8RR on Reggie Jackson), User:208.168.252.236, a likely sock of Mghabmw, User:Yankees10 (who has sockpuppeted in the past, and another likely sock of Mghabmw), User:192.234.99.1, User:Pascack. Please see these monstrocities: [18], [19]. I beg an admin to do something: lock these darned pages up, and most of all, to block mghabmw for massive edit warring (I'm a noninvolved party, but I know someone who violates 10RR several times in a few days when I see it). The Evil Spartan 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is someone going to do something about this? I've never seen such a monstrosity on the Reggie Jackson page. We have so many spa's on there trying to get their version before the page is locked. I recommend a hearty block for all the users, and an indef for all the spa's. I count 21 reversions by a single user in the past 24 hours; the other spa's, I almost can't blame them becuase they know mgh is just trying to get his version of the page protected. The Evil Spartan 22:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

10 minutes!! Give people a chance. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I protected the page, and blocked everyone, mainly indef as obvious socks. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to take away the colors feature from the retired MLB template. It's used for active players as a decoration for what their current team is. But there is unlikely to be consensus on what colors to use for multi-team retired players. That one User:Pascack and his supposed sockpuppet(s) are anti-Yankees and pro-Mets, hence they keep changing the colors to Mets when they can, such as they tried with Casey Stengel, which was absurd. Baseball Bugs 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need colours, In fact they make the page look gaudy. Nothing wrong with black text on a plan background. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn Black text on a white background would solve what has to be one of the silliest edit wars I have ever seen. old windy bear 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If somebody is in the Hall of Fame, they retire with a certain uniform, the infobox should be the colors of the team they retired as. Otherwise, meh. Corvus cornix 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Corvus. The Baseball HOF has players wear a teams hat when inducted. So for players in the HOF, that team's color should be used. These disputes about team colors generally only occur on few of the pages, so while the colors are disputed black and white could be used, then changed once the situation is resolved. New England ^{(C) (H)} 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Beware, New England, I had that idea months ago and was labelled as an edit warring and uncivil user despite not having done any edit warring, and only getting the slightest bit uncivil once everyone had attacked me unnecessarily. Honestly, I doubt the sticklers will allow this, as they wouldn't even let me try to achieve a consensus beyond that which they themselves had already declared. -- KirinX 00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the edit war specifically over Reggie and Casey is exactly the problem. Both men have NY Yankees caps, and edit warriors want the infoboxes wearing A's and Mets, on totally subjective reasons. This stupid issue is a mine field of POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the color has clear criteria that can be sourced, then it should not be there at all. Otherwise it becomes a NPOV disaster. I suggest no color until a consensus can be formed on citable criteria. Until(1 == 2) 19:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The HoF was part of my argument and seemed to be with those who agreed Yankees. I just got stupid about it. Mghabmw 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

David Strathairn website operator

A user claiming to represent the official website of the actor David Strathairn is claiming copyright violations on the BLP noticeboard. [20]Whatever the merits of his claims, I think an administrator versed in such things should go to the noticeboard and address his contentions.--Mantanmoreland 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I tried to elaborate on his user talk page. We'll see what he says - WilyD 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been resolved by removal of the material from the website for other reasons.--Mantanmoreland 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review: User:KaragouniS

I've blocked KaragouniS (talk · contribs) for 12 hours for harassment and personal attacks. He was asked not to post on User Talk:Argyriou ([21]) after coming there to hector Argyriou about being insufficiently Greek. After being asked to leave, KaragouniS responded with this, after which I warned him to desist and told him he'd be blocked if he continued. He continued to post to Argyriou's talk page ([22], [23]). I view this as ongoing harassment and an attempt to provoke further dispute, and I've blocked him for 12 hours. I submit the block here for comment, as KaragouniS is a logged-in user and has not been blocked before. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that KaragouniS has been warned recently, and several times in the past for incivility, and for edit warring a while ago. Argyriou (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that he has been warned several times before. As I don't read Greek I will AGF and conclude the content was not appropriate. Seems a reasonable tarrif for a "first offense" block for personal attacks. LessHeard vanU 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Suffice to say that the contents of his posts were not particularly polite! -- ChrisO 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal: User:Peterdjones

This user, who knows very little about the subject, is very busy editing beer articles, particularly Belgian-related articles. I have pointed out his errors, however he insists I am wrong (I am Dutch and very familiar with beer here and in Belgium, plus I have a small library of books on the subject). He posts misinformation and refuses to add sources when asked. He is edit-warring and is also fact-tag warring. On this diff page [24] you can see he has added a fact tag -- the second one in that article and a ridiculous fact tag as the issue hardly needs references. On the history pages for Belgian beer [25], Trappist beer [26] and Tripel [27], you can see the sort of revert warring he does. You will also note that, with one exception, he never posts source for any of his misinformation. If you look at his talk page, you will see that I am far from the only editor who has problems with him. Mikebe 17:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: After looking over some of the recent activity by User:Peterdjones, particularly in the articles mentioned by User:Mikebe, they appear to me to be good-faith edits that are clearly not the sort of thing that would be vandalism as described in WP:VANDAL. I've also observed several occasions in the past when Mikebe has described other people's edits as "vandalism" or "nonsense" (not to mention "crap") which were in fact good-faith edits that he didn't happen to agree with, and he has been at least as guilty of edit-warring as most of the other contributors he's accused of it. --Mwalimu59 20:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalimu59. This looks like a legitimate content dispute (on both sides), exacerbated by a failure to assume good faith (on both sides), but not vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I marked an article Tobias Conradi created for speedy deletion[28] because it was, at that time, a mere rephrasing of the title. Tobias replied by posting an insulting comment at my editor review, and was blocked for one hour for violating his civility parole. Immediately after his block expired, he reposted it (multiple times)[29], and thus he broke both his civility parole and his revert parole. See also this edit summary, and this one. SalaSkan 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias was blocked per ArbCom ruling for 1 hour originally; however, I declined the speedy, as I believe it to be notable and a legit stub. Now that this additional transgression has occurred, I've blocked him for an additional 48 hours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Given his response to Akradecki's block which is pure incivility and personal attacks on the blocking admin, I've extended this to 1 week. Hopefully he gets the message this time.--Isotope23 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've never interacted with Tobias, so if another admin wants to engage him and reduce my block I'm fine with that... at this point though I felt his continued personal attacks and incivility in response to a civility probation violation warranted an extension. If someone who has dealt with him in the past feels differently I'm fine with that.--Isotope23 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He has a very troubled history at Wikipedia, and this is recidivism. I am normally the "never block" person, but Tobias hasn't been responding very well either in being nicer and understanding the peer editing environment or understanding the deletion guidelines, so I can't see much justification for lowering the block time. I wish I could. Geogre 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to revisit the issue of community sanctions? The previous sanctions discussions were basically sidelined because of the arbitration case. - TexasAndroid 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to question whether there's any reason to continue tolerating him, too. In my opinion he's demonstrated his inability to abide by the community's expectations of civilized behavior. Friday (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather see the second block reduced back to two days. When a blocked user acts out by throwing a hissy fit about the block, the best thing to do it ignore it, not escalate it. Thatcher131 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, except that we don't actually want the kinds of editors who throw hissy fits. We already have more than enough high school drama. Friday (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, being an archdiocese seems a reasonable assertion of importance. And there was obviously enough context to be meaningful so A1 doesn't apply. Not really a good speedy, sorry. That doesn't justify Conradi's other behavior though. --W.marsh 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's at me. I disagree completely about A1, and I left my reasoning on the article's talk page. Administrators vary in their judgments. When it comes to A1, I'm a hanging judge. I deplore "Moby Dick is a novel" being asserted as an article. An article has to be discursive. A fact is not an article. On random page clicks, if I see any X is a Y article, I'll speedy delete it. Again: an encyclopedia is not a book of facts (that's an almanac). It is a series of articles, and articles discuss and contextualize. Geogre 12:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What to do...

In my usual user talk page runs (and this must happen more commonly for those who work with images), I find that there are often pages full of fair use warnings from either OrphanBot, BetacommandBot, or general users and administrators. Should we really continue to allow these users to edit, when they are unchanging fair use abusers?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors continuing to (a) actively engage in behavior that is inconsistent with our policies and community norms and (b) has been warned multiple times should be blocked, IMHO. Of course, it's easy for me to say that as a non-admin who doesn't have to deal with unblock requests and other fallout. :)

I seem to come across editors who at one time uploaded several images and received warnings about those images but the editor has either left the project or doesn't upload images anymore. Those are obviously different from those who continue to engage in such behavior and should be treated differently. --ElKevbo 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems that the efforts and applications of those bots ramped up recently, I do wonder if you're not seeing a warning for an image uploaded a while ago, which the bots hit more recently? If someone uploaded a bunch of pictures back in '04 or '05, then they'd have recieved a slew of warnings when the bots got to those warnings, which might look like the editor is actively uploading now and ignoring the process. Is this a possible scenario, given the workings of the bots? ThuranX 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out editors who are currently ongoing and ignore those items on their talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well then, yeah, maybe a warning that continuing to upload in violation will lead to blocking, so they understand the gravity of the situation, followed by swiftly and firmly blocking the first one to poke the fate bear? (And I only asked about the older thing because I can easily see such a thing hapening, but if these are recent uploads over time, with repeated bot notices being disregarded with respect to upoads after bot notices, then smite away mightily.) ThuranX 07:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In the past, I have delt with this situation, not by blocking the editor concerned, but by deleting everything they upload on sight. Quite often editors who simply cannot understand our image use policies do actually make good contributions to the encylopedia. By deleting their images as soon as they upload them, they have to opportunity to learn that we will not tolerate copyvioations without us losing an otherwise good contributor. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In such a case I would just block them. If they get the impression that they can simply upload a new image whenever we delete one with no consequences it just turns into a game that wastes everyones time. If after multiple warnings and attempts to explain they keep re-uploading deleted images it doesn't matter how well they otherwise edit, a solid whack with the cluebat is very much in order. Gmaxwell mentioned at WT:NONFREE#Compliance rate that they have a JavaScript hack on Commons that can be used to "disable" uploads for someone without bocking them (yeah it's easy enough to get around if they have half a clue, but still...), it might be worth looking into deploying that here as well, but I also agree with him that we should not be afraid of outright blocking people who completely ignore warnings and clearly are not even trying to abide by the image policies. --Sherool (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

