Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301

User:Mikerussell and interactions with other users including User:Lar

User:Lar and I agree that there should be an entry on this incident on this Admin Incident board. I will keep it short. I post now, before the article AfD ends so it doesn't seem I am a poor loser. User:Lar wrote on my user page a comment in regards to my manner of approaching the Afd for the above article on Monday [1]. I responded politely, but honestly on his Talk page. I have never had any contact with him before this comment. I responded and explained why I removed the comment from my Talk page here- [2]. Immediatly upon reading my response he threatens with blocking or other type of punitive action here -[3]. I then responded finally here [[4]]. This admin now has additional material on his Talk page that may provide info but I have no idea why he includes sinebot reverts when I date and sign all my posts anyway, and that day my Sign button was sticking for some reason, so reverting these things have nothing to do with the debate. Moreover, he seems to be saying my actions led to User:Loodog quitting wikipedia which is just factually wrong, since he had his User page unchanged prior to the issue. Obviously when a heated AfD is started and the nominator User:Will Beback states in his first paragraph that the contributor and not the content is the reason the article should be deleted, and I am the editor he refers to, heated personalizing of issues is likely to result. But I really find the above named admin is flaming the fires, choosing sides, if you will, taking personal shots by "not naming names" on the AfD itself and in general trying to label me as a problem contributor based solely on this one issue/debate. Personally adminship to me means you are not allowed to use the position to inforce personal policing. --Mikerussell 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference: Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Mikerussell (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) ... It is my considered view that the behaviour of Mikerussell in the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in metropolitan Detroit was disruptive, and continued to be disruptive even after being counseled about it. (I can provide diffs if necessary, but I recommend just reading the AfD, just about every post he made has at least one issue with it) Note that as of yet, Mikerussell has not actually been blocked. Rather, he has been counseled by several users that his approach in this deletion discussion is at best, not effective. The series of diffs on my user talk page demonstrate that he has repeatedly removed that counsel in a dismissive way (characterising a neutral notice of an AfD as "unpleasant" is not collegial in my view). Users are always welcome to do just that, to remove things from their own talk pages, but after some number of warnings that do not result in a change in disruptive behaviour, further action may be justified. Pointing that out, which is what I did, is not a threat. I never threaten, and I don't think my pointing things out is in any way shape or form out of line. I think there are a lot of mischaracterisations by Mikerussell in the above about the sequence of events, about whether his responses are polite, about who did what in this AfD, etc, and in particular about why the AfD is heated... the heat there is coming entirely, or almost entirely, from Mikerussell and Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who seem to be exhibiting some WP:OWN at best. Note that I have changed the title of this section as I think the focus ought to be on Mikerussell's interaction pattern (he introduced nothing about my interaction with any other users) in this matter. I don't necessarily see him as a problem contributor, overall, (although his contribution history suggests past minor dustups), just that he may have lost perspective about this particular thing, and would benefit from some outside voices commenting about it. This is not a major deal, and I don't think any blocks are warranted at this point if Mikerussell gets the point that his approach needs changing and the disruption needs to stop. As always I encourage and welcome review of my actions, which is why I encouraged Mike to bring this here. Sorry for the longwindedness :) ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)I'm not sure I understand fully what is going on but from the diffs I looked at, Lar seemed to be trying to give you some reasonable advice and warnings and you were being repeatedly snarky. In my personal experience, Lar is not a person known for "flaming the fires" or "choosing sides", so perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting those allegations. Sarah 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds to me as if Mike got a bit carried away with advocacy for a pet article. He's been around for over two years, I'm surprised he fell into this trap. Maybe he doesn't go near the cesspit of AfD often, I don't know. Anyway, if Mike is content to live and learn (especially about canvassing) and he and Lar can shake hands and agree to differ I don't see why this would be a lasting problem. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have time now to go into details, but I believe the canvassing in this matter was done by another editor, user:Thomas Paine1776. What I got from Mikerussell were wild accusatians and negative personal remarks (the worst of which he had the good sense to go back and refactor). To the extent that AfD is a cesspit, it is due to reactions like his. In any case, the editor has made valuable contributions and this does seem out of character, so if there's no future repetition then we needn't worry about it further. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree the canvassing was done by Thomas. There may have been some suggesting and encouragement going back and forth, hard to say. I actually knew it at the time of my initial message, and I may not have been clear about that. But the wild accusations being flung in the AfD well predated any canvassing. I agree with Will, that if a word to the wise is sufficient, that will be that. I certainly bear no animus, and am willing to gloss over the misstatements. I merely want Mike not to disrupt things, and my read of everyone else's comments is that we all want the same thing in that. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the communications, it seems to me that Mikerussell may be suffering from a malaise that strikes all editors here sometimes. I see absolutely nothing wrong in Lar's actions. --John 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's opinions and feedback; its been an interesting exercise.--Mikerussell 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to add anything further; however, this morning as I casually re-read this section, it did occur to me for "the archives" of this debate, it should be mentioned for the record the AfD in question was too Keep; and the closing admin gave an interesting reason. Thank you to everyone, and I have no reason to hold any lasting animosity to any of the above editors.--Mikerussell 11:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting outcome (and in fact I've asked the closing admin editor about it... not favouring a DRV though), but it may not have much bearing on the issues raised here. As long as you recognise (to yourself, I'm not looking for any public acknowledgement, those are often counterproductive) that consensus seems to be that your actions in this matter were not uniformly helpful and endeavour to do better in future I think all will be well. In fact, I hope the opportunity arises for us to work together in future on other Michigan related projects. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AfD says it all in my opinion. I cannot waste any more time and energy squabbling so I think we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that for my part. --Mikerussell 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mikerussell, there are several things that need correcting in that response. First, the ends do not justify the means. That the AfD came out a keep (which is a good thing, recall that my final comment was not in favour of deletion) does not in any way justify your behaviour during the course of it, or your behaviour when that was pointed out to you. Second, you need to internalise that others feel that you acted unacceptably, and that others feel that being counseled about it was not a bad thing. Everyone else in this thread is telling you that, yet you still seem to be dismissing it. I agree you should not "waste any more time and energy" but it's not squabbling that you were engaged in, (which has two sides) it's mild disruption (which has just the one side), and the time and energy wasted is that of the other folks that have to deal with it, not your own, which is why it's disruptive and why it's discouraged... I'm fine with dropping it, since my actions and those of the others that counseled you have been endorsed, but you need to stop being snarky is what it comes down to. Don't be surprised if your activities now get a bit more scrutiny than before, though, and I'd highly recommend that if you choose to participate in AfDs going forward that you moderate your tone significantly. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Geez, guy, give it a rest already. Your nervous chatter is pathetic. I don't take your opinion seriously, never have in the three days I've known of you, and you take your own opinion waaaay too seriously. (This will launch another essay I guess. Tisk, tisk on me.)--Mikerussell 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in this thread told you you were out of line. Everyone. Focus on that instead of trying to shoot the messengers, eh? ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think that John254 is an admin. Sarah 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded that remark, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record too. This is the real lesson about this whole ugly affair- it is the commonsense of the silent majority of level headed contributors that make wikipedia worthy of any credibility it has in the swollen sea of Internet information sources. Block all the admins on 'pedia and no harm would come. Take away a few handfuls of the small contributors, non-admins by choice, with their own modest sense of importance, place and perspective and this website would be just Google spam. Thanks to the non-admins wherever you are!--Mikerussell 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

I've run across something that is a bit unusual and I'm not sure how to handle it. At Communication it appears that a teacher is trying to teach students that not all sources are reliable, that they should verify all information. A useful lesson but the way s/he is teaching it is by temporarily adding false information to the Communication article's References. It's a harmless addition and the edit summary marks it as temporary so I assume that the teacher would remove it - but other editors have caught it first and have removed it.

This "vandalism" does no long-term harm and maybe does some long-term good by teaching students a useful lesson. I take the candid edit summary to indicate that the teacher intends no harm and would remove the info before long. Of course, the bad information hasn't stayed there long enough to find out if the teacher would have removed it and might not have been there long enough to teach students a lesson.

What's the best way to handle this? Is there a better place the teacher could use? Sbowers3 12:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say treat it as vandalism regardless of the intention; who's to say who else has read the article in the meantime and read the false information, especially on a high-traffic article like this? Wikipedia is a valuable teaching tool, but it's not this teacher's personal tool. Just my opinion. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-serious suggestion: Pick any random article about an "up an coming band" and have them look at the sources. Also point them to WP:RS as a good suggestion on what to consider reliable and such. See if any of the "up and coming band" souces meet those critera. Sorry, been on new page patrol where every future Metallica and Microsoft seems to want an article and whines when CSD get put on it. Spryde 13:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO: It's clear vandalism, but possibly a helpful comment could be added on the user's talk page to indicate that changes could be made in a sandbox, or for some made up entity, that will not affect others' use of the resource. The same person wouldn't tear pages out of a library encyclopaedia to make some equally valid teaching point.

It is likely this a shared IP and wouldn't be subject to a block - but would certainly waste a lot of people's time fixing it. Kbthompson 13:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have some sort of essay/suggestion page about using Wikipedia in the classroom? Maybe this teacher could be directed to that essay, which might have some better ideas. Natalie 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KBthompson's opinion and suggestion. Talk to the user, hopefully that'll be the end of it. -Agyle 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[This] may or may not be spam and/or vandalism, but it sure as heck doesn't look like the character! --Qit el-Remel 06:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Natalie's idea. A set of wikipedia resources for the classroom. If there isn't one, it should be developed. It seems to me that many classes are currently using wiki as a 'this is your assignment', 'now look it up in wikipedia', then the kids trot off and spend the rest of the lesson vandalising the page (see below). Ideally, you would set up a page and the educators would add experience, tasks and material appropriate for their age range. There are WikiProjects for things like software development (which I now can't find), which use this as a collaborative environment for teaching. Kbthompson 09:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects? x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ixlikextoxdansex (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – user blocked for 3(+)RR

User is repeatedly and willfully ignoring WP:ALBUM#Leak and engaging in a revert war with other users at Alive 2007. Just64helpin 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:ALBUM is a WikiProject, not a policy page. That is essentially a style guide. Natalie 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Now the user has violated 3RR. Help? Just64helpin 23:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

wtf? Ixlikextoxdansex was blocked, but Just64helpin and Douglasr007 were not? This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and thus NO ONE's actions were exempt from 3RR. Instead of, oh, leaving a completely impersonal and irrelevant templated message, twice, someone could have, oh, I don't know, engaged Ixlikextoxdansex in discussion? This is retarded. --Iamunknown 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Ixlikextoxdansex wasn't doing anything wrong... HalfShadow 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More info. This is ridiculous. The editor in question, a newbie who just started editing seven days ago, was blocked for inserting:

==Extra==
As of September 2007, the album has already been leaked to torrent sites.

I am quite astonished. I did not realise that 3RR blocks were handed out to one editor in an edit war over content, but not to others; that newbies were treated like horse shit; and that editors warred over such trivial nonsense. I would really like to see this editor unblocked, and counselled and engaged in discussion. Please? This is not how we should be treating newbies. Ya know, WP:BITE, and all that. --Iamunknown 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He has posted an unblock request, but not formatted it quite right, so it may not have been seen. DuncanHill 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my formatting suggestion didn't help much.  :-\ Well, I guess we will see what happens. --Iamunknown 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it doesn't surprise me at all to see newbies being bitten :( DuncanHill 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I unblocked; I'll warn Ixwhatever on their talk, as well as Just64helpin and Douglasr007. —Crazytales talk/desk 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crazytales. I saw your note on his talk page about civility ... I agree. Hopefully things will improve.  :-) --Iamunknown 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I don't like bitey behaviours, but it's important to familiarise the newbies with WIkipedia's policies. I personally was never bitten as a newbie, so I don't want anyone else to be. —Crazytales talk/desk 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, looking at it again I agree with the unblock; I hold my hands up and say that I didn't get that right. Even us "retarded" admins make mistakes occasionally. ELIMINATORJR 06:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My liberal (and, in retrospect, unfortunate) use of the word "retarded" was not directed at you. I don't understand how the sentence ("This is retarded.") could be parsed to read like that. --Iamunknown 07:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about it, I wasn't being completely serious. ELIMINATORJR 08:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on World War II

Heads up... I just full protected World War II for 24 hours due to multiparty edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. The irony... HalfShadow 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all a fight over whose images and how many to use, mostly, though there's an interesting talk pages flamefest between the various "Allies" over whose contributions were more important during the war itself and why. ICANHASCHEEZWARRIOR Georgewilliamherbert 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you can't fight here. This is the war room! --ElKevbo 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ElinorD: Abuse of Administrator Privileges

Resolved

 – Admin doing their job in line with usual practice. And the pay sucks, too. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this administrator's edit history, she is apparently performing mass speedy deletes of images, citing issues with copyright tagging, and not first following instructions and notifying users, or the talk page of articles, of the image deletions prior to her actions. Most of these image copyright problems are actually minor, and are far more appropriately dealt with by notifying users to tag articles properly, rather than mass deleting. In my opinion, this administrator could be seriously losing the trust of the wikipedia community by these actions, and I think we have grounds for desysopping. Dr. Cash 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask her for the reasons of these deletions? Seems that these images were tagged for months. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note - deletions are logged here. I'm having a look; will refrain from commenting for now since I don't really understand what's happening. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I checked a few of these and all are candidate for speedy WP:CSD#i4 as these have been tagged as lacking source/licensing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Seems that ElinorD has just been "sweeping the categories" without inspecting the images. Something like 1,200 images deleted in the past 10 days. I don't think this is an unheard-of practice, but it does seem to go against the policy described here and here, which say that images tagged for 7+ days should be tagged for speedy deletion (and hopefully reviewed by an administrator, instead of being blindly deleted, though understandably that doesn't always happen). — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, how do you know she isn't looking at them? One to four a minute is not a lot in tabbed browsing and is plenty of time to look at the image. Sarah 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I noticed a 17-in-a-minute (1-per-3.5 seconds) at a first glance. Not sure if that's the exception or the norm. Apologies if I was too presumptive, though I can't help being skeptical still. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seventeen is a lot but that was unusual; most seem to be around four a minute. But it is possible if you've got a fast connection and open all the images in tabbed browsing and then just go bang, bang, bang; it still gives you a few seconds to look at each one. I think Elinor is just trying to help clear out the CSD cats and people should be grateful instead of trying to whip up a frenzy calling for her to be desysopped. No need to apologise for your comment, I'm sure Elinor will explain what she's doing when she gets back online. Sarah 06:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(after ec) Please explain where the abuse is. It looks to me like she is deleting images which have been tagged as unlicensed for more than seven days as per WP:CSD#i4. It would be nice if you asked her about it before coming here to dramatically accuse her of "Abuse of Administrator Privileges", or if you at least told her about this conversation. I'm sure she would have explained what she was doing if you'd bothered to ask her...she's not scary or anything. Heh, grounds for desysopping, hey? So if we work too hard at cleaning out the CSD cats, we ought to be desysopped on the spot? Sarah 05:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! No! — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting images without a license is a uncontroversial job; just need to take one look to see whether the image has a tag or not. Although other admins may be a little cautious (check history for vandalism etc.), it's not unusual to see someone deleting at that speed, and it isn't an abuse of administrative tools. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The images weren't deleted for lacking licenses, though. They were deleted because the attribution did not conform to the (somewhat arbitrary) criteria of OsamaKBOT, which was blocked for exceeding its approved trial edits roughly 100-fold. Actually I can't see most of the deleted images' history without sysop tools so this is speculation, but from what I can see it looks like that's gist of what's going on. Please do correct me if I've got it wrong. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at quite a few and some were tagged by BetacommandBot as "Orphaned Non-Free image", some by Orphanbot as "Image has no source information", some by Genisock2 and yeah, some were tagged by OsamaKBOT as "image missing source information," and there were also some that were tagged by editors. Sarah 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All the ones I looked at were deleted correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm... it sounds like ElinorD was probably going through Category:Orphaned fairuse images as well as Category:Images with unknown source, and perhaps others. I wouldn't really object to blind or almost-blind deletion of expired Category:Orphaned fairuse images images (has there been a proposal to have a bot delete them?), but I feel differently about Category:Images with unknown source since many of the source tags are questionable, if not outright mistaken (e.g., source information outside a fair use template not being recognized by a bot). I don't know how User:OrphanBot checks for source information, but OsamaKBOT's unapproved filter was not well-received, to say the least. I think human-tagged images lacking source info should be reviewed as well, since some are controversial (e.g., cases where the copyright holder is named but not the specific publication). I'm still slightly fuzzy on how ElinorD doing things; hopefully she can explain. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure they should be reviewed. But is there any indication she didn't do that? It doesn't take that long to do, you know. Normally it takes not more than a brief look at the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked a half dozen, and all of them appeared correct. Matters like this should be raised with the editor first to clear up issues before raising them here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Just checked a random few, from various times & they all seem fine to me. CSD is such a dirty job at the best of times. Credit to her for getting in and doing it - Alison ^❤ 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ariolasoft.jpg was deleted as well. I have uploaded it again, it's a corporate logo with the same (C) info as many other computer game logos. Perhaps a mention on the talk page would have been appropriate rather than a non-peer reviewed speedy delete. MrMarmite 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps we should demand that all administrators bring a shrubbery before deleting an image which does not comply with our licensing policies. And then we can holler "Abusive admin! Desysop! Burn the witch!" whenever the appropriate shrubbery is not provided. On the other hand, we could recognise that the fundamental fault is usually with those users who, either through ignorance or in some cases due to active contempt for policy, fail to correctly attribute and qualify images. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Having checked the history of Ariolasoft.jpg, this was a perfect "speedy" delete some 14 days after the uploader was warned of the problems, and the image was tagged as well (so I fail to see how a mention on the talk page would have helped: if you have the talk page on your watchlist, you have the image on your watchlist as well, and vice versa). It was uploaded as public domain (which is obviously incorrect), and without a source. I don't see the problem with this deletion, and since different other admins have checked other deletions, and all had the same conclusion, I don't see what the problem is. I applaud your uploading of images, but that doesn't mean that the deletion of them earlier was not done correctly.Fram 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'll add a few myself. I help out regularly with speedy deletion of images that are not properly sourced, that have an invalid FU rationale, that lack proper copyright notices, etc. When someone tags an image with {{nsd}}, it places a notice on the image page, stating that the iamge may be deleted on a certain date (eight days after the date of tagging), and it automatically puts that image into a category of images with unknown source on that date. There can be hundreds of images, perhaps as many as 600, in that category, and that's not to mention the categories with no fair use rationale on a certain date, or no copyright on a certain date, or fair use disputed on a certain date. After seven days have passed, if the uploader (or another interested party) has not fixed the problem, the images in that category become eligible for speedy deletion. The person or bot who tags the image as missing some essential information is supposed to notify the uploader. As far as I know, the admin who deletes the image is not obliged to check that the uploader was notified. Should the community, at some stage, decide to impose such an obligation on the deleting admin, I shall happily comply, though I must point out that the already enormous backlog is likely to become even greater.

