Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive359

Persistant harassment & vandalism

Resolved

Page protected.

Ever since User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was banned for gross incivility, I've been the victim of substantial harassment and vandalism. A few of the highlights:

• Talkpage - Rynort claims ownership of vanadlism
• Userpage vandalism 1
• Userpage vandalism 2
• Userpage vandalism 3
• Talkpage vandalism 1
• Talkpage vandalism 2
• Talkpage vandalism 3
• Talkpage vandalism 4
• Talkpage vandalism 5
• Talkpage vandalism 6 (rynort)
• Talkpage vandalism 7
• Talkpage troll 1
• Talkpage troll 2

The violations are fairly severe (especially the anti-semitism) and make my Wikipedia experience unpleasant, especially given my history with the project. Any help would be appreciated. I also know that Croctotheface (talk · contribs) has also been victim of some of the harassment as well. Thanks! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked your talkpage history and noted very few ip's involved, so I have sprotected for 7 days. If you want the sprotect lifted or reduced then let me (or another sysop) know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User Donchev -- 3RR, single purpose account and accusations of racism

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

This user has managed in his short history on WP to infringe 3RR and to accuse people of racism. I would have reported him for 3RR infringement, but this is a more serious case I think. Sorry if I put this in a wrong place. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of RFC

As this RfC has as its purpose a community ban, I feel it best to direct ye to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3

It involves Whig (talk · contribs)

Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it involved the Whigs. Thanks for the clarification! El_C 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, had to get template {{user}} in somehow =P Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Donmardon (talk · contribs · count) and personal attacks

Donmardon is making personal attacks on Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes.[1] [2]The attacks will likely get worse and start being directed at me specifically rather than everyone. If an admin needs something to do, could you please keep an eye on him? Thanks. NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also over at Talk:Worms: A Space Oddity [3]. They clearly aren't here to contribute constructively. NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will warn him. Smith Jones (talk)`

I'm sure that will be taken on board appropriately. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First edit [4], and indeed subsequent ones, indicate an account created by someone already experienced here that our Assume blind faith to the point of putting your head in the sand policy means we will now ignore until they are inevitably blocked anyway, as their disruption increases. Hi Ho. No edits recently so not a lot more to do for the time being Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Smith Jones getting so involved with sorting out disputes here? He's a new user, who currently has a warning for incivility on his own talk page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not a newbie user. I checked his contributions and stopped at a year. And he has just as much right to try and help as anyone else. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Donmardon (talk · contribs · count), please. I reverted their removal of a redirect and explained the problem to them. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse and Vandalism by IP: 71.110.255.19

The above IP has placed an abusive and rather vulgar statement on my user talk page. It was promptly removed but you can view this by looking at the page's history. Also, the same user put a degrading and insulting comment on his talk page in response to my request / warning of writing abusive things on article discussion pages. Based on the spelling errors and abrasive language style, I believe without doubt that this IP is indeed banned user Paul Barresi. He has also put several different times comments on the Paul Barresi article discussion page. One comment is still there. Several others have been blanked by other editors. I am requesting that this IP be banned and that user Paul Barresi's current ban be extended. I also request that discussion page for article Paul Barresi be sem-protcted to avoid further abusive comments. Thank you. Fuzzyred (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 31 hours but as I don't know Paul Barresi's editing style I'm not happy wextending the block without some evidence. Perhaps another admin whi is more familiar with the situation might do the honours? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I just deleted an article for being vandalism and having personal information in it. However, as the personal information is in the title, what should be done about it? Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFO. Mercury (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think oversight removed it from the logs, does it? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Except now it's present in every revision of this noticeboard page until someone thinks to remove it... – Gurch 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you FT2 and Gurch. Could someone oversight the revisions of the noticeboard? Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I've asked on #wikimedia-tech about removing it from the log, there isn't much concern since the title itself is not attached to any name or other info and the number seems to be a spam number based on a Google search. Mr.Z-man 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think whatever maneuver was just done here temporarily crashed the site, or it was something else. One or the other for sure. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something definitely did crash it. Malinaccier (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had one of those too, but the wheels fell off. Orderinchaos 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Billy Murray

Resolved

BillyMurray (talk · contribs) This user keeps removing sourced stuff from Tom Cruise, using, for example edit summaries such as "there's nothing to discuss, articles are not a dumping ground for every random sensational remark about a celebrity". He has already been invited by User:Luna Santin and myself to discuss this on the article's talk page, but insists on acting without consensus. As you might guess, I'm pretty stressed out after this past week, and I'm tired of reverting him, so I'd be glad if someone else would advise this editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Already in hand --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Danny Daniel

This user has been blocked for multiple cases of sock-puppetry. This is a long-term issue with the user. He (gender assumption based on the names) periodically pops up with new socks. I'm not sure how many admins are familiar with his cases. An archived case by me is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel, another editor opened a second case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel (2nd nomination), and a third editor kept a trail of information at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Some of these are outdated with most current information, it's a little wearisome keeping up.

Today I noticed List of The AnimeLand characters (and previously deleted at least once, see the log), created by an SSP under the same motives as listed. I've tagged it for speedy under G5 (banned user), but it occurs to me that the editor has not been formally banned. He's just been chased down and his socks have been repeatedly blocked. It gets a little tiresome, and I think I realize there is not much that can really be done, other than vigilance, but that is the point of my posting: is there anything that can be done? Yngvarr 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue: mock-impersonation

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vigorously persuing his Assyrianist agenda. He now turned to mock-impersonating opponents. I believe that this 'translation' on Talk:Syriacs should be regarded as intolerable incivility. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not me pursuing an Assyrianist agenda. What's going on here is that we have a serious case of sockvandals running around and putting in dubious sources in the articles, and they are pursuing a religious agenda without any valid sources. They use examples such as Megalommatis, and so on. I will take this to arbitration, because I've had enough of trying to keep these articles on a serious encyclopaedic level. Oh and Pieter Kuiper here above needs to get a warning for WP:STALK, by the way. As for Benne, I was just describing what his agenda is here on Wikipedia. You can check up his edit history if you don't believe me, none of it is productive or contributing anything whatsoever to Wikipedia. All he has been engaged in is revert wars, prety much. That is pretty much his entire edit history summarised. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i ahve listed the relevent policies on both of your talk pages. please read them and ry harder to cfollow them in the futurue. Smith Jones (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:TeriBauer.jpg

Resolved

 – Deleted

Please delete as the image is a copyvio, and fair use rational deadline has expired.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats of off-wiki "investigation"

Resolved

 – Pol64 indefinitely blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This declaration of intent by User:Pol64 to "investigate" editors off-wiki strikes me as an attempt to intimidate. This isn't the first time this editor has used language indicitive of being on a mission, and routinely fails to assume good faith while labelling and threatening other editors as a part of that crusade.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Regardless of the goal, these types of labelling and threats seem to violate several Wikipolicies. As per a previous discussion about this editor on this board,[26] it should be raised here again. Pairadox (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is VigilancePrime, , a good mate of Pairadox, who calls admins vandals, attacks good users and nobody does anything. Dioes wikipedia want to support these pedophole activists? Or not? I nhave done nothing than contradicts policy and if Pairadox, a good mate of Vigilance, wishes to claim otherwise there is rfc for that. I am a free persona nd off wikipedia nobody can stop me pursuing my legal path, i am an ex copper and if I see suspicious activity I do somethiong about it and pedophilia is against the lawPol64 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked on my talk page, but I guess I can ask here too. I have yet to understand where these comments about pedophilia come from? Incidentally, a typo meant the above userlink didnt work, so it is here: VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hope you don't mind me correcting your link, Pol. SGGH ^speak! 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i understadn both of your concerns but wikiepdia is not the place to pursue a personal or legal crusades. please do not issue legal threats; it is a waste of time and a possible violation of WP:AGF, and it's frowned up on in wikipedia. if you really think that another user is a danger to other people you should not try to handle it on wikipedia because there is really nothing the admins here can do to stop someone. The policies that you are violating are WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as WP:LEGAL. 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The disgusting comments by Pol64 have no place here, and should either be retracted, or the User blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Corvus cornix. (But this never seems to happen.) VigilancePrime (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to score points, so please don't do that. Corvus cornix_talk 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats or declarations are not allowed on Wikipedia, pure and simple. Unless Pol64 retracts her intention to investigate other editors, there's ample justification and precedent in WikiHistory for a block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These comments by Pol64 are instructive about the style of willy-nilly personal accusations the user has been making. ^Avruchtalk 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• And this one [27]
• Following up on [28] ^Avruchtalk 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of those last to, I move for a block, strongly against wikipedias policies. SGGH ^speak! 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Policeman

Some time ago, I reported Pol64 for his accusations of pedophilia and criminal activity towards other editors. Rather bewilderingly, there was not any action taken against this editor. That said, his most recent behaviour (now targeted towards myself) is really concerning me, as he seems to be threatening to engage legal action against an innocent person, due to some suspicion of his. Pol64 has explicitly stated that he wants to police and investigate other Wikipedians.

The following diffs, I see as legal threats, based only on suspicion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GroomingVictim&diff=prev&oldid=187355983 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GroomingVictim&diff=prev&oldid=187361548

Then Pol64 accuses a far more experienced and subjectively unbiased editor of being a "Pedophile Advocate" (supposedly after he voted to keep a WP:PAW article): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pol64&diff=prev&oldid=187361041

Again, I STRESS, that we cannot be having this kind of behaviour on such a sensitive topic. I have already revealed personal details, and with another editor threatening to expose those who it seems he sees as pedophile advocates (in some vague, contrived, noncewatch fashion), someone could end up getting a brick through their window (and yes, as someone who has worked in child advocacy, I have come close to a personal experience of this). The best outcome from all of this, is that yet more nonhysterical editors get scared off editing PAW articles, leaving that section of the site under the control of a self-described "anti-pedophile activist" and those who he does not pursue with legal threats and insidious character baiting. GrooV (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That second diff is an attack on me. Pol64 states above that he is an ex-police officer and again states that "pedophilia is against the law" it obviously is, but I believe this statement to be a direct threat against other users he seems to believe to be pedophiles. From my position in life, I know that using "I'm an ex-police officer" is almost always a threat. I agree with GrooV. SGGH ^speak! 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We ban pedophiles from self identifying, I dont think we should police officers from doing so but if you believe we should a policy page is where you need to be, not here. The idea that the average editor would have fear of the police is outrageous. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, I think he is referring to the "pedophilia is against the law" and the implied threat that since Pol64 is a police officerm he would try to point the finger at SGGH as such. There's no need to fear a police officer if you are innocent, but at the same time, to toss around blatant accusations is a deliberate violation of WP:AGF for one and a personal attack for two. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice the attempts by Pol64 to invoke guilt by association, twice, by labelling Vigilance and me "good mates." In fact, the last time I communicated with VigilancePrime was on January 22[29] to indicate that I was disengaging from the "train wreck." Most of our prior back-and-forth has actually been about the BIG ORANGE BANNER on my talk page. Pairadox (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend everything Pol does here, no way, indeed I have counselled him enough to calm down and be civil (via email), my point is that we should not fear the police per se (and God knows I am haven't been the most legal person on this plant, cough, cough). I have written to him telling him it isn't a good idea to make what might be construed as legal threats. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't fear the police, you could say I have a healthy cultivated respect for them. I am not stating that we shouldn't reveal who police officers are (check my user page!) I am staying that using the fact that you are a police officer to strike fear into people whom you believe to be offenders when you have no real grounds to do so, is against policy. Pol has a number of prior warnings which I have noticed he deletes from his userpage about this. I apologise if my statement was confusing. SGGH ^speak! 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And personally, I can't believe any actual police officer would make statements like link 147 in the section immediately above. SGGH ^speak! 02:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I consider threats like the ones cited above, to be reason enough for a permanent ban of Pol64 from wikipedia, under our usual interpretation of such behavior here. I'll be glad to do the block, if there is support for it. DGG (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT - There is. I for one could do without the accusations, attacks, and threats. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need consensus? I think that he should receive indefinite on policy grounds. GrooV (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It has just occured to me that Pol may mean police (fool I am) perhaps a deliberate troll? Regardless, such threats and the stuff of bans or at least a long block. Before it is instigated, I might just go and check how many warnings he has had for further grounds. Give me 5? SGGH ^speak! 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We have...

• 2 bot warnings
• sockpuppet block by User:WJBscribe, Squeakbox gives Pol advice on this, good advice too.
• a mediation case related to pedophilia topics
• 3RR block
• AN/I by GrooV
• A NPA warn from Vigilance
• Another from User:Seicer
• Another mediation call from User:Ryan Postlethwaite
• More NPA warns from Pairadox

Then after that I visit for the first time regarding blanking of a page being considered at MfD. That's a long trail so it seems to be a recurring problem. NPA warnings are the first port of call for someone reacting to this kind of "police officer investigating" things I would imagine? SGGH ^speak! 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SGGH, did you check the history or just the visible text? I suspect that if the history is examined more warnings, might show up, as this set of editors seems to be fond of warnings and blankings. Pairadox (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The history. Pol has removed content from her talk page on a couple of occasions, including past warnings. I have also just noticed this which seems... threatening... SGGH ^speak! 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE LEGAL THREATS PELASE. Clear violation of WP:LEGAL. you coudl be blocked for this, so please stop it. Smith Jones (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need concensus, I feel indef-blocking is the only option, I would do it myself but I am wincing at the sound of approaching neutrality accusations and an RFC that Pol seemed to be cooking up for me with Squeak, so I think someone else ought to do it if that's okay. DDG was somewhere a minutr ago. SGGH ^speak! 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a question of "who will block the "good guy""? GrooV (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He needs to be blocked, shall I just get it done and worrying about Squeaks RFC another time? SGGH ^speak! 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait for someone who is uninvolved, there is no rush at the moment. ^Avruchtalk 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I thought. Thanks Avruch SGGH ^speak! 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you yelling at, Smith Jones? Corvus cornix_talk 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he dislikes Pol64. GrooV (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to indef block Pol yet User:Blnguyen blocked him for a week before my block went through. I think that block may need to be extended. Any thoughts?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... ye-es. She has stated her activist intentions from the start, and has ignored previous warnings, most notably my own on this board. If unblocked, the same behaviour patterns will just repeat. I would advise an indefinite user and IP block (note that this user has abused their IP as a sock in the past). GrooV (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Typically IPs aren't blocked indefinitely (although I've seem some indef'd TOR nodes). Escalating blocks aren't necessarily a bad idea, to see if Pol64 responds and contributes constructively. She could simply be quickly reblocked if not. ^Avruchtalk 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - block is totally justified. Just look at some comments from Pol today. Past warnings have never worked. That, to most, should demonstrate that behavior is unlikely to change at all. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen is ok with extending it[30]. Is the consensus to indef? I will be glad to do it if that is the consensus.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (yet, hopefully in due time I'm lucky enough to have earned the right to be so), and I'm in volved as to I've added my $.02 in the discussion, but barely, however being a frequent editor and someone who tends to leave his POV at the door when I edit, these edits by Pol64 are a gross violation of WP:NPA and warrant an indefinite block. I'm surprised it's taken this long to do so in all honesty. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pol64 is now indefinitely blocked.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The banning of an anti-pedophile activist while tolerating pro-pedophile activists is noted. Good job to suport freedom, eh. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You know quite well that the block was not because of Pol's "anti-pedophile activism" and entirely due to her behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Corvus cornix here, an uninvolved admin (me) extended the block of another admin right after another admin said he would do the block. The block was based on the actions, not on any beliefs that the user in question has.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak are you saying that since Pol64 was anti-pedophile, she should be allowed to say the rather vicious and uncalled for personal attacks that she did? Say what you will about the "activists" but that was some rather blatant name-calling and ad hominum attacks there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay tuned

For the exciting conclusion of WIKIPEDIA, the worlds most boring and painfully addictive drama. [[Satan|DARK ALCHEMY]] (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark Alchemy (talk · contribs) = troll. Corvus cornix_talk 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...but it was still pretty funny... VigilancePrime (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC) :-D

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

Chronic canvassing by VigilancePrime disrupts another deletion discussion

Resolved

 – Page deleted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Albert Wincentz‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:HolokittyNX‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Homologeo‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Ospinad‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Ssbohio‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB)
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pairadox‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Tijuana Brass‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
• 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:TlatoSMD‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]

The above are all editors involved in a contentious series of content disputes with SqueakBox (the AfD, DRV and associated MfDs have been here a few times before).

This is from an editor who has been blocked for disruptive canvassing before, previously about an AfD and this time relating to a MfD about a userpage that is a storage of links and descriptions against User:SqueakBox (found here). Since the vote stacking has already had its effect, can an admin review this to decide whether the MfD should begin again or the page qualifies as a CSD attack page? Thanks ^Avruchtalk 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. The original block was short-tempered and that admin has stated that he would have handled it differently. Nice try, though, attempting to create a history.

On this issue, read the notes. The messages were PAINFULLY neutral. Hence, not canvassing.

Please stop trying to blow up these things out of proportion. This is really a simple matter. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. GrooV (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

its likely that if the afd drv overtursns that we'll see another afd within hours as well. these people think they can do whatever to promote their POV with impunity, attacking others etc. I haven't seen even approaching such a disgrace in my 3 and a half years on the project01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SqueakBox (talk • contribs)

Without trying to bring the entire debate over here, if the DRV is ruled to be overturned, mostly likely the article will be brought back to AfD anyway. This has been a VERY heated and quite ugly debate on both sides, and whomever the admin is that makes the final decision on the AfD, I'd like to buy them a (cyber) drink for their effects no matter how the decision goes. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The canvassing has been disgusting. That is why I am here. After vomiting (I am of a sensitive disposition) I decided it was time to act. Pol64 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly blanking his talk page.

I do not know how to correctly fix this. As you can see, this user has repeatedly removed legitimate content from his talk page, mostly warnings about his uploaded images, but apparently no one has noticed before now. The most powerful anti-vandal tool I have available is rollback, which is of no use in this case. Is there any admin tool that can remove all edits to a page by a particular user? Also, this guy may need to be blocked, but I am not experienced enough to know if his offenses warrent blocking. If you wish to make a comment directed at me, please leave it on my talk page, as I will probably not be back here soon. (I'm not even positive this is the right place to report this, if it's not, please lemmeknow.)
Thanks for your help.
J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine in terms or reporting it here. I can understand the user removing "image orphan" tags, because they can become an annoying clutter, though he could just archive them. Incidentally I have just had to clear off some IP vandalism from his page. Have you attempted to contact the user and ascertain why he is blanking his page? Perhaps he is not aware of guidelines, or the archiving system? SGGH ^speak! 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Guidelines" indicate that there is no problem with an editor blanking their own talk page - Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. Pairadox (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pairadox, he removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history, you may want to ask the user to archive the content instead of blanking it. Tiptoety ^talk 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If user J.delanoy misunderstands user-talk removal after the user has read the message as being vandalism, is not "experienced" and "not even positive" where to report incidents and thinks a user "may" need to be blocked, then how exactly was J.Delanoy granted the rollback capability? Seems like a "powerful anti-vandal tool" may have been put in the wrong hands... Hopefully the user means "Undo" as opposed to rollback. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User does have rollback rights [31]. Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Thegingerone engaging in disruption on Wikipedia again

Thegingerone is engaging in a series of edit wars and reversion tactics over a long span in People to People Student Ambassador Program. This is the latest disruptive behavior by thegingerone in a long history of similar actions on Wikipedia.

User has been blocked before [[32]] for vandalism in Victoria Beckham, proceeded again to vandalize and was warned here [[33]], engaged in a 3RR violation and was warned on edit warring [34] on Ben Bledsoe, engaged in vandalism in multiple other pages and was warned [35], proceeded to continue vandalization [36], and then provoked another edit war warning and a block request in the Mickey Mouse Club [37].