1. If the -bots are always right.
2. If the violations are knowing.
3. If the violations are actual violations, and not a mis-tagging thing because of the change in Wikipedia's systems,

Then, yes. Otherwise, note that people who've been here ages and ages can have some -bot go through a spasm, suddenly tag four (of maybe 50) images, and the editor may just ignore it. It then looks like a "page full of warnings." Sometimes the bot is wrong (shouldn't a human follow up?), sometimes the newbie is just clueless and isn't educated by the -bot, and sometimes the violations are because we used to just say what the licensing is, and now we have to click on this button or that. It can't be an automatic conclusion, not when it's a stupid system involved (a -bot). -Bots can't determine that a person should be blocked: an admin needs to investigate. Geogre 12:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but Ryulong seems to be talking about what to do when he finds them, not go hunting them down, which means he, and others, would probably have time to look into it a bit. I don't think he's at all interested in having a bot chase another bot, tally warnings, and run some sort of autoblocking, in fact, i think that's against the bot policy. I think he wants to figure out what to do when he does see it, and right now, it looks like 'warn those who seem oblivious, and block those who exercise their 'obliviate response' excessively'. ThuranX 12:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I'm not saying a bot should block them, but if you do see someone with several old "no source" or simmilar warnings and notice that they have just kept uploading more images with the same problems despite this it's probably time to take things to the next level to make sure they get the message. The key beeing not the number of warnings, but that they have continued uploading problem images after beeing notified that theyr previous uploads have had problems. Maybe give one final "hand written" warning just in case, but if that goes unheeded I'd say block them regardles of how good editors they otherwise appear to be. --Sherool (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

if a user has been warned (by a human) and persists, I see nothing wrong with issuing a short block. It may just be a block of 2 hours or so, this has never killed anyone, but may work wonders in some cases (people who never bother to even read warnings need an illustration that they can and will be blocked). That's what your blocking button is for, don't be afraid to use it. I am talking of moderate use of short blocks to get a user to pay attention to warnings. Not, of course, blocking people for two days because they forgot to tag some image they uploaded (be reasonable). dab (𒁳) 13:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to impugn anyone's character, except the character of the -bots. I suppose the issues with them are well known enough that I don't need to delineate them. Let's just say that they're wrong some of the time and very wrong some of the time and blind all of the time, and I think we need to be really careful about relying upon their judgment (when they don't have any). I'm getting peppered every so often with "You have no rationale for this image," when it's an image that I uploaded and properly tagged back in 2004 or 2005 under the proper system then, and we've had FAC's that are getting images deleted because of that. I was just saying, as I always do, that the warnings may be pointers, but nothing alleviates the need to investigate (and warn, as a human being, to another human being). I don't think people understand how off-putting and incommunicative -bot warnings can be. At least try speaking, first. I'm sure Ryulong will do that, but I didn't want anyone to read this and conclude "Block 'em if there are bot warnings." Geogre 13:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone's on the same page. Small blocks are justified in many cases, warnings in others, all situations to be reviewed by humans and dealt with case-by-case. ThuranX 13:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for assassination

Resolved

 – Editor blocked indef by Durova. --ElKevbo 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Check out this edit! Please block or otherwise deal with this editor. I'm usually more than happy to dive in with warnings for my fellow editors to help our or set an example but this is beyond the pale. --ElKevbo 04:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Warned. As indicated there, looks like trolling.--Chaser - T 04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your help and your response but I don't understand how actively advocating for someone's assassination merits only a warning, particularly given that editor's history of blatant trolling and disruption. --ElKevbo 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, he's calling for "assasaination", whatever that might be. He should be e-vick-ted on account o' por spelin'. Baseball Bugs 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Durova's now blocked the account, so that solves that.--Chaser - T 05:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am categorically opposed to guessing whether a death threat is genuine or not. Even if only one threat in 10,000 is serious, this site is too big to roll the dice on that gamble. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm marking this resolved. --ElKevbo 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this is serious enough to warrant a block? In the case of death threats against editors, we indefinitely block to protect the editor from the threats, but it's virtually impossible that Michael Vick would ever know about this. I don't mind Durova's block, but obviously I didn't think this was that big a deal. (Of course, I also saw this more as stupid nonsense than a serious "call for assassination", but perhaps I misread.)--Chaser - T 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Check other edits by this "editor" though...including his great contributions to the Al Sharpton article...[30]--MONGO 06:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I feel a little more sheepish, now. Thanks, MONGO.--Chaser - T 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was only trying to show that all we have here is a vandal account anyway. Sorry if it came across differently.--MONGO 06:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jimbo Wales

Resolved

 – Category and user pages involved deleted by Wafulz. — Shinhan < talk > 15:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody added this to the top of the Jimbo Wales' page. That was quickly reverted, but there category itself, and all the users in it staid. I checked two of the users in the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jimbo Wales and both of them created only one page each, claiming they are sockpupets of Jimbo Wales. Creative vandalism, what can I say. Since I dont know which speedy tag to use for marking this and am not an admin, anybody wanna take care of this? — Shinhan < talk > 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess WP:CSD#G1 works the best here.-Wafulz 13:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it had quite coherent and well thought-out content. But it was also obviously malicious vandalism. Thanks for the cleanup :) — Shinhan < talk > 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Itzwiki is an abusive sockpuppet of Hatewatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being used to upload Image:Contract 0081.jpg, an image which constitutes unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, in violation of WP:BLP, and which is identical to Image:Kevin strom contract.jpg, uploaded by Hatewatcher, which was speedily deleted pursuant to CSD G10. Itzwiki has also placed the WP:BLP violating image in Kevin Alfred Strom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just as Hatewatcher did. John254 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a sockpuppet, though I have no opinion on the veracity or encyclopedic-ness of the image. Hatewatcher is not under a block now (indeed has never been blocked), so I won't block Itzwiki. —Crazytales !! 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Contract 0081.jpg and Image:Kevin strom contract.jpg constitute blatant WP:BLP violations, since no reliable sources have been cited to show that the images are authentic. Hatewatcher's use of Itzwiki as a sockpuppet account to upload Image:Contract 0081.jpg, after being warned regarding the uploading of the same image as Image:Kevin strom contract.jpg, is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#.22Good_hand.2C_bad_hand.22_accounts, which expressly provides that "The use of alternate accounts for deliberate policy violations is specifically proscribed: All users... are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption..." John254 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed TfD closing

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.

---

Could an uninvolved admin review this early non-admin closure of a July 21 TFD for {{Allegations of apartheid}}, later disputed? The reason for the early close was that it was very recently nominated for deletion, on July 10th (closed 4 days ago). Uninvolved ideally means "never seen this template before". Gracenotes^T § 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota should not have closed that discussion. He's been heavily involved in other AfDs on the apartheid series of articles and isn't remotely neutral on the issue; it's not appropriate for someone with that level of involvement to close a deletion debate. However, he's probably right that it's too soon for another AfD, so I would leave the issue as moot and come back to it at a later stage. -- ChrisO 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This has also been brought up on WP:AN. --OnoremDil 15:55, 21 July 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.

Ward Churchill misconduct issues

Resolved

user:Nandesuka blanked an entire article after I posted a notice about it on WP:BLP. I went through the entire article, and found only 2 external links that needed to be removed, and Nandesuka wipes the entire page [31]. Any issues he had could have been dealt with on the talk page or through an Afd, not by unilateraly wiping away months of work and hundreds of edits. I would like it restored. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up on WP:DRV. In the future, if you feel the deletion process was violated by an admin or other user, you can just ask for a vote on WP:DRV.

User Matildaluvr15

Resolved

 – Indefblocked serial nonsense creator. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please check Special:Contributions/Matildaluvr15? The user is creating a series of articles which have no context or meaningful info --NeilN 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche taking Tecmo's indefinite ban a little too well--attempting to undo everything--comments, edits, etc

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.

---

This has dragged on so long and with so many subsections that it's almost impossible to determine the latest events. I'm wrapping it up to avoid further confusion. Epeefleche has stopped erasing all of pre-ban Tecmobowl from history and everyone agrees that further post-ban Tecmobowl edits will be undone per WP:BAN and WP:CSD#G5. If anything new happens, please start a new section. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Epeefleche struck through all of Tecmo's comments on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page. His reasoning was that since Tecmo was now indefinitely banned (community ban), and his comments were no longer relevant. I undid the edit and left him a note about it, reminding him that talk pages were archives of previous conversations. He struck through comments going back two weeks and has made the talk page unreadable, at least for me.

He's done this on the talk pages of Dummy Hoy, Trading card Baseball card, Ichiro Suzuki, Frank Robinson, Mel Off and that's just from a quick look.