There has been a big backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion recently. The category of images with unknown source had a backlog of six days. The image that led to the calls for my desysopping was Image:Apo-crest.jpg. It was in Category:Images with unknown source as of 7 September 2007, so it had had the full seven days, plus several extra days because the backlog was so huge that admins simply hadn't got round to it earlier. Although non-admins who can't see the history of the deleted image and don't know who the original uploader was are confidently stating (on my talk page) that the uploader was not notified, and the seven days notice was not given, I can state that the image was tagged by OsamaKBOT at 19:51 on 7 September, and the uploader was notified the same minute.[5]

This particular uploader has not edited since 2005, so it is not surprising that nobody was aware of the problem. As far as I know, there is no obligation to leave messages on the talk pages of articles in which the image appears, and while there is the possibility of adding a template to the caption of the image in articles, it's not obligatory either. Though I'm not very technically minded, I'm sure that if the community decided to bring in such an obligation, the bots and Howcheng's tool could cope with that.

I normally open three to six images in separate windows, examine them for a moment, and then delete the three to six in fairly rapid succession with WP:TWINKLE, which automatically removes them from pages where they appear. I am quite sure that I have never deleted seventeen images in one minute. However, if an image that I have deleted with TWINKLE appears on seventeen pages, it is quite possible that there could be seventeen removals from pages in one minute. That would show in my contributions, not in my logs.

Only last night, minutes after I had deleted Image:Aoclogo.gif, the uploader contacted me courteously to say that he had not been notified and to request undeletion. I cheerfully undeleted, changed the date of the no source tag to give him more time to fix the problem, and to prevent some other admin from deleting it without realising that the matter was being taken care of. See the history and logs of that image. It didn't quite end in wikihugs all round, but everything was very pleasant, and there were no calls for my desysopping. I can and do make mistakes in deletion work, and am always happy to undelete anything on request when it's pointed out convincingly that I was in error, or when there seems a good chance that the problem which originally warranted deletion of the image can be fixed. ElinorD (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:196.13.185.253

This anon University of Venda IP is undoing large amounts of info in various Venda related articles and replacing it with his own unreferenced info. They have been left both a message and a warning on their talk page but have not responded and continue to make similar edits. They are editing much too fast for me to follow up and examine and/or revert. Could someone please either temporary block or semi-protect the affected articles and check out this user's edits? Like I said, it is going on too fast to analyse all his changes and revert before he's moved on to more articles. Thanks. Zunaid©® 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've reverted all his edits up to right now. Please continue to monitor and take any further action if deemed necessary. Can someone please also check the IP range contributions (is there an easy way to do this?) just in case they switch to a different computer. Zunaid©® 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Material added was copyright violations including on their talk page. Warned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

and now blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. User seems to have registered an account User:Mcdonald mdhluli and continues to make similar edits on the articles in question. Please review, thanks. Zunaid©® 10:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That may not be the only account, look at this created on 21 September and then edited by User:Rudani in only his second edit. Then there's The diverse culture of Venda from User:RAPHALU MP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses requesting my password

I reported an IP address at WP:AIV for requesting my password, however, I was told to come here, so I have done. I've had an email from this IP trying to get my password:

• 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and another IP address:

• 195.188.50.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've ignored their password requests... should we block these IPs (probably anon-only, account creation blocked) for a week or so to stop them abusing the "e-mail new password" facility?? --Solumeiras ^talk 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, IPs that are blocked can still request password changes so blocking them would have no effect. Metros 12:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think a bugzilla request solved this problem. Can anyone remember the ID of the Bugzilla request?? --Solumeiras ^talk 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 137.164.234.64 is another IP address which has requested an undesired password change for an admin (me). Is there any recourse other than asking them not to do it, such as blocking edits from the offending IP? Perhaps the block would interfere in some small way with their activities. The only way the IP user could gain anything from the request would be if he could access the email of the victim. If the email password is as strong as the Wikipedia password, they really accomplish nothing other than creating a garbage email message stating that a new password has been created, said message being grist for the delete button in the email system. Edison 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ignore it, it will go away. This happens fairly regularly to some of us. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

J2ru

Resolved

 – deleted, salted

Despite constant, repeated deletes under WP-SPAM/WP-Repost this keeps coming back. Unfortunately no-one has protected it against recreation yet. Could someone do so? (if this isn't the right place to ask, please point me where I should go) --Blowdart 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Done ELIMINATORJR 12:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block 170.185.147.19 again?

Resolved

 – IP blocked

This IP address is still vandalizing. sohmc 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to any admins. I have taken the opportunity to post this request at WP:AIV so you can put a resolved box here if you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And the IP has been blocked, so I'm marking this as resolved. Natalie 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody Using My Username

Resolved

User:Yayo Dealer has been signing comments with my username. See here. The user whos page he signed on was kind enough to let me know. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on any topic that discusses Michael Jackson.

Hi this user keeps deleting sourced material on any article that discusses Michael Jackson. Check out his contributions on the following articles, Michael Jackson , World Music Awards and Grammys [[6]]. I suggest he needs a warning. Realist2 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

continued concerns

Hi I reported Alanjohns a few days ago for saying he was an admin when he wasn`t and for vandalism. He was banned for 24 hours. Looking at his talk page he has recieved more complaints. there are 2 other troubling issues.
A) I think he is deleting warnings off his user page .
B) He seems to have made a confession on his talk page that he has another acount. Under the blocked section of his page he says something along the lines of Whooooohooooooooo I`l just use my other one then! [[7]]Realist2 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with extending it to an indefinite block, but let's see what happens once the block wears off. Removing warnings and leaving frivolous comments on his own talk page aren't quite reasons to extend the block. Maybe a CU to investigate his claim of using an alternate account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be editing not logged in as well, to usual suspect articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

His ban should be extended by 24 hours for removing warnings. Realist2 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with removing warnings. --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also on a seperate note would some1 ensure that my other complaint about the Michael Jackson vandal a few topics above is resolved. Realist2 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like regular old vandalism. You warned him, and he's stopped for now. It doesn't look like anything that needs special admin intervention to me. --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok never the less he has admited to having another account, this needs investigating. Realist2 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

ILike2BAnonymous called me Idiotic here, I request that an admin give this user an appropriate blocking for violating WP:NPA.Cholga^talK! 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you a "that?" It seems that he was referring to your comment, and while I'd suggest that he be a tad more civil about it from now on, a block is not needed here. The Behnam 03:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am indeed a that, this user cleverly objectifies me and others to avoid directly refering to individuals as idiots amoung other perjorative terms.Cholga^talK! 05:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He called me ignorant too, and said i was obsessed with feces, and he also called me idiotic on another page, how about that?Cholga^talK! 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• May sound funny to you, but was fine; and why the obsession with "feces"?

N.B.: It should be obvious here that I was pointing out her obsession with the use of the word "feces", not the thing itself (refer to article edit history for that story if interested). +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• You show your ignorance once again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Someone here seems to have an unnatural affection for "feces". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• The park doesn't "employ" the bags, it provides them for others to employ. And please, enough with the graphic dog shit stuff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, that that is just idiotic: You haven't said what valley the town is in. I mean the specific valley, by name. Do you even know the name? (I don't.) If you can find the exact name of that valley, fine. For now, we know that it's in a valley, and that that valley was formed by the S.A.F. Right? Can we agree on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• What the hell does "73% average annual brightness" even mean?)
• ...And notice I said "slack cut IF you're not a native English speaker" (emphasis in IF in case you missed it). You cannot accept the slightest courtesy without shitting all over it. I give up. Sheesh.
• Just to head off another of Cholga's mini-shit storms...

I am feeling rather harrassed by ILike2BeAnonymous at this point, this is ongoingly very rude and crassCholga^talK! 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no admin but you'll probably need to post diffs for those last couple of claims there too.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:14, 09/19/2007

Yes... diffs please. Don't expect other people to go fishing for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So are those enough diffs? Because I can dig up even more where he refers to me as idiotic or an idiot. Is it okay for this user to claim I "shit all over him" and that I am obsessed with "'Feces'" even if he claims in his or her defence that s/he was only claiming that I was obsessed with the word "feces" which I highly doubt. Is it okay for this user to continually debase my attempts to discuss, to edit...to harrass and attack me? Please have a word with this user and block him/her for a while.Cholga^talK! 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

From an outside perspective, 1 is pretty innocent and is a remark about the word which is used little outside the medical community, 2 is a statement about the idea you put forward (Ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing). 3 and 4 is tied to 1 and may be part of the lamest edit war I have seen yet "feces versus waste" (For the record, I like his wording a bit better. Less graphical description, commons terms are used, and the message is still conveyed). 5 is attacking the idea, not the person. Why is #6 is even here? 7 is a response to your question. I can see why he would respond that way. And finally #8 is a response to your tendency to be very pedantic about the wording of certain things. To be honest, while you claim to be a native speaker of english, the way you word things does not appear to be the most common way. This is the first time I have seen the term "dog feces" instead of "dog waste" at any dog park/facility. In addition, provides conveys that group A makes available item B for group C to use. Allocates can be construed differently. Employs implies the park itself uses the bags instead of the public. Finally, I have studied geology and in particular, earthquake zones and tectonics. In the locale you are talking about, Fault would be the appropriate term. A fault is a rift but in layman speak, the fault caused the rift valley. The rift is the whole zone we are talking about. Spryde 11:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's innocent to tell someone they have an obsession with feces when they disagree with you!? I find it hard to believe this users intentions were to use the word ignorance to mean "misinformed" or "unknowing" Thanks for your input but this is not about any disagreements it's about this user's abusive language. The point is, is that this user is personally attacking me repeatedly.#8 is not a response to me being "pedantic" I was trying to avoid an edit war so I tried to discuss the matter and he called my discussing a "mini shit storm" and 7 may be an answer to my question which this user used to accuse me of "shitting all over them" that is just beyond uncivil, instead of even (uncivilly) rudely replying he takes the opportunity to ridicule me by accusing me of "Unaturalness" "Feces Obsession" calls me "idiotic" and says i repeatedly show my "Ignorance" and says i cause "Shit Storms" and that i am "shitting all over him"Cholga^talK! 12:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are content disputes right under the surface of your complaint and the fact that you more or less failed to mention them means that you are drawing undue attention to the issues of rudeness. There is no doubt that you and ILike2BeAnonymous are antagonizing each other but I don't think a block is in order. If you want to pursue the matter, I suggest opening a request for comment to determine if other members in the community have a problem with the user's behavior. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

whats the content disputes matter, what do you care, the personal attack is the point even if we were not arguing.Cholga^talK! 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Press up

This article has had a history of page moves from the original editor's British English name of Press up to the American English form of Push up. A survey about a requested move recently resulted in no consensus for a page move from Press up to Push up (issue was closed on 13 September 2007.) Since then, there has been a sub-3RR edit war involving the proposer of the page move (User:Tyguy92 and mainly User:Matt Crypto, but in the last instance, myself) in which the opening lead sentence is changed to give the American English version priority over the British English term, and, thereafter, every incidence of "press up" being changed to "push up". This gives the impression that the article name is incorrect. A redirect to this page exists which is Push up. As stated, I reverted the last incident which changed "press up" to "push up", as described above, and summarized the reversion as correcting a disruptive edit, which I consider it was. Since the survey was closed with no consensus, User:Tyguy92 has made these changes three times. Can I ask what advice should be done to stop this sub-3rr edit war that is happening after the survey went against what User:Tyguy92 wanted?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There will never be consensus on something like this. Since the article remains at press up that term should be used throughout the article and changing it is inappropriate. Tyguy92 should be warned of this and reminded that he is violating the 3RR in spirit and could still be blocked for disruption, but hopefully it won't come to that. violet/riga (t) 09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice. I see that I missed some cases of "push up", so the term was not used throughout the article. Another user has now kiindly corrected those. I will give User:Tyguy92 the advised warning.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can this be added to WP:LAME? This sounds as bad as the Orange (colour) debate. hbdragon88 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that we have to stick with the term or spelling first used in an article implies ownership of the article, like a gold prospector staking a claim or an explorer being the first to land on an island, which is in conflict with the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The rule that the first editor to touch the topic selects for all time the regional variant is from the Manual of Style, which is itself much debated and which is a guideline, not a policy. If discussion on the talk page of an article, after the issue is well publicized at the Village Pump and other relevant sites, shows that there are good reasons for changing from the original usage to a different one, that should be permissible. Such reasons might include the greater frequency of usage worldwide or the historical origin of the term. Edison 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There was discussion about a proposed name change, when a proposal to change the name was made. The consensus was that there was no opinion in favour of a change. No issue of ownership need arise by means of this process. The problem was that a very vocal editor in favour of the name change, subsequent to the discussion being formally closed, took it upon himself to start to change the names used throughout the article, as described above. It is that problem, described above as "violating the 3RR in spirit" which prompted this message here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a spelling or grammar matter, which WP:ENGVAR addresses, like consistently using "centre" rather than "center" in a given article. Take a look at the article Elevator, where the British term "lift" is frequently used to describe the devices in the UK, including in a photo caption, despite the fact that the initial article in 2002 used "Elevator." Rather than a "winner take all," "I win, you lose" approach, in which every instance of "push up" is replaced with "press up," the illustration of a US Marine recruit doing the exercise should use the U.S. term. No confusion would result, and readers not from the U.S. would not make the mistake of thinking that when they visit the U.S. they should use the other regional term. They would get blank stares or laughter. Similar issues arise if the U.S. term for something is exclusively used in discussing its use in the U.K. The statement that "the consensus was that there was no opinion in favour of a change" is a bit misleading, since a number of editors in fact called for a change.Edison 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would the phrase "no consensus emerged in favour of a name change" be better, then? If so, please interpret my comments above, where appropriate, with this wording. The other points you raise perhaps should be discussed on the talk page, since they are not part of the original problem which prompted my posting here (undiscussed low-level edit warring).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with placing a warning on his page [8] that he could be blocked if he uses "push up" anywhere in the article. It would be highly appropriate to use it when referring to the exercise in countries where that is the term for it, and where the other term is practically unknown. I address here the mistaken (in my view) belief that the absence of a clear consensus to change from one regional term to another (those commenting were about equally divided, and the discussion was not well publicized) makes it a blockable offense to dare to use the other term at all in the article, and that it is then required to remove all the alternate usages. It is not spelling, and it is not grammar. That is inconsistent with other articles about things called different terms in the various linguistic branches of English usage. Edison 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually place a warning: Instead I advised him about the opinion had been given up to that point in this discussion. If the view is that what I posted was a warning, then I apologize and would withdraw it (though it has already been removed) as it was not intended to be one. You do have a point about the need to be flexible in what term to use when describing the exercise in countries where the term for it is not the same as that used in the article name. But this should have been discussed on the page after the first reversion occurred, and not re-edited and then re-reverted (and so on) in a low-level edit war, which was, as I state again, the reason why I initiated this message on WP:AN/I, asking for advice.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about where in the article the term "push-up" might be used continues on the talk page of the article. I note the precedent that in the Elevator article the other term "lift" is used to describe the devices in Britain, so theere is clearly no precedent for restricting articles to one term or the other especially when it seems quaint, like describing a U.S. Marine doing "press ups." U.K. readers would likely feel culturaly disenfranchised if the elevator article had a caption describing "elevators in a British subway station." Using the term appropriate to a country is not jarring like having the spelling jump back and forth would be in a "color-colour" "check-cheque" variation within an article. Edison 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Veiled threat & Incivility by User:Wjbean on WQA