User has engaged in protracted reversion warring and other tactics going back several months on People to People Student Ambassador Program to introduce a negative POV despite dozens of contributions from other editors to make the tone more neutral. User has also methodically deleted cited evidence that conflict with her POV that program is a scam. Her latest actions include these wholesale reversions despite acknowledging herself that some of the interim contributions she deleted were "fine" and "ok".[38] [39] Spelling error corrections and proper hyphenation, among other minor edits, have even been reverted in her wholesale undo campaign.[40]. User has not tried to incorporate constructive edits and useful new material, and has instead reverted several editors' contributions when they do not fit her POV.

User has been asked politely to cease unnecessary, wholesale reversions and to engage in collaborative editing (warnings/requests made here in the article's talk page [41] and on her own talk page here twice [42][43]. I believe a block on the user would allow other editors to improve the article and stop user's attempts to frustrate via reversions the evolution of additional information.

Other users have also noted that other improvements in the article and attempts over the last few months at NPOV presentation have been repeatedly deleted. See comment by user:lmalady1951 here [44] and by user:swissmiss321 here [45] —Preceding Bloombergy (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In defense of User:Thegingerone, I would have to say that he is just a hot tempered younger editor/contributor who is trying to exercise good faith to protect an article that has come under some huge attack by a group of individuals who would try to make this into a glowing positive P.R. release that might as well have been written by the organization itself. I'm trying to work with those who are editing the article in order to turn it into something that conforms with WP:NPOV guidelines, but trying to make that work has been somewhat difficult.

Certainly there is an edit war in progress right now, but it isn't entirely one sided as is suggested above. Don't perform a knee jerk reaction to this editor until you have seen what is going on.

As for the culling of comments on the talk page.... it was done in response to a comment I made on Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program. Some significant comments were added to the talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with writing the article, and were only tangentially even related to the article and were more of a program endorsement and a blog entry. IMHO, most of these deleted comments on the talk page needed to go, and this user certainly isn't trying to squelch legitimate discussion about the article itself. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jazzoj6

Resolved

 – Account blocked and tagged. nat.utoronto 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jazzoj6 is a reincarnation of an indefinitely banned user, Jazzoj5, who was banned for uploading copyrighted images with misleading licenses. Now, Jazzoj6 is doing the same, inserting images of varying levels of nudity in articles. --Mosmof (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anonymous (activist group)

Resolved

 – User Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Anonymous (activist group) (talk · contribs) is up to, but beside vandalism, they uploaded over a million bytes of material to the Sandbox, which I didn't even want to try to look at to see what they were doing. Corvus cornix_talk 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just block now. Beaten to it. Wizardman 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it. Tiptoety ^talk 05:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions of User:Reino Helismaa

Resolved

High-level warning given by Corvus cornix. Orderinchaos 12:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Plz, take the attention for Reino Helismaa (talk · contribs). His ru-wiki account ru:User:Reino Helismaa(block log) was blocked by me (as ru-wiki-sysop ru:User:Alex Spade) for a month, because his vandalism and sock puppets: ru:User:87.240.15.25(block log), ru:User:Pmmm(block log), ru:User:Hiljainen Soittaja(block log).

After that he have started to change the personal page/information in En-Wiki.

• [46], [47], [48] - assertive changes of my attribution.
• [49] - change of my language status.
• [50], [51] - the non-authorised upload of my photoportrait. (1) He is not author - this image was created in 2003 on Starcon-2003 (annual Russian Star Wars fans gathering) by another. (2) I'm not АЛЕКС СПАДЕ (or Алекс Спаде). My pseudonym is Alex Spade (Latin) or Алекс Спейд (Cyrillic) and nothing else - this is my attribution and only these variants of pseudonym is permitted. Alex Spade (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Заблокировали меня не Вы, а администратор Кalan, на срок до 6-го января. Вы лишь совершенно произвольно переблокировали на бОльший срок, чем предусмотрено правилами, без соответствующего решения АК; по электронной почте присылали оскорбительные письма с угрозой бессрочной блокировки. Так что не надо врать.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No hablamos ruso aquí. Hable inglés por favor. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservation for removal of misunderstanding. I haven't been asking to analize and take into consideration actions of ru:User:Reino Helismaa in Ru-Wiki - this is just a prehistory. I am asking to analize only five actions, which are mentioned above, in accordance to Wikipedia:Civility in point "Defacing user pages" and some others. Alex Spade (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of at least attempting to understand the above statement by Reino, I ran his text through Babelfish. Here's what it gave me. Do with it what you will:

• Blocked me not you, but administrator k.alan, for the period up to 6th January. You only completely arbitrarily interlocked for larger period than it is provided by rules, without the appropriate solution OF AK; insulting letters with the threat of termless blocking sent on the electronic mail. So that it is not necessary to lie. <--- babelfish translation of above.

That's all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If en-wiki-sysops are interested in more commentaries - why and how much times was Reino Helismaa blocked in Ru-Wiki - the brief review can be given. Alex Spade (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to, I am not sure it will inform here, and can only serve to bias admins from making a neutral assessment of the situation. For the record, I gave him a stern warning at his talk page about vandalising other people's user pages. I consider that such a warning is sufficient action at this point. If he returns to vandalise your user page, even once more, or does so to any other user, a block will be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a few interactions with this editor, who has been creating Finnish-language articles on the English Wikipedia, has uploaded a lot of images without valid copyright statuses, and doesn't respond to messages on his Talk page. He may have a communication problem, but the problems with him are escalating. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate, and refusal to acknowledge and react to warnings is still blockable as disruptive. If a user is warned, and the behavior continues, why not block? I have no idea if this is warrented here, but just a general statement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Извините, что пишу по-русски, просто писать длинные тексты по-английски я к сожалению не умею.

Итак, попытаюсь объективно объяснить суть своего конфликта с Alex Spade. Первый раз он заблокировал меня ещё в сентябре прошлого года за то что я переименовал статью "Элвис Пресли" в "Пресли, Элвис" согласно правилам именования статей о персоналиях в русской Википедии (Фамилия, Имя), правда сделал это не совсем правильно, вручную перенеся содержимое страницы, уничтожив историю правок [52]. Однако он мог пояснить мне, как правильно переименовывать статьи, вместо этого он расценил это как вандализм и тут же меня заблокировал без предупреждения.

В следующий раз он заблокировал меня 9 декабря за то что я попытался заменить английские шаблоны быстрого удаления на русские, сочтя что в русской Википедии они более уместны [53] [54] [55]. Надо сказать, многие участники русской Википедии были недовольны таким решением (например Udacha, Silent1936 и многие другие, см. тут и тут).

Затем, уже после завершения этой блокировки, с моей стороны имело место нарушение ВП:ВИРТ. Однако за нарушение этого правила блокировка налагается до завершения голосования, в котором было нарушено правило. В данном случае голосование, в котором я нарушил правило, закончилось 6 января этого года, следовательно, максимально допустимый срок блокировки - до 6 января. Администратор Kalan заблокировал меня именно на такой срок, но Alex Spade переблокировал меня на больший срок без соответствующего решения Арбитражного Комитета, в нарушение всяких правил. После этого я отпраил ему письмо по электронной почте, пытаясь объяснить недопустимость такого самоуправства, однако он отказал, не приведя никаких аргументов. Тогда я снова отправил письмо, и он снова отказал - и снова не привёл аргументов. В третий раз он прислал мне письмо, состоящее только из одних угроз и оскорблений, и дал понять, что дальше обсуждать ничего не намерен. Затем я отправил ещё несколько писем, на которые он не ответил. Тогда я был просто ВЫНУЖДЕН несколько раз вандализировать его личную страницу на Викискладе и здесь, надеясь хотя бы таким образом принудить его объяснять свои действия. Однако, как видно, даже это не помогло.

P.S. Кстати, ещё до Нового Года я писал об этом в финской Википедии (см. здесь), и там несколько участников также согласились с недопустимостью того что делает Alex Spade.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Isn't there some sort of 'For God's sake use English' clause while communicating here?) HalfShadow (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Translation, courtesy Google. Diffs go to the Russian Wikipedia, and VP:VIRT was linked to our WP:SOCK, so I re-added that link. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I write in Russian, simply write lengthy texts in English unfortunately, I can not.

So, try to objectively explain the essence of their conflict with Alex Spade. The first time he blocked me back in September last year for an article that I changed the "Elvis Presley" to the "Presley, Elvis' according to the naming articles on the personalities in the Russian Wikipedia (Name), but did so not entirely correct, manually moving content of the page, destroying history of edits [56]. But he could explain to me how to rename the article, instead it is regarded as vandalism and immediately blocked me without warning.

The next time he blocked me on 9 December for what I have tried to replace the British templates for quick removal of Russian, finding that the Russian Wikipedia they fit better [57] [58] [59]. Indeed, many participants were dissatisfied with the Russian Wikipedia such a decision (eg Udacha, Silent1936 and many others, see here и here).

Then, after the completion of the lock, with my hand there has been a violation VP:VIRT. But for the breach of the rules imposed by blocking until the voting, in which the rule has been violated. In this case the vote, in which I broke a rule, ended on 6 January of this year, therefore, the maximum allowable term of the lock - until January 6. Administrator Kalan blocked me for that period, but Alex Spade pereblokiroval me at the longer term without a decision by the Arbitration Committee, in violation of any rules. After that I otprail him a letter by e-mail, trying to explain the inadmissibility of such arbitrariness, but he refused, not giving any reasons. Then again, I sent a letter, and he refused again - and again gave no arguments. For the third time, he sent me a letter, consisting only of some threats and insults, and made it clear that he did not discuss further intends. Then I sent several more letters, which he had not responded. Then I was just VYNUZHDEN several times vandalizirovat his personal page on Vikisklade here, hoping at least thus forcing him to explain his actions. But, as you can see, even this did not help.

P.S. Actually, even before the New Year, I wrote about it in the Finnish Wikipedia (see here), where several participants also agreed on the avoidance of what makes Alex Spade .-- Reino Helismaa (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still uploading improperly sourced and copyrighted images, and when others tag the images, he removes the tag - [60]. Corvus cornix_talk 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I read this right? Did Reino just say "several times vandalizirovat his personal page on Vikisklade here, hoping at least thus forcing him to explain his actions." He admits to vandalising? Jeez... Also, I am leaving the "please use english" warning. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing Google translate, it could be a mangled translation with words in a weird order. I might leave a note on a Russian-speaking admin's page and see if he can help. Orderinchaos 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is more or less correct translation. The user writes that he "has to vandalize a commons page of Alex Spade to draw his attention to..." Obviously it is a wrong behavior. While disruptive behavior of the user on ru-wiki and commons is not the reason to block him here it is obviously a significant warning sign. If the user would be a problem here I propose an indefinete ban. If he will be a good wikipedian here, then lets wish him a happy editing. The rationale problem is probably a newbee mistake, ru-wiki does not require specific rationales and the user assumed the same is true here Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming - and agreed with your comments. Orderinchaos 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To Corvus cornix: [61]--Reino Helismaa (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing deletion tags. You have to provide a fair use rationale, which you still don't do on any of your uploads. Corvus cornix_talk 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have issued Reino Helismaa a uw-v4 warning for removing the {{deletable image-caption}} tag rom Masa Niemi even though he has yet to provide a valid fair use rationale. Corvus cornix_talk 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:KellyAna

This issue is regarding KellyAna. I’m requesting some admins to look into this issue, as I’m getting tired of dealing with her. KellyAna and I have a very bad history, see here[62],[63],[64]. A brief on the issue: Our dispute on the Las Vegas TV page ended a couple of days ago, when I decided to leave the site, to work on other sites that had well knowledge editors. Everyone dealing with the Las Vegas dispute stop arguing and moved on, besides KellyAna. She has continued to harass myself and now my relatives. KellyAna has now contacted another admin. Gogo Dodo because of this issue, as she has with several other admins, most of which discarded it because she started the issue. You can check several talk pages where other admins have been disgusted with KellyAna comments and games she plays. Now, KellyAna has been off Wiki, because she claims she was in Daytona. However, the minute she returns she attacks my brother’s talk page. She claims she was trying to help but what she says on her talk page [65] and Blackwatch21’s [66] is nothing but threats and intimation to a new user. One statement from her says, “I can certainly "intrude" in ways that would get you in trouble”. I wouldn’t call that helping. If you look at their history (KellyAna/Irishlass), I counted 6 to 7 new users that they threaten, warn, double team, or intimate. Now I’m pretty sure Wikipedia doesn’t want users acting that way to new users joining the site. That’s very unprofessional coming from a professional person KellyAna claims to be. Now that’s the only reason we (KellyAna and myself) came back into contact, is because I saw her mean, unnecessary comments on Blackwatch21’s talk page. As for Blackwatch21, YES that is my younger brother joining Wikipedia. Now KellyAna can call it what she wants, I really don’t care. I’m sure ¾ of Wiki users have relatives that have Wikipedia accounts. As for the comment I sent to KellyAna, which I’m sure she will mention, was nothing more than me pleading not to make this an issue again but with the type of person she is, she calls it harassment. I just wish that someone would block her, as I’m getting tired of dealing with this. Everyone from the BIG Las Vegas dispute has stopped arguing except for KellyAna. Again I apologize for this issue. I’m trying to make this issue go away, but that’s hard when you’re dealing with troublemakers. If anyone has some advice or actions they could take, that would help a lot. I’m willing to answer any questions or add more info if needed. Like I said, you can read several talk pages that I referenced that shows the history between KellyAna and I. Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to include that, all I'm asking is for someone to tell her to leave me alone. Gogo Dodo has asked us to go our separate ways, that's what I want and again another admin has come to the conclusion to drop the issue. However, normally this is when KellyAna goes off to another admin and brings up the issue all over again. See here [67] for Gogo Dodo's comments on the issue. I aggree with his/her conclusion but KellyAna normally doesn't listen. --DJS24 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Gogo Dodo Gogo Dodo, this has absolutly NOTHING to do with the Las Vegas article, as you can clearly see I have not touched the article since last weekend and have no desre but DJS24 claims I "had to get the last word" when it is clear I moved on last weekend. He then claims I "harassed" his relatives when it was impossible for me to know that there was any relation. I warned someone to remove logos and he jumped on my page. I did not contact him, I still haven't. I came to a neutral third party for advice and he started things up AGAIN. There is an obvious issue here and I'm not the one with it. He makes several false claims which I could point out here but won't. I just wanted your advice as to what to do, but he had to make it a big deal obviously following me around AGAIN. I have been calm and have ignored him, for the most part. Truly, how was I to know they were related? Truly, why was it wrong to tell someone to remove illegal logos on their page? I replied to Blackwatch only after he came to my page followed by DJS24. You'll see, if you truly look into the situation, I'm by and far not the instigator in any of this. I'm copying most of this to the reported incident and will show history that DJS24 is clearly instigating the problems ever since the creation of the sock last weekend. That's my reply this morning to the falsehoods in all of this. I dropped the whole Las Vegas issue and have not even been on DJS24's page but he did come to mine. I had gone to a page to ask for help and clarification on a scab writer for soaps, where I saw a request for "anyone who can help" from another user. I went to that person's page and saw illegal uploads of copyrighted team logos and gently warned/advised the person they should remove them. He replied and told me to stay out of it. I simply explained, on my page, that I was only trying to help him when I could have simply reported the issue, which I could have. He then claims I followed him, when I was clearly lead there by another page User talk:IrishLass0128. The warning was nothing more than to remove illegal logos, which he actually apparently uploaded twice from what I can see and after he was warned by an admin.

The crux of all this is last weekend, DJS24 created a sock who claimed to be a former admin whose account was hacked and jumped in and backed his argument. I caught them and one account was blocked [68] and DJS24 was warned [69]. Yesterday I did ask for advice from an admin rather than creating a report. I actually didn't know Gogo Dodo was an admin when I went to his page, just saw his warning and had worked with him on some Survivor pages. A few minutes after I requested help from Gogo Dodo, and when I could have possibly had no knowledge of any relation, DJS came to my page. I did not go to his as he claims. I have not gone to his page since well before he received the sock warnings. He's the one making this an issue, I've not edited any page with him on it nor have I gone to his page or that of CarsGm5, his blocked sock. I have been very open in this, since last weekend when I reported CarsGm5. DJS24, however, has not been as forthcoming and has been the instigator since last weekend even clouding the true issue on Gogo Dodo's page by bringing up the dead Las Vegas issue, making personal attacks, false claims, and repeatedly implying I'm a troublemaker by simply warning someone about illegal uploads. I assumed good faith with that simple warning, that's not being a troublemaker, that's trying to help a new person not get in trouble. KellyAna (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you need to drop the words “personal attack", your not going to get far in life if you think everything is a personal attack. Everything I say, you accuse me of a personal attack. I would also advise you, for your benefit to drop the sock claim, that issue goes very deep, to where you no nothing about. Also, the person that blocked CarsGm5, seems to have a possible relation w/ KellyAna [70]. As I've shown above, the comments from KellyAna to Blackwatch21 were comments to scare, threat, and intimate a new user. Far from helping one. After I saw the comments, as it is my brother's page, sent some comments to Blackwatch21's page to advise him not to get involved in KellyAna. As I know her history and past, and I didn't want her to be the first editor he came into contact with because of this issue right here. KellyAna calls that a personal attack, but I could say HI to her and she would call that a personal attack. It is true, she hasn't sent me anything, instead she's sneaking around talk bad about me to admins. That’s when I sent her a message ASKING to stop this. She calls that harassment (No surprise) and now reports it as me being an instigator. I don't know how I can be an instigator when I'm asking her to stop the issue. This issue has NOTHING to do with the Las Vegas page, as I left that dispute days before KellyAna did. This issue is dealing with a user that won't leave me alone and gets off on scaring new users. Also, let me point out, she seems not to care about,Gogo Dodo the admin who came to a conclusion to drop this issue. She just continues to make this a bigger issue.--DJS24 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be the one telling me to drop anything as the evidence is in my favor that you have followed me around when I asked for advice from another editor, lied about you dropping the Las Vegas issue before me [71] as history shows you clearly have three talk edits after me and Blackwatch even has two and revision history shows I have not touched the infobox. I've not dropped the sock issue because that is the heart of this and I've provided links that provide links to your behavior. In this edit [72] you clear disparage my name and make false claims. IrishLass0128 was around all day Thursday and part of Friday, based on edit history, and I didn't get back until last night. And if they are brothers, why communicate who I am and disparage my name here rather than one on one at home? I also believe the claim that I "get off on scaring new users" is a personal attack.