He's also going through and undoing a lot of Tecmo's old edits with edit summaries like "Restored ELs deleted by user now banned indefinitely for disruptive editing" [37]. If you look at the link in question, it's obvious that Epeefleche is again wholesale reverting on the basis that Tecmo made the edit. Four of them are called fan sites by the article description--that doesn't even require going to the site to see if it belongs there or not. Just reading the section would tell you that there's something to the removal.

Tecmo was a very distruptive editor--that's why he was indefinitely banned. But a lot of his edits were worthwhile, and using the indefinite ban of a user you lost a content dispute to is not ok. Epeefleche and Tecmo got into a major content dispute over removing ELs while Tecmo was around, and since Epeefleche would never say what his issue was with Tecmo's edits, I eventually got involved as a go between, and after that and a User_talk:Epeefleche#Third_Opinion, Epeefleche stopped, for a short while anyone, reverting Tecmo without explaining why. This isn't a content dispute--it can't be since Epeefleche has refused steadfastly to state what his issue was with Tecmo's cleaning of ELs (besides for the fangraphs, we know that one).

I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but Epeefleche's actions look like, and sound like he's just going through and undoing Tecmo's presence here:

“ Is there any "automatic delete of all edits ever made by person x" function? That would be a good feature for admins, to deter people like Tecmo whose personality traits make it difficult for them to control their sock behavior. ”

[38]

Last time Epeefleche went on a Tecmo reverting spree, he reinserted dead links, vandalism, etc. It appears that much of the same is happening. Tecmo removed a florida marlins mlb EL from the Juan Pierre article "(as he is no longer with the team)". Epeefleche re-inserted that EL on his undoing Tecmo train. His edit summaries are either blank, or refer to Tecmo's ban or sockpuppetry, and none of those are helpful to editors of articles--the content, not the editor is what's supposed to be important.

This has been going on since the end of May and it's ridiculous that's it's going on even after Tecmo's been indefinitely banned. I'm requesting that Epeefleche be told to stop messing up talk pages (his endless notifications of Tecmo's indef ban should be more than adequate) and to undo the ones he's already done. Also, any edits related to Tecmo should provide an edit summary that refers to the content, not the editor. A lot of Epeefleche's edits are good, even one's related to this issue. But there's a clear editor related bias here, and if Epeefleche continues to go through Tecmo's old contributions and revert him, he should provide content related reasons for doing so (not personal reasons)--that means actually looking at the material and going through it. So if Epeefleche sees that Tecmo removed some good ELs, he doesn't put back in dead links, irrelevant links and sites removed for good reason (open wikis, commercial, fan sites, no unqiue content, etc).

I'd attempt to talk to Epeefleche about this myself and work things out, but I don't see a point, considering his recent accusations toward me.

Tecmo is banned, his talk page is protected--I don't know why I'm still seeing grievances about Tecmo this and Tecmo that everywhere. I said on the community sanction noticeboard that nothing would change with Tecmo's ban unless the other editors changed as well. Tecmo is gone--it's really preposterous that he's still the reason behind everything problematic. Miss Mondegreen talk  12:57, July 17 2007 (UTC)

Comments made by banned users after they are banned are reverted to enforce the ban, the relevance of a comment has nothing to do with it. Striking comments through, from before the banning at that, with a "no longer relevant" reason seem to serve a whole other purpose. --Van helsing 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Van helsing--Thanks. I agree with you that Wiki guidelines state that banned users comments after they are banned are revertable, without regard to may the merits of the edits themselves." I would add that the banned users' user pages (including, presumably, comment they may have made on them) may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. "The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." (emphasis added) As to your reaction to the "no longer relevant" language that Miss M attributed to me, that is not what I said -- what I did say, consistent with the rationale in WP:BAN, was as she subsequently accurately quoted, that the strikethroughs were made "to reflect that Tecmobowl is a former user who was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing." That accords with the rationale clearly stated by WP:BAN underlies the replacement (not, as here, the softer strikethrough) of comments by a banned user, on his talk page, before he was banned.--Epeefleche 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies--that was Baseball bugs edit summary, not yours. However, considering that you visited every page first to announce his ban and only then to strike through his comments, the strike through was serious overkill, and affected page readability, which was frankly, my main concern. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:03, July 18 2007 (UTC)

Comments made by banned users after they are banned? Technically--is that possible? The only striking out of others' comments that I see regularly is during voting--sockpuppets, users with 2 edits--that sort of thing. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:39, July 17 2007 (UTC)

So on the same vein, striking through the comments of convicted Tecmo sockpuppets is also inappropriate? Obviously, there the commenting is inappropriate, but striking it through or deleting it really destroys talk pages as records. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:49, July 17 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if a user circumvents his ban through using multiple accounts, or logged out edits, and this isn't found out immediately. Also, sometimes the decision of a ban has been made but not been implemented as a block yet. >Radiant< 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche has a history of hounding and harassing people he disagrees with; this appears to be another symptom of the same. Generally his response to a "please don't do that" is an lengthy answer that based on his reading of some particular policy page, he can do just that, either missing or ignoring the point, and continuing unrelentingly. I'm not sure how to tackle this, but the general point is that just because a user got banned at some point doesn't mean that he never made any worthwhile contributions (if he had, he would have been indefblocked much earlier). >Radiant< 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Epeefleche but I'm getting concerned about what I might find if I look hard enough. From my early dealings with Tecmobowl, he was an editor with good intentions but his combination of extreme boldness and a short fuse made an indefblock almost inevitable. But for the most part, I tended to agree with the actual edits he made and even asked his opinion on content-related matters on an occasion or two. I regret that I was not watching closely enough when the Tecmo pot finally boiled over but I may start looking more closely. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some Admin action on this already? It's been sitting here for hours unresolved. Roll back what everyone here says was an overreaction. ThuranX 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page edit warring

There's now edit warring on the talk page of Shoeless Joe Jackson. Epeefleche made the initial edit, and Baseball Bugs has kept reverting everyone who undoes it. I've cited Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (don't edit someone else's comments and talk pages are records) and User:Van helsing cited Wikipedia:Banning policy (it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them), and reverts are still being done with edit summaries like "There is nothing in the policy to support your statements."

Additional, Epeefleche added the following comment to the top of the page, supposedly to deal with my concernt that when someone looks at a comment that's been stuck, they assume that they editor struck their own comment:

**NOTE Regarding Strikeouts Below: All strikeouts below of Tecmobowl's comments have been made by others to reflect that Tecmobowl is a former user who was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Epeefleche 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only does this seem to be real piling on, but it also seems really inappropriate that the talk page of an article is prefaced with information about a user. This also has brought the entire talk page to a halt, which doesn't help the article--which has been protected for over a month for an inability to discuss anything related to Tecmo in any way shape or form without losing all sensibilities. Two editors currently are at three reverts (including me, btw), and this is just a recipe for disaster. I'd even take temporary full talk page protection right now--that would be better than attempting to use the talk page as a talk page and a battleground. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:38, July 17 2007 (UTC)

• He's banned, but that isn't carte blanche to revert everything he's ever done here; that is just disruptive and vindictive. If he socks and returns his additions can future additions can be reverted per WP:BAN and WP:DENY; but that doesn't apply to previous content. I left a message at Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson with fair warning that future disruption may lead to blocks.--Isotope23 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin's Comments Should I presume that it is my unfamiliarity with the history here that gives me the impression that User:Epeefleche is acting in a similar manner which got User:Tecmobowl banned - editing to an individual agenda, removing content on the basis of the source and not its notability, and not engaging in discussion? LessHeard vanU 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor's Comments Sure sounds like it to me. This sounds like a ridiculous vendetta, out to thoroughly discredit all of Tecmo's contributions to the project, which is NOT what a ban necessarily represents. As noted above, he had good contribs but a bad persona for the project. That doesn't invalidate all his efforts, and I would like to flat out clearly request that an admin roll back each and every incidence of strikeout as being in and of itself bad faith and incivilty of the gloating sort, and further disruptive to the project by making it unnecessarily hard to read the whole discussion in any section Tecmo contributed to. ThuranX 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche now editing archives

Epeefleche is adding messages like this one to archives (ANI, Community Sanction, etc):

“ Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for disruptive editing. In addition, subsequent to his ban a sockpuppet of his was created and banned indefinitely as well. ”

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259 Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10

This is getting seriously out of hand. Can we just declare that he has a COI in re Tecmo and say hands off? The number of edits needing to be undone is mounting--he moves fast. I hate to say this, but this is, in many regards (speed for one) Tecmo-like editing. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:02, July 17 2007 (UTC)

• Archives not ongoing discussions and not subject to editorializing. I've undone his edits there. I agree with your suggestion. >Radiant< 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Miss M Misstatements

Miss M makes certain misstatements above.

First, as background, Tecmo was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing (after a number of shorter bans, for repeated sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, and 3RR). At nearly every step of the way, Miss M defended Tecmo and attacked those who brought his disruptive editing to light, including the admins who banned him. Her behavior appears to be continuing here, even after Tecmo's indefinite ban.

Even after his indefinite ban, Tecmo has come back as a sockpupet, and Miss M had defended the sock. The sock has now been banned as well.

Tecmo left behind his comments on article discussion pages, and user talk pages. Many state his positions as to what Wikipedia policy allows, in an authoritative manner (akin to that struck by Miss M). Others are disruptive comments, in which he engages in conflict with other editors. Another editor, an admin I believe, first struck though some of such comments after his ban. I followed in kind, with a note on the history page that they are comments of an editor who was banned for disruptive editing.