Hi. I was answering the proverbial phone banks over at WQA, when this post appeared (diff). It seemed polite, but led to the user construing the posting as an attack (diff), leading to more back and forth arguments (in which it seemed the editor misunderstood the point of WQA (diff). Then this lead to Wjbean making a veiled threat, and suggesting that insults are ok as long as they work (diff). Given the irony of all this happening on a Wikiquette forum (and my doubts that it can be resolved there), I'm forwarding it here where it can hopefully reach some resolution. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bean strikes me as very incivil on the WQA thread. Saying that "X comes across as a troll" is not a personal attack (because X wasn't actually called a troll) is dodgy at best, and wikilawyering at worst. I dropped a note on his talk. >Radiant< 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged. Hopefully that will do it. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my "incivility" started when I was accused of having an alternate motive for disputing a tag. I have voiced no such motive. I also disagree with placing this entry here in less than a twenty four hour period. My concerns have never been properly addressed. Instead I have been accused of having other motives for disputing the tags. Again, I have never expressed any other reason for disputing that tags except that they were thrown improperly. I have suggested that both a POV tag without a stated reason and a nomination for deletion without that nomination appearing on the proper dated page smack of vandalism. Both of these actions do whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Finally, I feel this is turning into a kangeroo court without my issues being address; at all. William (Bill) Bean 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, I have no position on any content editing taking place, just on the civility issues. I placed this issue here after you were repeatedly uncivil (despite receiving admonishments from several editors), and after you made veiled threats on WP:WQA. I believe my actions were relatively justified (veterans of AN/I, please correct me if I'm wrong). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is now resolved, Bean seems to have realized the source of the issues over on WQA. (Basically a mistaken assumption). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I waiting to hear an administrator chime in; that's all. By the way I have screen shots entry (and the date) the AFD was posted. The shot clearly shows September 18th. I just don't know where to post it. William (Bill) Bean 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the 18th where you live, in the United States. However, English Wikipedia is worldwide and the logs are based on Greenwich Mean Time. By the time, the nomination was posted, it was the 19th in London. The tag was placed on the article, the nomination was made, and the nomination was added to the logs, all at 4:06 19 September 2007, GMT. I've explained this to you several times before. In any event, it was one of the most widely commented AfDs in recent memory. I don't understand where you get the idea it was hidden from the community. These baseless accusations about not following procedure are getting tiresome. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was started by an American (Jimbo Wales) in America. That said I consider the English language version of Wikipedia to be American. Your stating that my attitude is "tiresome" is insulting. I'm not here for your pleasure. I'm here to help edit pages, supply references, resolve disputes, and insure that wikipedians follow established guidelines and policies because those guidelines and policies are established to insure neutrality, accuracy, and the free flow of information. Three attributes that apparently take a backseat to civility by certain apparently over-zealous members of this little community. My position is that the three attributes stated above trump all others. Yes, I a brusque. That is my nature. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if I were to act in any other way I would not be true to my own nature. It also got everyone's attention. Akin to shouting into a megaphone in a crowded room where everyone is talking at, but not to, each other. I will not shove my nature aside for your or anyone elses 'delicate sensibilities.' I suggest you grow a thicker skin, take the criticism as just that, and stop the amazingly insulting tactic you employ whereby you try to assign an attitude to me that I do not, in fact, possess. Once again (for the ninth or tenth time), my only concerns are that proper procedures be followed when applying tags (something, that in my humble opinion, should not happen for three to five days with a new article) so that other wikipedians are granted the right, not opportunity, to respond to those tags appropriately. If I made a mistake then I made a mistake. It is done, I cannot take it back, nor can I correct it. However, the guidelines and policies here are more important that I am, more important that my ability to post here, and more important that my continuing to be allowed to be here. In short I will risk banishment, if that's what it takes, to ensure that wikipedia remains accurate, neutral, and open for the dissemination of information. Finally, the nomination for deletion struck me as an attempt at censorship. I have never, nor will I ever, nominate any article for deletion. I find the concept repugnant. Thank you. William (Bill) Bean 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be useful for you to review the five pillars of Wikipedia and associated pages. You will find policies that strictly forbid personal attacks. You will find a policy that mandates assuming good faith on the part of other editors. You will NOT find a policy that mandates the rigid following of 'proper' procedures. But you will find a policy that mandates exactly the opposite.

I would also like to point out - again - that, just like your accusation that the AfD was placed improperly, your accusation that it was I who first placed the POV - was absolutely wrong. The edit where the POV tag was inserted: diff 01:03, 19 September 2007. My first edit to that article: diff 01:04, 19 September 2007.

Finally, I'd just like to note that although you find the idea of deletion of any article 'repugnant', another of Wikipedia's core policies is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - therefore articles must sometimes deleted. Dlabtot 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the one you are referring to. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus; avoid edit wars; follow the three-revert rule; and remember that there are 2,018,108 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Note the first sentence. Where have I been treated with respect? Civility is subjective. There are personal attacks and there are comments based on observations. I have stated that there is an obvious pattern of behavior that is easy to see. It's hard to find consensus when not even the slightest bit of acknowledgment is offered. I have not engaged in an edit war. I removed pov tags once and not touched the article since. I am trying to act in good faith; I cannot say the same for the rest of you. I'm not trying to disrupt wikipedia, but I do have a point to prove. The point is that if you hold my head to the floor with your boot I will fight you indefinitely. Finally, you could acknowledge that you attempted to put words in my mouth that I never voiced and admit that wasn't a very civil thing to do. William (Bill) Bean 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Finally, you could acknowledge that you attempted to put words in my mouth that I never voiced" -- you've made this accusation repeatedly. Could you please supply the diff of this alleged incident? If it happened, it was wrong, and I would readily acknowledge my error and apologize - that is, if it actually happened. Dlabtot 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By way of clarification, the most common way you've characterized this accusation is that I've ascribed motives to you. For example: "Please note that my "incivility" started when I was accused of having an alternate motive for disputing a tag". I don't remember ascribing motives to you. But I do sometimes err, and, I even sometimes get upset and in the heat of my emotions, say things that I should not have said. I also suffer from a common human failing in that I tend to remember things in a way that paint myself in a favorable light, while giving short shrift to my flaws. However, I believe that one can try to learn from errors. Towards that end, a diff of the alleged incident would be helpful. tia Dlabtot 04:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting paranoid about my ability to lucidly ask questions, but I wanted to make sure that you understand that a very important part of the question I am asking, as well as the diff, is: What is the "alternative motive" that you believe I have ascribed to you? Again, I thank you in advance for your respectful reply. Dlabtot 05:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I made a mistake then I made a mistake. It is done, I cannot take it back, nor can I correct it. You can stop pursuing the matter. Please do so. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I had previously marked this as closed, but clearly I was being optimistic. Will someone please explain to William (Bill) Bean that everyone is expected to follow WP:CIVIL? This is beginning to get a bit disruptive. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems like a good candidate for the adopt-a-user program. Clearly going on as presently isn't an option. At present he seems unable to apply to himself standards he demands from others. After talking about how I somehow insulted him, he claims Yes, I a brusque. That is my nature. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if I were to act in any other way I would not be true to my own nature. ... I will not shove my nature aside for your or anyone elses 'delicate sensibilities.' I suggest you grow a thicker skin ... Incredible. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That might work, but it would require William (Bill) Bean's willing participation. But I concur, the willful violation of civility needs to halt if William (Bill) Bean is to continue as a productive editor. Not because it would interfere with the cabal, but because its disruptive. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot: Attributing a motive to me that I have never expressed is also a personal attack. Think about it.

ObiterDicta: You could acknowledge that my concerns have validity rather than dismissing them out of hand. You could also stop pursuing the matter yourself. Since this appears to be a test of egos it will likely continue.

--Bfigura: The disruption continues because I've been called on the carpet for YOUR standard of civility. As I've already stated I'm an American. Apparently some, if not all, of you are British. I do not live by British standards.

Finally you are all editors as I am. None of you are administrators. By what right does that give any of you any power to dictate my behavior or admonish me? I reject your any implication that you have authority over me. Indeed the only difference between yourselves and I is your specific choice of words. Beyond that you are just as "uncivil" as you claim that I am. e.g. But I concur, the willful violation of civility needs to halt if William (Bill) Bean is to continue as a productive editor. Who are you to determine what constitutes civility? And I was, and will continue to be, a productive editor long after you've grown bored with the place and left. William (Bill) Bean 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a test of egos it will likely continue. No, it's you not understanding how the logs work and falsely accusing me of failing to list a nomination for deletion so as to hide it from the community. Anyway, I'm done with this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully I don't need to be an administrator to assert that you can't make personal attacks on Wikipedia. Feel free to read WP:NPA. And out of pure random curiosity, why do you feel that people here are british? (Not that I would see how that possible has any bearing, given that it's wikipedia's standard of civility that's being applied here). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Site plagiarising Criticism of Family Guy

This Geocities page is using Wikipedia content to generate ad revenue, and displays none of the GFDL stuff. http://www.geocities.com/againstfamilyguy/

Is this worth reporting, and if so where? Name given, but no contact info or linkage. All text below the image is copied from Criticism of Family Guy. Image is leeched from en.wikipedia.org.

Geocities copyvio contact: [email protected] / edg ☺ ★ 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved already? I don't see any Wikipedia content on the page -- must have been removed? — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The three short paragraphs are from Wikipedia, and the image is being leeched from Wikipedia's servers. I realise this isn't the crime of the century. Do we care at all? / edg ☺ ★ 07:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the text is taken from Family_Guy#Criticism, verbatim. / edg ☺ ★ 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Realistically, I think the page passes fairly cleanly as fair use -- it is (sort of) being used for informational purposes, the use of the material is uncompetitive with Wikipedia's use of the same material, neither use involved any profit for the author (the ads were from Geocities), and the material copied is not very substantial. It would probably fail Wikipedia's fair use standards miserably, particularly the image, but other sites are bound by much looser, arguably more real-world standards. If you really want it removed though, Geocities might be willing to go ahead and nuke it anyway, as they're probably covered by a termination clause of some sort. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was thinking it might be fair use, but didn't know. Thanks much. / edg ☺ ★ 07:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me why we need a separate article, unless it's to contain criticism too however minor and insignificant for the main article. In which case, of course... Guy (Help!) 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am responsible for the website, I have read your complaints, and removed the wikipedia article. Although I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License and I assumed that anybody can copy a wikipedia article without copyright infringment. Also I make no money from the site, the ads in the left corner of the page is geocities and not mine. I have taken the wikipedia article off but i do wish to put it on again but I dont want to cause trouble. 124.184.184.195 04:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• You can copy it--just make sure to both give attribution (link back to the original article) and link to the text of the license. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 06:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Halloween jack and User:Crescentia have made repeated personal attacks on me

Resolved

 – Involved users have been warned to be more civil, and to avoid one another. --Haemo 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This started when Jack called me "just another example of the hopelessly Aspergersfied dark side of Wikipedia", because he felt I was adding too many tags.[9] I left him a message on his talk page telling him I found this out of line, and asked him to stop it, but he just added tags to the message I left, as a way to mock me.[10]

Meanwhile Crescentia took my request to not be personally attacked as a joke saying "Dear god. Sensitive much?"[11], and later said about me "It's really sad when you think about it. I wish I had that much time to waste".[12] This is getting to the point where I do not look forward to coming on to wikipedia because these two will keep saying vicious things about me. Hoponpop69 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are looking at other peoples' talk pages looking for info about yourself. Nothing was said on YOUR talk page, or directly to you. My 'sensitive much' comment was made by me because I was amazed that somebody would take the effort to go looking for information about themselves and then threaten a person with admin penalties. What we say on our talk pages is pretty much our business and not yours. You are just looking to get people in trouble at this point. If ANYBODY goes around the internet looking for things said about themselves they would probably find something negative. I bet that I could find something negative about me online right now if I spent the time looking for such information. I don't though, because I woulf find that to be a waste of time.It does take a lot of time and effort to go around looking for negative things, and that is what I meant by that second statement. You are probably angry because people called you out on your over eager citation history. You should just let things go at this point. Crescentia 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 had been having an active discussion with you on your talk page. How hard do you think he had to look to see the section below it? In any case, there is no reason why civil wouldn't apply on your talk page, even if you didn't plan on the person you are talking about seeing it. --Onorem♠Dil 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He kept adding info on my page about a person he helped get banned who happened to help me out earlier. It was like he was tattling on the person to me. How was that an active conversation? He's looking to get people in trouble. Why can't I say what I want to say on MY talk page? I wasn't talking to him, I was talking to somebody else. Why should he be allowed to report a converstaion that didn't even involve him?Crescentia 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a productive conversation, but he had been leaving messages for you, and you had been responding to him. That sounds like an active conversation to me. The talkpage has your name on it. That doesn't make it yours. Please see WP:USER for more. --Onorem♠Dil 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, I am not allowed to say whatever I wish on MY talk page because somebody who has a vandetta against me MIGHT look at it and get offended? That is simply ridculous. It is obvious, at least to me, that he is just looking to get me in trouble. He said in an earlier dispute that he was angry that I didn't QUOTE '...at least get a slap on the wrist'. Am I going to have to look over my shoulder every time that I write something on Wiki?Crescentia 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, at this point I am very willing to totally ignore him if he promises to do the same. That means not following me all over Wiki to see what I have posted.Crescentia 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression people pointed you to the template citation request so you would no longer be adding numerous individual citation tags?--SevenOfDiamonds 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just informed Halloween Jack of this thread so they can respond (I'd inform Crescentia too, but that's clearly unnecessary). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO he's just pissed off because we called him out on making source requests to an excessive degree that amounts to trolling. I never insulted him directly and haven't even posted anything on his talk page, but he's happy to scan others' userpages to make sure no one's saying anything that he can claim is offending or attacking him, in order to use it as leverage in a war over how many words in every sentence of every article need to be followed by a citation.

You'll notice that I answered many of his tags with legit citations. I never reverted the page in question (deathrock), and I only removed his tags when he put them in places that linked to other articles with their own citations, or added a tag to a reiteration of a sourced statement earlier in the article. (For example, we don't need a source to "prove" that deathrock is not related to death metal when the death metal page explains its own musical origins, and we don't need a source to prove that Theatre of Ice had deathrock influence when that page has its own citations.) I expressed my frustration over this pedantry to Crescentia, but Hoponpop is the one who's making it personal now that he's been called out on his asinine editing behavior. --Halloween jack 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• "For example, we don't need a source to "prove" that deathrock is not related to death metal when the death metal page explains its own musical origins, and we don't need a source to prove that Theatre of Ice had deathrock influence when that page has its own citations."

I'm pretty sure the fact that that info is cited on a seperate page is not an excuse not to provide a source. Maybe we can get an admin's word on this.

Regardless this issue isn't about me adding citations tags, it's about you personally attacking me. The fact that you're doing it behind my back, not on my talkpage, still does not justify your actions. Hoponpop69 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Your blatant trolling, refusal to discuss edits, skirting the edges of revert violations, and "nyah nyah, look what I did to your buddy" comments on Crescentia's page are completely irrelevant, of course. And now, of course, you're saying that a comment about your ridiculous edits on another user's page is "attacking you behind your back." I can't way to see how you'll twist this comment around to claim that you were seriously hurt. --Halloween jack 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is about you not being able to let things go. Just....let...it...go. I can't believe that you are STILL arguing about the content on the Deathrock page.Crescentia 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll say this once more since you can't seem to accept it, this is about you two attacking me. It has nothing to do with the deathrock page, or anything else.

And as far as me "doing something" to User: Daddy Kindsoul, he "did it to himself" by getting blocked over 25 times and then violating his parole. Hoponpop69 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it has everything to do with it, and your trollish editing behavior. You added an excessive number of tags, and added tags where they're totally unneeded. You responded to the addition of sources by scouring the page for more places to add unnecessary tags. You've asked for multiple citations within a single sentence, demanding more citations on a page that already has about 1 per 50 words. Oh, and you didn't bother to make any mention on the talk page before adding all these tags, and refused to discuss your decision to do so until other users got after you about it repeatedly. You've done everything possible to bait other users, and now you're crying foul. It's an extremely transparent tactic and I doubt you're fooling anyone; certainly not myself. Quit the shrill whinging about a comment about your editing behavior that was posted on another user's page and wasn't even directed to you as if it were a physical assault or a death threat or something equally serious and dramatic. I spent a few words mocking you for your foolishness and the rest of the time improving the article; you, meanwhile, would rather just drop tags all over the place and then whine about users who get fed up with your combative behavior as they try to improve articles to your satisfaction. If you really care about adding "much needed" content to Wikipedia, then discuss and justify your edits on the article's talk page.--Halloween jack 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself.Crescentia 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you didn't post about User: Daddy Kindsoul being banned on my talk page to goad me? In fact you actually tried to start an argument about it. Here is the proof. The heading that he created in MY talk page about this is Just To Let You Know:

The Daddy is currently on arbitration for consistently abusing reverts.[2] Between his current and older username, he has been blocked 26 times.[3][4] Hoponpop69 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because he has been reverting edits that don't make sense.Crescentia 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? How about giving me some examples then of him getting banned for reverting things that don't make sense? Hoponpop69 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page I don't have to bow down to you. It's obvious that you don't like the guy, so why should I play up to you about him.Crescentia 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As the title of this subsection says, I was just letting you know. Hoponpop69 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI it's now 27, he's just been blocked for a year. Hoponpop69 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're reminding me of a ten year old who tells on people and then brags about it.Crescentia 12:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Crescentia 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um when did I ever deny posting about him?

Hoponpop69 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you admit to trying to bait me into an argument? Nice.Crescentia 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• No I admit to trying to inform you that you may not want to trust someone who's been banned close to 30 times.

Hoponpop69 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that, because a simple look on your talk page reveals that the two of you had many squabbles in the past.Crescentia 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly, he was wiki-stalking me which is what let him to your talk page.