As to the claims of me knowing the admin that blocked CarsGm5, I have no clue what that's about short of grasping for straws. The user that blocked Cars User:FCYTravis is one I've never encountered and lives in Fairbanks Alaska. I live over 5,000 miles from Fairbanks. How we can have a personal relationship or even be accused there of is beyond me. He claims that I should drop this but I'm not the one that brought this issue here or told people it was here. When someone insist on repeatedly making false claims after being told to drop it, one should be allowed to defend herself. KellyAna (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me point out that KellyAna has a big history of dicing around the issue. Half of her argument is this sockpuppet claim. The same claim that she caused and had someone she knows block the accused sockpuppet. User:FCYTravis simply blocked CarsGm5 without proving or providing facts for his actions. The sockpuppet was a claim made by KellyAna and action was taken by someone KellyAna knows. Also let me point out that this sockpuppet claim was a last resort on KellyAna’s part to keep her side of the issue right. This sockpuppet claim was a big issue in the "LAS VEGAS" dispute. The same dispute that KellyAna claims she doesn't talk about anymore. After the Las Vegas dispute, I have been doing nothing but defending myself against her claims. She attacked Blackwatch21's page, I came to defend him. Then she attacks me on Blackwatch21's page, again I defend myself. Then I find her sneaking around to an admin who has no reference on this big issue, and attacks me again. Again I need to defend myself against her. Let me point out, that Gogo Dodo is the 7th admin she has contacted to try to get me in trouble. All the other admins have discarded her claims. I have nothing against Gogo Dodo; they are just another victim of KellyAna’s desperate attempt to get rid of me because I'm the first person to argue with her to this level. I have also tried several times to stop this issue, instead she calls it harassments. This is just another example of how KellyAna has acted throughout this entire dispute. If you read my references, you will see that several admins. have told KellyAna to drop the issue. She has failed to do that. It's obvious that she doesn't care about admin. notices, advise, conclusions or comments. Finally, it’s funny how everything I say is a personal attack, yet she can speak as freely as she wants.--DJS24 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all that has just been said, I find the accusations against User:FCYTravis the most appalling. I've never seen him, dealt with him, or had any contact with him. Saying User:FCYTravis blocked CarsGm5 because he knows me is yet another false statement by DJS24 to attempt to cover his own discretions. I feel confident that the administrators of Wikipedia, if they fully look into this matter will see who is truly at fault. BTW ~ as you can truly see from my contributes on talk pages [73] I've had no contact with FCYTravis and certainly have not talked to 7 admins regarding DJS24. En total I have not dealt with 7 admins. KellyAna (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To all involved, I will repeat what I said to you on my talk page: I suggest that all parties just separate and avoid each other. No more accusations, no last words, no more messages left on each others pages or other editor's pages. If you see one another, go the other way. If the parties really do mean that they wish to step away from the issue, then step away. Continued bickering over who started what, continues to do whatever, or having the last word is not stepping away. Just agree to disagree and move on. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Five comments ago that might have been possible but I do wonder now. He's accused an admin of impropriety and that is beyond acceptable. He's made so many false claims after you told him to stop, he's taken this beyond smiling and moving on. The accusations made in regard to FCYTravis is unacceptable. Creating this "report" after you told him to stop is also an issue. KellyAna (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to stop discusiing this issue and stop talking to KellyAna, I will RIGHT NOW. However I don't think I'm going to be the problem with the conclusion. As from KellyAna's last message, she doesn't seem to want to stop. I'm willing to stop right now. I'm ready. --DJS24 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was opened before Gogo Dodo responded to the issue, review the history.--DJS24 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you not drop it but rather reply after Gogo Dodo replied, you put your link to this on his page after his comment? Regardless, the fact is you accused an admin of impropriety and that should indeed be looked into. KellyAna (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not wrong to question an admin's actions. Again you fail to end this, by now bringing up another new issue. Your now going to put me up against an admin to get your way. You just keep proving my points. You should stop talking, its only hurting you. --DJS24 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a new issue that I brought up, it is one you brought up and I think the admin should know you've done it. It's a false accusation and unfairly leveled toward him. I do hope FCYTravis sees your accusations, he has every right to put you in your place. And again, you speak only falsehoods or maybe mirrorisms is more accurate in your case. It's wrong to question an admin with false claims. Do you have any proof of any form of relation between the admin and I? Have we ever edited the same page, make comments to one another? Has he ever reprimanded me? No to all. Therefore you accusations are not based in fact and should be looked into. Many things you do should be looked in to. KellyAna (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done discussing this until an admin steps in(Gogo Dodo has already, but KellyAna has again failed to listen).I hope Gogo Dodo see's that. I wouldn't be surpised if Kellyana responds, as she always needs to get the last word in. --DJS24 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out to everyone that KellyAna has put her information in the wrong order, as her time clearly comes after DJS24's message. I changed it to show the correct information. I also want to point out, that KellyAna has been a problem on my talk page and has personally attack DJS on several different times on my talk page. It was referenced above. --Blackwatch21 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments returned to original order, I was replying to something and the order was correct where I put it. The comment I replied to was not the last so where I put it was correct. As you can see, there's a questionable issue here, I'm not the one at fault here moving people's comments around to suit personal needs. The "ganging up" by a "relative" is just as unacceptable as sockpuppetry. The situation has gone past assuming good faith when one backs up the other, which is the same situation as last weekend with CarsGm5 before that identity was banned. KellyAna (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for Blackwatch21's comments on this page, obviously as related to me, his comments don't matter. I have advised him not to talk on this page again. He did however notice that KellyAna did put her statement in the false order and has put back in the false order; clearly her time stamp shows that. KellyAna clearly didn't want my statement saying "she needs to get the last word in" to be true. However her, changing the order of words proves that. I'm also seeing now that KellyAna, is trying to pin me against FCYTravis (An admin) in a last effort to try to block me. After FCYTravis block CarsGm5, Cars pointed out some good points on how they might know each other. I have no reason to believe otherwise, as Travis never questioned or disagreed with Cars comments. I'm not questioning Travis's admin duties, I simply don't agree with what he did. KellyAna, can you show me the in rulebook where I can't disagree with an admins choice of actions. Clearly, KellyAna is trying to have FCYtravis come in here mad at me and bully me around, an action that KellyAna would do. However the bigger issue isn't how I disagree with an admins action but how KellyAna is disregarding Gogo Dodo's (An admin) conclusion and request on this issue. The same thing she has done to every other admin that gave a request to stop this. --DJS24 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments go below the statement they are replying to. My comments weren't out of order. There are no "good points" to indicate any relation between myself and Travis, none what so ever. As an admin, Travis has nothing to explain especially when there's no evidence that Cars' accusations have any validity. You do realize, I've never called for your block, while you have clearly called for mine. KellyAna (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of that, but then again you made up the rules as you go. I just wanted to point it out to all the admins that you changed the order of statements to a false order. YES, I have called for your block, as your actions are unacceptable and against all wiki. policies. Please respond, everytime you do, you just prove all my points. --DJS24 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I want everyone to know, that KellyAna has contacted another admin to join the discussion. This just shows how she disregards any admin's requests that don't go in her favor. This is now the 8th admin she has contacted. No surpise, she has contacted FCYTravis, the same admin to side with her before. I don't have a problem with FCYTravis commenting, I just hope any action taken isn't done by FCYTravis. Its clear now, that KellyAna is trying to pin FCYTravis against me, hoping that she finally finds that ONE admin to side with her. PLEASE some other admins respond to this issue, as my fingers are getting tired of typing on this page. --DJS24 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, false information being stated. I contacted FCYTravis when DJS24 made his previous claims. I notified him that his reputation was being questioned. A courtesy anyone being accused should be afforded. As DJS24 did not afford him the consideration, I did. A cursory glance will see it was a simple notification of his name and reputation being brought into the discussion, not a plea to take a side. I am highly curious, where do you get that I've contacted 8 admins when my edit history clearly shows that not to be the case. As for the comment order, I learned that at Village Pump. Confused me at first, but I learned to understand the rules, not make them up as I went along. And does anyone find it odd that first "the brother" points out the order issue and then DJS claims he pointed it out. Another pattern forming again? See [74] for the oops of editing themselves on the wrong page. KellyAna (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where I took credit for finding those statements out of order. I love your quote, "A courtesy anyone being accused should be afforded". I didn't see that same courtesy to me, when you were tossing my name around like a piece of trash to several admins. Again, the more you talk, the more you look bad.--DJS24 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep claiming I talked to several admins, but have no evidence of the fact. I talked to Gogo Dodo once, that was it and you followed me there. Where are all these other admins I talked to? I asked Gogo for advice, I didn't trash your name or not notify you. You started this but never notified me, you brought Travis into this but didn't notify him. I afforded Travis the courtesy to see what you've done to his name. You followed me to Gogo's page. What other admin have I contacted? KellyAna (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all you brought up Travis's name. I may have referenced the issue but never mentioned his name until you did. You were talking on his behalf. You should of told Travis about this because you brought up his name, I didn't until you did. And for this OOPS thing, I'm sorry, I was fixing a word he spelled wrong, he is young. I didn't know I couldn't do that. I can't believe how desperate you are in finding any possible flaws in me. I've already pointed out he is related, so stop mentioning him. You're tring to make a 12 year ago kid's username look bad, you must be proud of yourself. I din't realize you could get that low w/ respect. It doesn't matter how many admins you contacted, review your own history, you'll see them in there. The fact of the matter is, you asked for Gogo Dodo's advice, he/she tells you to drop the issue, and then you pretty much throw his/her comments away and continued to argue w/ me. I have asked, suggested and even tried to stop this issue. Your the one that keeps editing and giving out false claims. I'm just defending myself until a admin steps in. Also let me point out, blackwact21 never asked for this, you went to his talk page and started this up again.--DJS24 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who started what? You started all of this. And you still haven't produced evidence that I contacted 8 admins. I gave your brother a good faith warning, you're the one who then started this. You could have left it at that but didn't. You're the one that has completely escalated all of this with all the falsehoods and blatant lies you stated. KellyAna (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. Both of you, take this elsewhere. This is not an admin issue, it's a pissing contest. GogoDodo had it right—stay away from each other. Horologium (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done addressing this issue, clearly this is another admin that has asked to stop the issue. I will leave it up to other admins to decide the faith of the issue. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely; both of you need to move on. I don't see any big misbehavior here on either side apart from this pointless dispute. In fact, I think you're both asking each other to be left alone. Take your own advice. Don't look through each others' contributions, don't make complaints about each other, don't try to address each others' behavior, just stop. Mangojuice^talk 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, for addressing the issue, it needed to be addressed. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved admin who has sometimes edited articles KellyAna also worked on, and I can say that the tone and attitude this user exhibits is definitely just like what was used here. I'm going to warn KellyAna straight out; if you continue acting in a combative manner, I will have to block for incivility. It's gone long enough. Mike H. Fierce! 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs by User:WikiBakel

Resolved

Unacceptalbe incivility, insults, and ethnic slurs by this user [[75]], [[76]], [[77]]. The remainder of his postings consist of trolling. Users have tried to reason with this guy, but to no avail it seems. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like he has no intention of becoming a good-faith Wikipedian users. Block indef in my opinion. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of material from extremist nationalist website to the discussion page of Cham Albanians [[78]] --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect hit them with RFAR/Macedonia, they won't be around too long if they keep it up. east.718 at 22:43, January 26, 2008

This user continues; personal attack to User talk:Tsourkpk here and to Greek editors here. Furthermore he deleted warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here and instead he replaced it with the same dubious info citing an ultra-nationalistic site. Helladios (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also in the section Editorial Harassement by Greek nationalistic extremists here!!! Helladios (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm it, please, everybody. The stuff from his "illyria" website is pretty poor quality, but that can all be pointed out on talk pages politely and without a lot of fuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing, the user has been blocked for incivility. For further disclosure, despite this admins obvious cracker roots, I am in fact, 1/4 Greek. The user's short stay here has outweighed any benefit or contribution. Any further disruption and it is permanent. the_undertow ^talk 11:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of WP:FAIL

After a discussion about Wikipedia in #Wikipedia-en on IRC, User:Gurch decided to start removing mass amounts of content from WP:FAIL. [79] He disagrees with the opinions of the essay and is upset by it, which was why he originally wrote WP:MNF. In our discussion on IRC, he asked if he could block me for being "an asshole," and was later warned for making that statement. After our discussion was over, he decided to start blanking material from WP:FAIL, by reverting to a far older revision.

I asked him to self-revert because I am not going to bother edit-warring with him. He refused. When I spoke to him about it in IRC, his first response as "LOL," and it was pretty clear that he was acting in bad-faith. To demonstrate bad-faith, I can share the IRC log, although not on Wikipedia, per Undertow's warning here. [80]

Based on this, I also request that his "rollerbacker" rights be taken away for obvious reasons. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, it is not vandalism, it is a content dispute of sorts. You should not assume vandalism from an established editor of the community (especially when the majority of the content he removed was written by you). However, Gurch is misusing rollback, as rollback is only intended for vandalism, extremely non-productive edits and your own edits if you made a mistake. Not only is Gurch apparently misusing rollback there in a content dispute, [81] he is using his rollback rights to revert messages sent to his user talk page he doesn't like. [82] [83]. — Save_Us † 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurch should also not of marked the edit as "Minor". As it is a content dispute, it should be discussed on the talkpage. Also, his rollback rights should be removed if he is abusing it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we should remove it from the ton of admins (including myself) who use rollback for non-vandalism. Majorly (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the bit from users who abuse their privileges. It's not exactly policy, but rollback isn't intended for content disputes and it is implied when the rollback function is used that the revision is something non-controversial to revert. User talk page reverts are borderline, pending what the message was. Rollback for content disputes on the other hand is pure abuse as that is not what rollback was meant for at all. — Save_Us † 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: User:Gurch also has an alternate account with rollback rights, User:Gurchzilla. — Save_Us † 13:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusing rollback reinserting vandalism/non-productive edits

Apprently Gurch has read this thread about his rollback edits being questionable and decided to revert any use of his rollback to the previous version, which is now inserting vandalism and blanking back into articles. [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] I urge someone to remove rollback from Gurch and Gurchzilla. — Save_Us † 14:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He still has the rights. See here and here. He seems to have stopped and left. Technically the rollbacker right should be removed, but my view is that if he returns and does useful anti-vandalism work, then the tool will be useful for him. So I'm not going to remove them. I suggest everyone go and learn how to use Wikipedia:Huggle instead. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New situation - help needed

Gurch has tagged all of his user subpages for deletion, including User:Gurch/Huggle, which has a lot of incoming links and seems to be tied in to the anti-vandalism scene (which I don't know much about). I'm reluctant to delete these pages even though they sort of do meet the user-request speedy deletion criteria. Since they're all still tagged, some input is needed here. --W.marsh 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurch looks like he has left Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they meet the speedy criteria, but I have the same concerns as you. I'm punting this one to someone with more experience with Gurch... maybe someone who knows him can find out if this is a storm that's going to blow over (leave them) or it seems for real (delete them)? - Philippe | Talk 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved some pages into the Wikipedia: space. The whitelist page may cause problems if it was anywhere else though. Majorly (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurch has left Wikipedia before, then came back. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone undelete User:Gurch/Huggle/Icons and move it to Wikipedia:Huggle/Icons. Can someone do that for his other subpages under the Huggle banner? D.M.N. (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Majorly. You are much less lazy than me. --W.marsh 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Somethings wrong. User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist was moved into the Wikipedia space at Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist. As a result, User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist , served as a redirect, but people are editing it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist as a redirect. Nakon 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing Huggle is trying to update the whitelist. Can someone have a talk with Gurch if he's still on IRC to see what we can do about Huggle (which was a great idea, it would be a shame to abandon it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride blanking my comment

In this diff MZMcBride (talk · contribs), an admin, is blanking part of a comment I made. As you can see, I made a factual statement that the user was in an IRC channel. MZMcBride even confirms it's true, but still claims it is defamatory, and that he can blank it due to WP:BLP. I would like the comment restored, as it seems absurd to claim that BLP prevents me from making a simple declarative (and true) statement in a debate. I do not want to edit war over it though. We shouldn't be able to just remove comments we don't like... MZMcBridge should respond to my statement and what he thinks it implies, then people might well think there's nothing to my statement. --W.marsh 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement cast me in a negative light, had no bearing on the DRV, was unsourced, and entirely irrelevant. Are we to start listing all deleting admins who are part of #wikipedia-en-admins at the beginning of every DRV? Seems rather silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your whole comment there is unsourced... that's just an absurd standard to apply to discussion comments people make, especially if you don't even deny my statement is true. At any rate, people can decide what my statement was worth. If it was irrelevant, it will have no effect. --W.marsh 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, in my opinion. There seems to be widespread skepticism of the admins' channel; it's already been brought up in that specific DRV when an admin commented, "I'm all for A7-ing #wikipedia-en-admins though."

Regardless, I simply refuse to bring more drama to Wikipedia. I'll reverse my action and put the article up for AfD. How does that sound? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like what I said several hours ago was the inevitable result. And as I indicated then, I'd be fine with such a decision. --W.marsh 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got two trouts here, and I'm not afraid to use them. This is a silly conflict with people that should know better. How about both of you step away, ignore that article and that DRV from now on and let other editors deal with this particular one?(never mind) henrik•talk 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Article undeleted and sent to AFD. My comment in question is archived so it doesn't matter much. --W.marsh 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)}}

I don't think this is resolved, there's no indication that this tortured interpretation of WP:BLP won't be similarly applied, by this user or others, in the future. (P.S. wiktionary doesn't have this definition of "tortured", and I worry it's obscure enough that people might misunderstand. [see tr.v. #3 here].) —Random832 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Octavian history

WP:RFCU has confirmed that Octavian history (talk · contribs) has used multiple accounts. Based on evidence presented in the RFCU, it appears that Octavian_history may also be the same person as Bobtoo (talk · contribs), who was blocked in October for making a legal threat (again, just to be clear, this suspicion is in addition to the confirmed sockpuppetry). I am blocking Octavian_history and have already blocked the associated accounts. In this particular case, I thought it might be a good idea to let a few other admins know about it. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages." Would this include removing, for example, {{CheckedPuppeteer}}? (This suggests it's allowed.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that if the main account has been warned but is being given another chance to be a good citizen, then he could remove the tag in order not to have to wear a scarlet letter. It's in the history of course. If the main account does not become a good citizen and is eventually banned, the tag can be restored. Thatcher 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"...if the main account... is being given another chance...." He's had such an opportunity (at least IMO), did you mean this hypothetically? (As of this writing he's still blocked.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl jew

Resolved

Vandalism-only account, looks like a username violation. A little mopping, please? Durova^Charge! 07:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Next time, you can use Usernames for Admin Attention? :) SGGH ^speak! 09:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Block needed

Resolved

 – User Blocked

Just wanted to bring some admin eyes on this editor Leave Power Behind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Account was created today. This is the edit that first caught my attention [89]. he has also posted on OrangeMarlin's talk page here [90], that post may seem innocuous, however, contained within that edit is this link [91] which is well beyond acceptable. Also he has probably copied this page from conservapedia [link]. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User notified here and I think I was accidentally blocked! :-). R. Baley (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Account taken care of. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what about blocking 195.195.245.21

Resolved

See his talk page or his contributions, most of them are vandalism Momet (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, 1 week block (first block, numerous warnings). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I just actually went through the contribs. 80 contribs and all of maybe 4 good ones, in case anyone was wondering whether anything constructive comes out of this IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock - January 28th

Resolved

I had a subpage, but its not as visible... The following IP's are tested and found to be no longer Tor nodes. This section will archive 24h from the last comment made to it. I will be posting my results in small chunks, cause I know in large amounts, it is a lot of work. Many thanks, Mercury (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1. User:SQL/TORUser2
2. User:SQL/TORUser2
3. User:SQL/TORUser2
4. User:SQL/TORUser2
5. User:SQL/TORUser2
6. User:SQL/TORUser2
7. User:SQL/TORUser2
8. User:SQL/TORUser2
9. User:SQL/TORUser2
10. User:SQL/TORUser2
11. User:SQL/TORUser2
12. User:SQL/TORUser2
13. User:SQL/TORUser2
14. User:SQL/TORUser2
15. User:SQL/TORUser2
16. User:SQL/TORUser2
17. User:SQL/TORUser2
18. User:SQL/TORUser2
19. User:SQL/TORUser2
20. User:SQL/TORUser2
21. User:SQL/TORUser2

Working on it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All but User:SQL/TORUser2 done, the TOR check sent a ACK (it doesn't look like an exit node, but I'm not 100% sure, I had a timeout while double checking on an other source) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Exit policy for router "walrusbeauty" at User:SQL/TORUser2 is set to REJECT *:* and will not allow exiting to anywhere. Thus, there is no proxy. I garnered this information from the most recent Tor network status documents. Regards, Mercury (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Donmardon (talk · contribs · count) and personal attacks, part deux

Resolved

 – User didn't know of personal attack policy and has promised not to do it again. NF24^{(radio me!)} 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Donmardon has now deleted a civility warning, personally attacking me in the process with the rationale of "it doesn't have to do with the article" and removed a redirect he doesn't agree with, telling an admin to "Search on google, please. I figured that if I posted above (link) it wouldn't get noticed. I'd recommend a block here as Donmardon clearly isn't here to contribute constructively and appears to think that his opinion trumps consensus and policy. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A block based on what? "I haven't got an attitude mate, YOU HAVE." is hardly a blockable comment. I suggest you go to this users talk page and communicate before seeking a wider audience. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just deleted User:Donmardon. Administrators can look at the deleted revision to see why. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh, does not look like all of his edits are un-constructive, just looks like a new user who is un-familiar with wikipedia. Maybe all he needs is a little direction. Tiptoety ^talk 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the user page for reasons I will not state in the open. Administrators can view the deleted revisions to see why. Anybody who wishes can email me if they would like an explanation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks tiptoety. I will improve in a bit- i only joined yesterday. (Donmardon (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

But also understand that wikipedia does have rules, and one of them is civility, if you fail to fallow that rule you will be blocked. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia before you continue to edit. Feel free to ask me any questions. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday the user was being rather uncivil (sorry, the link I posted to the above section doesn't work). Diffs:(first link, then summary)[92] Donmardon uses profanity to refer to whoever redirected the SpongeBob episode articles.