Miss M quarrelled with that approach, fighting for the banned user's comments to remain without strikethroughs. Another user just joined her. They reverted my strikethroughs on a number of such pages. I am referring to Tecmo's comments from before the ban -- but it was of course Tecmo's disruptive comments and actions before the ban that led to Tecmo being banned. I have not reverted/deleted Tecmo's comments. Nor archived them. Simply left them there, with strikethroughs -- and the explanation, so later readers can (de)value his comments appropriately.

WP:Ban does not provide direct guidance. It does provide background to this issue, in that it addresses appropriate treatment of the banned user after the ban. It states that any of such edits "may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves.... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users."

It also provides support for the "replacement" of the banned user's comments, and those of others, on the banned user's user page. That page, of course, is a talk page that can be anticipated to include comments by the banned user before the ban was put into effect. The rule states: "Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits. Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages." [emphasis added].

The rationale for the strikethroughs is consistent with the above Wiki guidelines -- the purpose being "to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." It is even less draconian, in that strikethroughs allow the reader to still see the banned user's edits. This is a softer approach than the reversion and replacement approaches that the guidelines suggest in the above instances.

Miss M's misstatement that I "would never say what [my] issue was with Tecmo's edits," is so great that it makes it difficult to assume good faith. One need only look at the extensive exhaustive discussion at [39], [40], the mediation page (where the mediator faulted Tecmo's behavior, citing it as the bar to effective mediation),[41], [42], and the Tecmo ban discussion[43] to see this -- as well as Miss M's other misstatements. Happily, the admins did a good job, and each case the bans were applied. It is troubling, however, that Miss M is again blatantly mistating facts in discussions.

Furthermore, as is reflected on those pages, that was not a one on one dispute -- as Miss M suggests. 17 editors were involved in the mediation case. Tecmo was a vociferous party of one who refused to follow the consensus of the vast majority of the number of editors who were involved in those discussions. And Miss M, supporting him and attacking all others who pointed to his disruptive activities, was a proxy of one.

Tecmo deleted 100s of good ELs. Miss M defended him. Tecmo was banned for his disruptive behavior. Miss M does not seem inclined to put back the good ELs that Tecmo deleted.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong in referring to the editor, by the way, as being banned when undoing the edits. Tecmo was always bothered by it, and for some reason Miss M appears to be. As the policy suggests, who the editor is bears upon his edits.

And yes, when Miss M said that her problem with striking through the edits was that other editors might not know why they were stricken, and assume the editor himself struck them (despite my having explained this in the edit summary), I responded to her concern by putting a note on the page indicating why the strikethroughs appear. She now protests that.

I'm puzzled by why Miss M has defended Tecmo and his disruptive edits each step of the way. She has attacked the admins who blocked him. She has attacked those who have reported him. She has misstated the facts. And even now, after all this, she seeks to keep his disruptive statements and edits in place. I don't know why, but I could imagine other more helpful endeavors for her than to act as a proxy might for a user who has been banned indef for disruptive behavior.--Epeefleche 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That is quite an impressive speech. I note that it relates more to the editor who brought attention to your recent edits, however, and not the question in hand. Now, could you please confirm that you have been striking through all content and discussion by an editor (now banned) and why? I searched (and it would have been easier, folks, if somebody had provided the editors full username - Tecmobowl - at some stage) and found the appropriate page, and could find no consensus or even suggestion that Tecmo's other edits and comments should be actioned. Obviously, those specific actions which led to the indef block required resolving, but everything ever contributed by that individual? If there was the relevant wording in the decision, or you could point me to the rule, policy or guideline, advocating or agreeing your action I would be grateful if you could provide the diff(s). LessHeard vanU 12:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack--sorry about that! You hear him called Tecmo so long and you sorta forget! Miss Mondegreen talk  23:03, July 18 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard -- I hear you. To address your first question, I have applied strikethroughs to most (though not all) of the talk page comments of User:Tecmobowl, a user banned indefinitely for disruptive editing. Another editor (an admin) has deleted his talk page, which contained other of the banned user's comments.[44] I believe one or more editors have also struck through or deleted further banned user comments. The banned user has since come back as a sockpuppet, which has in turn been banned indefinitely as well. I have reverted or applied strikethroughs to some of the sockpuppet edits.

There are three types of banned user edits that are at issue here. Post-ban edits, pre-ban edits on the banned user's talk page, and pre-ban edits on other talk pages.

As to post-ban edits, WP:BAN is clear that, as I have done in some instances with the post-ban edits of his sock User:Long levi, those may be RVd. It states that any such edits "may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves.... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." (emphasis added). Thus, to use your phraseology, yes -- everything ever contributed by that individual post-ban may be reverted.

As to pre-ban edits on the banned user's talk page, those were also deleted (by an admin), and this is clearly in accordance with WP:BAN. WP:Ban states that "Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits. (emphasis added) Thus, to use your phraseology again, yes -- everything ever contributed by that individual pre-ban on their talk page may be replaced.

This leaves the last category, pre-ban comments by the banned user on talk pages other than his talk page. I have not deleted any of such comments. I have, however, sought to apply the above policy -- the goal of announcing to editors encountering the banned user's edits -- to some of this class of edits. I have done this by choosing a softer approach than deletions -- that of cross-throughs, with explanatory language to alert the reader to the reason for the cross-through.

Many of these banned user's comments state his positions as to what Wikipedia policy allows, in an authoratative manner, and others are disruptive comments in which he engages in conflict with other editors. Some relate to live issues where people are seeking to determine whether there is a consensus, and he is at odds with the majority of the other editors. I have not reverted/deleted these comments. Nor archived them, as another editor suggested. Simply left them there, with strikethroughs and the explanation, so that the reader can (de)value the edits as the reader feels appropriate. It is a less draconian treatment than that of his edits in the first two categories. And there is no reason to think that his edits on article or other talk pages are more sacrosanct than those on his own talk page.

The rationale stated in the guideline is that there is an interest in alerting readers to the fact that comments by a banned editor. This applies that rationale to another class of his comments, albeit in a softer fashion.--Epeefleche 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response, and the quotes from WP:BAN. My main concern is the first word in most of the quotes; "...may...", rather than "...must..." This indicates to me that there should be an agreed rationale if it is to be applied. Perhaps you could direct me to where this was agreed, or perhaps the admin that blanked the editors talkpage? LessHeard vanU 12:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I blanked Tecmobowl's talk page just to clear everyone's comments. It was being used for a flame war that got so bad that it had to be protected (by someone else). If anyone wants to restore that ugliness, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Can you confirm if you were a party to any discussion regarding the striking through of all or any of Tecmobowl's other space edits? I have no reason to believe that you were (or that you weren't), I am just trying to see if there was any consensus for Epeefleche's actions in doing so. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just now saw this comment. I'm not sure where you're going with this but the only discussion I've had re: striking through talk page comments was in regards to this thread. And no, I did not condone that action and told Epeefleche as much in response to an e-mail query from him. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was considering requesting/warning Epeefleche to cease his actions pending clarification. Since I see that s/he has voluntarily ceased doing so my thoughts are now moot. I see you are involved in this below also and am quite content to leave it in your capable hands. LessHeard vanU 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Tecmo's ban to pass through edits under the "users expected to refrain" clause? Using WP:BAN to revert edits almost a year old

The section you quoted, title, Enforcement by reverting edits, says the following:

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing. It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-ban}} to mark such a page.

Perhaps the policy page needs to clarify this, but since this is titled "enforcement by reverting bans" and has made it clear on the two preivous lines that it is talking about edits made after the ban, and makes clear immediately after that that it is talking about post-ban edits, it is seriously twisting the policy to say that you can go back and undo all of those users edits and expect other users to refrain from reinstating them. Such a reading would allow you to speedily delete an article the banned user had created a year ago that is now a featured article.

But I am most curious about this edit. Your edit summary says "Restored ELs deleted by user now banned indefinitely for disruptive editing", which given your editing pattern and Tecmo's, made it sound like you were referring to Tecmo. But I've searched through the edit history going back to September 2006, and can't find any presence of Tecmo, or any sockpuppets, including IP addresses. In that time frame I also cannot find another edit to the section EL--so what on earth is this edit summary referring to? Another banned user who edit EL sections? If so, who? Can you show the link that you were restoring from? Was it a simple mistake? Or were you using Tecmo's ban to pass through edit's of your own uncontested: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users" Miss Mondegreen talk  23:03, July 18 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that Tecmo did remove those links...of course that was back in September 2006 so I think reverting that edit is more than a little rediculous. IrishGuy ^talk 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah--I just searched 500 edits back--it went to mid-September 2006 and that satisfied me--thanks for the link. I'm sorry, this is ridiculous! I can't even believe that this has been managed. That edit is almost a year old--and Tecmo provided a talk page explanation at the time. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:27, July 19 2007 (UTC)