Hoponpop69 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• While your ongoing squabble is all very interesting, what exactly do you want admins to do here? I'm pretty sure all parties are well-aware that saying mean things about other people is not very nice and they should stop. Beyond that, I don't really see what you want here. --Haemo 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a 24 hour ban for incivility.

Hoponpop69 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• "You responded to the addition of sources by scouring the page for more places to add unnecessary tags. You've asked for multiple citations within a single sentence, demanding more citations on a page that already has about 1 per 50 words."

So all of a sudden when an article has a source per every 50 words, any unsourced content on it can fly by? Furthermore I have never put a sourced tag on something that I felt was unnecessary. Hoponpop69 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your feelings about whether or not the tags were necessary is none of my concern. My comments as regards my removal of some of your tags are on the talk page; you can discuss and debate them there. --Halloween jack 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, that's quite enough of this. If you would be so kind, summarize what you want the admins to do about this. I think everyone is well aware that saying mean things is not nice, so don't do it. What else? --Haemo

• As I said earlier, I feel a 24 hour ban for incivility (after being given a warning) on Halloween jack's part would be justified.Hoponpop69 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A warning from whom? You? --Halloween jack 01:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes.[13]Hoponpop69 01:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any warning, except for the complaint you made just before posting this thread. So, Halloween jack, here's your warning — be nicer to other users even when you think they aren't listening. I'd also suggest you avoid Hoponpop69, and vice-versa. Anyways, I'm not blocking anyone here because blocks are not punitive and I'm sure everyone will watch what they say from now on, right? --Haemo 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Crescentia 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not an administrator so you have no authority to ban anybody.Crescentia 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Who me?Hoponpop69 01:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a weird case ...

Resolved

 – Now let's all go out for cake... --ElKevbo 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonny Cache (talk · contribs) has a sockpuppet warning on his User page[14] which, until today, identified him as an indefinitely blocked puppet of Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs). The logs of the User: page show the account being created on 25 August 2006, and Jonny being blocked on 2 September 2006 - indefinitely. However, looking at Jonny's user logs shows only the account creation today, and his contributions are pure vandalism (either that or admitting that he's a sockpuppet of a user whose account was created in June and has no visible contributions). Can someone please explain to me and/or block the user properly? Cheers, Confusing Manifestation 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um, ah, User:Jonny Cake is not necessarily the same as User:Jonny Cache. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That would explain it. And would also explain why I kept wanting to type "Cake" instead of "Cache" ... I thought I was just getting hungry. Confusing Manifestation 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL Oh dear, that's funny! :-D Thanks for the laugh, CM. Now, go and have a nice piece of cake :) Sarah 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• And since Jonny Cake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very obviously here only for trolling, I have blocked that account as well. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Miyokan in persistent edit warring

I have already reported this user multiple times, and he has been blocked multiple times for edit warring. Nearly every time I check this user's contributions, he has been reverting other users. Once again, he has managed to barely thread the letter of the law on World War II, doing 4 reverts within 24 hours and 30 minutes. Could someone please hand out an extended block on this user? Please note that his former username is User:Ilya1166, which he abandoned probably in order to get rid of the block log [15]. The Evil Spartan 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly have considered doing so; given the block log on his prior account he's clearly well aware of 3RR and gaming it. However, another admin already protected the page, so a block at this point would be punitive rather than preventive. I'm going to defer blocking him. If it becomes a problem again, you can report him to WP:AN3 with a link to his prior block log; most admins will take into account if a user appears to be gaming the system by reverting 4 times in 24.001 hours. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In full disclosure, I saw that prior to my full-protecting for a day. I took a long look at him, and all the other editors, and decided that it would be hard to block him without doing so to several others who were just a little less close to 24 hrs but nearly as active, and that if I had to block 4-6 accounts over something maybe just protecting the article for a bit was more likely to actually cool down the argument. Georgewilliamherbert 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection review on Talk:Mousepad

Looking for review of my actions by an uninvolved admin(s). The article Mousepad has been under attack for a time by an IP hopping anon that wants to add unverifiable claims of the origin/invention of the product to the page. After the article was long-term semi-protected a while back, he took his crusade to the article's talk page, and has been wildly violating NPA and BLP there since. The NPA comes from calling other editors liars and "Plageism pushers" in talk and edit comments. BLP violations come from his unverified accusations of plagerism against others who may (or may not) have invented the product separately.

Blocking this person over the violations has not proved effective, because he shifts IPs wildly, and not within a small range either. It is also suspected that the anon is either Mr. Fernandez himself, one of the claiments to having invented the product, or someone close to him. Apparently this is not a short-term crusade, and has been waged across the net for a year or more, with WP being only the latest flash-point. So I suspect that the person behind the IP is not going to go away any time soon.

This morning I took the step of semi-protecting the talk page itself, because of the constant NPA and BLP violations. It is this action that I specifically place up for review, as I know protecting of talk pages is not generally done. But at this point I'm at a loss for any other way to deal with this editor, given his IP hopping makes blocking ineffective. I've set the semi-protection for only 2 weeks, but if he's as persistant as I suspect, I beleive this will just flare up once again after that time. But I'm hesitant to protect talk pages for longer than that. But it may be necessary. But.... <sigh> - TexasAndroid 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall this matter being bought up previously. Since it appears that this is a sustained campaign the sprotecting the article appears to be a judicious decision. If you are up to the task, I think short bursts of semi protects when necessary may deter this individual. LessHeard vanU 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen, this is the best solution. The guy just keeps on nagging and repeating the same thing over and over again, and isn't even happy that the article contains a fairly large mention of his claim in the history section already, even though it is doubtful (or at least not verifiable by secondary sources) that there is anything to his claim, while there is a lot of evidence for the other (older) claims. If there is any undue weight in the article, it is in favor of his point of vierw, not against it, and it is very clear that his opinion is not supported by any consensus and that he has exhausted the patience of the people on that talkpage. Semi-protect away, it is hoepfully the best solution. Fram —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

An ongoing campaign over who should get credit for inventing ... the mousepad??? Do I see another example of WP:LAME? TexasAndroid, IMHO you made the least disruptive reponse possible; if another anon needs to make good-faith comments, we'll re-evaluate this then. Let's hope this person takes this crusade elsewhere. -- llywrch 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't qualify - a single person that tries pushing his own view, accuses others of being POV-pushers and/or censors, and posts obviously unsubstantiated claims is no different than any other troll. In particular, only the regular users were willing to accept change and escalated the issue when it was going out of hand (to have the page protected, etc.) The anonymous vandal, as you can tell from his posts, made no such attempt at escalation. BTW, the same anon made changes to other wikipedia articles claiming invention as well, including the french version (which I removed by redirecting the article.) You can see which versions are affected through a simple Google search. --Sigma 7 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AIV

There have been a couple of reports at WP:AIV that have been there for over an hour while other newer reports have been removed. Can someone please take care of these reports? Thanks! --ElKevbo 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if they're the same ones, but there were a couple of reports lingering where the editor had not yet received a final warning, or had been inactive since given the final warning. Anyway, list is clear for the moment. -- Satori Son 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reports that hang around AIV usually have issues that the responding admin is trying to resolve. Dean Wormer 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy?

Resolved

 – There is no cabal --Haemo 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Admins! I’m sorry I complain about a lot of things. But this time is different. Shot info, a user. I sent him a message and he does not respond instead he deleted it. He is been a member of a group. A conspiracy or cabal has formed. You could see the membership being on his user page. He rudely told me once –“ever heard of sarchasm??” and just becaused I asked what the conspiracy all about once he said “editors who write poorly ask these questions”. Who was he to talk about my editing. I am tired of this. Please! Block him for a month!--19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• While the user in question doesn't exactly seem over-endowed with AGF, I don't see anything here that requires admin action. ELIMINATORJR 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  There is no cabal. 68.219.123.8 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, there does seem to be a cabal, but it only contains one member. Dean Wormer 20:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would that make it a unicabal, a monocabal or simply an autocabal? Edison 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

An autocabal is when you block yourself. (Yes, I have done that.) Raymond Arritt 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I am 3RR'ing or reverting per consensus

I have no "dog in this fight" so I figure I would ask before I go any further. On Fred Thompson (The guy running for the US president), a weak consensus was developed on the talk page regarding his name. A comment was made in the article page to see the talk page for the name. Today quite a few Anons have been changing it to the non-consensus version and I have been reverting them. Right now, I have 4 reverts on that page and would like to get a little admin insight before I find myself too far on the wrong end of the 3RR rule. Thanks Spryde 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically spirit vs. letter. I would personally not block you (were I an admin) due to a consensus already been reached on the talk - I acutally think in some cases such as these that "enforcing consensus (policy)" should be an exception. Will ^(talk) 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's against consensus, it's considered something close to vandalism, right? --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not the 3RR-exception "simple/obvious vandalism" Will ^(talk) 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.. working against consensus, but it's not simple/obvious vandalism, since Consensus Can Change. The only exception to the 3RR is if you're removing clear vandalism or a BLP Violation. (Ie, someone page blanking or replacing an article with "X is a Poopy Head") SirFozzie 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Can someone point out where consensus was made? It looks like it's still being discussed if you ask me. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears so. Like I said, I have no vested interest (or care for that matter. I just want to make sure what we have is "right" and matched what WP:BLP says about names. Spryde 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More in the other section, but the IPs are more than welcome to start discussion again, as noted. --Ali'i 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that is the same person editing with different IPs, not several different IP users. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Two additional points: 1) The named editors on the non-consensus side have NOT been changing the name. It is anonymous editors who did not participate in the discussion who are changing the names. 2) There is a hidden comment right next to the name. It tells editors that there was a consensus, that they should discuss the issue on the talk page before changing the name. The editors are violating good faith by: a) not going to talk and trying to develop a new consensus, and b) deleting the hidden comment. (Disclosure: I had a slight preference for the consensus but would have accepted the alternative outcome. I would enforce the consensus either way.) Sbowers3 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page was fully protected for a week. I guess there will be no edit warring for a while. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• At least the last half dozen IP's involved in editing the article are Tor proxies, probably the same editor. I'm reporting them all to AIV. - Crockspot 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• All blocked for a few days each. The protection can probably be rolled back to semi. - Crockspot 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Doesn't look like the IPs had any real interest in discussing this issue. Looks like this is resolved for now.--Kubigula (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical glitch?

There seems to be some oddness, for lack of a better description with this RFA:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Victoria_uni. I'm getting a second one at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/victoria_uni and both show dates as being created in August. Purely a technical question. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpage titles can start with lowercase. Both should probably be deleted though (neither was listed it seems) Mr.Z-man 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(My oops :O)) When I was looking at the history, I missed the diff where one was added as a procedural action and the other wasn't added to WP:RFA at the time. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd - User:MutterErde

The above user MutterErde (talk · contribs) shows as being indefinitely banned and blocked by Jimbo since September 2005. However, the user's contribs show edits being made in July/August 2007. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All to his own talk page, which any blocked user is still allowed to edit (as long as it isn't protected). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. My brain took a vacation. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised(?) AfD

Not sure if this is really the right place - apologies if it isn't - but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Martin has been overrun by hundreds (not quite literally, but nearing it...) of keep votes from SPA's/potential sock puppets. The original reason for deletion has been removed, too. Not sure what the best course of action is, really... Perhaps closing the current one, creating a new one and then semi-protecting the new debate (preventing any new accounts/IPs from doing this)? Thanks. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I tried to go through this and find a good edit. I can find the last one where the format is bad, but I didn't want to revert any genuine votes. One wonders if, given that the subject is a radio personality, perhaps there was some sort of broadcast to listeners. Into The Fray ^T/C 04:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the last revision before it was meatpuppeted — didn't spot a single non-SPA edit after that. I'm not sure what standard procedure is, though... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russ_Martin&oldid=159445974. And semiprotected. If there was anything good in there, feel free to re-add it, but I couldnt see it. Viridae^Talk 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken harrrassment, vandalism--2nd complaint

I previously made made a report on this user's stalking. etc. here: [16] (This is the incomplete discussion...I can't figure out how to use the archives here.)

At the time, the advice was: 1) just ignore that kind of behavior, and 2) if you really believe he's a sockpupper, file a checkuser. I tried both.

He's lately gone beserk in his stalking and harrassment. He suggested atUser talk:Eusebeus that they "get an admin to look at this user's behavior, hopefully as a prelude to getting rid of him" [17] (I made a WP:WQA about Eusebeus, thus Allgoodnames' hope for a sympathetic audience).

He reverted my edit to an article and summarized my edit as vandalism. [18] My edit had removed some material added by Gtadoc (whom I have accused of being a sockpuppet of Allgoodnames).

He vandalised my Talk page, again making a false accuation of vandalism: [19] (Oddly, nothing in the section he finds objectionable was written by me; it was put there either by Allgoodnames himself, or another user; I saved in case I needed documentation of certain behaviors).

He reverted my edit in a WP:BRD process with another editor, which was being discussed in Talk; a conversation in which he has not participated. [20]

Here is the checkuser case (still opn, for now). Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Allgoodnamesalreadytaken It should probably be closed because the Gtadoc account hasn't been used for a month.

All of these harrassing edits have occurred in the last 24 hours, although there has been continual junk like this in the last few weeks, including what I documented in my previous notice here. He's obviously making it a point to check my User Contributions, and look for any dispute I might be having, and jump into it. Get him off my back. Bsharvy 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bsharvy's complaint is largely merit and the good faith follow-up on his charges of WP:SOCK have all indicated that no policies have been violated and no foundation exists for action. OTOH, his behaviour - edit-warring, wikilawyering, and forum-shopping for his supposed grievances - needs sore redress. An admin should step in here and issue a warning of a block if this behaviour continues. Eusebeus 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, if an admin does read this, Bsharvy is desperately in need of a warning or block. Not only does he go around creating complaints all over the place about anyone who disagrees with him (I think he's up to 6 editers now he's tried to complain about somewhere with his profuse wikilawyering). Its past the point of being ridiculous. A quick scan of his edit history [21] shows that he is exceptionally disruptive on the page Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has recently begun erasing/trying to start edit wars on the related Hiroshima page. If anyone comments on his behavior its to him "harrrassment" (sic), even after he's been warned by admins in the past he's refused to let things drop or to alter his behavior...what will it take???? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He changed a heading name on my Talk page again, again titling the section a "record of my vandalism" (it contains 3 contributions from him, one comment from a neutral editor, and none from me).[22] His comment above is fairly typical: no diffs, no attempt to actually back up what he says, but a whole lot of character maligning. He seems to have Bookmarked my User Contributions, and follows me around writing stuff like this. The more disruptive part is the constant reverts.Bsharvy 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the comments were untitled warnings about his vandalism pattern, mine he left, those of an admin he deleted long ago; he recently decided to censor them and reword my comments by putting his own titles to them, which would be the same as me editing someone else's comments anywhere else. As its his userpage he's welcome per policy to delete anything there he likes (he seems very good at deleting other's edits, even while trying to hide it, which I've labeled as vandalism and reverted when noticed) but he isn't free to edit others' past comments to make them say what he wants. As far as looking at his user contributions, since his only significant contribution has been to disrupt the page Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to file complaints all over WP about editers he disagrees with there it seems the problem is more with him not wanting to own up for his past and current foul deeds. Every complaint he's left to date (which as Eusebeuscorrectly points out are meritless) on all the various notice boards have either been ignored, or when people take time to point out to him his inproper behavior he simply starts more arguments.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He has now vandalized my Talk page 3 times, and twice (by revert) in the last 24 hours.[23], [24], [25].

• Allgoodnames, I an happy to propose a compromise. If you don't want the record of your "vandalism" warnings on my Talk page, you are welcome to remove them. You put the warnings there, you take them away. I won't complain. Edit: The other part would that you stop reverting without discussion here: [26], [27]. Bsharvy 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to leave it in the origonal, or to remove it, its your talk page; however, editing others' comments to suit your likes is not acceptable, as you've already been told. For the Hiroshima page...well, isn't it enough that you've gotten one page locked over your edit warring? As it is I'll make sure it says what the sources say, and no...you don't count as a source...not that this is really relevent to this page/topic... Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So much for compromise. I do wonder how we are supposed to know when admins care and when they don't, since they don't seem to care about the vandalism and harrassment here. Or do I misunderstand the policies... Bsharvy 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Or do I misunderstand the policies an eminent wikilawyer like you? Surely not! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden, yet again

ZOMG, what a WP:LAME. Few days ago I innocently closed Talk:Iron maiden (torture device)#Requested move quoting WP:PRECISION as "no move", and redirected iron maiden to the band. Then the roof fell in, and the iron maiden had some 15 reverts since. Reginmund (talk · contribs), who seems to be the most vocal supporter of redirect to the torture device, broke WP:3RR in the process (not reported, apparently).
Since I'm now semi-involved in the matter (dragged in, actually), I'm reluctant to apply protection, hand out some blocks, and so on; I'm not even positive that my interpretation of policy is correct (or is it subject to multiple interpretations) (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision)). Can someone lean a helping hand in settling the matter down? Duja► 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, I suggest the appropriate punishment for the revert-warriors should be done in some other suitable form. Either referent of "Iron maiden" (application of the device, or forced listening to the band for 24 hours) springs to mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden was pointed to the apparatus before this RM and I already had a long discussion with a fan of the band whom apparently took offence to me pointing it to its original usage. At least the redirect gives a more specific meaning but we have these grammatical and spelling factors everywhere. Do we really need to disambiguate Apollo Theatre and Apollo Theatre because we're to lazy to spell or in this case, capitalise depending on our destination? Maybe when writing in a message board, not an encyclopaedia. Reginmund 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden only redirected to the apparatus because that's where you redirected it. Your initial edit to the redirect sparked the first edit war; for the six months prior to that it only ever redirected to the band or the dab page. PC78 16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• This seems to be a case for letting plain Iron maiden be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard 16:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I had already discussed earlier with another Wikipedian as to why the redirect should point to the apparatus and not the band. Now what happpened? The move request had nothing to do with the redirect but replacing it. Reginmund 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't continue the content dispute here. Let's keep the debate in whichever forum it was, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the band was named for the torture device, it would seem that the latter has greater precedence. (Or should "Zeppelin" lead to the band rather than the airship?) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Vandal on Evolution

Accounts include, but are probably not limited to: Loom yellow (talk · contribs) Payp two (talk · contribs) Ray vivid (talk · contribs) Raz grime (talk · contribs) Scen heal (talk · contribs) Furry great (talk · contribs) Tlame (talk · contribs) Staam (talk · contribs) Grooy (talk · contribs) Eve oft (talk · contribs)

All follow the exact same modus operandi - they replace the Evolution article (and the user pages/talk pages of contributors to it) with the first two chapters of Genesis, switching accounts as they get blocked. Evolution is semi-protected, so this is clearly a premeditated attack, since accounts must age long enough to bypass the semi-protection.