[93] Donmardon personally attacks me. [94] Donmardon asks a user if they have the brain of a goldfish[95] Donmardon believes that his opinion trumps consensus [96] again. The worst part, in my opinion is when [97] Donmardon plays the ignorance defence when told that personal attacks aren't allowed - come on, that's common sense! Several users agreed above (section title is Donmardon (talk · contribs · count) and personal attacks) that Donmardon was an experienced user who had just created an account. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Look- i'm new here, i will improve. Nascarfan 24 respect what i am new. I was nice enough to remove that attack on the Spongebob Squarepants page. I WON'T DO IT AGAIN. (Donmardon (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Okay. Sorry if I've been a little bitey. After a bad experience with personal attacks last year, I'm especially wary of those who attack. You have potential, however. Good luck. NF24^{(radio me!)} 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting by Jaymes2

Resolved

Moved from WP:AN. — Satori Son

User:Jaymes2 (contribs) (talk) has been posting a long speculative piece about the relationship between meteors hitting the earth, Mass-energy equivalence and global warming on Talk:Global warming and other global-warming related pages. The user has been warned several times on the user's talk page, responded to my warning with a post of the same information to my talk page, and continues to re-post the same information (plus impolite comments directed at people who have deleted the speculation) on the global warming talk page. The user has made some edits unrelated to this theory, but it appears that they've all been reverted as unconstructive. I think that this user needs to be blocked, as several attempts at warning the user and introducing them to the purpose of Wikipedia have not affected the user's contributions. - Enuja (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the user has not edited since their final warning about inappropriate use of the talk page (warnings left at 17:29 (UTC) and 19:00 (UTC) on 26 Jan 2008, last edited said talk page on 14:06 (UTC) 26 Jan 2008). It would be reasonable, before any action is taken, to see if he heeds the warning or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The user deleted a level 4 warning on 16:40, 26 January 2008 [98]. - Enuja (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the editor should be blocked. There are six warnings on the relevant talk page, excluding any deleted ones. Even if the warnings are not for the same things, it shows a pattern of disruptive behavior that should not be tolerated. Why are we tolerating an editor who has done nothing but waste our time (e.g., this discussion)? I say that we agree to block on the next disruptive edit. The block should be implemented even by an "involved admin" since she will notice the disruption faster (thus, an effective block) and the decision to act was taken here as a group so the admin merely implements the block but does no "decide" to block. Brusegadi (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this admin agrees; block on the next disruptive edit that has the same content. Blocking is preventative, not punative, so that makes sense. Also vandalism, and that is what it is when it is disruptive - even when made in good faith - means that otherwise "involved" admins can act, similar in the way that vandalism does not count against 3RR. However, if they have otherwise stopped - just let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, another one. I've reverted. I would block, but I'm borderline involved, so if someone else in available, please go ahead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved by virtue of the fact that he has a 24 hr rip. However, this isn't going to fly as an offense - it's a discussion page. the_undertow ^talk 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this user's disruptions have been, as mentioned above, almost exclusively on talk pages. I know this issue was tagged as resolved, but where should I go to get an administrator if this user continues to post this same speculation on talk pages after this block expires? - Enuja (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit up an admin from this thread. It will get taken care of. the_undertow ^talk 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Harassement by Greek nationalistic extremists

In the next links it is wise to look who started to be impolite

[[99]],

I don't like to be called "Dude"

[[100]],

I don't like to be called wikibabel wich refers to the tower of Babel. My name is wikibakel

I don't like trhat someone is telling me that i act like a troll (trolling)

[[101]].

Again the troll story

Editors Helladios and Tsourkpk act like they are god. No other opinion than theirs is allowed. They don't discuss with arguments they just censure. They accuse without reason the site Illyrians.org to be extremist nationalistic. This harassement has to be looked into by NON-greek admins. An article can only grow when the greek accept that there opinion is not the only one

Helladios accuses me of deleting a warning. This warning was on my one talk page. After reading i deleted this because i have enough braincapacity to remeber those messages. Furthermore it doesn't state anywhere that i have to keep every message on my talk page. Next to this i put the text that i wrote on my own talk page. What is helladios doing on my page? Is he on a personal vendetta? It seems so. Sorry I'm not impressed nor afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBakel (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) WikiBakel (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not obliged to keep the warning there, that much is true. On the other hand, it doesn't look too good for you if you first complain of other people misspelling your username, and then for you to persistently misspell that of the other guy. Come on, you are too intelligent for such games. The guy is called "Helladios". Now, come down from that glass dome, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I directly changed Heliastos in Helladios. This was a true mistakeWikiBakel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Your statement however doesn't change their censorship nor their accusations.Is that still allowed? WikiBakel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

your accusations of censorship aside, your attitude is far afield of civility, and should be put in check. Dick size comments is the best you can do to discuss problems with other editors? ThuranX (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell means "Dick size comments is the best you can do to discuss problems with other editors?" WikiBakel (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:POT. Apart from making racist slurs (mentioned in a previous thread), you have been promoting the inclusion of material from an extremist pseudo-scholarly website [102] that amongst other things attempts to identify many figures from classical antiquity, such as Homer, as ethnically attached to a specific Balkan country, usually not modern Greece. This is a meaningless exercise. The material from that website - mostly very poorly written and argued - is unacceptable for any encyclopedia. You have been attempting to incite other editors by quoting from it at length on talk pages. By his reference to a children's game, I think ThuranX is referring to this kind of behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, mathsci, I was spexifixally referring to this bit from the link above: "I know we Dutch are the longest in the world and that the greece are as long as an average dwarf. I can't do nothing about the fact that you feel a little bit inferior." It's a bigger penis contest to him, ans he should be blocked for a while to cool off, as it's clear he is still confrontational. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please block PipepBot as out-of-control bot

Resolved

 – Bot unblocked (second resolution) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally posted on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, I'm moving it here since it might need a quick action : pywikipedia is not supposed to work that badly. NicDumZ ~ 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PipepBot (talk•contribs) is broken and is removing lots of valid interlanguage links, e.g. [103] [104][105][106][107][108] [109][110][111][112] (there are many more examples). It is also moving existing interlanguage links around (out of alphabetic order) for no good reason, e.g. [113]. This is causing disruption. The bot owner has been notified of these concerns [2], but I am suggesting a temporary block to prevent the bot causing further unnecessary disruption. - Neparis (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for the time being. Lara❤Love 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot is still operating across other wikis, e.g. fr.wiki, de.wiki, it.wiki (probably more wikis too). It is removing valid interlanguage links there too. I presume it cannot be blocked by admins on en-wiki. Is there a central cross-wiki noticeboard for reporting a bot that is misbehaving across multiple wikis? (rather than making multiple reports to different wikis) - Neparis (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for permissions on Meta, section Removal of access, probably, or contact a Steward. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought the matter to the French AN ... NicDumZ ~ 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a request for steward assistance on the bot status page on [114]. - Neparis (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this bot is not out of control. The user is fixing interwiki conflicts. Please unblock this bot. Nothing wrong with these edits:

• [115] - interwiki mess Town with City
• [116] - interwiki mess Dioxin and Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
• [117] - interwiki mess Particulate and Aerosol
• [118] - interwiki mess Calypso (RFID) and Navigo pass
• [119] - dont know

interwiki mess Software maintenance and Maintenance. --Pipep (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• [120] - interwiki mess de:Rapperswil SG and de:Rapperswil-Jona
• [121] - interwiki mess Donatyre and Avenches
• [122] - interwiki mess Schwyz and Canton of Schwyz
• [123] interwiki mess St. Antönien and St. Antönien Ascharina
• [124] - interwiki mess Stadtbahn Glattal and Glattalbahn

Looks like Neparis owes someone an apology - multichill (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

well, as far as I know, fr:Ville is the translation of City, even if it is also the meaning of Town. Interwiki.py usually don't remove "controversial" interwikis like these, unless the -force option is activated. It should not. NicDumZ ~ 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

City/town is a mess. Probably unfixable in the current interwiki system. But you're wrong about the -force option. I happen to run an interwiki bot myself and i never use the -force option. I do however fix interwiki conflicts every once in a while. This means i pick a page and run the bot without the -autonomous option (and without -force option). Bot asks me a lot of questions and in the end adds and removes a lot of links. Looks like Pipet did the same. multichill (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Next on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard ...This page is too big :) NicDumZ ~ 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

Well, the ones that really caught my eye were the interlanguage link removals for dioxin.[125] I just reviewed them again and at least some of them still look like they might be considered at least somewhat controversial link removals. I could be wrong about it, but some wikis (e.g. Danish) seem to me to have an article on dioxin, but not yet an article on polychlorinated dioxins, which is a specific type of dioxin. In such a case, having interlanguage links to dioxin, as the general term, seems quite useful to me. User:Blech from de-wiki has told the bot owner that most of the interwiki links that the bot removed were correct and that he has reverted the bot.[2] I have not checked any of the other examples in detail, but I had a quick look at one of them — the aerosol link removals.[126] Particulates are a cause of aerosols, and, though I may well be wrong about it, some wikis (e.g. French) seem to have an article on the latter but not the former, so, in such a case, having the interlanguage links, e.g. to fr:Aérosol, seems quite useful to me. I am acting in good faith here, and if I have made a mistake I will certainly say sorry to the bot owner. Please let me know your thoughts — I can take a wikitrout or two. - Neparis (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NicDumZ, let's continue at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. multichill (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the operator of PipepBot. I update the bot code at least every day with svn, and I never modifies the code. Yesterday I was solving interwiki conflicts in manual mode, and I have shuted down the bot short before you decided to block it. The bot was never out of control. I don't think, the links I removed where correct links. As explained in Help:Interlanguage links#Bots and links to and from a section, "The activity of the bots also requires that interlanguage links are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less." I yust removed links to or from articles not covering the same subject. It is possible that some less edits could be controversial (especially City and Town), but you should consider that since August 2008 I have solved manually thousands of interwiki conflicts. The alphabetical order was respected based on the local names of the languages, and not according to the two-letter language (see Help:Interlanguage_links#Sorting).

I ask you to remove the block of my bot. Sorry for my bad english. Thank you! --Pipep (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove unblocked your bot. multichill (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mp3tt

Mp3tt (talk · contribs) is creating multiple pages in his/her User space which are nothing more than external links to music download sites. I don't know whether the site is a legit download site or a copyright violating site, but are these edits appropriate use of User space? Corvus cornix_talk 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Mp3tt/ Rihanna Don't Stop the Music
• User:Mp3tt/ Sean Kingston Take You There‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Sara Bareilles Love Song‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Linkin Park Shadow of the Day‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Finger Eleven Paralyzer‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Chris Brown Kiss Kiss‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Colbie Caillat Bubbly‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Jordin Sparks Tattoo‎

So far--Jac16888 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those go to a site where you can download the entire album, track by track. I seem to remember there being a policy against that, somewhere... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any policy, i couldn't find any speedy tag i could put on them. Failry certain there will be a precedent out there somewhere though--Jac16888 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Advertising? Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It legally. Try download something:)--Mp3tt (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/_Sara_Bareilles_Love_SongAdvertising? Where?
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Rihanna Don't Stop the Music
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Sean Kingston Take You There‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Sara Bareilles Love Song‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Linkin Park Shadow of the Day‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Finger Eleven Paralyzer‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Chris Brown Kiss Kiss‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Colbie Caillat Bubbly‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp3tt (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have you posted a list of what links to your sub-pages? (i.e. here) Anyway, your point of the legality of the link, which i don't intend to use/visit, is moot, wikipedia is not a place for you to spamvertise.--Jac16888 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ok--Mp3tt (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. Welcome to Wikipedia, i hope you have fun editing here, and don't let this little incident stop you coming here--Jac16888 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So is an MfD in order? Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. The links to the download site appear to violate the "referral link" clause of WP:UP. Caknuck (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

POV warring and WP:OWN issues

Resolved

 – Please seek dispute resolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Stone put to sky reverts any and all edits to Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States that do not meet his own POV, continually reverting cleasnup efforts to remove material that violates WP:SYNT and WP:REDFLAG and accusing those attempting cleanup of "being disruptive". This link may prove rather illuminating: [127]. I bring this here because his continuous reverts bring any attempts to work on Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States to a complete halt. MONGO can probably weigh in on this further if he so wishes, he's had a bit of a more in-depth look at Stone put to sky himself. Jtrainor (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Jtrainor, you probably noticed but everyone has reverted Raggz, and for good reasons. For controversial articles such as this one, where content has been the result of tough compromises, it's important to respect consensus and float major changes on the talk page first, and reach some consensus. All his major edits had major problems and have been corrected reverted by various respected editors. Your claim that material violates SNYNT and RedFlag, these have been shown to be without merit. If you can substantiate those claims, then I ask you to please do on the talk page so we can address and fix those problems. Editors working on that article have been very accommodating to work with all editors of all POV's, and we have given Raggz (and continue to give him) assumptions of good faith and a tremendous amount of patience. Despite a tendentaious editing style, we continue to work with him to try to identify and resolve issues he raises. What happens is that issues he raises gets answered, and then he drops it and starts over, on a new subject, and then returns to an old resolved subject, all over again like a merry-go-round, opening up several section topics at the same time. So the real problem is not user StonePutToSky but Raggz editing style.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute argument, which has no place here. This page has been the subject of content disputes for years. The total contributions of many editors on this page consists of deleting content they disagree with, using policy to mask their POV deletions.

You can call a RfC on the page. travb 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started an RFC for a certain aspect of the dispute (central to the problems, but relatively contained and based on policy rather than endless political arguing - hopefully). It can be found here. I'm sure most folks who follow this page would not want to touch the article in question or any dispute surrounding it with a ten foot pole. That is wise. Again though, the RFC just begun is on a relatively limited policy issue. I think it could prove constructive if some neutral folks could weigh in, and might help to develop some good will on the article (though things have generally stayed pretty civil there despite the intense debate). So comments on the RFC would be much appreciated, and I think would be far more useful than a long AN/I thread.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it strange that i have been singled out for this; i am responsible for only a small number of the reverts that have been made. Those reverts that i have made were undertaken with wide support from the Talk page. Of the seven or so editors who have frequented the page these last few weeks, five have made extensive contributions and suggestions for molding content while one has restricted himself to challenging sources and citations. In each case the sources and citations have withstood community scrutiny. For my part, i will be happy to leave the article and take a wiki-break for a while. I have no personal stake in it. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz efforts at so-called cleansing are being rejected by the majority of editors participating. Raggz is advancing interpretations of wikipedia policy that the majority of editors participating are rejecting because they do not represent a legitimate interpretation of those policies. Raggz has been responsible for extremely tendentious editing, both in the article and on the talk pages. The majority of editors participating have supported those edits of Stone Put to the Sky that JTrainor disputes and have effectively argued as much in the talk pages. JTrainor has not made positive contributions to the article. In the talk pages he has occasionally made critical assertions but has not yet demonstrated the capability, or even the interest, to back up his assertions with argumentation.BernardL (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a sustained effort to engage the other editors. This article has no pretense for NPOV compliance. I have made a serious good faith effort to assist with NPOV. Read the article, just read this article. No one pretends that NPOV is intended to prevail, and this is an article without a shred of compliance. Not one minor edit offered to this goal has been accepted, but personal attacks have been made there and (on this board as well). Every editor need take responsibility for raising policy violations and to make a good faith effort to reach consensus for these. I have done this. The article is exactly as it was when I begun, except a few weak citations were replaced with stronger ones. NPOV is absent, just read the article. When you read the article you will see this. No one disputes that there is no NPOV compliance.

The topic itself requires an article with a POV bias. Take the Cuba section, the topic requires that the three invasions by Cuba of its neighbors in 1959 not be mentioned. The horrific crimes against humanity committed by Cuba that forced a half million (of seven million) Cubans to flee to Miami cannot be mentioned. The continuing war crimes against the families remaining and the rage of the Cubans in Miami cannot be mentioned. The threat and real plans to invade Puerto Rico cannot be mentioned. The assasinations of refugees in Miami by Cuba cannot be mentioned. The Cold War cannot be mentioned, the nuclear missles in Cuba cannnot be mentioned, the fact that Americans were digging fallout shelters to try to survive a Cuban nuclear attack cannot be mentioned. The Reader doesn't know that the Cold War was involved as the motivation of the US acts of war against Cuba in 1961. The article assumes that NPOV can be attained when the article's topic is restricted to the actions on one side in any war. This topic can never really attain NPOV. NPOV will require a topic that permits NPOV. No article about a war that excludes one side will attain NPOV, nor will this article manage this. Raggz (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP policy to ban argumentative topics?

I have two questions:

• Does WP permit argumentative topics (like this one) that are impossible to bring into compliance with NPOV?

An analagous topic would be Allegations made against OJ Simpson. This article would not discuss actual court decisions because only allegations would be relevant. The trial of OJ Simpson would be covered, but not the verdict (a verdict is not an allegation.) We discuss Hiroshima, but never mention the international legal tribunal that rendered a verdict on this topic. Why not mention the international tribunal? Technically, because the tribunal's verdict is a fact, and is not an allegation. Likewise the verdicts about OJ Simpson are irrelevant to the allegations, the point of this proposed article is to debate all allegations against OJ Simpson within WP, not to discuss verdicts.

Other argumentative topica would be: Allegations that Global Warming does not exist, Allegations that Fidel Castro personally assasinated political opponents at the 1948 Bogata Conference, Allegations that the Earth is flat. The Catholic Church does not focus upon the Allegations that the Catholic Church encourges child molestation, do we need this second topic? Do we want topics that ensure a lack of NPOV compliance because they are too narrowly focused for NPOV to be attainable?

• If argumentative topics are allowed, where would I go to request that argumentative topics not be permitted? Raggz (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Bad faith speedy deletion and general behavior of an editor

Resolved

 – Pages are at DRV, AN/I is not dispute resolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:SqueakBox has nominated two Wikipedia-related article drafts in my personal userspace for speedy deletion, here and here as he'd previously threatened to do on my own talkpage. One was saved by an admin that quickly removed the tag for now, but the other was in fact speedily deleted with admin Jayron32 pointing to "recreation of deleted material".

• This claim by admin about "recreation" is patently false. This was no "recreation" after the fact, this sub-page in my private userspace was several weeks old after having been created to save valuable material from Squeak's constant vandalism crusade against several admins, the official article on WP had only been deleted today due to steamrollering in spite of severe opposition of roughly 70 editors and admins (and my draft had already been several weeks old when the official article was, once again, nominated for AfD), and it had looked nothing like my draft because I had intensively edited it after moving it to my private userspace.