Continuing lack of action

Can we please see some movement on this? There doesn't seem to be anything we're waiting on from Epee, nor do his citations of policy seem to be changing anyone's mind. The longer we wait, the longer Epeefleche has to slash and burn all of Tecmobowl's contributions. I have yet to see any admin action towards a rollback of the slashouts, or towards a block. Is there something I'm not seeing in this complaint regarding this lack of action? Somethign that needs to happen? Or can we get a rollback and warning (or block) for Epee? Thank you. ThuranX 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to be an admin to revert someone elses edit. Anyone can do it. Since this is not vandalilsm, roll back will not be much quicker except in archive pages. Other than that, every edit needs to be checked first. I don't mind starting the process, I'll look over his edits now, but you could help out too. I don't think it's necessary to talk abouta block though. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm as far as I can tell they have all been reverted? Are there any omre to do? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't list that he's reverting Tecmo in every edit. The Juan Pierre one I mentioned in my initial report just has an edit summary of "(→External links)"--meaning no summary, just that he was editing that section. In addition to the dozens where he does mention Tecmo in some manner, he has hundreds in the past few days to EL sections and that's way harder to undo. Even one where he said he was undoing Tecmo's edit--the edit was from September 2006. He's gone way, way back through Tecmo's edits and since he doesn't always say when he's reverting Tecmo, someone basically needs to go through all of his edits and then check to see if he's undoing an edit of Tecmo's--and they need to look back at least a year because we know he got that far back. That's why this is so problematic. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:08, July 19 2007 (UTC)

In that case it will be very difficult for ininvolved admins to sort this mess out. Is he still doing it today? I'm willing to block if he refuses to stop, but if he has stopped then poeple who know which edits are problematic should simply revert him. Note however that removal of external links is no big deal, don't seat the small stuff. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the removal--the addition. Tecmo's big thing was cleaning EL sections--removing dead links, irrelevant stuff, stuff that should be used as references--he generally did a good job. The undoing--sometimes pretty bad--adding links for a team that a baseball player no longer plays for, adding back 17 links to the Dave Matthews article that had been removed almost a year ago! A lot of these edits were discussed on talk pages, etc. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:58, July 19 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find if there was any consensus for Epeefleche's actions. I don't want to inflame the situation by acting with undue haste. At the moment I am of the opinion that Epeefleche is acting in much the same way as got Tecmobowl blocked (acting in accordance to own agenda and not communicating), but since I feel my actions should be preventative rather than punitive I want to be certain of my decision before acting upon it. If any other admin wants to act in the meantime they have my blessing. LessHeard vanU 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Tecmo wrinkle

The IP address 75.203.180.191, which is a Verizon Wireless user, and which Tecmo's recent sockpuppet Long levi made a point of saying he is, is attempting to revert some of Epeefleche's actions against Tecmo/Levi's articles and comments. [45] I am reverting his reversions. Baseball Bugs 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, great that's all we need. First, stop doing that.

Second, Baseball Bugs--I'm pretty familiar with this case but I don't sit on baseball articles and Tecmo's tail the way you do. I missed the whole Long Levi deal and I haven't seen this happening. Provide diffs---otherwise it's just accusing someone and even if it's true it requires the person you're reporting to to just track the diffs down and that's a major pain.

This is quite frankly the worst thing that could have happened. What Epeefleche did was a major problem--partially because it was so hard to undo. Quite frankly Tecmo is the person best able to revert him. But he's now put us in an uncomfortable policy position in terms of WP:BAN. Both users are behaving badly here--and Tecmo should have come here and seen that this situation was being taken seriously--he could always have e-mailed one of us a list of reversions we'd missed. At the same time, I understand his hotheadness. He feels he's been treated unfairly in the past by administrators and so trusting administrators to take of the issue would have been hard for him--Epeefleche has gone on Tecmo reverting sprees before and administrators have let him.

Tecmo is banned--and he's going to stay banned unless he accepts the terms of coming back. And there are a lot of editors out there actively looking for his sockpuppets. He'll either get the point and change his behavior and editing pattern and come back with a new account and we won't be able to tell--not a problem really if he fixes the behavioral pattern that got him banned, or he'll accept the terms of the deal and come back that way, or he'll move on to other things in life.

But Epeefleche is currently an editor and still needs to be dealt with. And we shouldn't be reverting Tecmo's edits--if they are in fact his, just to revert back. Ban the IP if possible, but reverting is just making a WP:POINT. We don't decide on what content to keep by who is behaving worse. Let's set the pages back to before this current Epeefleche Tecmo mess and move on.

Also, we have got to bring this incident to WP:BAN. That language needs to be crystal--we want to prevent anyone from even dream of using the policy to support undoing all of an editors past edits. Because that is a surefire way to bring a banned editor back from the grave. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:43, July 19 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you get familiar with the Long Levi situation, which is laid out on User talk:Long levi in detail. Then you'll see why the connection to the 75... IP address is obvious. Baseball Bugs 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is an admin ever going to get involved in this? This ridiculous Big Brotherstyle revision of page history is absurd. It's PA level censorship and vandalism, and we've still yet to hear any resolution on the actions of those seeking to remove Tecmobowl's comments. We've heard it shouldn't be one and that part is reverted, but not that all the slashouts and deletions have been restored. Can an admin please look at this?ThuranX 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you do it please? Cheers! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and thus, I can't rollback all of Epeefleche's changes, as you well know. It's already been stated that given the lack of edit summaries, not all EF's changes can be easily identified. Further, none of this gets EF any sort of reprimand for his actions, nor does it establish any precendent. But you alerady know all this, and just don't care. You've made that clear. Thank you. ThuranX 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't have a magical power to revert changes. There is a rollback link that makes reverting large amounts of easy-to-spot vandalism a bit quicker but, as has been made clear, the changes needing rollback are not easy to spot. An admin is not required for reverting. As for the actual striking through, to my knowledge, Epeefleche stopped when asked. A block is not warranted unless he persists. I'm not sure what else you're looking for. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out what Thuranx's interest is in this specific matter. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Wknight for the concise explanation. As to Baseball Bugs, I watch AN/I. I didnt' realize I had to be an involved party to comment, in fact, AN/I usually asks for uninvolved parties to assist. ThuranX 06:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, ThuranX, the reason I haven't gone around undoing the edits is twofold. I started on the Shoeless Joe talk page, but my edits didn't hold. Baseball bugs and Epeefleche believe that I have a COI where it comes to Tecmo, as you've seen, they accuse anyone who they see siding with Tecmo of having a particular interest (if my comments were read carefully, people would realize that I rarely sided with Tecmo--but generally sided with policy, or against bad behavior). Epeefleche already attacked me on another article talk page about my "support of Tecmo" and I think it's best for an uninvolved editor to do the actual undoing. Also, practically, I haven't had a lot of computer access in the past few days and don't except to in the next few either. However, about figuring out the more complicated ones, I have a thought (see below). Miss Mondegreen talk  09:04, July 21 2007 (UTC)

If Tecmo is watching

Unless someone is willing to go through all of Epeefleche's recent edits and see if Tecmo has ever edited the same article and if he has, compare their edits, there's no way to figure out the more complicated edits. The ones where the edit summary alludes to Tecmo should be easier, and the other ones, the best that can be done is to check and see if Tecmo edited the article recently. But the easiest and most complete thing to do, get Tecmo's help--OFF WIKI. Because what I said earlier, I stand by. The people equipped to deal with this are editors with endless amounts of time, editors obsessed with Tecmo and Tecmo himself. If Tecmo is watching, I invite him to e-mail me or another editor's he'd be comfortable contacting with a diff list her articles and talk pages where Epeefleche has undone either his edits or comments. Anyone who receives an e-mail from Tecmo with diffs can post them here and they can be taken care of. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:04, July 21 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that is a good idea at all! Tecmo is a banned editor, and such editors should be encouraged to distance themselves from Wikipedia not be drawn back in. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a better idea? First, if Tecmo agreed to abide by certain conditions, the banning would be lifed. So we're not encouraging him to move on, just behave better. His storming off and unwillingness to work was not what anyone wanted (I hope), and working with the system has always been encouraged, including for Tecmo even once he was banned. Tecmo was banned because of his behavior--his punishment wasn't to have his wiki-existence wiped, and unless unless an editor is willing to go through all of Epeefleche's contributions and then look at each article extensively, then Epeefleche will have gotten away with this. Besides, what kind of message does it send to editors who were banned because of behavioral issues that if they learn from their mistakes and behave properly it's too late?

Look, we haven't blocked Epeefleche or done anything and he's moving full steam ahead, undoing Tecmo's contributions.

From today:

Undoing edits: [46]

Deleting comments: [47] [48] [49]

Granted, he's now moved on to sockpuppet Long Levi, but going through and systematically undoing things like colour changes is vindictive. And removing Tecmo's comments is problematic for future editors. This wasn't a sockpuppet caught in 30 minutes and dispatched summarily. This makes things a lot harder for users who later want to look at a user's contributions and the effect that they had--especially when a comment is removed from the middle of the conversation.