Anything we can do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you try checkuser yet? Try full-protecting again for 6 hours; it's only for a few hours, and probably wouldn't constitute wheel warring (I would do it for you, but I don't have a bit next to my username). The Evil Spartan 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I put in an WP:RFPP request; I can file a CU request if you want me to. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm already on it. Raul654 18:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be a reincarnation of this guy Raul654 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Article's been locked down for six hours; that should be enough time to block any offenders (if they are Witt socks). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't do a checkuser because the relationship was so obvious and I didn't know it could be used for further protection =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser may (as in this case) find other sleepers or an underlying IP that can be blocked, so it may be useful to contact a checkuser even though it is obvious sockpuppetry. (Raul has got this one taken care of for now.) Thatcher131 03:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. I shall remember that in future. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me, Raul... Any sleepers? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I found several and terminated them. Raul654 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues with an editor changing or deleting another editor's talk page comments

Over at Talk:Star Wars kid there's been a bit of a debate raging over the inclusion (or lack thereof) of the kid's name. As part of that discussion BlueLotas (talk) made a comment comparing the lack of name coverage to hypothetically censoring any mention of controversial evnts from articles on Hitler, the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal, and Richard Nixon. I should point out that all of the events mentioned in said comment are already included in Wikipedia, which is why I couldn't understand when FCYTravis (talk) removed his comments, later justified the removal by saying it was "libelous", and in a subsequent edit said that WP:BLP gave him the right to do so. Frankly, that's crap, but it's become evident that FCYTravis is not going to listen to me, and that administrator intervention is the only way to get this sorted out. And that's why I'm posting here. The end. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Already being discussed at WP:BLPN. Not sure how this requires an administrator. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of the discussion. This looks promising. As for why I felt admin intervention was needed... well, it's hard for us normal users to call an admin on things like this without worrying that, if we are too persistent, we'll wind up getting banned by said admin. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that civil discourse would never lead to any sort of blocking (and if it did, there would be numerous avenues for recourse, as that would very much be against Wikipedia's policies). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but I've gotten the strong and distinct impression that whenever WP:BLP is involved rational discourse ceases to work. It seems to be increasingly used as a trump card to all other policy, guidelines and ettiquette(sp?), at least in recent months. While I have little doubt that were I banned in a hypothetical situation like that it'd get sorted out, I also have little doubt that it would take a long period of time to do so because if for nothing else there would be endless quibbling over whether or not WP:BLP allowed for the ban, if it should, blah blah blah. In the meantime I'm screwed. I'd rather not go through that situation all the same. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jstringfellow

I originally posted this on AIV, but I think it actually should go here. If I'm wrong, please feel to correct me. I think an indef block of this user name is in order. But, you know, if I'm wrong. . . .correct me.  :)

• Jstringfellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Well, this is a user masquerading as a self-published author with a disturbing blog, apparently. This is a little more subtle than most I've come across, but see here: [28] and [29] and [30] and [31] and, for the Coup de grâce, here: [32]. And if you'd like to see a little old-fashioned vandalism, there's always: [33]. Into The Fray ^T/C 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just to add my very small $.02: While I realize that it is impossible to truly verify usernames when they claim to be a specific person, strangely (as I rarely watch Oprah), I actually saw the Oprah show that this woman was on (the dog is so cute!) and I went to the person's blog, [34] and from that entry, it really does not remotely "sound" like the person using that username here on Wikipedia is Jude Stringfellow. The blog is without question, written by the author of the book, and she does not use all caps, or type in the same manner as this username has done. Nor does she really have any problem with the deletion of this article, as stated on that blog: "We have enjoyed her stay on Wikipedia, but to be honest it doesn't make or break her abilities to be presented in public, or to be beneficial to anyone." Further, she flat out states that this username is not her at the top of the blog entry. Again, fully realizing there's no way to verify it, the comparison of the writing styles of this username with the real person's blog, are sufficiently different that I personally do not believe that the username actually is the person, Jude Stringfellow. This username uses phrases like "I rule" and, well, if you saw the Oprah show, you'd have a pretty hard time believing that Stringfellow would ever use such a phrase. Under example 2 of the username policy, it states (emphasis mine): "Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless you verifiably are that person, in which case, please note this on your user page." I do not believe there is sufficient evidence in this case, to verify this username is the real Jude, but there is strong evidence to suggest this is not her. (Incidentally, related or not, an anonymous user 70.165.17.188 has entered into it, blanking Talk:Jude Stringfellow, just as the username did). ^Ariel♥Gold 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - For clarity, my point in listing this here was in no way to assert my belief, one way or the other, that Jstringfellow is or is not really Jude Stringfellow, but that regardless of the veracity of either entity's claims, both have now mutually said that they are not the same person. This leads to the fact that, based on the history of Jstringfellow's edits, that the username was dishonestly masquerading as the person and therefore, in my mind, deserving of an indefinite block. That was my only point in listing this here. Into The Fray ^T/C 14:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wintersun

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours. — madman bum and angel 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some edit warring going on here. While User:MrBosnia is new with just a handful of edits, curiously, if you look at the history of the article[35], he's very careful to go beyond the 24 hours to avoid the WP:3RR, and as much as threatens another user with such in his latest revert.[36]. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 06:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Styxmahler and User:Sabian220

Same person I think, but Styxmahler has been removing any and all comments I have made on Talk:Nolan Stolz and the AfD discussion for Nolan Stolz. He has sent me a total of 3 MySpace messages, telling me to stop discussing the article and stick to messaging him through MySpace. I warned him if he removed my comments I would leave him a warning and then report him which I did, but was told by DarkFalls to post the incident here. He has removed various comments and even blanked User_talk:Sabian220. As for Sabian, in the words of Mary had a little lamb; Everywhere that Styxmahler went, Sabian220 was sure to go. Styxmahler created Nolan Stolz, which is basically a page about himself. Styxmahler's real name is Nolan Stolz, as evidenced by this picture;

He seems to be nothing more than a mere self-promoting vandal. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:Styxmahler for 1 week for vandalism after final warning, not sure about User:Sabian220.Rlevse 11:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban evasion

Banned Frightner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his ban through this IP, 124.169.85.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It has admitted to being him ([37] [38]) and as well as edit warring, he is using ethnic slurs (calling Bulgarians "Mongolo-Bulgars" [39]).--NetProfit 10:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sent to the devil's grandmother for a week. If he comes back again, please let us know. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:David Shear

Hi. Can someone help look into this matter? I have Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians on my watchlist. Now, I noticed an anon posted today on the page that "User:David Shear said he died on April 21, 2007". There was indeed a notice on his userpage that another user posted, and the user has ceased editting in late 2006. I'm just posting it here because I don't know what should be done about this. Now, do these notices have to come with a source? Can someone either verify or deny this? If this is true, should it be added to possibly deseaced wikipedians? I'm not going to do anything about this matter because I'm waiting for more experienced editors to deal with this. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 13:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We usually ask for a source, but I am not sure what is needed to confirm a death for our purposes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE

User:Lahiru_k deleted the above message. But he posted similar sock warning note to Closing Administration's attention here. Am I right or wrong? Daviddson 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest going here for the sockpuppet check; but it was a good idea to post the problem with a AFD close. We have been having major issues with Sri Lanka/LTTE related articles for months now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse? by Thbraith

I think this qualifies a a Three Revert Rule violation. User Thbraith first added a rather...indelicate...comment into a page on red hair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair This was removed by a 'bot Then he added himself to two other pages. First as our first president, (displacing George Washington,) second adding his name as a notable person to a link to a city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanova%2C_Pennsylvania Oh. By the way. I looked up the club he says he plays for. He is not on the roster.

Finally, he's created a page for himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Braithwaite

On this last, I'm stymied. What is the template to plaster on obvious vanity pages? Esp. ones with known factual errors? -Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean.Roach (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Vanity page deleted, user warned. This is a clear-cut case of vandalism. This user has made only one quasi-legitimate edit; the rest are vandalism. You can report this kind of thing to WP:AIV in the future. android79 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User Lord Loxley making homophobic remarks and being disruptive

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely. Melsaran (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article James I of England, here, here and in the edit summary here, followed by some edit warring. I think he needs a talking too and possibly a cooldown Artw 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually he's turned up the volume a little now, to the point where it's pretty apparent he's a troll. I request a ban. Artw 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the talk page all the way through. Apparently, people tried to do what you are doing now before, only to be rebuked by others for undue weight and POV pushing. Now that the rebukers aren't paying attention, you are trying to weaselly insert your propaganda in order to make a point, disrupting Wikipedia and defying the rules you supposedly care about in requesting assassination of my character. You lot are hoodlums of the homosexual type, that is all. Lord Loxley 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're really helping your case much. Artw 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering we now have a WP:3RR violation as well as a personal attack, I also ask for at least a temporary block. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• See here: User_talk:RucasHost#Caveat_on_James Lord Loxley 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • BTW, it is not I who is going around inserting POV to support my personal lifestyle, regardless of whether that may be straight, gay or asexual. Activism and historical revisionism have no place on Wikipedia. Please make a not of that and cease your vandalism at once! Lord Loxley 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Loxley should be blocked for the insanely intemperate comments in his edit summaries. Calling his opponents "Pansy Division" and "Queer Brigade" should cause him to be shown the door. Corvus cornix 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, the irony! Pansy Division being a major exponent of Queercore; a homophobe namechecking major gay icons by mistake. Precious! LessHeard vanU 13:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC) )

I've indefinitely blocked this user after examination of his/her block log; they were last blocked for 1 month by Neil with the comment, "Attempting to harass other users: stonge and racist personal attacks, final warning before indef block." The behavior has clearly continued here, so I followed through. I invite review of my action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughly support your action :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this block having looked at Lord Loxley's block history and the recent "discussion" on the talkpage in question. I'm not sure it can really be called discussion - Loxley is pressed for explanation of his edit warring and provides none, merely attacking all those with an opposing view. His aggressive attitude, inability to compromise and unwillingess to follow NPOV are unacceptable. Given the block history, reform seems unlikely. WjBscribe 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. This user's behaviour was beyond the pale and he had every opportunity to reform if he was going to. Good job. --John 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please check out what Lord Loxley has added to his Talk page? I can't even see it, my browser just shuts down. Corvus cornix 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Very odd. I can't check it either... -- Satori Son 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He has created a 1.4MB wikipedia page -- which obviously causes problems for many browsers. (Can you say "massive buffer overflow"?) What the page itself contains ... I think it's safe to presume that it's not an apology. -- llywrch 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the edits he had just made to his Talk page after having been blocked, and before he added the 1.4 megs, was to call his opponents "faggots", no, I don't think it was an apology. Corvus cornix 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's giving MediaWiki problems, since both Lynx and wget download it as a zero-byte file. --Carnildo 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you care, he typed 1.4 megs of "FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS" to replace his page. Anyways, I think this is resolved. --Haemo 00:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Demonesque

Resolved

 – Page in question protected. Melsaran (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Demonesque has engaged in a long-term pattern of abuse at Caturday. The user has continually changed the target of the redirect, despite an overwhelming consensus from the discussion on the talk page. Demonesque states on his talk page that I won't back down until I'm blocked. What is the next step here? The user is totally uninterested in dispute resolution and I honestly have no idea where to take this. —BurnDownBabylon 01:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Worst edit war ever. The statement of "overwhelming consensus" is 2v1, and not particularly compelling. Tell you what; you file a request for comment, and I'll protect to page for two weeks until you can get some resolution over this essential and critical issue to Wikipedia. --Haemo 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Judge Judy article

The Judge Judy article and Judith Sheindlin article have the attention of User:ByeNow, who reverts every cleanup template I add to the page. I suspect he is a sockpuppet of User:EverybodyHatesChris - other socks editing the page include User:Tratare. I suspect that User:BirthdayBank and User:Lormos are also sockpuppets (because over several days they reverted many of my edits, not through reverts but simply readding material) - see also User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite#Sockpuppet. I think this person is reverting my edits personally because I had attempted to clean up the article extensively. Also - I had asked on the Help Desk where to post this, and they said here, so if I'm not in the right place, I'm sorry. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Now they are removing my talk page comments on why the article needs to be edited. Kat, Queen of Typos 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see content removal, pls provide diffs. It's also confusing when your sig says one name but it's really something else.Rlevse 12:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring is clear in the history; I've weighed in over on the talk page, and will keep an eye on the article. ➪HiDrNick! 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to convert some of the references to the formatting suggested by Dr. Nick, but my changes are being reverted, and my talk posts deleted. I'll be right back with some diffs. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff showing removal of my comments (which, ironically, were about my previous comments being removed). [42]. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block. If sockpuppetry is suspected during the block, file a request for checkuser. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry very much suspected. I've blocked a second account for blanking a complaint at my user talk. Possibly both are sockpuppets.[43] Durova^Charge! 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism At Italian conquest of British Somaliland?

Resolved

I don't know much about this topic but what is going on here baffles me. Various IPs (or perhaps a single person) is making unsourced edits here, here, here, and here. Always after this is a message on the article's talk page, claiming the article is being racist. Is there POV pushing here? -WarthogDemon 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are vandalism, IMHO. MoritzB 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note, I just went to the WHOIS of the IPs; seems like it could possibly be the same person however I'm not certain if this is direct vandalism as it is disruptive pov pushing. Perhaps this page should be semi-protected? -WarthogDemon 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing much to do here. I will welcome these newbies with the hope they make constructive edits in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MatthewHoffman

MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs)

I've given him a 72 hour block to calm down. A bit of an odd one - he's only been a contributor a week, has done nothing but edit Irreducible complexity and its talk page, with huge screeds attacking every editor of that page, claiming they lack neutrality, etc. It was hostile enough, in my opinion, to justify a bit of a time out and warning, but, well, I suppose there's some hope he'll turn out to be a reasonable editor. Anyway, judge for yourself, and overrule me if you think it justified. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, judging by his abnormally well-informed edit summaries and knowledge of 3rr technicalites. Single-purpose accounts that are solely here to push POV (particularly on just the one article) should IMO be shown the egress ASAP. Moreschi ^Talk 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Indef blocked. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There's no need to give multiple chances when the editor is an (abuse|spam|coi)-only account. That's been written into WP:BLOCK: "Accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely." - Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I was only being nice with him because I really wanted to block him indefinitely. I didn't want my emotions to overrule the correct treatment of a possible newbie with strong views and poor social skills. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User 156.34.212.136 is following me, deleting all my discussion threads

Whenever I propose an edit on the discussion page of an article he deletes them for no real good reason at all. Can you please do something about this? This is gettign EXTREMELY aggraviting and annoying.

the user is infact removing my comments from any talk page, calling me a sock puppet. Let's assume I was a sock, my discussions were legit and not vandalism. Shutup999 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Shutup999 (talk · contribs) is just another sock for perma-blocked Zephead999 (talk · contribs)... who was just a re-incarnation of perma-blocked Zabrak (talk · contribs)... who was a sock for uber-troll/perma-blocked Dragong4 (talk · contribs)...etc..etc...etc. Shutup999's account will be blocked... but the user will just create another account. And the same familiat talk page trolling will continue on as it always has. Same vandalism, same trolling, same uncivility, same NPA's... but with a different name. It's a repeat modus operandi that's getting way too old and way too stale. 156.34.212.136 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors Conspiring to Edit War & Avoid WP:3RR

This evening I stumbled across two editors apparently conspiring on their talk pages to edit war, each agreeing to revert twice thereby avoiding WP:3RR. Relevant talk pages[44] and [45]. I presume this fails wiki polices of WP:3RR and WP:CANVASS? Justin talk 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question is, as described in that exchange, blatantly point of view. It is not generally wrong to alert another user to an edit which is questionable; it becomes unacceptable if it is an attempt to 'win' an edit war. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry hadn't checked the edit, I see what you mean now that I have. Apologies if I wasted your time. Justin talk 22:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User bouncing a page like a pogo stick using cut n pastes.

Resolved

 – page now at proper place.