• Furthermore, this deletion was even violating several of the policies the admin linked to: "This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, [...], or deleted via proposed deletion" (the official article had been nominated by User:SqueakBox just as well), not to mention it violated the policy mentioned at WP:MFD, User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.

• User:SqueakBox has been blocked before for months for disruptive, vandalizing, and flaming behavior like this, blocks he even tried to evade by creating sock puppet accounts that were deleted after having been spotted. User:VigilancePrime attempted to create a mere quotes and diff links collection sub-page of User:SqueakBox's constant personal attacks, edit wars, flaming, and vandalism to be brought before admins to do something more effective about the issue than just temporary blocks, but User:SqueakBox got this sub-page speedily deleted within 6 hours [128], and see how the current Deletion Review is going: [129].

I request at the very least access to my deleted private userpage draft so I can copy it, if not full restoration. I'd also like some opinions about the behavior of User:SqueakBox. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you and Squeak can't stop squabbling this will end up at Arbitration. I'm sick of seeing this kind of thing continuingly being brought up on noticeboards. Both of your recent conduct at DRV was unacceptable and uncivil. Please either raise a RFC or RFAR or pipe down. All I ask is that you stop bring complaints here as you must see by now that its not making any difference. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat that the issue of what to do with User:SqueakBox is only secondary. My fist concern is caring about the work that so many editors put months of their efforts into and that he has destroyed. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the DRV confirming the deletion of the Adult-child sex article just closed as "Endorsed" it seems that content has been rejected as being never suitable for the encyclopedia (otherwise AfD could've closed as needing content editting). So in that case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999#User_subpages would apply and it should be deleted. And Der pädophile Impuls is clearly written entirely in another language and therefore could never be a mainspace article of Wikipedia's english edition. Maybe it could survive as a transwiki work-in-progress, but it really should then be in the de.wikipedia userspace. MBisanz ^talk 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Never suitable"? The closing admin of the DRV, similarly to the one closing the original AfD, closed with a rationale of mere per above partisan vote counting and pointing to the unsubstantiated, vague claims of any "POV fork" issues that had been substantially debunked by many people, and all in all roughly 70 people, editors and admins, wanted the article to stay, with very sophisticated reasonings and rationales, while the other side just gave colorful one-liners and parotted the vague, entirely debunked claim of "POV fork", a "POV fork" where all the other articles could have perfectly been merged into. Add to those 70 people those more 60 people that had come to the consensus in 15-20 prior polls for delete/merge-redirect that the article should stay. And you still have the audacity to say "never suitable for the encyclopedia" against 130 people saying otherwise?

Furthermore, your reference is entirely moot because it refers to a case of "tedentious editing" were a user had created a large number of nonsense and fantasy articles without any use at all, and the user was banned for one year. Do you intend to ban me for one year for creating two sub-pages for articles that are wanted by several dozen people?

Third, I'd like to repeat that according to the official policy I've pointed out above, it's invalid and forbidden to tag userspace drafts for deletion if the official article was "deleted via proposed deletion". One of the reasons for that is the fact that consensus can chance, a policy that has been brought up after each single of those prior 15-20 unsuccessful polls for delete/merge/redirect by those people wanting to purge the article one way or another. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out, as I am the admin who "saved" one of the pages from speedy, that I did so partly because I feel there were many sides to the topic and discussion was needed, however moreover because I wished Vigilance to remove the content to his own personal PC space voluntarily, so that it would stop acting as a target for Squeaks behaviour, and also as a sign of good faith in resolving the dispute between the to. However it didn't turn out like that and Squeaks MfD (eventually) went to deletion, and I gave up trying to resolve their differences. I suggested Arbitration but I don't know if they will respond. SGGH ^speak! 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just restore his userpages that were deleted. Geesh. What's the big deal? And tell Squeak to stop stalking. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it's in German, so is never going to be an article here - transwiki to the .de wikipedia and leave it at that. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had a look at my talkpage you'd see that I've put it here for English editors with a basic grasp of German to get their opinion whether I should put up a translated version in my userspace to one day put it up as an official article, WikiEssay, or WikiBook if there will be consensus for doing so. I got positive responses on both issues so far, and really, why care about somebody's userspace as long as it's free of personal attacks and actually Wikipedia-related? After all, userspaces are the least-accessed place of all Wikipedia. I'd like to also point out that I'm a civil editor to the degree that on controversial topics I always get consensus on the relating talkpages first before I do anything (and it was exactly for the sake of this civil consensus that I moved the now deleted content to my userspace), so there's really no threat inherent in the mere existence of any of my personal userpages to be unilaterally put up as an official article without any consensus. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page. CSD is not applicable here. According to userpage policy, inclusion of deleted material (or copies of other pages) on user subpage is acceptable. However, if the subpage's content is a matter of dispute, one can propose it to WP:MFD to consult community's consent. Speedy delete G4 is definitely an improper manipulation of deleting admin. @pple complain 13:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that this applies only to the German article, which appears to be an essay in process of possible translation; the copy of the deleted adult-child sex article is unacceptable - after extensive debate it has already been decided that this subject is adequately covered in numerous other articles, and keeping copies of deleted material on subjects deemed not to be encyclopaedic is an unacceptable use of user space, as has been noted above. The deleted content may be emailed to the user if he wishes. We need to err on the side of caution in cases of apparent pedophile advocacy, for reasons that are well enough understood and documented. The adult-child sex article was deleted mainly because it was a POV-fork, and it remains a POV-fork wherever it lies. The user is free to edit the multiple existing articles whihc cover this topic, should he feel that there is additional material worthy of inclusion, and as I say the deleted content can (and will, if he asks me) be emailed on request. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, a user subpage can hold anything the user wants to have under certain conditions. If the material included somewhat violates the policy, the prudent step will be WP:MFD as an official process of handling this type of issue. CSD, once again, is not applicable here. For the record, this page was created on 21:29, November 27, 2007, thus it is undoubtedly not a "recreation of deleted material". The subpage in question contains material that is a subject of a recent debate, however its content carries certain merit that is widely agreed by a number of established users and respected admins (if you really followed both the DRV and the AFD, you could have seen it). Although the deleted material is a subject of controversy, no way it was labeled as "unacceptable". PoV fork is a reason for vote deleters; at the same time vote keepers sustained their own reasoning for the inclusion of this article. Nevertheless we are here to discuss the appropriateness of speedy deleting a user subpage, not about the content of such material. DRV result doesn't hold much weight here. You action of reverting, which clearly violates WP:WW, at best can't be considered a good judgement. @pple complain 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much @pple. I'd suggest everyone following what the template at its top says, "Please do not edit this page unless you created it, instead create your own." Such editing naturally includes tagging for any kind of deletion. Trust me, this sub-page is neither meant to be authoritative in this form, nor is it anytime going back to be an official article without solid consensus. --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Guy, a cautious approach should be taken regarding apparent pro-pedophile advocacy. Would suggest this discussion should be closed, and if necessary parties use dispute resolution. However, the page shouldn't be restored again, unless consensus changes. Addhoc (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye. There's no need to prolong the agony - as Mackensen said in the DRV close, "editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject". There being no shortage of same. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell all 130 people, editors and admins alike, personally that strongly supported this article and wanted it to stay that they are "pro-pedophile activists" and supported "pro-pedophile activism". It's pathetic and in very bad faith what you're throwing around here at so many good editors and admins. I've outlined above how many policies are violated verbatim by harassing and vandalizing my userpages like this, how it is official policy that private userpages MUST NOT be touched because of an article being "deleted via proposed deletion", it's illegal verbatim, look up my link above, and I've never "recreated any deleted material" because my sub-page was up long before the original article was even nominated for AfD and probably 75-90% of my draft had never even been in the official article, making your claim of "recreating deleted material" even more ridiculous. If you wanna make somebody accountable for "recreating material", go after admin @pple. Do you wanna ban him now? You ought to be really ashamed of yourselves. None of you even deserves an admin status for your own incapability to see beyond your own tiny, self-righteous POV horizon, in my humble opinion, both AfD and Review closing admins included as they chose to completely ignore all known consensus policies and gave in to the simple name-calling contest that you're throwing here now. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're free to initiate recall proceedings against those admins who are in the category, otherwise attacking long-time admins as bad faith actors and etc. is probably unproductive for you. Mackensen, for instance, is a two-time Arbitrator, checkuser and a long-time admin. If a long list of admins disagrees with you, consider for a moment that you may be wrong. In any case, the article in question is deleted and should stay deleted. We don't need ten more debates about the same topic in a weeks time. Work on something else. ^Avruchtalk 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) JzG: CSD G4 is not, by any manner of means, applicable to user subpages. If the one doesn't like the existence of the subpage, they could please use MfD, not cut the red tape. By re-deleting this page, you've performed what people call wheel warring action; oh well, I'd expect an admin like you to know better. Please restore the page or your deletion will be brought to DRV. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Peace, and @pple: G4 does not normally apply in this circumstance. Nor is there normally a case that all userfied drafts of an article are deleted once the article is deleted. I think that this page could well end up deleted at WP:MFD but the DRV for Adult-child sex just closed. In my view this should not be deleted in this manner... but on the other hand I don't like flip-flopping admin actions over a point of process. Before settling anything, I think the least we can do is to ask TlatoSMD: now that the adult-child sex article's deletion has been endorsed, what do you intend to do with the draft? Mangojuice^talk 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not our business to bother what the user will do with his material. I also leave a cock-up of materials in my sandboxes, a lot of which are never used, but who knows some day they are suddenly in need. The article was deleted for "PoV-fork", meaning that as long as this concern is addressed, article may be recreated and be maintained on Wikipedia on its own merit. TlatoSMD apparently uses his subpage for future improvement of a potential article, and we should encourage such efforts instead of making fuss out of the nothing. @pple complain 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The closure of the DRV makes it clear that editing should take place at the existing pages. If consensus can be built to move one of those to the deleted title, it could be recreated. However "POV fork" is not a problem that can be addressed by editing, which is why we delete POV forks instead of allowing them to exist for editing. I see your point about assuming Tlato has a good reason. I just figure, before we get into a big discussion, I'd like to clarify the situation... but I see you've opened a DRV anyway, so it's probably moot now. Mangojuice^talk 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thats what happens when you post before going to sleep, you get to miss all the WP:DRAMA. Let me just reiterate, that this seems to be a contentious topic and even if CSD: Recreated wasn't the best CSD option, it seems to me that the community has decided there will never (consensus can change, just not quickly) be an article of that name on that specific topic, so it would be an inappropriate thing to keep hanging around the userspace. Also, from what I understand, banners like "Please do not edit this page unless you created it" is merely advisory request as under WP:OWN, no pages, even userspace pages, are the sole property of the creator. An no, I'm not proposing any bans here, I'm merely referring to the Principle the Arbcom established in that case. If I was proposing that action be taken, I'd cite the Remedy or start an RFC. Also, as I said, the German article was a broderline case. In some cases it might've been a speedy foreign language, since I didn't see a warning note that it was inprogress, but it also could be a translation being worked on (although I didn't see that and it still wouldve belonged onthe German WP). MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Hot-headed, wrong-headed admin

I have been tidying up English biographical articles, replacing dates in American Dating format (month-day-year) with dates in International Dating format (day-month-year), as used in England. This is in accordance with the Manual of Style. User:Ian Cairns incorrectly accused me of doing the opposite, reversed my valid edits and warned me for vandalism. And then blocked me for 72 hours. This looks like a blatant abuse of administrator powers to win an edit war where he was clearly in the wrong, and, even though after his errors were pointed out he unblocked me, I would like some careful pairs of eyes on his hasty actions. Further discussion and examples on my talk page here. --Pete (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he was critisized for blocking you, so he undid the block. The matter appears to be over before you brought it here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted. But this sort of thing is extremely disruptive, and not at all what I'd expect an admin to be doing. I can't really just gloss over this. Perhaps there's a better place for reporting it? --Pete (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, you should be happy you were forgiven to fast. Next time try and wokr more cooperatively with your fellow editors instead of antagonizing them so much. Smith Jones (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I should follow your polite example. --Pete (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that following earlier criticism of the block and the method by Deus ex Machina, which I took to heart, I reversed my block a while back. I apologise for any incorrect method.

This issue for me was that Skyring was deleting birth and death templates in articles and hard-coding his desired date solution, and thereby losing the subject's age information. No edit summaries were provided and the edits were marked as minor. I agree with his changing the American date format to International date formats in the British articles, but this should have been achieved by adjusting the template parameters. If the template is faulty, then he should be progressing changes to that (he has left comments to that effect). The lack of edit summaries obscured his intent. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here isn't the templates, but the speed with which you got things wrong, ignored my correction, insultingly accused me of vandalism and gave me a long block in the space of a few minutes. --Pete (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it was a mistake, okay. everyone makes them including admisn you do have a point htat maybe he hurried a bit too much but it owuld be better to let it go now rather than create a grudge over a temporary block that he already apologissed for. Smith Jones (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering your recent blocks, and the fact that (at first glance) your edits were disruptive (effectively removing the birth and death templates) the block doesn't strike me as "OMG abuse" bad in the extend that it prevents further disruption and allows everyone to catch a breath and examinate calmly. Communication is essential, and when someone clearly objects to your actions, undoing them is never the best idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication is essential, and when someone clearly objects to your actions, undoing them is never the best idea. One would hope that this works two ways, hmmm? If a breathing space is required, presumably the edit-warring admin would find it when he requested an uninvolved admin to apply a block. --Pete (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the block was perfect, just that it was not screaming "OMG abuse". I personally wouldn't have blocked (yet) considering you were not editing at high pace. He contacted you prior to the block, but probably didn't wait long enough to see clearly your intent. My opinion is that it was a misunderstanding on both sides (you thinking you were fixing dates, and he seeing you removing important templates and not stopping despite 2 warnings). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe if the templates weren't so user-unfriendly, this type of problem would be less likely to arise. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. Pete, you would do well to let this matter drop. The section heading here could be construed as a personal attack on a respected and well-mannered contributor and to describe him in the terms you've used is not on. Your block log speaks volumes of your own ability to work collaboratively and for you to accuse others of bad faith is laughable. —Moondyne 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Birth_date_and_age}} is protected. If the style of the dates violates WP:MOS, could some admin change the template to conform? Taemyr (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If I remember WP:DATE well, the date can be written in the "US" format for a US-centric article (MM-dd-yyyy), and in the "European" format for a European article (dd-MM-yyyy). There's a (badly documented) switch "df" (day first?) that allows the day to be output first in such cases (when put to "yes"). I think the template is ok (considering it's wide usage, I would advise against incompatible changes), but its documentation might need to be made clearer. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• My thoughts: edits were good faith not clear vandalism, the block was inappropriate and User:Icairns violated the three revert rule during the course of the incident ([130], [131], [132], [133]). Further discussion may be relevant as the actions constitute a misuse of the rollback feature, which was given as an admin tool. However since an apology has been given and the action reversed it would probably just be better for all parties to move on. Guest9999 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the comments, this is the only one to which I need make any reply. Until Deus' comments, I thought I was dealing with simple and clear vandalism. My reasons were: Loss of article subject's age information caused by the deletion of birth and death templates; the lack of any edit summaries and the tagging of the edits as minor. Under this impression, I therefore felt I was working under WP:3RR#Exceptions. Clearly, after Deus' comments, I took his point and withdrew the block.

Communication is essential starts with present and clear edit summaries, to indicate content and intent. Ian Cairns (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you acted in good faith but the changes made to the article were so minor that I think it would have been better - and perfectly reasonable - to assume good faith of the contributor. Additionally, the 3RR exception applies only to "simple and obvious vandalism", I don't think that replacing a templated date with a written out date can be counted under this criteria. Using incorrect wiki markup and stubborness are specifically mentioned as things which are not vandalism. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments above. The extremely useful template is marred by its poor internationalisation, as I've already noted. I'm not pursuing any kind of vendetta against ICairns, and I'll say no more on his actions. However, I couldn't just gloss over what appears to me to be an abuse of admin powers. This project means a lot to me, and it is essential that we aim for high standards. --Pete (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell, apparently I deleted this comment when posting mine, my deepest apologies. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pete, I'm confused by what you describe. I see the output of this template in the day-month-year format, not the month-day-year one. Are you aware that you can set your preferences to the date format of your choice? (If this isn't the problem, I wonder if there is a bug in your browser that prevents this setting to work for you.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Geez, if I hear that one more time... We're writing this encyclopaedia for normal people. People who don't have editor accounts and user names and date preferences. Most of our users are readers, not editors - that's how we get so far up in the rankings. Sometimes I think everyone here is intent on carving out an imperial bureaucracy, like Asimov's Foundation series. --Pete (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Skyring, I did not know that this template existed until I saw this thread, so I'm going to ask those kinds of questions. And since I hadn't seen any of your recent edits, I had no idea you had been asked this question umpteen dozen times. So excuse me for demonstrating some concern about a possible problem that affects these normal people you write about -- even though I found your response insensitive if not offensive. I would rather ask stupid questions instead of allowing things on Wikipedia that make people feel stupid, but with a response like that I'll be happy to leave you alone -- & unconcerned about how the software works for you. -- llywrch (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's no lady! She's my girlfriend

Resolved

 – article was kept, editors directed to DRV

OK, cute header aside, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination) has been opened and closed a few times. Can someone step in to either close it definitively or rule when it can be closed? Benjiboi 15:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, why was it even reopened last time? The five days are long gone. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed as Keep. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It was closed on the 20th as a speedy keep by User:Canley. User:Rossami was apparently unhappy with this and reopened it five days later [134] and has since reopened every attempt to close it (I didn't notice this at first when I closed it, thinking that it had its allotted time).