Look, if we don't accept help (if we even get it), then it's stupid. We're saying because of one user's previous problems we're not going to solve a current one. We do need to think about the message we're sending. And to a lot of people, we're an oddly closed society. The majority of our text comes from accounts with few edits, but we have a bizarre hierarchy and everyone here has a long memory. There's a reason that good editors resort to socks and personal attacks--it's because too often, the system doesn't work. And if we want to teach people tha they can trust the system and be patient and that socks and attacks aren't the way to go, then we have to be flexible and sensible. Refusing/not asking for the help of a banned user because the user is banned and instead leaving a situation unhandled, or partially unhandled--well, that doesn't make sense to me. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:57, July 21 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that, although Epeefleche should not be reverting Tecmobowl's edits with the reasoning that Tecmobowl is banned, he can revert Tecmobowl's edits as though Tecmobowl were still here. What I mean is that Epeefleche can restore external links that Tecmobowl had removed and the like. Wholesale reverting of Epeefleche's main article space edits may not be any more warranted than Epeefleche's reverting of Tecmobowl's. What I wanted reverted on a large scale was wherever Epeefleche struck through Tecmobowl's talk page comments. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He's reverting edits made after the ban. This is entirely correct. Editors who have been banned do no get to edit the encylopedia. That is what being banned means. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true too. Sorry, this thread is so endless, I don't even know what edits we're referring to. If Miss Modegreen is still referring to Epeefleche's reverting of Tecmobowl's edits (which I thought she was), then that's what I'm referring to. Anything done by Tecmobowl's socks after the ban time - including talk page comments - are supposed to be reverted on sight per WP:BAN and/or WP:CSD#G5. Now we can end this damn thread already? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If Mondegreen (or anyone else) is getting e-mails from Tecmo advising her how to fight his battles for him, that would be a bad thing. Meanwhile, I'm seeing at least two admins here saying it's just fine to delete Levi's comments freely, and to revert any edits of Tecmo or Levi that appear to be unreasonable, as with any edits from anyone. Mondegreen is often several days behind the curve on the status of things. About all I'm doing anymore in connection with Tecmo/Levi is watching for more sockpuppets, like the 75... account that came on a couple of days ago. Baseball Bugs 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Theresa said, the Levi edits - talk page edits included - are all post-ban and should be reverted immediately as a violation of WP:BAN. Same for any other post-ban sock edits determined to be from Tecmobowl as long as Tecmobowl is banned. The pre-ban edits need more care and I think everyone disagrees with reverting/striking out pre-ban talk edits. For instance, the Ten Million (baseball player) article should not be touched simply because Tecmobowl initiated it - that was all done pre-ban. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 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.

Potential unblock of User:Digwuren to participate in an RfC

I have indicated to Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I will unblock him to participate in an RfC regarding his conduct. The blocking administrator, User:FayssalF, is happy with this. Comments, anyone? --Deskana (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. More productive than a block.Proabivouac 21:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support, GDonato (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. :Dc76\^talk 21:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. By all means. All of this seemed more like a content dispute, so that a block for "disruption" was quite weird. Dpotop 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, unblock him to participate. The block wasn't for dispute over content, though. Neil ╦ 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. No decisions in abstentia. But the link to RfC? Where's that? E.J. 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would like to know are we talking here of a real already actual RfC/U or a planned one? If it is not yet filed then Id like to know who has requested this unblock, if it is filed, I would like to see a link to it...--Alexia Death 06:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A planned one regarding the user. They have been unblocked to participate. If the user abuses this unblock, any admin should reblock immidiately with a longer block duration. Digwuren was warned that he was unblocked to participate in an RfC and/or mediation case ONLY, and that the original block still stands on principle. --Deskana (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Urgent issue: While Estonia-related discussions have been most uncivil, his latest outburst sets new records. This time I am really offended. I cannot comprehend how his technical unblock could give him a license for this level of uncivility on talk pages.

Yes, there has been a RfC on Digwuren proposed, but I do not know if one has been planned. Because of the complexity of this “dispute”, filing an RfC would take several days of work from several editors. Even if planning for an RfC started today, it is unlikely it could be filed before his block whould end. Besides, for one to be filed, there has to be proof of attempts to mediate the dispute. As far as I know, there are no open RfC or mediation cases where he would be party.

A RfC on Digwuren was proposed to me by User:Otto ter Haar on June 2, but I rejected the idea. One of my concerns was the RfC would not have the teeth needed to deal with this issue. I was assuming that an RfC would be unnecessary, and expecting that some "admin with balls" would take decisive action, along the lines of the case of his opponent, User:M.V.E.i.. It now seems that I was wrong and should have started working on the RfC.

For the last month I have avoided articles where Digwuren might be involved in, contributing and commenting only when I have been invited by him, or in the case of Estophobia, where an article under development in my user space had been requested as an alternative to the deleted article.

I was hoping he would go his own way, make new friends, or most likely, enemies, earn his incremental blocks, and eventually fade away.

---

Looking at his edit history I see that he has "started" a mediation case and an RfC. Luckily, I am not mentioned in the mediation case (although his blocking administrator is). If I was included, I would most likely consider it a form of harassment.

As for the RfC, I cannot imagine, how one could file an RfC on oneself! If one was planned, it should appear when those disagreeing with his behavior have created it. By "creating" his own RfC, he is forcing his opponent to follow his timetable, raising our wikistress -levels by a hundred points!

(I am not posting links to the two pages discussed, because as far as I am concerned, they do not exist.) -- Petri Krohn 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Petri, you are the root cause of much of the conflict in Estonia related pages. Your edits to these pages have been mostly disruptive and your attitude is not conducive to mediation. You seem to be conducting a vendetta against Digwuren and a campaign to assassinate the character of Estonian editors as rabid nationalists. Particularly nasty was your checkuser action against a whole group of Estonian editors, knowing full well many were genuine editors. Digwuren has contributed to over 4000 articles in Wikipedia, making a great contribution to articles related to Estonia, my guess is that he has initiated this RfC on himself to defend his character.

Your attitude is exemplified by your claims that Estonian editors have a Holocaust denial agenda on Talk:The Holocaust while canvassing for votes for Talk:Estonian_war_crimes_trials#Requested_move [50], claim again Estonian editors are engaging in Holocaust denial in defence of an anonymous IP reported on the 3RR notice board [51], claim yet again of "yet another example of Estonian Holocaust denial" [52]. You go on to claim that dismissing the Holocaust is common among Estonians [53], claim that the Estonia denies the right for a church to practice religion, with comparison to China. [54], claim Estonian irredentism [55]. Smearing with allegations of dirty tactics, in this case "off site cooperation" to user Ghirlandajo [56]. And finally this hateful rant, for which you where blocked for three days, where you accuse Estonian editors of having Nazi skeletons in their closets [57].

I think that Estonian editors are best qualified to write articles concerning Estonia, and it is also right that they are challenged occasionally to write balanced and sourced articles, as we should all be. At first I believed your spoiling role in Estonia related articles did serve a purpose in raising the quality of the articles, however, you have gone seriously beyond the bounds of civility on many occasions and question whether you serve any positive role here. Martintg 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla topic ban

I've offered Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) a topic ban if he wants to continue editing. Previous discussion here. To recap: SZ is the publisher of Metropolis, a free city guide for English speakers in Toyko. He's been causing COI and BLP problems for months editing articles about his business interests, and in particular editing BLPs about people his city guide has been critical of or conducted campaigns against. This has included repeatedly posting disputed material on article or user talk pages; insisting that Metropolis be used as a source for contentious BLP edits; canvassing editors on their talk pages to restore material for him that others have removed; making personal attacks on users who oppose his edits; and wikilawyering when asked to stop. Guy has blocked him indefinitely until we decide how to proceed with him.

The topic ban consists of (1) no editing about living persons who have been the subject of articles in Metropolis (or any other publication or website Sparkzilla controls), and no posting about these people on talk pages; (2) no editing of articles about his business interests, though he may make suggestions on the talk pages of those articles, within reason.

I've offered to unblock him if he agrees to the above. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Entirely reasonable. See how he gets on with that, and if he causes no trouble we can consider whether it can be relaxed in any respect. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This plan is probably the best way to move forward at this point. Thatcher131 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'd lean toward allowing him some latitude on the talk page with regard to living persons, so long as he doesn't make defamatory comments. Do you think that would open the gateway to abuse? If so, perhaps it's unwise. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Everybody would be happy including "people his city guide has been critical of or conducted campaigns against". I don't see a good reason why we would not include the talk page. BLP applies to talk pages as well. As Guy said above, it would be a matter of good conduct before he'd be allowed to participate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK; Guy and SlimVirgin have more experience in dealing with him, so if you think there's reason to believe he'll continue to violate BLP on the talk page, then perhaps the original remedy proposed by SlimVirgin is most appropriate. He could gain back talk-page privileges, potentially, through good behavior. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be quite a generous offer. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I too think that a wide topic ban is an entirely reasonable offer. I'm the anonymous "heated issue sockpuppet" that got banned for a short while by JzG for my "edit warring" with Sparkzilla (mainly on Metropolis and Crisscross), shortly before I outed him on the COI board. I think it's good to note that although Sparkzilla now claims to have perfectly honorable motives, and pretends he never really denied who he was, he did. He would ferociously delete all talk page comments asking if he were in any way related to Devlin/Metropolis, and accuse the person asking for being "disruptive." Even after I had presented extensive evidence he were Devlin, he still tried to deny it by denigrating my efforts to out him, and kept the act up until MangoJuice told him to quit it. He also used an IP to edit Metropolis/CrissCross. But that's all in the COI I originally posted, please do have a look at it if you haven't already. It was my opinion at the time, and still is, that the case was closed prematurely and that Sparkzilla was bound to create more problems. Heatedissuepuppet 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla CoI. Here you can clearly see one particular aspect of Sparkzilla's on-wiki behaviour; how he's attempting to promote his own business: [58]. Although Japan Today is 99% Kyodo news-produced blurbs, he puts his own site above Kyodo news, arguing he's "ordered news links by site size." Although his defamation campaign against that Baker fellow is bad enough on its own, it's important to note how Sparkzilla is all about self-promotion as well. He can pretend he's "one of the good guys" on Wikipedia all he wants, but that won't change the sad reality. Heatedissuepuppet 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

After a previous exposure to the Nick Baker issues via the COI noticeboard, and a look at User_talk:Sparkzilla, I would support a topic ban as Slim Virgin has described above. If the topic ban proves unworkable due to endless protests by the subject, I'd consider requests for further action. All this is in spite of my suspicion that some of the Sparkzilla allegations about Nick Baker might be true. We have to work with reliable sources when BLP is involved; any other route is hopeless. I'm particularly alarmed that Sparkzilla uses up so much Talk space with protests that seem tone-deaf to BLP. When someone appears clueless about important WP policy issues, it's fair to include that fact when WP sanctions are being considered. EdJohnston 18:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxy editor reverting at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