Special:Contributions/TRAVIS_LION This editor used multiple moves to bounce this film arond to half a dozen pages. Then an IP cut n pastes it around, in so doing, divorcing the talk page from the movie article, I can't find the talk, and now none of those pages can be sorted out easily. I'm asking an admin to step in. Per the production company's own page, the proper title is Punisher: War Zone, not The Punisher:War Zone, NOt Punisher 2, and so on. We had kept it at Punisher 2 pending citation. I moved it with citations, and since then, it's been pratically under attack by others thinking other things are better titles, despite citations, and despite citations that 'welcome back, frank' hasn't been even a working title for a month or so. Can an Admin please clean this up? ThuranX 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I *think* I fixed it but I need a second set of eyes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Following up with Penwhale on his talk. ThuranX 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandal

Resolved

 – Page restored at proper place

Ahmedsahalkp (talk · contribs) has made a series of disruptive page moves. I have warned the user, but I imagine it will take an admin to undo the mess that has been created. --Paul Erik 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Standard Formatting Edits

Mercedes1 has been warned multiple times against making edits that completely change the formatting of articles. Multiple warnings have been left and we have tried to help the editor understand what is and what is not appropriate formatting. Klein Independent School District has been a frequent victim. Normally we are able to revert the edits, but this time there has been another edit afterwards which precludes manual reverting. An admin is requested to deal with the mess.-MBK004 04:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored a version of Klein Independent School District that appears to be in a more Wikificated format. :) Into The Fray ^T/C 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hueneme High School

Resolved

Could somebody please semi-protect Hueneme High School? It's getting vandalized faster than I can revert it. Corvus cornix 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 day, hopefully that's long enough for them to get bored — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The IPs come from all over the country. They must have been sent here from some board. Corvus cornix 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jvalant and User:Bobby Awasthi tendentious and disruptive edits on Indian Rebellion of 1857 and its talk page

• Jvalant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobby Awasthi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Filed by: Hserus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Classic pattern of tendentious editing.. they have a right wing indian nationalist POV of the 1857 events, and have at various times -

1. Campaigned - very abrasively - to rename it "First War of Indian Independence" - even moved the page

2. Routinely revert any edits that dont agree with their world view, calling it "communist propaganda" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159210070&oldid=158687695 for example.

3. This one here is a crack about me being "a janitor of email inboxes" - well yes, postmaster at a large ISP with 40 million accounts does qualify as that, I dare say. New sig fodder, yay. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159363026&oldid=159362905

4. This little war where User:Jvalant insists on referring to people from England as "Britishers" -

I suggest we use the term "First War of Indian Independence" which is how we in India refer to our history in the news or in the text books etc. "Rebellion" sounds unprofessional (an American) and Mutiny too sounds racist (British). Jvalant 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

5. This discussion too - after their using a hindi language newspaper as a source, with erroneous articles - and claiming "yes it is a valid source as more people read it than people do the Times" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Hindi_Newspapers

etc etc.

User:Jvalant does seem to have attracted the attention of wikipedia admins before - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jvalant#warned for a previous set of edit wars, whereupon he immediately accuses the admin who warned him, User:Ragib of "misusing admin clout". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragib&curid=605324&diff=84141302&oldid=84132125

Ditto User:Bobby Awasthi - here's his view of the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobby_Awasthi&action=edit&section=19 and a possibly related autoblock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_Awasthi#Unblock_Autoblock

Hserus - why only the half truths? Wasn't the janitor comment as a response to your comment about me contributing "half-baked history". A completely unwarranted comment since all I had done was ask for a source. And I've never insisted on referring to anyone as Britishers - I merely said that it is a valid term. At least try and make sense when you complain. The "right wing" accusation is classic. As if demanding sources for the British POV in the article makes me "right wing" Jvalant 04:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to make WP:ANI into a talk board, but well - please review this last argument you had with a wikipedia admin User:Ragib here - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jvalant#warned>. You apparently don't see the difference between comments that a point of view you are pushing is naïve and wrong, and comments like the ones where you and User:Bobby Awasthi abuse anybody who disagrees with your edits a communist, racist, imperialist etc, and where you drag in something completely unrelated (such as my day job). srs 01:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: the comments, let me point out that:

1. User:Bobby_Awasthi was NEVER associated with renaming/moving of page. Personally favouring (and indeed voting in favour of the rename/move when the vote was called for) DOES NOT amount to the offence cited. If proved that this user was involved once in the said offence, the user is ready to be permanently banned. This point is hence, inflammatory, libelous and insultive and if proved so, I request that the reporting user needs to be reported accordingly.

2. Re: edit shown in ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159210070&oldid=158687695 ) the sentence removed was In any case, as with the Bibi-Ghar butchery, the carnage that followed was entirely within the powers of Nana Sahib and his associates to prevent which was reverted by the user:Hserus. The sentence removed falls into the category of a POV as per WP:POV#Assuming_the_obvious, however, an uninformed, biased, demeaning user:Hserus first reverted it, and then cited it as an example of myself being biased.

3. Re: I am not aware of the issue reported in point number 3. I am not personally responsible for an irritated, uninformed editor's personal grudges.

4. Re: This little war where User:Jvalant insists on referring to people from England as "Britishers" -. I did not know if this was an issue. I think all concerned parties cordially argued and settled on the issue without any say from the reporting editor user:Hserus. My role was only to cite english dictionaries and a book (with references/citations). I did not know it could result into a report to Admins.

5. Re: their using a hindi language newspaper as a source how did they (including myself) contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines. WP:RSUE#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English allows the use of other language sources on conditions which were met as cited at the point quoted by the reporting user:Hserus.

As far as the Autoblock is concerned, thank you for the research, the block occured on my SHARED IP which is because we use a LAN network and the vandalisms reported were from other unsigned users relating to Islamic/Terrorist sites.

Now is the time for me to ask a couple of small questions:

1. :: Reversion of User:Jvalant's edits - poorly attributed with dubious sources cited, highly POV and ungrammatical. Hence reverted. srs 10:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) [46], do the reasons given above, qualify as valid for the revert undertaken by the reporting srs. Worst of all, Ungrammatical matter should be REMOVED? Another one here: [[47]]. More can be provided, simply reverting any edit, no discussions, no arguments, no citations, left for others!

2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bobby_Awasthi and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jvalant were earlier created by the same srs (in March 2007) which have so far not recieved a single comment. Does that somehow indicate on the personal nature of this animosity?

3. There have been numerous wars of words between the three editors in past and now following this one's footsteps, I would like to quote from [48] Your edits are apparently based on some long forgotten history textbooks you read at school, and possibly by watching movies or TV serials on 1857, possibly overlaid with a touch of far right wing hindutva style nationalism, but not on any actual knowledge of history. Please read wikipedia policies carefully, and then please stop editing this article. Neither of you has any capability to distinguish fact and fiction, discussion and vitriolic abuse . Does that classify as personal attack by srs?

4. In fact, I had tried previously to argue with this editor in the spirit of Wikipedia [[49]]. The case here is that, everything not fitting in this editor's POV tantamounts to RIGHT WING HINDU NATIONALIST POV.

5. [[50]] The edit comment said Please cite facts. Citing contemporary articles from random hindi newspapers is not a valid source. the world's largest read Hindi daily (and India's top numbered newspaper for more than a decade) which does not classify as a Tabloid, whose online edition (unfortunately still in Hindi - I am smiling) was recently bought by Yahoo [[51]] is NOT A VALID SOURCE on Indian History? Simillar comments were made for the second largest Hindi Daily of India (again for a decade) too. Is this not showing utter contempt and personal disdain towards everything Indian? By the way, this editor srs does not mind referring to a COMIC BOOK when it comes to his arguments. [[52]] and from the Amar Chitra Katha comic book on Mangal Pandey - and ACK drew heavily on Malleson, and is usually quite accurate,

6. 4. This little war where User:Jvalant insists on referring to people from England as "Britishers" though I did not have a role in it, what was so wrong in this war, except from probably wasted hard disk space of wikipedia servers? It was neither spam, nor unrelated? User:Jvalant was giving his counter argument which in the end subsided cordially between the two parties. Why an episode is used as a case against a contributing editor?

7. Please prove the statement, Campaigned - very abrasively since abrasively means harshly, coarsely or roughly. Who was roughed up?

As a conclusion, Wikipedia being a mere majority point of view, as strong actions as possible can be taken, and I promise I am not going to respond on this page/section after this one no matter what the level of instigation is, but please keep in mind, an Encyclopaedia has to be all-inclusive, not selectively biased. I am not going to gain anything personally if the reported page become absolutely tricoloured (or worse still, all saffron) given the fact that I live in a place that is neither Hindu Nationalist nor Christian Separatist (unfortunately that is the best synonym that MS-Word Showed for nationalist, and I wanted to have a per se NPOV lest I am reported again) nor do I work for a Hindu Nationalist Grocery/Western multinational. But may be its time to guess what personal ambitions may be achieved by the other parties involved; in favour of everything english, working in a purely internet based organization, owned by a western multinational.

--Bobby Awasthi 08:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and no admin action is necessary at this moment in my opinion. Please launch an RFC or Arbitration case on this. Thanks. --Ragib 10:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself and Jimmy Wales by User:Shutterbug

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here:[53]--Fahrenheit451 01:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not very nice. However, this is not the personal attacks noticeboard — you're looking for WP:WQA instead. --Haemo 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, not nice and perhaps ill-considered but a response to clear baiting by F451 and Shutterbug removed it himself without prompting within minutes. This is just more time-wasting and trolling for punishment of his enemies by F451. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Possible Vandalism from User:COFS. F451, if I can give you a word of not-unfriendly advice, why not just stop this disruptive and time-wasting behavior of trying to get your "enemies" in trouble and just edit the encyclopedia? Just say NO to directing negative attention to other editors. --Justanother 12:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone's wasting time, being disruptive, and not contributing to the encyclopedia very much, ban them. Why are we so lenient on troublesome users? — Omegatron 12:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Fahrenheit451 has a history of less than civil interactions with people that are believed to be editing in a pro (that is, not anti)Scientology manner, with the frequent accusation that this is because they are Scientologists or otherwise acting under Scientology orders. Fahrenheit451 has previously been advised stop using affiliation as a reason for their comments, and I have also made comments regarding inappropriate edits. While I realise that all opinions have a right to be represented within an article (per NPOV) I do not believe that pursuing that opinion against other contributors within the article talkpages is allowable. I have to recuse myself, but I would appreciate if another admin looks over Fahrenheit451's conduct in respect of this area of WP. LessHeard vanU 13:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on F's contributions to try to do a little light reviewing per LessHeard's request, and immediately got diverted by something odd-looking. Fahrenheit has posted this complaint and diff which you see here, identically worded, six times: here on WP:ANI, on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision, on Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence, on Wikiquette alerts, on Talk:Jimmy Wales, AND on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but basically I don't like the look of it. Fahrenheit, you're not supposed to be all over the place. It has the look of an attempt to preserve, multiply, and get maximum impact from a diff which the author himself repented of and removed in a few minutes, as Justanother points out above.[54] Is this how you usually post complaints? Your actions seem to me frankly more disruptive than those of Shutterbug in this particular instance (the only one I've reviewed). I also note that you replied combatively to User:Darkwind, when s/he explained that the Wikiquette board was the wrong place, that because the arbitration case was closing, "this is a Wikiquette matter" .[55] Within minutes it apparently morphed into a talk:Jimmy Wales matter, then a usertalk:Jimbo Wales matter... Famous twins? Bishonen | talk 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC).

Posting the same complaint simultaneously to six different venues is forum shopping, and the only reason I didn't block for this was because the arbitration case was still technically open. Now that it's closed I'll be much less circumspect about that. Durova^Charge! 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag team reverting

Resolved

 – User:Hoopsworldscout blocked for 3RR, and User:Wwefan980 warned

What can be do about reverting in a tag-team fashion to circumvent 3RR? Wwefan980 (talk · contribs) just promised User:Hoopsworldscout that he will help revert against me because: "we have more edit reverts combined then just Metros." What exactly can be done about such a tag-team situation? Metros 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would count that as 'gaming the system' of the three revert rule, and it's certainly a disruptive approach and therefore blockable twice over. All editors should seek to avoid edit and revert-warring, not to 'win' them. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what I don't understand is that Wwefan980 had no previous connection to this article (Todd Fuller) and came in to blindly revert without any discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure of his motivation here and would like some non-involved admins to examine the situation at Todd Fuller with this alliance/tag-team reverting further. Thanks, Metros 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can be done. There is no specific rule saying two people can't agree. However I will quit for now..... Wwefan980 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This could fall under disruptive editing, especially if they are making the same reverts. The page could also be protected to force use of talk page to settle it.Rlevse 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is gaming the system and can be considered edit-warring. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to block you for edit warring, disruption, or being a prat. Just because there isn't a specific rule outlawing what you're doing doesn't mean it's allowed. --Carnildo 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the right to agree with someone just as much as you. We can both agree on an edit if we please. Quit trying to threaten me before I contact wikipedia. Also you can't block me for doing nothing, that would be abuse of your powers. Wwefan980 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

I need an admin experienced in this area. I have a stalker who persists in letting me know he knows my name, workplace and mySpace address. He claims to be "gathering evidence" against me. I'm not entirely sure what crime I'm meant to have committed (if I had done anything dodgy I'd have been more careful not to link my user page from my personal webpage). Anyway, he's evading blocks through various socks. I'm inexperienced at the technical level of more complicated blocks. Could someone checkout my user/talk page history and help, please :) The JPS^{talk to me} 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Best thing is to get a checkuser and contact his ISP - we can't block whole ISPs for more than 15-30 minutes (such a pity) Will ^(talk) 23:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just submitted a checkuser. To be honest, it is a little worrying that he's collecting personal information. I'm aware of WR's previous successes. I guess I just need faith in my employers' ability to investigate any allegations. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is the stalker? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm always willing to make a rangeblock if necessary, let me know if I can help. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also willing to be contacted offsite through e-mail. The link is at my user page, of course. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also happy to help. E-mail is probably best -- Samir 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, LOTS of idiot accounts from that ISP. The person hints that he knows of you in RL; this may be true, or may not be. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism on List of current world boxing champions and related

I've identified the following IP ranges and being behind the vandalism which plagues this article and several of its kin... this vandalism's been going on for over a year now. From what I see, none of these IPs have any constructive contributions.

• 88.207.202.0/24
• 124.107.71.2
• 222.127.55.167
• 222.127.228.6/31
• 222.127.228.8

I selected the ranges carefully only to hit the few vandals that have been attacking this set of articles... review and a possible block is welcome. east.718 at 11:48, September 22, 2007

Having the list on my watchlist I can confirm that IPs from this range have indeed vandalized the article in the past, at one point leading to it being semi protected for a while, I will leave it to other admin to decide if blocking a range is adecuate but whatever measure is taken has my support. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tromaintern and articles related to James Gunn (filmmaker)

No amount of DR will work with this guy, who really hates the relatively minor filmmaker James Gunn and especially his movie Slither (2006 film). He's now taken to using sockpuppets and clever misspellings of my username to emphasize his point. I'd block him myself, but I'm involved in the dispute. I've seen very few productive contributions from this guy; almost all involve adding negative material to these articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly an account with the sole purpose of insulting James Gunn. The name may be a violation of WP:USERNAME as it makes it appear the user is working in a professional capacity for Troma. IrishGuy ^talk 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the consistent disruption, the sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are enough to block him; I think a good permanent solution would be to ban him from articles related to James Gunn.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sketchy

Could someone just delete and salt this page? It's been deleted and recreated ten times now. Thanks. Whispering 13:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Entire contribs of the editor recreating the page her shows it's a self-promotional SPA. As his articles have been recreated 10 times, that should exceed the need for four separate warnings within one week, and I ask for a perma-ban. See here for more on this. ThuranX 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of COI violations from that account. Corvus cornix 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but of course no one's doing anything about it, clearly the editor lacks the requisite warning to time span ratio to do anything about it. I've just left him an absolutely rystal clear explanation. Should we ever see anything from him again like Sketchy, then hopefully we can just go ahead and ban him. ThuranX 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More eyes needed on Liancourt Rocks

I'd be glad to have a few more admins' eyes on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a long-standing dispute between Korean and Japanese editors. (see current Arbitration case). I tried to stop the edit-warring the other day by going WP:ROUGE on them and imposing my own set of behavioural rules on the article (Zero-Tolerance policy on edit-warring). Trouble is, the first three victims of the ensuing blocking spree all were (happened to be?) from one side of the conflict, and now naturally I've got a bunch of them on my hands accusing me of bias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection? But since it's an arb case, I'd ask the arbitrator folks.Rlevse 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm trying is to avoid protection as long as possible, because the article badly needs constructive work and there seem to be some people prepared to do it. I'm testing Dmcdevit's approach, of working with blocks instead. To some extent it seems to be working. But it takes more effort actively watching it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not going to solve the root cause of the problem on this article - disruptions on the talk page which has been paralysing the consensus building process. The talk page has been a lot smoother since the blocks. Phonemonkey 17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In similar situations I have imposed mandatory 1RR for 24-hour periods upon pain of block. Something similar might work here. Moreschi ^Talk 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's roughly like the approach I was trying, only I gave them a wording that focussed a bit more on content-oriented constructiveness rather than just number of reverts. See Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct. Much of the reaction has been pretty good so far. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on it, just let's keep our criteria coordinated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've jigged around the hidden instructions at the top to reflect a more holistic approach. Your call as to details and how it should work overall, I'm only making suggestions. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the blocks, I still disagree with your blocks against the Korea side editors. We were not making any obvious violations, nor are we disrupting the talk page with nonsense (unlike Opp2, who seems to be getting away with all his original research and claims). I still don't see how our edits were that outrageusly blatant. The blocking of us was, in my opinion, a show of force to others to enforce your rule. Certainly it was done without any personal feelings (I hope). Yet, by blocking only a specific group of editors, you have now isolated us negatively. This will certainly affect the impression of the arbitrators on the "Korea side" and it will most likely go ill with us. Thats where the problem is and that is how consequential your bold move has become. Its not fair, and I want to ask you how blatant, aggresive, ill-faithed our reverts were so that it got all of us blocked.