While this may not been strictly according to procedure, I have no problems of IAR'ing this and declaring it a keep. A delete result seems highly unlikely. henrik•talk 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussions may be listed for up to 5 days, it was opened for more than 4 days and 13 hours (if we don't count the 5 days delisting in the middle). If an other admin disagrees, he may reopen it of course. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition...you don't just re-open a debate if you don't like how it closed. That's what WP:DRV is for. --Smashville^BONK! 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, once it is closed, it needs to stay closed, take it to deletion review if you are un-happy. This looks like a speedy keep to me. Tiptoety ^talk 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with apeedy keep. I'm concerned about the nominator User:RightGot's behaviour. Note his recent edits where he archives his talk page by moving ( nowt wrong with that) then moves the archive to a different page and blanks the redirect. Now that definately looks dodgy. If you check the archived page this user has multiple warnings in the short time he has been here. I'm tempted to move the history back and move protect his talk page. Or is that OTT? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks dodgey, but it doesn't really hide the page, you just have to know where to click. He moved it from Archive 1 to Archive 0. Perhaps he is just trying to start his Archive from 0 instead of 1? But on the other point, recent warnings should be kept on Talk. Do we have a set policy on how long? That might be applicable here. It's also possible the editor does not know this and might need to be assisted in this issue.Wjhonson (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a rule requiring registered users to keep warnings on their page for any amount of time. —Random832 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this situation is rare anough that i would be very surprised if we had a rule to deal with it! We shall have to use our best judgment instead ;-) I have no problems with users blanking warnings, because it's all in the history. But moving the page history like this to obscure the warnings (it's not completely hidden but would fool the casual observer) is worrying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disgruntled harassment

Resolved

 – Editor has apologized and will leave no more 'congratulatory' messages

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I'm looking for some community advice on the behaviour of User:Filll. The editor in question appears to be waging a mini-harassment war on a few other editors, most specifically User:Amaltheus, over some edit warring that has been prevalent at Introduction to evolution‎. This seems (to me at least) to have taken the form of sarcastic and repetitive congratulation messages left on Amaltheus' and other editor's pages. Some diffs: [135], [136], [137], [138], [139]. There are plenty more. Also, this is directed against a different editor. I'm not quite sure what ought to be done. This recent behaviour is pretty objectionable, no matter what your stance on evolution happens to be. I'd be glad for another view (or three)! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Whilst it certainly looks objectionable, we'd need to know the background before we can form an opinion. What has lead up to this? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There has been an on-going edit war at Introduction to evolution which is (perhaps uniquely) at WP:FAC, here (as nominated by User:Filll) and WP:AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) with several diffs (see second opinion at the AFD) suggesting User:Filll has been making pointy comments to delete the article, perhaps because of the failure of the article to make FAC. I'd appreciate some comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) It must also be noted that Fill has been involved with the heated debates on homeopathy and that the attitude of other editors there have also been to blame. LinaMishima (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I do not think that homeopathy is germane to this discussion, however my input there has been that we need to maintain NPOV if at all possible. Some elements have not been willing to approach the article from the standpoint of NPOV, or unable or unwilling to understand NPOV. I have sought other ways to reduce conflict, as in trying to encourage one or both sides of this debate/discussion to disengage with the other, to let them construct the type of article they envision as a reasonable balance in peace, so all can be productive. I do not believe that encouraging a battleground benefits anyone, those for NPOV and those who do not understand it, those who favor a more pro-science view and those who favor a more WP:FRINGE science position. What has to be remembered is that for a large group, there are financial interests involved in Wikipedia not disparaging homeopathy in any way, and therefore they are dedicated to removing any input from medical authorities or scientific authorities or peer-reviewed mainstream journals or prouncements of any governmental panels or medical bodies. This has to be recognized and some way for assorted sides to come to some reasonable compromise and be productive. The two sides can work together, as has been done with world class homeopathy expert User: Peter morrell on Wikipedia, but it cannot be done in a combative disruptive environment, which is what Wikipedia seems to have encouraged in the homeopathy article for more than 8 months now. I personally think it is unproductive to fight and that other options have to be examined. Others are free to disagree with me of course, if they feel that uncivil contentitious battles over articles here are productive and advisable and are to be encouraged.--Filll (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There are two sides to this story, of course. I do not want to offend anyone and I apologize if I have caused any offense by my effusive praise directed to Amaltheus and his accomplishments. He is clearly a smart guy and has made some contributions, so I do not want to take that away from him. On the other hand, Amaltheus has waged a long time war of attritition against me, and all the other editors on that article, and on several other articles. He even maintained a list on his talk page for a long time of "article scalps" that he collected from his attacks on various articles, that he called the "F off list". He was advised several times by admins and editors to remove it since it gave a somewhat negative appearance, but he declined to do so. Random Replicator, Awadewit, SandyGeorgia, Snalwimba, Wassupwestcoast and several others on Introduction to evolution have lost patience with Amaltheus. Awadewit, Random Replicator, Wassupwestcoast, Snalwimba and myself have stopped working on the article; 2 have left Wikipedia because of Amaltheus. Amaltheus has seized control of the article while it was being considered for FA status, by threatening others, cursing at length in vile strings of invective and expletives, refusing to compromise or engage in consensus or constructive discussions, engaging in diatribes and vendettas, tendentious disruptive editing, and tortuous endless arguments, and making vague complicated complaints that have to be parsed infinitely to find penumbrations of meaning, and this resulted in driving all others away from the page. I approached several admins casually for assistance, but none was offered since in the current environment on WP we must assume GF in all circumstances, even to the point of driving away long time productive users and at the expense of article production and quality. I am sorry if this is politically incorrec to write, but it is my impression. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way. I hope that it is just a mistaken impression on my part and on the part of other editors who I have seen state similar impresisons. Amaltheus has several characteristics which make it highly likely that he is a sock puppet of a previous disruptive editor with editing restrictions placed against him by the administrative structure at Wikipedia, and I would be glad to give further details in private channels. I can provide diffs for all of the above of course.--Filll (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Please do. Ahead of your diffs, it looks like you were editing his user page over his reversions to place snide and patronizing pseudo-award messages. Avruchtalk 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I'd support that request. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Some clarification for the record: I don't believe the editing at Introduction to evolution can be characterized as an edit war, the article hasn't failed at FAC, I haven't lost patience with Amaltheus, and I don't believe he has seized control of the article. He's made helpful suggestions, and has barely edited the article, but he's clearly angry now after having been poked quite a while. I was hoping to get the parties to talk amicably so the remaining issues at the FAC could be resolved as the article was within striking distance of passing FAC a few days ago; I failed. I'd like to see the poking stopped, as the FAC and the article are being affected. My summary is on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I apologize if I misinterpreted the position of SandyGeorgia on her relationship with Amaltheus. As I said before, Amaltheus has made valuable contributions and suggestions, as confirmed above by SandyGeorgia, and I do not want to take anything away from him. In fact, as I have said, I would congratulate him for many of his contributions. Also, allow me to clarify that when I say "seize" control I do not mean it in a literal sense of course, since this is impossible, but more of a figurative sense, given that several other editors have decided that it is best to disengage with Amaltheus rather than interact with him in what often turned into a negative situation. Including User: Random Replicator and User: Wassupwestcoast, who both decided to withdraw from Wikipedia after this unfortunate episode and trying set of exchanges. I personally have not "poked" Amaltheus and have avoided him and the article for weeks, except for my efforts to talk to him in a friendly manner after the defection of two of the editors he was interacting with last night. I personally was unaware of any poking that was going on or might have been going on, since I was avoiding the page for the most part given previous outbursts I had witnessed by Amaltheus. I again apologize for having made unwelcome efforts to talk to Amaltheus in a friendly manner and my entreaties were clearly poorly timed and inadvisable. I will not do so again of course and I apologize to all and sundry for any offense this engendered.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, so perhaps "edit-warring" is an inflated description. It's an emotive subject so it's bound to cause "creative discussion". It's an unusual situation, how many FACs are AFDs simultaneously? However, the seemingly intense personal campaign Filll appears to be waging against Amaltheus seems unnecessary. I'm not saying that Amaltheus is blameless but what I've seen lately is bordering on cyberbullying which is totally unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I disagree with the characterization advanced by The Rambling Man. I only placed the article up for FAC because Random Replicator wanted to try for it. I have stated repeatedly throughout my time at Wikipedia that I do not care about the GA and FA process, since I do not think it is always productive and constructive. I only think it has value when it leads to article improvements. I have counselled Random Replicator and others not to worry if it fails FA because it is not important, what is important is that it is a useful article to our readers. I can provide numerous diffs where I have repeatedly stated this in many places for months. I did not put the article up for deletion. Wassupwestcoast, who left Wikipedia completely disappointed at having been frustrated to death by attacks by Amaltheus, did it after I had wondered if it should be deleted. To be fair, Wassupwestcoast has several times wondered if there needed to be two articles on Wikipedia on the same subject, Introduction to evolution and evolution, and I tried to reassure him that there was a place for both several times. This time, I did not fight him on it. I have fought for the creation and preservation of Introduction to evolution for a year, and argued repeatedly against many who thought that introductory articles did not belong on Wikipedia. However, in the course of this FA process, I see few if any seem to care about this sort of article. As I have stated on the talk page and other places, I want someone to tell me why they believe it belongs on Wikipedia. Instead of me begging to keep it, someone else should tell me. I am not so sure now. For example, Amaltheus is welcome to convince me that it should be on Wikipedia, since he seems to be trying to get rid of it by attrition or blatant attacks, so he can accumulate more "article scalps" on his "F off list". His edits and demands are completely antithetical to an introductory article, and he has made repeated suggestions and challenges that are anti-science in nature, suggesting to me that he has an agenda to remove the article under all costs. So if Amaltheus wants to destroy it or remove it, I think he should be allowed to do so. I cannot fight him and I will not fight him. I am done fighting after a year of fighting. If Amaltheus wants to remove the article, he can make the case that it should be removed. I am done fighting for this article, at tremendous expense, with no assistance from others, particularly the administrators on Wikipedia in this instance who left us open to predation by Amaltheus. It is a bit much to require me to be cursed out repeatedly for weeks on end, but not allow me to say anything in my defense or even have this person cautioned for cursing me and engaging in disruptive editing. It just beggars the imagination. Should I have complained in a formal venue? Maybe, but having seen how administrators treat "newbies" and disruptive trolls and POV pushers in comparison to longstanding productive editors, I have little confidence that AN/I or Wikiquette alerts or anything else would be of value in this instance, and might have had negative consequences for the person lodging the complaint. We have to let these elements have the run of Wikipedia, because that is policy and I understand that and accept it. I can provide diffs of course, as above and I apologize if any of this offended anyone since it was not intended to offend.--Filll (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I don't believe Amaltheus is trying to get rid of the article; s/he entered a keep on the AfD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am willing to be convinced that there is a place for two evolution articles of a similar nature on Wikipedia. I would welcome the explanations and arguments from Amaltheus or anyone else that such needless duplication and an article that is clearly inferior because of its introductory nature has a place on Wikipedia. I would love to see any explanations of this and its value. --Filll (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Filll I would note that both you *and* Amaltheus have the disgruntled scientist (or whatever it's called) template on your user page. I find that very telling! I'm sure that both of your sets of contributions would be very helpful to the project. You both have strong feelings and we welcome frank discussion. You might want to create an RfC, and also review our dispute resolution procedure.Wjhonson (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) You and I both know the dispute resolution procedure is pretty dysfunctional and that we have to WP:AGF since he is new. I believe Amaltheus can do whatever he likes since he purports to be new (although I have my doubts that he is "new"). But thanks, I will take that under advisement but I think an RfC is unproductive and of zero or negative value in most cases. Amaltheus also pulled that notice from my page, since I am trying to encourage editors to think of potential methods for improving Wikipedia on the discussion page which is linked there on that notice. --Filll (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC) And I should note that any "characterization" I may be accused of simply stems from the sarcastic and harassing messages you have left on Amaltheus' talk page. I have little interest in the detail of the "edit warring" (quotations in case it's simply banter) but I do have a serious concern over deliberate attempts to belittle and harass other editors on Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't care a jot who said what but if I see people continually harping on at other editors I take issue. That's why I'm here and that's why this discussion is here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I apologize for using the word "characterization" which I realize might have some negative connotations apparently. This was not my intention and I apologize for any misunderstanding or offense or bad feelings which resulted.--Filll (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am not edit warring with him. Show me the edit warring. I am only congratulating him on his success. And I have stopped.--Filll (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If you agree to stop your "congratulating" and have no diffs to provide to back up your accusations against Amaltheus, then I think we can consider this resolved with the proviso that if your conduct resumes stiffer remedies may be required. Avruchtalk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC) As I said I don't care about the "edit warring" (quotations again in case it's banter/usual heated evolution discussion), I care about your continual harassment. I've provided enough diffs of your unreasonable behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) After trying to avoid Amaltheus and his outbursts and cursing for weeks, I finally tried to engage Amaltheus in friendly conversation after Amaltheus succeeded in driving off 2 people from Wikipedia that Amaltheus was working on the article with. I started to realize I had failed when Amaltheus constantly blanked my entries. After a few attempts, I gave up of course. I will not do so again since I realize now Amaltheus does not want to engage in any discussions or friendly conversation. I certainly do not intend to harass or belittle him in any way and we all have to assume GF in all circumstances no matter what the evidence is, especially if someone is new and I realize this is policy and I understand and accept it. I apologize to anyone for any offense I caused, including Amaltheus.--Filll (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I can't really comment on the Amaltheus situation, but I've been following the discussion at User talk:Firsfron, and from what I can see there, Filll has been continuing to badger Firsfron about his opinion of Orangemarlin. Despite Firsfron's attempt to calm the situation down and to explain things in rational terms, Filll has continued to go at it. I thought we were an encyclopedia, not a battleground. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Firsfron disparaged Orangemarlin and participated in a very negative conversation on Wikipedia Review for his allegedly "uncivil" behavior. I expressed my disappointment and disapproval of Firsfron's participation in such a forum and giving tacit approval to badmouthing of good faith edits and actions here on Wikipedia by well meaning editors. Firsfron said he was correct and that there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia Review and that even if negative things were said, he did not give tacit approval of them by participating in the conversation. I disagreed, but eventually gave up when it was clear he was positive he was correct. It was disappointing to me however that our policy of erring on the side of assuming that all POV warriors and trolls are allowed to do whatever they like, while those like Orangemarlin are to be vilifed for "uncivil" remarks expressed out of frustration at the trolls and POV warriors are castigated and worse. I unfortunately expressed my disappointment and vented my disappointment at learning that two of my collaborators had quit because of harassment by Amaltheus, and I expressed this opinion, although hopefully not in an offensive or uncivil way. I of course will apologize to anyone offended including Amaltheus and Firsfron for any offense that was inferred from my comments, which were not meant to be intemperate, but might be interpreted that way since I was upset at learning of this unfortunate attrition of our productive elements at the hands of yet another disruptive editor. I will place apologies on Firsfron's page and anywhere else that is deemed appropriate of course.--Filll (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) As promised above, I have apologized to Firsfron [140] and hopefully can make amends for my unfortunate behavior last night. I apologize to any and all who took offense at my behavior and my inappropriate expressions of disappointment and dismay.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This is getting out of hand. I'll look into this more when I get home from work tonight and see what I can do to calm things down. Raul654 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC) User:Filll, I am getting a Migraine just reading your colloquial English. Could this be the root of the problem, or am I just death, dumb, and illiterate? Igor Berger (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am confused to be honest. I am not sure what you mean. I understood that colloquial language was characteristically informal. I am of course being more careful and exact in what I write here since these are semi-formal proceedings. I was unaware therefore that I was using colloquial language here. I apologize for any offense that this post or my previous posts might have caused because it was purely unintentional.--Filll (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with your use of English. You are completely understandable, I have no idea what Igor is on about.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Agreed, I'd ignore that comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that since Filll has apologised and agreed to stop posting on Amaltheus' talk page then at least for now the matter is settled? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Burnout? I have no doubt that what we are witnessing is editor burnout, principally from the frustration of having to justify the same points again and again. This results is a trigger finger response that can lead to arguments where none should exist. I have noticed this type of burnout happening to other regulars at homeopathy too.[141] Fairly recently I experienced an interaction with Fill that was symtomatic of this burnout. After a "very strong oppose" from Filll on an RFA for Thumperward (talk · contribs), that had no explanation at all, I asked on his talk page if there were any reasons, principally because i respect his opinions and was thinking that there may be very good reason to switch to oppose. For some inexplicable reason this got characterised as "I have been taken to task by supporters several times on my talk page, for both opposing and for being reluctant to state why I oppose at this time". Not true at all and a less defensive attitude would never have seen such an comment from Filll. Similarly with Amaltheus (talk · contribs) I felt that Fill was overly defensive in his response. I think if Fill continues to interact with unfamiliar users in this overly defensive, and lets be frank, quite aggressive manner, then we will see many more of these fights. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC) With all due respect, this was over and settled long ago. And I can rehash these conversations ad nauseum if you like, but I really think this is like poking a caged animal. Want me to go into a big long description of why I think that fighting during RfAs is unseemly and unfair to the candidate? I think I explained it before. Did you miss that somehow? Did you not understand it perchance? Want me to dredge all that up again? I was hoping to support Thumperward for his next attempt, as long as I see him learning from the experience. I stated this before on these administrative pages. This strikes me as a bit... questionable at the minimum to bring this up again at this point. Want to drag poor Thumperward through the mud all over again? I would venture that that is unfair, to be honest, and uncalled for. I am just puzzled at this post frankly. --Filll (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Could be. In situations where burnout is likely a wikibreak is is the best way to get a perspective. I've been here for many years now and take regular but unexpected breaks for weeks or even months. I highly recommend it for anyone who feels they are getting too stressed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I believe we're getting somewhere here with Filll and I appreciate comments from all parties involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I agree and I think that concludes the portion of this issue that can be facilitated by AN/I. Avruchtalk 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

100% Defamation, racism and vandalism - school

Resolved

 – IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

87.42.135.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Last 50 edits have been 100% defamation, racism and vandalism. It's a school - HEANET - School Broadband Connection ID 5660, Ireland - with 3 recent blocks. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SchoolBlocked for three months. Nothing but abuse from that address - Alison ^❤ 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Monetary policy of the USA

3RR violation. Minor change in phrasing by user BigK to mask the violation.--Gregalton (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Before someone refers him to 3RR, note that 3RR is nuts, and insane, and ridiculous, and I wouldn't go there if you paid me. Unless it was a lot). ^Avruchtalk 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

------

Personally, I was unaware that the editing of this particular text was under dispute. I was under the impression that the contention was with another change. Specifically, I changed the unclear original text:

Ecological Economist, Herman Daly, has made some observations of the use of monetary policy. Daly has summarized that most of the basic money supply in the United States requires a cost in order to be maintained; although, his logic has been criticized due to his assertion that the change in money supply is due to demand, which justifies its cost. For the vast majority of US money in circulation, each dollar throughout the world represents a current outstanding loan.

to the elaborative version which has additions that are supported by the citation .. no meaning was lost, and new phraseology improves readability:

Ecological Economist, Herman Daly, has made some observations of the use of monetary policy. Eric Miller criticizes Daly's logic, concluding that money supply changes are due to demand, which justifies its cost; this in response to Daly's summarization which states that most of the basic money supply in the United States requires a cost in order to be maintained. It would follow that---for the vast majority of US money in circulation---each dollar throughout the world represents a current outstanding loan.

I would suggest that it is frivolous for Gregalton to post a notice about edit that change absolutely no meaning. BigK HeX (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since a notice on this article will need to be investigated, I would like to note that Gregalton is deleting cited and verifiable text while claiming "fringe" violations, but repeatedly fails (or refuses) to produce any verifiable evidence of a contradictory "mainstream." These edits are affecting the accuracy of the article, by causing unnecessary confusion and filling the article with irrelevent topics, further damaging readability and clarity. The proposed resonings that Gregalton has for his deletions seem to violate WP:DISRUPT, as they "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." I would appreciate any intervention, per the WP:TE essay, which states that "there is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." Perhaps, some of my concessions to Gregalton's earlier disputes have encouraged him to delete material, but now that I am offering verifiable text that he cannot reasonably dispute, he seems to have lost patience and is resorting to unwarranted deletions without discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cyrus111 making a mess

This user tries to revive Aryans and does not mind to use false references to fill Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) (and reinsert stubbornly) with WP:UNDUE gibberish: [142]. Moreover, he tries to put material together in a way that constitutes original research (WP:SYNTH), even though he does not manage for the "simple" reason that his sourced references don't support his claims for a bit. This is POV-pushing and in violation of WP:NOR. To be sure, this does not have anything to do with a justified encyclopedic compilation using proper quotes. One example of this abuse of sources out of three:

• His own quote "The Kurgan's thesis is the predominant model of Indo-European origins and likely the origin of the spread of R1a and R1a1." he sourced with Mallory (1989:185). Apart from the very one-sided inaccuracy of the first part of this statement, Mallory was absolutely agnostic of the gene R1a1 in 1989.

I don't know yet what policy he is violating by putting references around his claims using quotes that don't match, still this looks a pretty serious violation of something.

1. An assessment to the abuse of his sourced references you'll find at Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Iran_and_Central_Asia
2. We also had discussions here:[143]
3. And also here: [144]

Please do something, because nothing works to make him stop. Rokus01 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist vs. Number48

Resolved

 – Number48 blocked idefinitely, socks identified and blocked

• Davkal (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

• Number48 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

User:ScienceApologist appears to be engaging in a concerted campaign to disrupt Wiki. He has currently taken part in edit wars that have led to at least 5 separate articles being locked. Thuja, Thuja occidentalis, Homeopathy, What the Bleep Do We Know!? & Electronic voice phenomenon.