An editor has been using TOR proxies to revert at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's used three TOR proxies so far. Since he seems to have an inexhaustible supply of TOR proxies, and since proxies are not allowed to edit Wikipedia articles, I've semi-protected the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable; would it be worth hard-blocking the TOR proxy IP's (turning off anon-only) rather than soft-blocking them, or are we not doing that anymore? I can't keep this particular contentious issue straight. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've hard-blocked the proxies as well, but, as I said, the editor seems to have an inexhaustible supply of new ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just looked at this one, which appeared to be soft-blocked. Looks like we're on the same page then. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I need to fix the others. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, as you yourself have been involved in an editing conflict on this page, it would have been wise to recurse yourself from protecting the page and asking a univolved admin to do so. But as the issue has been raised here, I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to have a look at the edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the scope of the article and suggest a reasonable resolution.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that any reasonable admin, faced with a page being attacked by numerous TOR-proxy-using anon IP's, would semi-protect the page (I certainly would have, so if you'd like, from a process point of view, consider that I semi-protected the page). MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How are we then supposed to protect private information and our identities when you have given unscrupulous people like Jayjg checkuser access so that they can even see the IP addresses of user accounts? 61.124.59.83 23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe he's violated the privacy policy, contact the Ombudsman commission (see WP:RFCU). Otherwise, stop trolling. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with trolling? 69.15.202.116 00:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit history of this article is really atrocious. I protected it a couple of weeks ago to stop a revert war; none of the editors involved in the article bothered to use the time-out to discuss the disputed content, and now they're revert-warring again. Some salutory blocks would be in order here, per WP:3RR's "electric fence" doctrine. -- ChrisO 15:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a reminder to the article talk page and the user talk pages of the editors involved. Hopefully they will get the message. -- ChrisO 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you could refrain from using "Tor" in a derogatory manner that'd be great. Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchtower Sentinel

User is leaving WP and has speedy deleted his user page (for the third time in four months) and is attempting to speedy his user talk page (which was already denied once, so he tried a different template. I'm sure he wants to erase his presence so that the next time he decides to come back and behave as badly as he did there won't be a visible record of his past misconduct. Could an admin please tell him he cannot delete his user talkpage? MSJapan 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

DES ^(talk) 23:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved. The User is still trying to have his Talk page deleted. Corvus cornix 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, because I just protected the talk page. He can take it up with the arbcom if he likes but playing games on Wiki is disruptive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a space between the period and next sentence on the warning template. 68.39.174.238 04:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone talk to Dan MS please

Just reiterate my point here [59] so that he feels able to reply as apparently my lack of account means that it's OK for him to bypass copyright. just make him aware that the history needs to be there for attribution. 86.137.57.73 02:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You say he has been posting deleted content to user subpages without maintaining history, could you possibly provide any diffs of this behavior? I don't see such edits from him in the last few days, unless I missed something. Someguy1221 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DRV where he has been copy/paste restoring content:[60]

I copied the old text to a new user sub-page and notified the user. ●DanMS • Talk 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For example at User:Smithtone/Negar_Assari-Samimi. Not a huge issue, I would just like him to be aware of copyright problems when providing deleted content. 86.137.57.73 02:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, from this edit, 86.137.57.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = KamrynMatika (talk · contribs) = KamrynMatika2 (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hi. Relevant? Not really. 86.137.57.73 02:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to attach a glimmer of context to the unnecessarily cryptic opening to this thread. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless those are socks or banned users, no, that is not relevant. Further, I also hope DanMS is aware of copyright problems. It would actually be very easy for him or another admin to correct those problems right now. I'd also like to say that refusal to respond to an editor simply for editing anonymously is disapointing. Someguy1221 03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's more than disappointing. It's a fundamental misunderstanding or rejection of our commitment to allow anonymous or non-registered participants. An admin should know better. --ElKevbo 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing more than I've come to expect from Wikipedia users, so I don't mind too much. I would like to point out that editing and using an IP as my identifier rather than a username is the less anonymous option, as giving away my IP shows my geographical location, my ISP and could be used to identify me for legal means and so forth. And I haven't tried to hide my accounts either. However, this isn't really relevant either - I just want Dan to restore articles properly, pretty please. 86.137.57.73 03:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you "just want[ed] Dan to restore the articles properly", you could have asked in a nicer manner and given him some clue of which articles you wanted restored. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I am rather mystified by all of this. First of all, an anonymous IP user posted a message on my talk page without identifying himself or the incident about which he is concerned. Anonymous users do not have talk pages, so how can I respond? Yes, yes, I know: There are talk pages for some IPs, but one can never be sure that an IP belongs to one particular user, or that the user who posted the message will be using the same IP the next time he edits Wikipedia. Second, the user did not explain the specifics about his concerns. Next, the user started an ANI thread about me without notifying me. That would have been at least the most courteous thing to do. If the anon is concerned about policy, he should read the ANI page, where it says “As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting.” Finally, The user did not try to work out the problem with me first before starting an ANI thread.

If I erred in providing the deleted content to the user who requested it in DRV, then I am sorry. A user made a courteous request in DRV to see the old text of the deleted page so that he could rewrite it into an acceptable article. It seemed like a reasonable request, and the article was not reposted in the main wiki namespace. It that was wrong, then I accept the blame for it and I will not repeat it. Since I am involved in this incident, I will not delete the article on the user’s sub-page where I posted it. Another uninvolved admin should take care of that to avoid any conflict of interest. ●DanMS • Talk 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The complaint was that the history was lost on one article. (I know, it's hard to believe that is the cause of all this fuss but it is). I've properly restored the entire history of Negar Assari-Samimi and moved it over User:Smithtone/Negar Assari-Samimi. Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, WKnight. I appreciate your assistance. ●DanMS • Talk 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize to User:86.137.57.73 for my somewhat curt response in his initial inquiry on my talk page. I said “If you were had a registered Wikipedia account I could reply to you,” which in retrospect seems rather rude. What what I meant, and I should have said, was “If you were had a registered Wikipedia account and had a user talk page I could reply to you.” ●DanMS • Talk 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor keeps erasing (but not archiving) their talk page history

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.

---

User:Corticopia tried to delete her talk page history, because she wanted to hide the fact that she was banned on this edit. I tried to archive her talk page at first, thinking that she only didn't know how to archive her talk page on this edit. On this edit I provided a link to WP:ARCHIVE, so that she would know it is against policy to erase your talk page and not archive it. After three more reversions by User:Corticopia on this edit, this edit and this edit to her erased-talk-page version, it became clear that her intensions were deceitful attempts to cover up her past history of being banned.----^DarkTea 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVE is not policy; its not even a guideline. In fact, WP:TALK says: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages." It is generally frowned upon, but as the user is making constructive edits, I see no reason to take any action here. Also, it was a 1 month block, not a ban. The info is still available in the history. People are about as likely to check that as they are an archive when they visit a user's talk page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK actually says, "When pages get too long Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for details on why and how to."----^DarkTea 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK is a guideline, though, "...not set in stone." It is preferred that editors archive, but it isn't a requirement. Some editors will periodically blank old sections and some will have huge talkpages that needs a sled and husky team to navigate. LessHeard vanU 19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK is primarily about article talk pages, not user talk pages. Besides that, as indicated above, sysops are more likely to see a block log first than trudge through talk archives to find previous blocks. That's what I do.--Chaser - T 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if m:right to vanish is trying to be applied here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to which the instructions for how to archive are too convoluted to follow. It's probably not malice, just inability to follow incomprehensible directsion. I've tried archiving--forget it. KP Botany 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Users are allowed to blank their talk pages - it's perfectly within their rights. Corticopia has had conflicts with other users he may be trying to put behind him - which is his right. WilyD 20:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WilyD -- WP:ARCHIVE is not even policy, and DarkTea's persistent, self-directed attempts to archive my talk page without my consent and in spite of my explicit objections and actions are unwanted, disruptive, and rude. I will decide if, when, and what needs to be archived regarding my talk pages (which is really a redundancy given the use of diffs and other tools). Apropos, DarkTea is hereby advised to not comment on, edit, or archive my user and talk pages ever again, or matters will escalate quickly. Corticopia 21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Corticopia, I understand you're frustrated, but I'd encourage you to just walk away at this point. Comments such as the one you left may only serve to inflame the situation. Walk away. It's the better part of valour. - Philippe | Talk 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but perhaps you should encourage the instigator of this farce to have done so from the get-go ... and I see that WilyD has already commented on DT's talk page. [61] Thanks. Corticopia 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Corticopia, given your record I would say a user has the right to comment on your talk page if she disagrees with you on something. However, I do agree she shouldn't archive it without permission (the page history would still exist anyway). New England ^{(C) (H)} 21:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. Excuse me, but DarkTea has instigated this morass, and my 'record' (whatever the relevance) has as much to do with this as hers. The best way to avoid problems is to not create them -- consult the talk page and edit history of Asia, which demonstrate DT's tendentious behaviour. I will also point out that New England (AKA Black Harry) is not an administrator and, given prior interactions, is not impartial regarding this. Like, why is this editor even commenting? Corticopia 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cortiopia, I would advise you to look at WP:OWN. And I have every right to voice my opinion here (you don't get to say who can and cannot talk) New England ^{(C) (H)} 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This policy has absolutely nothing to do with the incipient issue. And, considering the source, I will hereafter refrain from commenting here unless there's reason to do so. Corticopia 22:21, 21 July 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.