What angers me even more is that LactoseTI was not given any penalty for edit-warring on Kimchi. [56] His reverts and edits were certainly done with hatred towards Korea (as I have shown in my evidence in the arb case), yet he doesn't get punished. What has orginally been a problem with NPOV and JPOV editors distorting the rule of NPOV, this has now become a race war. Its not Wikimachine or me or melonbarmonster that is aggresively changing Korea-related articles, its the JPOV editors who are turning this into a race war, and then turning it around so that it seems as if we are the ones dividing up teams. I'm certain that this has turned for the worst and as (finally!) outside editors are introduced to the problem, we will all be punished for this so-called race war.

I'm considering taking this further, because as I see it, its totally unfair. Good friend100 18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, so far I've really only looked at Liancourt Rocks. I must beg for your understanding that it's beyond my powers to keep the same close watch over all Korean-Japanese articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not blaming you for not keeping watch on other articles. I'm just pointing out that what I wrote above is going on. Good friend100 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's blatant vandalism by Fixersfixers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Liancourt Rocks and other disputed Korea-related articles. I believe somebody is challenging the system now.--Endroit 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixersfixers was blocked for 48 hours. This is an account created for the sole purpose of disruption, and should have been indef blocked right away. There's a pretty decent chance it's a sock or meatpuppet, given the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That kind of behavior is ridiculous. --Haemo 04:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz and Faithlessthewonderboy POV in political article

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been rumored to be a lesbian but clarified the situation once and for all. She said she is not.

If we cover up this, then people will wrongly think she is a lesbian. Tvoz and wonderboy are doing just this, covering it up and smearing Clinton.

Other wikipedia articles, like Prince Albert, Mayor Ed Koch, Larry Craig mention the fact that they have been accused of being a homosexual but said they were not. Treat Clinton the same way, don't smear her.

They are tag teaming 3RR, they need a 24 hour block. Look at their other Clinton edits, they are edit warring socks.

E343ll 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be arsing me. We're not a high school corridor — we don't contribute to unsourced smears to notable politicians, and this is a really silly content dispute, with a dose of bad faith thrown in. --Haemo 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Tell me this is a joke... Do you also want to add "She is not an astronaut", "She is not a serial killer" and "She is not a cocker spaniel", in case people assume we're covering up for her otherwise? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

She said it herself that she is not a lesbian. See the interview in the Advocate magazine.E343ll 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people say lots of things. This is a content dispute, and you should discuss it on the talk page. --Haemo 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell us, E343ll, when did you stop beating your wife? Raymond Arritt 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense, you want us to not smear her by including a section about her rumored homosexuality? As if not mentioning the fact that some have questioned her sexuality would be somehow libelous? Mr.Z-man 01:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Sorry to bother people with this article again, but a number of users have resorted to using their IP addresses for edit warring on this article. There is probably 3RR violation in reality except that, it's never the same IP address or user. The IP addresses have no previous edits outside of this article. Hoping someone can help resolve this, or the article will just end up being protected again, because of this silly attitude. Jackaranga 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think someone should block the IPs and see if any of the other registered users editing this article get autoblocked, and if they do, then block them too. Using your IP address or a sockpuppet for edit warring is so lame, and causes articles to become protected, making legitimate edits more difficult. Jackaranga 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a possible solution but if what you say is accurate, then I think semi-protecting would be more appropriate. Using block tools to hunt down people's IPs is a little iffy, in my books. --Haemo 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, semi-protection would be the best course for right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, well someone more used to this stuff probably knows better than me, I thought about requesting semi-protection, but I though it would put legitimate unregistered users at a disadvantage all because of abuse by registered users. That is to say the problem is not with unregistered users causing a problem, but with registered users, who know very well about 3RR, and are using a technicality, not to avoid detection, but to avoid a block. Jackaranga 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said "if what you say is true"...---Haemo 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to the last pre-editwar version. Will ^(talk) 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Maplefan - Unsourced statement adding to RuneScape

This user keeps adding an unsourced statement to RuneScape, as seen from:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=158811794&oldid=158784356
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159289686&oldid=159086968
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159517385&oldid=159498156
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159613370&oldid=159562239
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159705933&oldid=159642939
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159708789&oldid=159706416
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159897925&oldid=159859562

He also page-move-vandalised the article to Runescape the flea bag, but the vandalism was removed on sight.
This user hasn't broke the WP:3RR rule yet, but just constantly reverting the unsourced statement is going to be a bit too exhausting for us.
This user also has several warnings already, hasn't been blocked yet, and what do I think that he should be kept away from editing for a while. I don't want to sound harsh, but something has to be still done about this.

I originally posted this to WP:AIV, but I was instructed to report this on here instead.

Thanks, ~Iceshark7 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been reverting his edits too.. it seems also plausible that User:Runescapehater is a sock of his given his comments on the talk page. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Think MapleStory. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ.com‎ and IP sock-puppetry

There has been a number of IP sock-puppets hitting GameTZ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The edits consist of adding {{gamecleanup}} however, they have not discussed any specific cleanup issues despites several requests by multiple editors. Instead each edit declares the removal of the cleanup tag as vandalism. There has also been a bit of vandalism from these IPs on the article's most recent AfD, consisting of removing {{spa}} tags from some of the commenters.

A WP:RFPP has been filed by another editor, which has likewise been vandalized by one of the IPs. --Farix (Talk) 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of the IP addresses: 77.74.198.212 (talk · contribs), 216.40.236.82 (talk · contribs), Foroto11 (talk · contribs), 74.53.104.2 (talk · contribs), 74.220.207.103 (talk · contribs), 208.79.200.172 (talk · contribs)

To note, 216.40.236.82 (talk · contribs) was just indef. blocked for being an open proxy/sock, and I would suspect the other accounts are much the same. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has just been semi-protected by C.Fred (talk · contribs). Thank you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New Anon editor vandalizing posts by Parsecboy

I've come across a new anon editor, 65.102.184.183, all of whose edits have been solely to undo edits by Parsecboy, claiming the latter's work to be vandalism or unhelpful edits – but in reality it is the anon's changes that are vandalism or unhelpful changes. (Examples include [57] and [58].) I've reverted those vandalisms not already caught by other editors, and left a warning on the anon's talk page, but this is likely a SPA by someone Parsecboy has offended. An administrator may wish to monitor the anon's next edits when he/she becomes active again. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User persistently uploading problem images

Trentaysingko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has spent his entire Wikipedia career doing nothing but upload unsourced not-safe-for-work images. He's not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, so should he be indefinitely blocked? --Carnildo 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I'll block him now. Just look at that talk page - 42 warnings. Picaroon (t) 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Ladd

I placed this AfD because it had been tagged {{Notability|date=February 2007}} since, obviously, February 2007. Upon doing AfD, someone has come out of the woodwork to edit the article. Great, except for the personal attacks against me in the discussion page by this same user (see AfD history page because I deleted the attacks per WP:ATTACK and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which states "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith — unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages, is making a blatantly offensive personal attack or a defamatory commment about a living person". Admittedly, I have had a past with the subject of the article but as I have tried to explain, I have kept WP:NPOV and only submitted the article because no one had bother to do anything about the Notability issue since it was tagged in February. At the time I brought this article for AfD, no edits had been done and the article as it was at that time did not meet WP:BIO or WP:N, not to mention the information contained in the article was mostly also contained in the article subject's newspaper article at Jackson Free Press. I felt that what little information was in the AfD could be merged into the Jackson Free Press article. I say all of this to further state emphatically that I do not have a personal vendetta against the subject of the article/AfD and if I did, I would have also put up her newspaper's (Jackson Free Press) article up for AfD as well. That's the honest truth. HOWEVER, since my involvement has been called into question and attacked with name calling and posting of my personal information (name and employer) by this 'out of the woodwork' user, I feel the best thing to do is to go on and close the AfD as KEEP. While this user has attacked me personally, he has also made significant edits to the article including references and sources. I myself even included new material (but I have a vendetta against the article subject???). While I still feel that most of what is in the article is found in the Jackson Free Press article, and what little else is left could be merged, I do find the article is now much better than it was. So to any Admin, please handle this as you see fit. Thanks for your time. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by your summary of events (I don't mean that in a skeptical way), but if you think the AfD should be closed as keep, I'd go ahead and close it as a withdrawal, since no one else seems to be pushing for deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, block the user responsible for posting personal information and oversight those edits ("HOWEVER, since my involvement has been called into question and attacked with name calling and posting of my personal information (name and employer) by this 'out of the woodwork' user..."). We don't need more H's and JzG's. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have closed the AFD as nom withdrawn. Looking into other concerns. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed the personal info, and sent it to oversight-l. Navou ^banter 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal is fine. I haven't seen that used before, I've only seen Keep, Delete and No consensus (I'm fairly new so I guess I just haven't come across "withdraw". At any rate, thanks for everyone's help in resolving the issue. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All personal info should now be oversighted as well. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pipsqueaker (talk · contribs)

Continuing to upload copyvio images in violation of WP:NFCC despite a pageful of warnings. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, or until he "gets it". --Haemo 04:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Abigail Breslin

Will administrator please remove this edit [59] from the history log??? It is extremely vile and should not be allowed to stand even in the history section. Abigail Breslin is an 11 year old child. If you had a child her age, would you want this in a history section? Please someone remove it. Fighting for Justice 21:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to post the request here - admins don't have the power to delete pages from the history. FWIW I agree this should be oversighted out — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how tho. And my mail client doesn't work on my computer. That comment deserves to be deleted ASAP. Fighting for Justice 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Submitted. It will be gone within minutes.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on hiding the edit until it's possible to oversight. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, you need to take a look at WP:Oversight. It is approved for use in three cases only:

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2. Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made.

Oversight removal is not used on usual vandalism — even egregious and offensive vandalism — unless it is one of the above. Oversight is for material that should not be available even to an admin.

The case in question is obnoxious and vulgar, but it does not fall into any of these categories. Ordinary revision deletion must suffice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been oversighted anyway. Natalie 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see it, so it's probably no longer oversighted. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Resolved

 – Isarig violations handled by mentor; role account blocked

Due to edit warring and being caught using sockpuppets, User:Isarig was community banned from articles on Israel, the Middle East, media, and anything else falling under "the set of articles where he misused his editing privileges and subjected to six months of mentorship by users Avi and FayssalF. His mentors are both currently absent from the project (Avi for religious holidays and Fayssal due to a car accident), and he has resumed editing contentious Israel-related articles. When reported at WP:CSN, he denied wrongdoing and is wiki-lawyering the specific terms of his community ban despite it being made clear during his last CSN discussion that there was a unanimous exhaustion of patience by all participants, including those who agree with his editorial POV.

I recommend the following as a result of his violating his topic ban:

1) Isarig be blocked for 24 hours for violating the terms of his topic ban.

2) Isarig be additionally blocked until one of his mentors returns to activity on the project.

Please see my user page for concerns about this alternate account. CSNreport 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "I am a legitimate alternate account used strictly to report violations of User:Isarig's community ban from sets of articles he has disrupted in the past"???? Can you give me one reason why you can't use your main account to bring Isarig's actions to our attention? Because I'm seriously considering blocking your User:CSNreport account as a role account designed to target, follow, and "report" a specific editor while avoiding scrutiny for what could conceivably be considered Wikistalking. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While blocking CSNreport may well be the proper thing to do, There was a violation of the mentorship, and actions have been taken. -- Avi 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the user page the wikipedian wants to "keep the heated issue of Isarig's sockpuppetry and disruption confined to this account". The wikipedian also doesn't wish "to be harassed by Isarig elsewhere on the project." What the user page doesn't mention is the sockmaster (that is not at all a derogatory term) behind this account.Bless sins 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should that matter? So long as the sockpuppet account isn't being disruptive, then it's nobody's business what their main account is. Corvus cornix 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:InventDa

I am not sure where to post this, so I'll post here. If this is the inappropriate place, please forgive me, and directly me appropriately. This is not vandalism, nor 3RR. User:InventDa goes on periodic edit sprees, reverting long-standing redirects with little or no reasoning why. The edit summary is a misspelled "sorce", which I assume means that InvetDa is asking for the source. Here are some recent reverts of redirects:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

The last one caught my eye, and I reverted his edit, posted a query for justification, and stepped back. The editor hasn't addressed my original concerns. That was a few days ago, but the pattern continues.

The editor also seems to be heavy-handed with slapping vandalism warnings on IP editors page, for what is clearly not vandalism:

1. [64] This is the first vandalism warning, issued apparently for This edit: [65]. As it appears to me, that edit is not vandalism. I can't say for accuracy of the information, but at least I can say it's vandalism, as the next edits (by the editor in question) show edits for the editor in question next show simply manipulation of the information which was supposedly "vandalism"
2. [66] is another heavy-handed warning, seemingly based on [67]

While the editor has contributed a few constructive edits, most of the activity is disruptive (in my eyes, which is why I post here).

Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like this editor is new, young, and bolder than their skills merit. For example, they haven't been here a week and have already tried to request adminship. Given that this looks like the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, I'd say the next step is more vigorous education, rather than official sanction. Perhaps you could take another try at telling them what they're doing wrong? They don't even realize that anybody has a problem with them yet. Thanks, William Pietri 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and input. I've posted a (hopefully!) polite notice on the editors talk page. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP deletion required

Unfinished business.

John_W._Dickenson is a re-creation by Joe Faust (User:Joefaust) of a page deleted at John Dickenson and material also inserted by Faust at the John Dickinson disambiguation page. Faust has an apparent agenda to belittle John Disckenson; he links to a website www.dickensonwing.com which redirects to a Yahoo forum where Faust also posts this misleading material. There is an OTRS ticket: 2007083110005034

The complaints come from a friend of Dickenson (who is now 74 years old and retired). Dickenson is distressed by these repeated attempts to belittle him. If the comments of Dickenson and Graeme Henderson (complainant) are accurate, which would require checking by someone familiar with the subject, then Faust should be banned from these articles. This has been going on for some time. (Guy) 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, note www.dickensonwing.com is a redirect to groups.yahoo.com/group/HangGlidingMuseum. All reference to Mr Dickenson has been removed. I cannot see anything in Joefaust (talk · contribs)'s edits that is trying to belittle Mr Dickenson, however. Neil ム 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that I can't see belittling or attacking in the deleted edits. Nor can I see any real reason to have these articles in the deleted edits. The linking to a redirect, sometimes with what appears to me a misleading article text for the URL, is troubling. GRBerry 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

US state terrorism sleeper

There's a revert sleeper at that article, see Special:Contributions/Timespade. User's first edits are to a semi-protected page, thus it is almost certainly a sleeper account. I'm not sure what the practice is but I'm asking for input. Milto LOL pia 10:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a sleeper account, I tend to click the "rollback (vandal)" button (as it's tantamout to block evasion). Will ^(talk) 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the lack of communication present in rollback is going to do anyone any good. It only took me a few seconds to manually revert, tab myself into the edit summary window and type in "rv sleeper". It's possible given his poor grammar/lack of signatures he really is new. I doubt it though. Milto LOL pia 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

...or they could be indicative that he's another reincarnation of FAAFA. east.718 at 12:20, September 24, 2007

Persistant vandalism by User: 142.179.111.133

Can someone help?--Filll 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:JoshuaZ for one week [68]. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism by User:199.185.88.178

Please help us.--Filll 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:JoshuaZ for one week [69]. Next time, use warnings and report to WP:AIV, where you get a faster response. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

I have blocked User:El Greco and User:86.74.44.243 for disruption on Athens. May I have a second look? Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a 3RR violation. That's good enough. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about personal commentary from User:A Kiwi

I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi here on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]' and here on User talk:Eubulides, [76] and [77].

I feel that this speculation (which is often wildly incorrect, and has involved named third parties) and commentary is an invasion of my privacy that I am not comfortable with, but, more importantly, is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia, and adds nothing to the discussion where it is posted. I wonder could somebody take a look and see what they think? --Zeraeph 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much more than a not particularly decorous discussion, but without any further history I cannot say I see anything bad or actionable. Have you discussed with A Kiwi (on his talkpage) how the debate is making you uncomfortable? LessHeard vanU 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My greatest problem is with the degree to which this is sidelining the real discussion of the article Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome into total irrelevancies. It will be a contentious and complex enough discussion without that.