With regard to the two Thuja articles where I have been involved, he has rejected almost every source offered for the information he wants to exclude with a variety of nonsensical and bizarre claims. For example, the number one peer-reviewed journal for emergency medicine & resuscitation, Annals of Emergency Medicine is, according to ScienceApologist a "fringe" journal. [145]. He has also claimed that the Natural History Museum is merely a "search engine" and so is "unreliable". [146]. And he has dismissed a variety of other sources in an equally offhand manner.

On numerous occasions he has cited an alleged policy called "the principle of one-way linking", for example, [147], [148] & [149], but this simply turns out to be something he has concocted on his user page [150]. On other occasions when pressed about the particular sections of the policies and guidelines he says supports him, he refuses to cite them but links instead to two "tutorials" he has written [151] and simply will not be drawn on how those "tutorials" relate to the policies he is supposedly referring to [152].

As noted, this behaviour has resulted in many articles being blocked - and it will probably lead to those articles remaining blocked since he appears completely unwilling to compromise in any way. For example, a question was raised on the Wiki Project Plants page [153], but despite significant (virtually unanimous) support for the inclusion of the factual information about homeopathy from the plant project editors, ScienceApologist has not moved on this issue one iota. A situation that has led some of the plant editors to a view not dissimilar to mine. [154], [155], [156] & [157].

All in all then, ScienceApologist has made Wiki a particularly unpleasant place to be. I urge someone to do something about this problematic editor.Number48 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Complaints of this nature regarding this editor should probably be directed to WP:AE based on the remedies in this case. ^Avruchtalk 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How do those remedies apply in this case? Absent some blantant incivility, do you think ArbCom will do anything? I suppose you could say that SA's crusade against those he calls "POV-pushers" amounts to multiple and blanket assumptions of bad faith. Indeed this "fight against the POV-pushers" forms the basis of many of his talk page arguments. But somehow loudly proclaiming that you intend to treat Wikipedia as a battleground is considered immaterial to these discussions. I don't get it, but, what do I know, I've only been around here for a few months, and I'm still trying to figure out if this Wikipedia thing can work. Dlabtot (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very unfortunate, but I have tried to broker a compromise. So far this compromise has mostly been rejected by those on the nonmainstream side. I also do not believe the situation is exactly Number48 is describing it.--Filll (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs)

• SA does, IMO, persistently argue eristically and not towards consensus. (I'm not neutral about that, he's been a PITA to me). However, at least some of the specifics in this complaint aren't sufficiently well documented. Particularly, that SA calls Annals of Emergency Medicine "fringe"; his comment to the deletion diff provided is that the source was fringe, but that material doesn't indicate that AEM was the source for "used as an analgesic by homeopaths". So at the least that item should be clarified. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another in a series of complaints directed by supporters of pseudoscientific claptrap against SA. Over the past 5 days SA has made a distinct and substantial improvement in his civility, which was the concern expressed (again and again and again and again) by psuedoscientific supporters. It appears now that with his dramatic and continued improvement in civility, said supporters are attempting to find another tune to dance to - in this case it's hard to tell if it's revert warring or just being difficult about sourcing. Whatever, file an RFC for your content disputes like every pro-science editor is told to.

On the other hand, 48, arrived on January 21, his first edit was basically a revert in an edit war,([158], but with the knowledge of {{fact}} tags, and he was making personal attacks on that same day ([159] - his use page was since deleted as a copyvio). He was blocked for "Edit warring, falsely accusing others of vandalism" on Jan 23, and this block survived a {{unblock}} [160]. Since his unblock he has contributed to the free-floating homeopathy war, but nothing else. Hmm.... PouponOnToast (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• From what I've seen of SA on a few articles, he often asks very direct, often hard questions on sourcing. Since the responsibility always lies with the person who wants to include material in an article, if called to task on the validity of a source, they should be able to explain why under policy it's allowed. If SA asks hard questions, to ensure articles are compliant with NPOV, UNDUE, and FRINGE, this is not a bad thing. If the material the random editor wants to include is indeed worthy to include, they should have no problem answering a couple of direct questions to explain why. It's not on SA to bend NPOV to suit individuals that can't answer questions on sourcing; it's the other way around. I think this complaint is frivolous. Number48's efforts to include this material have been rebuffed on the thuja articles by a lot of editors, myself included, and not SA alone. He appears to be specifically going after SA to single him out by using the editor's previous history against him. Bad show. Lawrence § t/e 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only so many times one can point out that the Natural History Museum is a World renowned scientific institution and not a "search engine".Number48 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In any event, this is a content dispute from the perspective of the pseudoscience being pushed. If one user or a tiny minority of users are butting heads aggressively with many users, doesn't that tell you that the position of the tiny minority is not acceptable on Wikipedia by practice, policy, history, or precedent? If you don't stop attacking good contributors, it will be a behavioral issue on you for the admins to take more action on, similiar to your last block. Lawrence § t/e 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Content questions are not germaine for adminstrative attention (as pro-science editors are repeatedly told). If you have concerns with SA's disdain (which I share) towards your sources, please file an RFC or seek mediation. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Number48 also has attacked other editors, such as his previous userpage, seen here, which was, "Number 48 Hates arseholes who eat shit on toast", attacking PouponOnToast. Disruptive SPA user. Lawrence § t/e 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly urge any admins looking in on this case to look at the recent diffs very carefully. I would be the first to admit that User:ScienceApologist has a history of being highly abrasive toward fellow editors. His recent edits have not shown this. As a matter of fact, (notably in the Thuja article), there were other editors acting as aggressively, yet only this one was turned in. I would not be an apologist for any editors bad behavior, but I am convinced that User:ScienceApologist has not been acting in such a way in these recent cases, and I am concerned that he may be being targeted because of his past history, and the belief that he can be more easily blocked from editing than other editors who do not have a history of blocks. Again, please look carefully at what is being edited, and please be careful to examine questionable sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• N 48 was indefed by User:JzG. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Number48 was a single purpose account started either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet with the express purpose to promote inclusion of homeopathy on plant articles. He is not the only one to do this. User:Area69 also showed up at approximately the same time and has a eerily similar username. User:Anthon01 has been around somewhat longer but has also had some suspicion of untoward behavior cast upon him. In short, these editors are acting in tandem to attempt to harass me off the wiki. In an ideal world, these pov-pushers would be blocked by Wikipedia administrators, but we are currently going through a phase where many Wikipedia administrators are either too scared or too accommodating to act to remove disruptive and tendentious editors. These users have learned that appealing to these processes is a good gamble because often administrators won't bother to look carefully into situations and instead will take at face-value the false claims and accusations. Even as we speak, a rather substantial group of Wikipedians is planning a protest edit-stoppage to bring greater visbility to this problem. If it is not addressed soon, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy will become historical. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite over. There seems to be a sock drawer here. Thatcher 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you requested checkuser to empty the whole drawer? Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Even better. I AM a checkuser.  Confirmed the puppetmaster is Davkal (talk · contribs). Thatcher 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Ooh, when did that happen. If only I had known... Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • The only other active account is LionelStarkweather (talk · contribs), also blocked. There's a few that might be sleepers but I'll watch them. Thatcher 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot

76 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 – seems to be working again - Keeper

Hello. It seems that there is something wrong with ClueBot. It isn't warning users anymore. What is going on? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it was having some other problems earlier ( User talk:Cobi/Archives/2010/October#ClueBot has gone nuts )...Maybe Cobi is working on it? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Have noticed this as well this evening, since 20:40 according to logs. I've left a note at User talk:ClueBot Commons as well, as that seems to be the right place. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when people (*cough*Tim*cough*Starling*cough*) break the parser. Notice how {{{1}}} is no longer being subst'd correctly.

As for not warning, something is going awry with api.php. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I have fixed the second problem, now to fix the template problem. -- The bot is offline, by the way, until this is fixed. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed. I implemented a parser workaround in the template. Bot started again. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems back and working well again. Thanks — alex.muller (talk • edits) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nessaholic13

Resolved

 – Account blocked for being vandalism-only account, talk page deleted, sent to oversight. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. User:Nessaholic13 has posted his/her phone number on his/her userpage. Is this allowed? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight01

User:Moonlight01 is continuing to upload non-free images without sources, fair-use rationales, or licensing information and using them to replace existing images for no apparent reason. One of her replacements included replacing an official manga cover with what appears to be a bootleg DVD cover. She/He is ignoring all warnings and reverts of her changes, and even uploaded another image to try again when one was tagged for having no fair use rationale or source. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if this user uploads anything past your "final warning". I'll perform the block after reviewing the contrib. As of know, moonlight01 hasn't done anything after your "Last Warning". Cheers, Keeper | 76 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Denial of editing to others

Resolved

 – No sysop action needed at this time. Please move discussion to dispute resolution. nat.utoronto 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – User unblocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If anyone thinks I've got it wrong here, please feel free to unblock: User_talk:Kcmafia#Blocked. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but what the hell do I know? Keeper | 76 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

True, his edits weren't the most constructive, but he's had no warnings yet. If I was you, the best thing you could have done is to drop him a uw-test2/3 and we could have taken it from there. All I'd suggest for the future is try and warn users as much as possible before you move in with blocks - they often stop their misconduct. Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know, a warning might have helped prior to an indef block. I think with the recent discussions here you aren't going to get a great reaction to this block. ^Avruchtalk 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's my first (blush), but it seem gross. I'll unblock. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally it can't hurt to start off with escalating blocks, and unless its really egregious at least one warning is advisable. Tends to keep the volume down here on AN/I... ^Avruchtalk 02:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, I've now unblocked the account. I did, however, consider his vandalism unnecessarily offensive, especially since I earlier semi-protected Cunt due to the return of anon IP vandalism since the last semi expired. It's been a long day. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

im not an admin, btu forgiveness is a virtue.that user was disrutpive, but it is usually as i've seen it done more common to start from warnings then to temporary blocks then to permanent blocks rather than starting with a permanent block and working your way down to feeble warnings. just a thought. Smith Jones (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, User:Smith Jones. Spot on, as always. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I pray God you were being sarcastic... -- Bellwether ^B_C 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. What gave you that idea? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have no earthly idea. -- Bellwether ^B_C 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Disconcerting AfD posts

Resolved

 – Editor revised the posts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard is still going through a whirl of AfDs with such "votes" as "Seems damn uninteresting too, unless you're 5", "Oh and the current revision of the article is shit, by the way", "None of this unnecessary extra geek shit", "Shitty article and probably self-promotion to an unknown band", etc. He appears to be just going through AfDs as I type making such terse, insulting comments. He has been blocked multiple times for various items before. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a problem for many reasons. I warned him and gave him some advice. Hopefully the user takes it into consideration. the_undertow ^talk 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if he does not take undertow's advice it is time for a nice long block. Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be patient and give him a chance to go back and revise them first. I also left a comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Tiptoety ^talk 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He claims to be "on a deletion rampage". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• He does appear to be reworking the problematic comments, though. -- Bellwether ^B_C 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on Essay Wikipedia:Single-purpose account ?

Resolved

POV tag strikes me as being out of place and would not apply to an essay. see Wikipedia_talk:Single-purpose_account#POV_tag. "Essay" implies personal viewpoint. There is a space in between policy and guideline, and personal viewpoint, for pages which reflect information widely held within the community, but which is neither "just one person's thoughts on a theme" nor an official policy/guideline. the tag states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.", however being an essay and containing the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors how is this possible? --Hu12 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel fret to remove tags that you feel are inapporriate. Tags can be added by any users and its possible that the user who addrressed this tag to that essay did not know the proper policy regarding the tag. I dont think that you need to come to WP:ANIfor something like this. Smith Jones (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Stagalj‎ (talk · contribs · count) has been involved in edit warring and IP sock puppetry. I have warned them previously. A final warning has now been issued. If they cause any more disruption, they should be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Explains the tendentiousness of the POV claim. Thanks for the clarification--Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seancarlin84‎

Resolved

 – Blocked

Repeated vandalism, edit-warring, and incivility. Has left several unwarranted personal attacks on my talk page page, and continues to blank his own talk page, which is full of warnings. Enigmaman (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seancarlin84 (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours by Sandstein. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane community ban discussion

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

This is in response to an email I received from a concerned editor. It would appear that User:Coloane continues to attempt to use FAC as a weapon for causing disruption against editors he has a beef with. There was a prior ANI discussion (here about possible problems with Coloane; this was resolved by Raul, who said that mentoring Coloane was a possible option. However, one of the main points in that discussion, that Coloane was using FAC intentionally to disrupt Wikipedia, was lost I think, and it is still happening. Two relevent difs: here: [161] where he claims to wish to see another editors article "fail and die at FAC" and here: [162] where he threatens to obstruct any articles edited by another user from becoming FAC. These edits are personally directed, and represent a directed attempt to disrupt, in my opinion. Now, this was all in the prior ANI report, however the behavior continues DESPITE the prior report. At this dif where he opposes the article U2, he makes a veiled reference to his deliberate attempt to obstruct of the Russia FAC. And the final issue is here: [163] where he cleary says that he is making outrageous and unactionable claims on the article, simply to obstruct the vote. This is stretching the bounds of good faith, and we should consider a community ban restricting this user from the entire FA process. What I see here is repeated attempts (feeble as they may be) to push a personal agenda by making outlandish and rediculous oppose votes at FA nominations. That such votes are patently rediculous and likely to be discounted by the FA director is moot. The Russia FAC would have failed regardless of Coloanes clumsy attempt to disrupt it; likewise the U2 FAC is likely to succeed in spite of it. However, these obvious and rediculous attempts at trolling need to be stopped. I recognize that he has been a valuable contributor to many articles here at Wikipedia, but he clearly misunderstands how to work well with others at FAC, and a community ban may be in order. Any ideas?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed his "vote" and the discussion thread from the FAC, directing him to dispute resolution. It was an inappropriate, unhelpful, and needlessly antagonistic exchange. El_C 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. I still press that a community ban of some sort on FA discussions needs to be addressed. Do others agree, or do we need to let this play out further. As I noted, the user has made some clearly positive contributions, but this behavior at FA should not be suffered for much longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are something wrong here. You tried to talk about the vote from Russia (or the last message from the noticeboard) and mixed up the vote I put on U2 in order to rationalise your above message. This is my first time to see it. Again, my vote in Russia and U2 are fair with highly detail reasons and they are all seperate issues. It doesn't make sense and it is rude to erase my vote over there. Everyone can go there and vote. With the message I wrote to Mikoyan is a third matter. You had better treat it one by one. So go back to the U2 issue. You made my comment over my comment, why didn't you take this to the talk page? I answered your question politely and illustrated my point clearly. The message I wrote you is to tell you what vote means and my comment is entirely my personal view. If you are not a nominator nor main editor of U2, you can simply ignore it. It is not a message to tell you that I will come here to disrupt FAC next time. Probably you didn't pay attention or misunderstood. Coloane (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have a history of behavior which cannot be ignored at this point. You don;t get to disrupt FAC after FAC over and over simply because you want us to forget about past problems. You have never adequately explained you outright declarations to intentionally disrupt the processes at FAC. For this reason, I feel the community ban is an appropriate solution. I urge you to refrain from commenting on FACs and FARs in the future, and return to editing articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is your concrete evidence to prove that I disrupt/ed the FAC process? I am not going to write anymore here since it really wastes me too much time to reply your comment, so this is my last comment here. I guess you probably wanted to save your face on my comment under U2. Plus I guess you have nothing to do so far and that is why you spent most of your time to see if you can do something. Oh by the way, it seems you did a right job to give a warning to someone I didn't know. Hopefully this is not the only one you can do as an admin. Good luck! Coloane (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem: [164]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then put this comment on Archive 354. Coloane (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see related thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Ongoing_harrassment.2C_vote_rigging_and_sockpuppetery_by_User:Coloane. It would seem a community ban on FA/GA discussions is the next stage from here. Orderinchaos 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall Coloane has commented in a past Macau FAC with personal attacks directed at Tony and myself at the very least. I have reminded this user that the attacking behaviour is unacceptable, but has ignored the message. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (GMT)

So the question remains: Are we prepared to institute and enforce a community ban on this user? Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence above, something needs to be done; I just don't know what. Maybe a ban, maybe FAC probation. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (GMT)

I think if the user were restricted from any future FA discussions, that would be a reasonable solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that he has not clean up his acts & instead went on his 'crusade' further by ignoring any past community warnings or actions & even while his case is in arbitration now, I wld like to bring to your attention on his editing behaviour & actions towards Singapore-related articles & the SGpedia community not too long ago. As his case is still pending here, he has 'retired' suddenly as of Jan 23 but I've lingering doubts that he will remain so for long. [165]. u may also want to read his remarks posted on Jimbo Wales' talkpage previously. Fyi, I'm a RC patroller & was given the roll-back authority to help in monitoring on Singapore-related articles for such trolls & vandals. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane is my husband. I already let him retire and he will not come back for sure. I hope it can clarify your doubt. In addition, I do not think your claim about what he did for Singapore-related topics are reasonable. Guia Hill 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

The statement I made were based on his pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen from his history logs, talkpage (blanked repeatedly[166]), personal attacks on SG-related articles [167] & SGpedians [168] that also matches similar reports made by other editors/Admins all these while. I'm not alone nor the only SGpedian in making such a statement as seen from this discussion, related disputes & repeated ANI cases initiated unabatedly over the past 2 weeks. Besides the SG case I mentioned earlier, I trust the Wiki community is able to evaluate on any such claims being discussed here & decide on its final long-term solution once & for all as the community has tolerated such behaviour long enuf. The community only welcome & valued volunteers who are civil and constructive to the spirit and aspirations of Wikipedia in the long run. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia anymore. I just make a response here for you. You can leave your message on my talk page if you want. Your claims are entirely not relevant. He already got warnings from someone and this matter was over long time ago. What Jayron32 wrote is also irrelevant. I didn't have much time to read his edit history. But I am sure that Miyokan is the one who voted and really disrupted the FAC process and that is why Coloane reacted emotionally on his talk page. That is why Raul restarted the nomination. Jayron32 didn't read the context carefully. Finally I would like to tell you that this page is not a battlefield for retaliation. I don't enjoy this much. I also trust Wikipedia can foster people how to love and respect each other. Nobody is prefect here. With love and peace!! Guia Hill 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

I responded to your earlier replies even though your intervention consitutes a possible COI here. My statement made were backed with factual logs & third-party's reports & I'm not using this platform as "a battlefield for retaliation" as u claimed; I'm expressing my views & concern here in my capacity as a RC patroller. Despite numerous warnings & repeated ANI action in recent weeks, he still persist with his disruptive remarks/action at the expense of the good faith & assistance extended to him earlier. Whether my view or someone else view is being discounted or not, the onus is still left for the community to decide in arriving at a consensus as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Ask him & yourself honestly this question - what led to this unwholesome karma now? Shld he chooses to return to contribute esp on Macau/HK-related articles in future, we hope he wld have reflected & learnt on this whole episode & to accord everyone the same "love & respect" as u mentioned above. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban from FAC. Long-term disruption leaves little confidence in a change after this. Lara❤Love 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Laralove, Jayron and Aldwinteo. Aldwinteo's remarks about the SG situation cause me particular concern regarding this user. We do not need people taking out vindictive GARs/FARs - it only creates more work for already overworked volunteers. Orderinchaos 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumours of his retirement might just be premature [169]. He also seems "used to" bans. hmmm --Merbabu (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Move for closure

Seeing no objections to the course of action, I say that we should notify the user that it has been decided that he is asked to make no further comments to FA and GA discussions in any way, and that such a probation means that if he continues to do so he may be blocked for disruption. Could another admin notify him of this. He already hates me, apparently, and in the interest of representing the widespread support for this proposal, it may be better if a relatively uninvolved admin notifies the user of this decision. If I do it, it may be taken as bullying him or something. Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is less than two days of discussion really enough to be able to gauge community consensus? At AfD at least five days is required. Guest9999 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this issue isn't only 2 days old. There are prior ANI reports on this user. Its been a frequent topic of discussion for over a week; the priod discussions are linked above. If this were truly only a two day discussion, I would agree with you, however, though THIS thread is only two days old, this problem has been being addressed by admins for some time, and despite this, the user continues the problematic behavior. He knows that we know what he is doing. He knows that we have told him to stop. He has not yet stopped. If you disagree that any action is needed, please say so yourself. The thread is here, and open to comment. What do YOU think needs be done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could tell (please correct me if I'm wrong) none of the other threads mentioned a community ban. So far in this thread four users (by my count) have supported a ban, two of whom are - or have been - involved in disputes with the user. Other users have suggested dispute resolution or simply unecertainty as to what action to take. Personnaly I do not think that this shows that a community consensus has been formed. Guest9999 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the views of ‘involved’ editors are less valid than those who are - um - uninvolved, perhaps you yourself could comment on the issue (as opposed to commenting on procedure around the issue) – as Jayron has already suggested.