What Corticopia is doing is perfectly acceptable - there's nothing else to discuss. WilyD 00:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Carls12 keeps (re)creating single-word templates

See Special:Contributions/Carls12. This user has been (re)creating single-word pages in template: space faster then I can tag them. In adition, he uploads a truckload small sized non-free images (club logos I asume). He has been warned several times but he blanked his talk page. What to do? --Edokter (Talk) 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, well, I deleted all the templates and left a note on his talk page. We'll see what happens from there. ♠PMC♠ 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• The images are all being used inappropriately and are redundant anyway, so they will need to be deleted as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• I just found what it's all ment for, his own shadow scorecard (already up for AfD). --Edokter (Talk) 19:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He has a ton of tiny .png files that nobody has done anything with. I can't even make out what they are. Corvus cornix 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

username question

username redacted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

He's long since been dealt with, so I'm not bringing to this to anyone's attention for a specific reason, I just want to ask why, in the creation of account names, this site doesn't institute some form of name-censor so that people can't create names like these...? HalfShadow 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi HalfShadow. Answer to your question - it does. WP:UFA is the place to go to report this kind of offensive username. Thanks ! Pedro |  Chat  19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's after the fact, and I wasn't actually reporting him, I was using him as an example. I was just wondering why the system doesn't go 'hey there's a bad word here, that's not allowed'. Masamage understood what I was asking, though, so... HalfShadow 19:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It can't be done from the technical side, because they could just take out all the spaces and then we wouldn't be able to detect it anymore. And you can't just tell it to disallow names that have "twat" anywhere in them, because then it wouldn't allow, say, "Sweetwater". --Masamage ♫ 19:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wristwatch. Until(1 == 2) 19:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Twat is on the bot blacklist, anyone with twat in their name should be reported at WP:AIV. The list is here User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist#List. Obviously if the bot reports someone called Wristwatch, then the admin won't block him, but if it reports user:twatcunt for example, then he can be blocked rapidly, before he can make edits like this for example. Jackaranga 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot has a whitelist with wristwatch on it, it will not list that word, but will list others. If there are false positives the whitelist can be updated. It also has "twater" to get all water whose type ends in T, "Sweetwater", "Lightwater" etc.... Until(1 == 2) 21:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption arising from a Content Dispute

There is an ongoing content dispute taking place which is arguing over what constitutes a city within the UK or Rngland. The relevant pages are given here: Talk:List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population, List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population, and List of largest settlements in England by population‎. User:Earlybird is in dispute with most of the other editors who have taken part in this dispute. So much so good, but now User:EarlyBird has started to change well-established redirections to new pages created by him/herself today whilst the dispute on the talk page I referenced above is still ongoing and not settled. He disputes that my call for him to gain consensus before changing this redirection is reasonable since he seems to be claiming, by quoting the guidelines on consensus, that consensus must involve reasonable editors, and, by implication, he seems to act as if this need not apply in this case. can people advise on what is the best way forward? I have reverted his page redirections, and think his contributions, if they continue in this way manner of making radical changes, would constitute disruption. I have not really contributed to this discussion myself except to correct a minor issue, though my own thoughts are that Earlybird's position is not yet convincing.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The page redirected to was concerning urban sub-divisions, for which no source is available defining them as cities. As this constitutes original research I redirected the page to a page entitled "List of the largest cities in England by population", which cites a Government source for these population figures. The redirect from "List of largest settlements in England by population" was also removed as, per the very source cited on the page redirected to, a settlement is limited to an area with a maximum population of 1,500. For this reason one page was factually inaccurate and the other was in breach of Wikipedia:No original research and so I feel I was entirely within my rights to make the edits. EarlyBird 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I have just removed EarlyBird from WP:AIV as I noticed this discussion here. Please note that the editor who reported EarlyBird is not the one who bought this subject here. LessHeard vanU 20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are all given within the Talk page of the relevant article. As detailed on that Talk page, User:EarlyBird is incorrect in his/her assumptions, and has unilaterally taken it upon his/herself to move the article around, replacing it with an incorrect and invalid page. Large cities such as Wolverhampton and Salford have been removed from the page, as User:Earlybird believes that these are not cities. "Settlements" has been used as a heading in order to allow the populations both cities and towns to be used within the article. This is due to the peculiar nature of City Status within the United Kingdom. It should be noted that there have been no voices of support for User:EarlyBird's position on the relevant Talk page. Fingerpuppet 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

These sources are original research as they are simply dissection of words in the original source. Nowhere is it explicitly stated that these urban sub-divisions are cities, that is simply something you have read into the words. The page I altered the redirect to, however, explicitly states that the figures given are those for cities within England. As for voices of support, it's not exactly been on there long. If you look at the edit history of the Manchester article, which also cites these sources, you will find a couple of editors in there who accept their validity. EarlyBird 20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) This appears to be a content or procedure dispute, and would suggest that this is moved elsewhere (WP:RfC may help). I would comment to EarlyBird that it would be unwise to continually act against consensus; you will ultimately likely get blocked. It is best to continue to attempt to change the consensus by discussion. LessHeard vanU 20:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that taking it to WP:RfC would now be best. Since I have not been central to the dispute about content, but merely been concerned about the actions taken, I have posted a message about this on Talk:List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population asking that people take it there. I still think there are issues perhaps relevant to this page concerning the actions that were unilaterally taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi LessHeard. Unfortunately, all I seem to get when I do so is "our sources are correct" from the same couple of editors, despite their sources not actually explicitly stating fact. All I can find is their dissection of the words of the Office for National Statistics, who as far as I can see have no official definition of a city. EarlyBird 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here: the first is the content of the dispute. That was not the issue I was concentrating on here. The second issue is. That is the changing of content unilaterally when it is still the subject of ongoing discussion in the talk pages. The further actions are also relevant (details given by fingerpuppet on the above listed talk page), which might be instances of disruption to prove a WP:POINT.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To EarlyBird; this is why I suggest RfC, to see if any uninvolved/impartial editors can help the two opposing viewpoints reach some type of understanding. Only when there is an agreed course, which one or more editors do not adhere to, should this matter return here. My (hopefully last) comment is that if either side is not willing to participate in a RfC then it is possible that their position is not that strong. LessHeard vanU 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is very difficult to assume good faith when an editor creates several blank articles that were people not to assume good faith, could be construed as attempts to prevent the status quo being restored prior to any agreed changes. Fingerpuppet 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The edits were not to remove status quo. I removed the redirect because, in my opinion, it breached Wikipedia policy on no original research. As it was reverted I have left it in it's current state and put in a request for deletion for this reason, citing the ONS source which explicitly defines what a settlement is. As for the "several blank articles", would you care to give examples of the others? EarlyBird 20:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The request for removal was posted at 20:09. This was after the first message was posted in this section and after User:EarlyBird posted his first message in response to my initial message on here. I consider this to be highly inadvisable, and think that if the matter did not fit well on this page, it does so now.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If by that you mean that my request for deletion was somehow linked to your post here and that this makes it an "incident" in some regard, please note that on the [discussion page] I had stated I was creating a request for deletion at 19:45, the same time you posted this at and before you had posted a link to this page. EarlyBird 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like also to express my dissatisfaction with the conduct of EarlyBird on the Manchester page where he is attempting to disrupt and push his own POV agenda against concensus. He has been asked to moderate his behaviour by a number of other users, even those that share his own partisan view regarding Manchester. I would ask therefore that the editor in question's behaviour is monitored closely to prevent this disruption esculating. Many thanks 79.73.183.95 01:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Long term POV editor

User:68.48.240.144 and User:Middim13 is a long term POV vandal convinced that Electric Boat is in some kind of conspiracy against his ancestry (see here). I have tried to reason with him and I have been struggling with finding ways to warn him because his edits are not vandalism per se, and he quotes dead tree publications to back him up (even though DANFS, which is the reliable source on US Naval history, says he's wrong). But now he's moved on to blatant racism in his edits[62]. Any thoughts? -N 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The anti-semitism appears in the edit summary rather than the article - replacing the disputed founder with the location where founded is not racism. I think a warning about appropriate language regarding race/religion should suffice for now (unless there are other instances?) I note there are references provided; do they back up the editors claim? Remember, as long as the source is reliable it can be used - as can any reliable source stating the opposite. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Problematic comments

Resolved

I never know how to react to these sorts of comments, but perhaps someone else has some idea. Tewfik^Talk 02:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking comes to mind. There is a substantial blocklog, howeve most seems related to sockpuppetry. I have asked him to refrain from further comments of this nature.Proabivouac 02:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The warning you just gave is appropriate. We also have templatized warnings against personal attacks like {{subst:uw-npa2}}. If nothing else, one can modify a templatized warning and paste that onto someone's talk page. The most effective way is to ignore it and not escalate the situation, which is often quite difficult. Previous blocks were for sockpuppetry, so a block for personal attacks isn't appropriate unless there were prior warnings.--Chaser - T 02:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Proabivouac 06:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple unconstructive edits

User:Standardname has added links to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV to around 100 articles loosely related to psychology/psychiatry(Special:Contributions/Standardname), including articles about former mental hospitals etc. I don't have the patience to revert them all, so I was wondering if an admin rollback tool might be quicker. Thanks in Advance. --Limegreen 03:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Mostly  Done. Some were completely inappropriate, such as linking to those articles from medication, but some may be legitimate. I'll leave a note for the editor. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)