I'm not too bothered by the personal references yet, but, on the other hand, I have a gut feeling that it CANNOT possibly be ok for A Kiwi to speculate (wrongly), from among article sources, about who my personal physician is (or how familiar he is with my home), while informing the world that she has just got off the phone with him, from thousands of miles away. I will try discussing it on her talk page. --Zeraeph 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you opened the door by discussing those personal details on the article talk page and using personal info as part of the article discussion with respect to the featured article review. Discussion of your personal diagnoses and physicians were less than inappropriate on the article talk page, and verged into Essjay controversy territory anyway. I suggest that both you and A Kiwi could benefit from reading and understanding Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (not only with respect to not using article talk pages as a chat forum, but also with respect to proper threading of conversations and NOT HOLLERING and better use of edit summaries); you're a more experienced editor than A Kiwi is, and you should have known that discussing your personal diagnoses and physicians on an article talk page isn't wise. Because you made this info part of the article discussion, I can't say A Kiwi has committed any offense. I suppose you've let A Kiwi know that you're talking about her on AN/I, as a courtesy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, please try to be a little more accurate. I did not "discuss" anything of the kind, I simply, ill-advisedly, made a single passing reference ("I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie" [78]) which A Kiwi has turned into speculation that Simon (presumeably) Baron-Cohen (who I have never met) diagnosed me and is familiar with my home, and then that Michael Fitzgerald is my personal physician. --Zeraeph 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. You still haven't explained how so many personal references and speculations about myself are relevant to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome? --Zeraeph 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They weren't relavant on the article talk page discussion either, where you first brought them up. A Kiwi has retracted and apologized everywhere for her mixup of Drs Baron-Cohen and Fitzgerald (two physicians with the same specialty operating in relatively close geographic proximity), so that's done. The best thing for both of you to do is to stop discussing personal matters on article talk pages (remember your two Yorkies, your recent car wreck, and so on), and instead focus on reliable sources, and learning to properly thread comments and use talk pages for discussing article improvement. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; if you use article talk pages and your diagnoses to throw weight into a discussion, you can't expect that info not to resurface later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I would really appreciate it if you would stop trying to "micro manage" and dictate my editing. It is not appropriate for you to do so. It is also totally irrelevant to the discussion here of User:A Kiwi persistent discussion of what she imagines to be personal detail of my life on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Though I am flattered that you have found the time to trawl through weeks of edit histories to find so many personal references to my life to post here. However, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember to discuss content, not personalities in future please? --Zeraeph 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy there, Zeraeph. I don't need to trawl through anything; I remember the posts as they were inappropriate on talk pages, where article improvement is discussed. Reminding you that both of you can avoid taking admin time on these kinds of issues and make talk page discussion easier for everyone by reading WP:TALK, a Wiki guideline, is not micromanaging. It was your mistake to make personal info part of an article discussion; I wish both of you would focus on article content more. Take the last word if you'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I am afraid I have never been interested enough in you to return the favor and keep ongoing mental notes about you in that way.

I honestly do not think it is for you to dictate what use is made of admin time any more than it is for you to try and dictate and micromanage my editing and discussion style.

Back to the real point, I am concerned by A Kiwi's personal speculations about and references to myself are monopolising Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. When I do come to WP:AN/I to seek advice I prefer not to lead, but rather to leave anyone kind enough to take an interest to view the situation with an open mind. It had occurred to me that an open mind might see some advantage in archiving the personal references and speculations in the name of simplifying the discussion, but I am not sure, because that seems like "gagging" User:A Kiwi's opinions on the article and I would be uncomfortable with that. I am not sure, that is why I ask.

I am also concerned as to whether the more personal speculations are crossing any lines. She is not doing me any harm, yet, but, on the other hand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA clearly specify that content should be discussed, not personalities, and besides, so far her speculations have often been wildly inaccurate, leaving me with a choice between cluttering up an FAR with refutations that are irrelevant to it, or being misrepresented. --Zeraeph 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I could not fully understand the references in her response [79] (she states she is unwell elsewhere and may be a little muddled), User:A Kiwi does seem willing to desist from the personal references and speculation that I felt were inappropriate and uncomfortable. She has also made a seperate, far more objective comment [80], and may well now be amenable to the personal speculations being archived to simplify the discussion if anyone thinks that is appropriate? --Zeraeph 17:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:A Kiwi was happy to consent to the archival of personally speculative text [81] which was done, ultimately subject to her approval [82] , and "all's well that ends well" or should be, except that User:SandyGeorgia took it upon herself to object and revert, in spite of having voiced no objection to the archival here. [83]. I give up! --Zeraeph 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding the missing diff, where A Kiwi asked you to please put it back. [84] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

She did NOT ask me to "put it back" AT ALL she simply said that I took out more than she wished [85] and before we could resolve that, you interfered. [86], and if you had not, this would all have been resolved to eberybody's satisfaction hours ago.

I am still wondering why on earth you did not raise any objection to the personal speculation being archived, here earlier (too busy posting about my Yorkshire Terriers maybe?), and also why you feel that erroneous speculation over who my personal physician is and how well he knows my house is so vitally important to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome that you must insist I be forced to replace it?--Zeraeph 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, see WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia". I think that is pretty final? Unless I suddenly drop dead? --Zeraeph 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Further Personal Commentary

I am now at a genuine loss what to do. After yesterday's creditable resolution User:A Kiwi posted this [87] . She says she is ill and confused but, even so, that is just a blatant personal attack. Any ideas what I should do? --Zeraeph 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

looking at this talk p. for the first time, I am distressed by several people using arguments from their personal case histories and that of their family. None of it is rational argumentation with respect to the topic. And when it comes to family, this is really an invasion of their privacy without any reason otherwise, and I urge that the material be at least deleted. DGG (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ConoscoTutto

Resolved

I have had a couple of editors asking me about ConoscoTutto (talk · contribs), who they believe to be blocked user SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs). I think this very plausible, and suspect The FinalWord (talk · contribs) (also blocked) is the same user as well-- they have had near identical personal descriptions on their user pages ([88]), edited the same articles, used similar phrases, etc. The two blocked accounts both had long willful disregard of Wikipedia practices despite such being explained to them repeatedly and their edits otherwise demonstrating intelligence and good reading comprehension, made false image source claims and blatant copyright violations, sometimes with absurd claims which they defend indignantly when questioned on it (wacky example: Image talk:Petula Clark Grammy.jpg). All the editors seem to have made valuable contributions to articles, although sometimes being rather difficult for other editors to deal with. The final straw which led me to block User:SFTVLGUY2 indefinitely regarded Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG, which SFTVLGUY2 uploaded claiming to be his own work. The apparent actual creator and copyright holder came to Wikipedia and called SFTVLGUY2 out on it, with collaborating link. SFTVLGUY2 refused to discuss it and deleted discussion. I've recently been asked if the block on SFTVLGUY2 should extend to ConoscoTutto. I'd like some feedback on that question. -- Infrogmation 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• If ConoscoTutto = SFTVLGUY2, it's indef on sockpuppet and extension of block (if it weren't indef) on the main account. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• SFTVLGUY2 used to routinely delete plot synopses in musical theatre articles and try to prevent the expansion of articles (see my talk page at [[89]] for a list), and ConoscoTutto (know it all) continues to try to prevent the expansion of articles in the same way. See for example [[90]]. ConoscoTutto created his account on October 31, 2006, made only 5 edits (mostly to back up other arguments that he had been making as SFTVLGUY2 (see this) and to support an SFTVLGUY2 argument about an AfD regarding Petula Clark, and then he never used the account again until he resumed active editing on June 13, 2007. SFTVLGUY2 stopped using his account on June 5, 2007 (after a series of image/copyright problems) and was blocked indefinitely for copyright infringement on June 22, 2007. All three usernames above have a particular interest in Petula Clark. See http://www.mind42.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Petula_Clark_films Also, their edit summaries are similar, and their talk page arguments are the same. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the logs, they all seemed to be connected by photos - one would upload a photo, the others would use it or remove warnings about it. Blocked 'em both. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. -- Infrogmation 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User Sinhala freedom

Resolved

• User: Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user repeatedly removes, references from the article Kattankudi mosque massacre, he/she is of the opinion they are not reliable, I have requested the person to discuss in the article talk page and build consensus before removing the contents again, but it doesn't seem to be working. Could an admin look at this. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What the accuser forgets to mention is that another user is of the same opinion as me in that the sources are unreliable to say the least. The Accuser is repeatedly adding references to known partisan blog type websites from both sides of a bloody ethnic conflict. I have left one of his references behind, since although I am suspicious I will give benefit of the doubt. Also I have supported another user in adding original research tag, since none of the details can be properly referenced to reliable sources such as respected books, journals, news media such as BBC, CNN, Reuters etc. Sinhala freedom 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since then, some other user has added some references to NY Times and Boston Globe. So I am satisfied there is some reliable sources now. Sinhala freedom 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But this no way indicates that the incident mentioned in the article deserves to be an article. Sinhala freedom 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like this content dispute has been resolved. In future, not that we have a reliable sources noticeboard for this kind of content dispute. --Haemo 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please block 156.34.210.48 ???

He is STILL deleting me discussion threads. why is he not banned? do i need to call wikipedia myself? this is absurd. Shutup999 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You should probably go to WP:AIV instead of here, but you don't appear to have warned the IP at all, so they may have an issue with things. Admins, note that this is related to this report above as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, calm down and keep cool please. Now, what exactly is he doing? I couldn't quite make out what you mean. If what he is doing is simple and obvious vandalism (blanking articles, removing content, repeatedly adding nonsense and whatnot), then you'd be better off reporting him to WP:AIAV, but I can't be sure based on your description alone. You Can't See Me! 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the contributions page. Apparently, our IP friend takes you to be a sockpuppet of a banned user based on the three digits at the end of your username and considers your posts to be trolling (to his credit, though, I can see why your thread title may have seemed a bit blunt). Rather than getting the IP blocked (IPs cannot get banned or indefblocked), you might want to talk this over with him and come up with an alternative thread title. You Can't See Me! 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked the IP for an explanation, and got this reply on my talk page (reproduced in full below) —Random832 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

== reply to your question from earlier today ==
Re: Identifying the sock. It has nothing to do with the username at all. It has everything to do with familiarity... simply recognizing the all to easy to spot bad habits of a repeat troll. Look at the user history of Shutup999 (talk · contribs). Then look at the edit history of Zephead999 (talk · contribs)... then look at the edit history of Zubt555 (talk · contribs), Pie76 (talk · contribs), Duff man2007 (talk · contribs)... etc. NOW.... let's go back in time a little... look at the edit history of Zabrak (talk · contribs). Then... back a little further... look at the bad habits of Dragong4 (talk · contribs). Do you see the repetition? It jumps right out at you after a while. I've been catching this particular thorn for a very long time. I can spot his typical editing modus operandi with my eyes closed. That's why the user is tagged and that is why he will be blocked. But... unfortunately as you can see by the editors history.... he will return another day... under another name... and continue to use Wikipedia as his little toybox. He's not the only one. His kind is one in thousands who seek to undermine what Wiki is all about. Sooner or later he will get bored of if(sooner.. hopefully) But until then... it'll be up to regular editors to tag him and see that he doesn't do too much damage. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.158 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be worth further investigation - just because the accusation comes from an IP doesn't mean it has no merit. —Random832 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that his only reply? This guy has absolutely no life. Seriously this man is pathetic, and would be generally accepted as so.

Anyway, just because he thinks I'm a sock of somebody does not mean that he can remove my information if it's not vandalism. Please do something about this, please. Shutup999 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. I can block you as a sock of a blocked editor. In fact, I think I shall. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron/Template:Rescue demands, and Fosnez

I stumbled across the {{rescue}} template after it showed up on an AFD I nominated. I noticed within it the line "Please do not remove this template until after the AFD has finished." I removed that, as it is absurd: The Article Rescue Squadron is a wikiproject, not a policy, they do not have the right to demand that a template stay on until an AFD has finished.

I was reverted by Fosnez (talk · contribs), who I've never even heard of and never run across before. Fosnez reverted without discussion, and then had the gall to drop a level 2 warning template on my talk page: even though I left an edit summary clearly stating why it was that I removed that line. He suggested that I might have some sort of "conflict of interest" in that I have an article on AFD that I nominated that has that same template. I should note that WP:COI applies to mainspace edits, not templates, and is intended to prevent "outside influences", not good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia.

Now first of all, this "Article Rescue Squadron" already has the whole "militaristic" thing against it that "Counter-vandalism unit" had. To take that and make a statement on a template that implies that you MUST leave the template in place, and to do so would be against some sort of rule, is absurd. It's a wikiproject. There's no sort of enforcement to that.

To compound this attempt to make it seem like you cannot leave the template, he moved the "rescue" template ABOVE the "End of AFD" comment, further implying that you cannot delete this. (I reverted, edit conflicted and accidentally lost some of his sources. He felt the need to warn me in the edit sum not to delete sources, instead of assuming good faith.

This whole thing has gone too far. I'm requesting an outside source come knock some good faith and clue back into Fosnez over this. This template is finding its way onto more and more articles, and more and more articles are displaying this false implication that the template has some sort of enforcement power. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've listed {{rescue}} at TFD. I've seen this template a couple of times, and it really seems unnecessary, particularly if people have begun edit warring over its inclusion or its eminence on articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to post here, but I would like to mount my own defence. Swatjester is correct that this template is "finding" its way onto more and more articles, because more and more articles are being deleted without a valid reason - The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is about fixing articles - we are not a militaristic group. I have attempted to assume good faith throught this proceeding, but my patience has a limit. The rescue template has been on many articles, yet it was only when it appeared on Swatjester's articles that they decided it needed editing. Numerous admins have seen the template and yet no one else has commented on it. The ARS itself contains quite a number of admins: User:Dsmdgold, User:TimVickers, User:Zanimum, User:Gnangarra, User:Jossi, User:bibliomaniac15, User:Morven, User:Fuzheado, User:CatherineMunro, User:DGG, User:Sjc, none of which have commented on its wording. My reference to the Conflict of Interest above was regarding Swatjester's nominating an article for deletion, the article was flagged then for rescue (meaning someone thought it was encyclopedic, and that the ARS should attempt to save it). Swatjester then edited the template to remove the (at that point) demand asking other editors not to remove the said template. I left a standard template asking Swatjester not to do it again, with their responce being I don't know who you think you are.... I then reworded the template to remove the demand out of it and replace it with a request. I matintained my civilitary and asked Swatjester please discuss it on the template page (which he has now done). I have attempted to maintain good faith, civility and patience throught these proceedings, but Swatjester comments and edits were abrupt and severely lacking in policy - as I said in my final revert of the template, show me where a policy says I can't ask users not to remove my the template and I will remove the wording myself. - Fosnez 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well as it's not your template I suspect that Wikipedia:Ownership of articles applies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that my response cited WP:TEMPLAR which, while an essay, is a particularly strong one, supported by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the one word in my above post that made it "my" template. Fosnez 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• To avoid redundancy, confusion, and hair-pulling, let's please keep discussion to the template talk page. I'm somewhat skeptical about using ANI as a sort of speedy RFC, but in any case I think this ANI section has served its purpose. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh. mai. gawd. You got templated. That gives you license to lash Fosnez like he's never been lashed before. Tell him, "I don't know who you think you are". Tell others, "I was reverted by Fosnez (talk · contribs), who I've never even heard of and never run across before". Sound absolutely incredulous. Get incredibly angry. That helps everyone so much. It might even improve the community. Who knows, it might even cause an article to be created! Ya know, the encyclopedia? What we are here to do? What the template helps improve by getting experienced editors to edit an article? </end sarcasm> --Iamunknown 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My sarcasm appears to have been less-well accepted. Well, I offered a more tempered, and perhaps more relevant, comment on my talk page, if anyone who reads this is interested (diff). I place this message here because I do not wish to always be considered as sarcastic as above. Cheers, --Iamunknown 05:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• (I reverted, edit conflicted and accidentally lost some of his sources. He felt the need to warn me in the edit sum not to delete sources, instead of assuming good faith.) - It takes more clicks to push through an edit conflict than it would have to remove the template again and hit save. In that situation, I'd have also wondered why you made that choice, and maybe even *gasp* dared to suspect you were deliberately being difficult. When you choose to push through an edit conflict, you have a responsibility to clean up the resulting mess, and it's rather odd to make that choice in the first place rather than just resolve it with the provided form, when your intended edit is a single-line edit to the lead section of a page. —Random832 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• ...good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a position that serves no apparent purpose but to prevent others from coordinating to improve an article may be in good faith in so far as it is an honestly held position, but it is no kind of attempt to improve the encyclopedia. —Random832 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be on record saying that I agree fully with Swatjester above and do not like this whole ARS mess at all. – Steel 12:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This template would have some credibility if it wasn't repeatedly attached to articles like this piece of detritus. ELIMINATORJR 12:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Might I interject that referring to any article as a "piece of detritus" is a clear failure to respect WP:AGF? Bondegezou 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. This is not a Wikipedia article, but a essay which is borderline disruption. ELIMINATORJR 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF is not conditional on the quality of edits made. Bondegezou 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, per Eliminator, that this is a well-intentioned effort that's doomed to failure. The list of articles that have been tagged by the project don't inspire confidence. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit long but this response on the Template for Deletion entry seems to convey a reasoned explanation for the project, its template and its users actions. Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. Far too many of the arguments for why it should be on talk pages rely on the illogical application of categorical rules ("tags related to Wikiprojects always go on talk pages") ("this template is intended to be an article tag") without any apparent analysis as to whether those categorical rules apply, or should apply, in this circumstance. Indeed, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that those seeking the deletion of this tag (and those seeking the deletion of the Article Rescue Squadron itself) are doing so because they view it as an impediment to the rapid deletion of content from Wikipedia which they do not approve of. These people have forgotten that writing an encyclopedia is a process that requires time, thought, and deliberation, and that developing consensus even more so. Roadblocks to doing anything rapidly in Wikipedia are a good thing, and as such this particular roadblock serves an important purpose and should therefore be kept notwithstanding the (mostly bankrupt) arguments for not keeping it. Also, allegations that this is a "votestacking" device are without any question made in bad faith and are made without regard to the fact that the project responsible for it explicitly disavows any sort of votestacking and also the complete lack of any evidence for such accusations; "delete" recommendations on that basis should therefore be ignored and those making them chastised severely. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Benjiboi 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)