PS, I am what you might call an “involved” editor, and have thus not commented in this thread (until now). --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Their opinions are no less valid, it's just that they have a conflict of interest within the situation that has to be taken into account. The main points I wanted to make were that the discussion on banning had been running for less than two days with four users supporting the idea and two uncertain, to me the length of time and level of contribution - at this stage - does not show the consensus of the community required for such a ban. Guest9999 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I've no prior disputes with Coloane as my only direct contact with him so far wrt to the above case, is my reply to his posting at the Singapore talkpage dated Jan 3 & it ended there with a non-reply from him. Also, I've not advocated any specific action here earlier, except calling for a final resolution done thru' a community consensus when presenting the mentioned case and its relevant facts. If a vote is needed so as to wrap up this case once & for all, I'll cast my vote formally then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

That formal dispute resolution processes are started to receive wider community input on the behavior of editors here. Let's start with an WP:RFC. Any objections to this idea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno how this proposal will go mate, I hope this case will not 'loose steam' again & be consigned to the 'Archives' & forgotten like [170] & [171] earlier. Also, I fear that the longer this case drags on, more 'show-stoppers or proxies' may pop up to derail the case,[172] although it's a clear-cut case of recalcitrant behaviour based on its merits for all to see. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it appears no one here cares much one way or the other, else we would have received more comments on this one. Users have valid concerns about a community ban so far; and if ArbCom will even accept this it needs to be shown that due process is followed and steps are taken at the community level to handle this. RFC seems a reasonable solution... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed immediate topic bans

• After reviewing the diffs above, I support an immediate and permanent topic ban on this editor. Classic disruption, nothing more, nothing less. It's these type of editors that discourage good people from contributing. -- Bellwether ^B_C 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I concur that, since no editor has come forward to support or excuse Coloane's behaviour (not even Coloane - he now claims to have permanently retired from Wikipedia), an RFC seems a complete waste of productive editing time and give my Strong support for immediate topic bans on:

1. Asian topics other than Macau and Hong Kong
2. FACs and FARs

for a minimum period of 9 months. I am an "involved editor". Alice^✉ 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support of the above including GAC & GAR ban as per his history logs. Unlike wat u think Jayron32, I believe this case is being monitored by many of his past victims & affected WikiProject groups but they're reluctant to comment or support further; either they have given up hope on seeing any final resolution again as per previous long drawn clashes/ANI episodes, or to avoid being seen as 'bullying' or 'involved editor' at this stage now. Let's get this done with so that everyone can move on & get back to our regular tasks in Wikipedia folks. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why this couldn't go to arbitration? Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are an administrator who I greatly respect, Carcharoth, so I am a bit puzzled by the implied implication that it should go to the ArbCom; I don't think there is any technical reason for not raising it at ArbCom (although they may decline to accept it). (It can't go to other forms of arbitration, I presume, because Coloane has stated on his user page that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia due to time constraints.) Alice^✉

• Support as this was my idea from the first. However, some users apparently felt this was too harsh. As to why this couldn't go before the arbiters; well it could, and no one can read their minds, they could accept it. However, based on a long history of precedent, ArbCom is more reluctant to take on cases where no prior attempts at behavior correction are undertaken at the community level. If these topic bans (GA, FA, and any Asia related articles except Macau and Hong Kong) are violated, THEN ArbCom will have something to work from. Lets atleast try to handle this at the community level before involving the ArbCom... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Support - Support ban on WP:FAC and WP:FAR for a period of less than one year, followed by a permanent ban if disruptive behaviour resumes. Final warning for disruptive behaviour on Asian topics followed by an immediate and indefinate ban if there is any further disruptive behaviour. Support ban only if (and then when) the editor resumes editing Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, duh. However, we should notify them of the ban if we decide to enforce it. They claim to be retired, and while that may be so for now, if and when they return, they need to know that the ban is in place (whetever we decide it should be). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple but informative notes (referencing this discussion) placed on Coloane's User and User Talk pages will suffice. Coloane will get the big orange message directing him to his talk page if and when he logs on again. Alice^✉ 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my above comments. Orderinchaos 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: Interesting. As far as I know, the previous ANI discussion [173] regarding similar behaviors had the conclusion: "a mentorship or some kind of user-user adoption would be in order." Notice that not even a formal warning is issued. And a couple of days later we're talking about an "immediate and permanent topic ban." Even blatant vandals are warned a few times before they are blocked. Shouldn't User:Coloane be at least warned first? That if his behavior continues, he will be banned from all FAC pages for a long, long time? It worries me to see such a severe measure is taken without warning the involved editor first. Since banning is used to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users, and any further disruptions by Coloane can be easily identified, I don't see why you cant be more generous and forgiving. Josuechan (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That ANI you referenced, like many, just fizzled out. That was a concluding comment - not a closing summation of the consensus reached, I would suggest.

There is no ban proposed here. There would be more than a million WArts (Wikipedia Articles) he could still edit. The topic ban is specific and proportional to the damage and disruption caused. He has been warned many times - not with templates but with comments left on talk pages. How would you suggest further disruption to Wikipedia by Coloane be prevented if not with the specific and directed and proportional measures proposed? Alice^✉ 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just block/ban him outright? He's said he's effectively 'done' here anyway. HalfShadow (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In response top Josuechan, his numerous responses to each of the ANI's shows that he is well aware that a) what he is doing is regarded as wrong and b) he doesn't seem to care. The fact that no-one left a generic uw-template on his talk page means little... We have no reason to doubt that he is fully aware what he did was unwelcome, and yet he continued it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Coloane is fully aware that what he did was unwelcome. Maybe he is not. But that is not the point; the point is that he may not be aware of the severe consequence as he was not warned of that. He might have expected to be blocked/banned for a few days or a week. But come on, nine months? When someone is trying to kill you and you have a gun, you shoot his legs first, not his head. There's a reason why atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima first, then Nagasaki, but not Tokyo.

Any actions taken should be aimed at preventing disruptions, not punishing users. Banning Coloane on FAC/FAR discussions and other Asian topics for a long time would only induce him to assume a new identity to disrupt, if he chooses to do so. Think about it, a new user who aims secretly to game the system, and the good old Coloane: who's easier to spot? Josuechan (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should be primarily focussed on preventing damage to the project and you make a valid point about reincarnation. You seem to know him well - may I press you to answer my question and suggest the remedy that you think would be more effective, please, Josuechan? Alice^✉

That's a difficult question and I was secretly hoping I would not be pressed to answer it. But since you insist, here's my two cents. An economist would tell you that a user would assume a new identity when the benefits to do so are greater than the costs. What are the benefits? Well, he could get rid of maybe a dozen users who are keeping an eye on him and evade the ban. What are the costs? He would lose his some 1000 edits and the shiny barnstar. What I am saying is that banning him for nine months makes the reincarnation option too tempting to resist, as the benefits far outweigh the costs. Just ask yourself: with so many enemies and a ban of 9 months, while those 1000 edits could be made in maybe 3 months, wouldn't you just get a new account right away? So I say a ban of duration at most a month, otherwise it's counter-productive.

Note that Coloane is no vandals; he made quite a few valuable contributions. The ultimate solution is to lure him to make more edits, acquire more barnstars and build up a reputation, so that there's more at stake. But since whether he will come back or not is still a question, I'm not going to bore you any further. Josuechan (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very perceptive analysis, Josuechan.

Let me throw another variable into the calculation. Let us take Coloane at his word and assume he will be rather busy in his new job for, say, 2 months. That presumably means we should add on the time when he has no time to edit to your estimate of the attractive period for him to sit out a topic ban. That makes 3 months. I also think we should discount the fact that he will not be banned from editing - just banned from certain topics. He's not stupid and knows that if he appears at FACs, FARs, GACs & GARs he will be spotted as a sockpuppet and blocks begin. I think the discount that should be applied for this opportunity sacrifice should be quite large, but lets err on the conservative side. Would you support a topic ban of 4 months starting tomorrow? Alice^✉ 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your spirit, Alice, but I'm in no position to bargain the duration of a "sentence." I'm just concerned about the procedural justice (severe punishment without a warning of the consequence) and whether such a punishment would have its desired effect. I do not oppose nor support the 4-month ban you mentioned, and seeing that all the people agree with your original 9-month ban proposal, you don't need my blessings to go ahead. Josuechan (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if he assumes a new identity to disrupt the project, the limited scope topic ban on not editing FA and GA discussions instantly becomes an indefinate block on both usernames as an abuse of sockpuppets to evade a ban. We don't avoid issuing sanctions because we fear that the person we are sanctioning may "cheat" to avoid them. If they do, they have broken ANOTHER rule, and that will be met by further action. However, I still haven't seen any reason why this user should NOT be proscribed from FA and GA discussions, beyond "he didn't know what he was doing would result in sanction" (he knew it was wrong; that he didn't know what punishment he risked is moot... He knew that he shouldn't do it and he did it anyways. The specifics of the sanction should not have entered into his calculation to decide to break the rules. Such a reasoning is rediculous.) and "He might just cheat to avoid the sanctions" (well, lets atleast assume SOME good faith here, and if he does, there will be additional consequences for his actions). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day it comes down to this - I don't believe many new users would come on and think that vindictively disrupting the Featured Article process to spite users who vote or offer advice on an article candidature in which he is clearly over-invested, is non-sanctionable behaviour. We have disruptive behaviour guidelines for a reason. I don't believe for a second that he would seriously believe he could continue like this indefinitely. Orderinchaos 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just two brief comments:

1) "We don't avoid issuing sanctions because we fear that the person we are sanctioning may "cheat" to avoid them." Don't forget sanctions are given to prevent disruptions, not as punishment. It follows that if it is expected that a severe measure would induce more disruptions, then it should not be given. That was my first point.

2) "The specifics of the sanction should not have entered into his calculation to decide to break the rules. Such a reasoning is rediculous." Gary Becker might not agree with you. Suppose you travel to a different country and somehow you run out of money and have to steal food. You're caught and according to the penal codes of the country, your hands should be chopped off. It's too severe, of course. But surely, stealing is wrong, and the specifics of the sanction should not have entered into your calculation to decide to break the rules. That was my second point.

I'm glad this incident is coming to an end. Take care. Josuechan (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Amended proposed sanction

In the light of discussions in the previous section, I now propose:

With the exception of topics specifically relating to Hong Kong or Macau, User:Coloane is prohibited until 1 June 2008 from editing

1. either Asian articles or Asian article talk pages
2. FACs, FARs, GACs and GARs

Appropriate warnings are to be placed on Coloane's User and User Talk pages making clear that

1. breaches of these topic bans will result in blocks
2. attempts to circumvent these topic bans by using different user names will result in indefinite blocks on all relevant usernames as an abuse of sockpuppets to evade a topic ban
3. the warnings should not be removed before 1 June 2008 (so that editors may be aware of the topic bans and react appropriately if they are breached).

• Support Alice^✉ 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Unless there's a valid objection expressed from a highly respected official arbitrater, there's no need for another round of vote at this stage now as almost all the users has supported the proposed topic ban as summarised based on the discussion so far:

Support

• Jayron32
• Orderinchaos -- topic ban (FA/GA) good, rest seems a bit bureaucratic? Orderinchaos 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• 哦，是吗？
• LaraLove
• Bellwether
• Alice
• Aldwinteo - Coloane was warned by experienced editors from different WikiProject groups & admins on several occasions & was blocked twice before - the recent case was for 24hrs for violation of 3RR on Jan 11 [174]. Instead, he persisted with his recalcitrant ways immediately after his ban (although he claimed he won't be returning back to Wiki until the following week due to his bz schedule then. Sound familiar?) which led subsequently to the previous ANI & Checkuser case (both unresolved), & finally to this ANI case which we have been discussing for the past 7 days now. How do one communicate with such individual when he resorted in blanking his talkpage repeatedly to hide his incriminating remarks/acts & the increasing spate of warnings against him? See [175] [176] [177] [178] (He claimed it was his "user's right" to do so, when everyone know it's a 'privilege' & 'not rights' as it can be challenged or revoked by anyone anytime as per Wikipedia policies & guidelines) In fact, his remarks & actions all these while (till his sudden retirement) doesn't show he was repentant or receptive to warnings (even from an admin) or even good counsel at all! As such, I supported the first proposal by Alice's which nearly all of us here find it's a fair resolution in relation not only to the disruptive acts he has committed so far, but also as per his positive contribution mainly to Macau/HK-related articles previously. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• HalfShadow
• DGG -- previously uninvolved altogether. Topic bans are a good option we should be considering in general.

Semi-support

• Guest9999 I absolutely oppose a user not being able to remove warnings from their user/user talk page. Guest9999 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Sandra123234345 - I oppose because in the past few days, some reasonable oppose comments have been removed. This shows that the support people do not have sufficient grounds for banning and must resort to removing all discussion which is different from their opinion.

I support an outright block of 1-2 months and then no restrictions on editing. Trying to restrict certain topics is just muzzling someone and can be a tactic to censor opinions by falsely claiming other editors with different opinions are the same person as the sock. This is a tactic used by editors trying to own certain articles. Sandra123234345 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC) See below for a simpler proposal which is an outright block then welcome back later, not complicated scheme like the above.Sandra123234345 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Sandra123234345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have not seen any oppose comments being removed. If you could link to them with diffs, or if you don't know how to do this, give the date and time of the edits, I'll certainly have a look. Orderinchaos 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

diff of my comments which were deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=186769152 I will not repeat what I wrote before because I was blocked indefinitely before just for writing these comments shown in the diffs and do not want to be blocked again. So to prevent being blocked again, I will not comment any further except to say that I agree with you 10,000% whatever side you are on. Whoaslow (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Very strange, it was reverted by an admin who has not expressed any view on this debate at all. I wouldn't doubt there's been some misunderstanding - there's nothing controversial there, even if I disagree with it. Orderinchaos 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the user was blocked for being an "AN/I troll"[179] by the admin in question. I would guess that is why he removed the user's contribution. Guest9999 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Either that or he was using "trolling" as an excuse because Orderinchaos thinks there is nothing controversial there. The administrator who called it trolling actually harms a fair process and discussion by tampering. In real life, if the police tamper with evidence, the criminal goes free. If a hospital alters the records, the patient wins the malpractice lawsuit. Maybe the administrator opposes the proposal so he tampers with it? Whoaslow (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not waste precious time further by sidetracking to another issue now. If u have any outstanding issues with the admin concerned, do highlight this on his talkpage instead, not here as we're trying to close this case. Otherwise, hold your peace as other watchful admins may deemed further remarks or participation esp by a newly created user a/c as disruption on this ANI page. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know we are wasting precious time. Let's decide now and close the case like you suggested. Whoaslow (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I only commented on the specific diff (my sole act of investigation involved clicking "next diff" twice to see when and how it disappeared), I didn't investigate any issues of overall behaviour. It seems to me, on looking further, that it was caught up in a sweep. Trolling does exist and is widespread unfortunately, if one sits here for a few days one sees an awful lot of it. This is one reason why, despite being an admin, I only visit AN/I periodically and focus more on positive pursuits such as getting articles to B-class or higher, and managing my watchlist. Otherwise one gets rather disillusioned about the whole thing (it's like trying to judge a city by sitting in the foyer of its central police watch-house.) Orderinchaos 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here, although I'm a RC patroller, I spend most of my time in wiki in writing DYK/GA-class articles previously. I believe u missed out this interesting statement [180] in your earlier investigation too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Abstain

• Josuechan

Let's give another day by Jan 28 (UTC) for everyone, including newcomers, to contemplate on the final details of the proposal or to reconsider their votes now. I believe many wld want to see a final closure soon including the 'silent watchers' on this long-drawn case, but we shld show all parties concerned that our deliberations & final consensus reached shown fairness & accountability as a record for ArbCom or audit later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why are we running a poll? Furthermore, I did not express any approval nor disapproval of actions to take; I was merely tossing some ideas up in the air, along with some evidence. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

'cos voting is a common tool used to gauge consensus in Wikipedia. As mentioned above, anyone mentioned on the list is free to correct or comment accordingly. In order to facilitate a final closure of this case, the list was compiled to serve as a gauge of the discussion so far. Anyway, whether by vote, debates, judging panels or whatever process deployed here or elsewhere in Wiki, it's but a 'means' to reach an outcome ultimately. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Amended proposed sanctions II

A 2 month block as punishment then AGF and no restrictions after that unless the user acts badly.

Comment: Currently this proposal has 100% support and the other one has some opposition. So this proposal should be accepted unless the vote changes. Sandra123234345 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I did not see anyone here (including myself) expressing prior 100% support on your proposal of outright ban other than topic ban that has been discussed in much details so far. As a new user since Jan 27,[181] cld u tell us why r u so particularly interested in tackling on ANI cases, instead of editing articles according to your edit history to date?[182] -- Aldwinteo (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Sandra123234345

Oppose

• DGG - Considering he is a good editor in some respects this does not seem addressed to the situation. Why should we block him where it isn't necessary?
• Orderinchaos - Agreed with DGG, he has strongly disrupted one part of the encyclopaedia but in others his editing appears positive.
• Blocking should never be used as punishment. The result of a punitive block would be even more atrocious behaviour. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Proposal 3

I oppose proposal II as does most people. Blocking is often used as punishment but it is not supposed to be. Someone said that the person is taking a break and can't use dispute resolution (therefore, they are proposing to place a topic ban). This is not logical. The logical way would be to say that before he edits in the topics, he must use dispute resolution or he will be blocked (not you will be gone so we skip certain steps). I think this proposal should satisfy everyone because it incorporates the first proposal yet also incorporates the dispute resolution proposal. So,

Proposal 3: The community has decided that user must participate in dispute resolution upon return. If they return before 1 June 2008 but does not participate in dispute resolution, the user may be blocked for periods up time up to 1 June 2008. Whoaslow (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Whoaslow

Oppose

• The user has never acknowledged what they are doing is wrong, and they have been given several opportunities to reform, none of which have been taken. Dispute resolution is unnecessary bureaucracy in a case where the facts are clear and the person's actions in violation of core policy. Orderinchaos 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• I suspect this would result in additional drama rather than resolution of any dispute. DGG (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to wrap this up

OK, things are starting to get a bit crazy above, but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental disagreement with a topic ban on FAC and GAC, as he has disrupted in both. I think other Asian topics is a bit wide, and I think some of the other approaches advocate a bureaucracy-heavy approach either from banning from things which he has not disrupted (which would be punitive) or opening unnecessary dispute resolution mechanisms (which would allow continued disruption). What do others think? Orderinchaos 12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Recommendation. In line with the agreed principle that we shld topic ban based on the extent of an individual's past disruptions. Let's proceed along with a topic ban on FAC/FAR, GAC/GAR & drop the Asian-centric clause with a replacement that he should not touch on those topics/articles that he has previously disrupted. It's also in his interest too, as I believe that the folks at those affected WikiProject groups will definitely not forget him - they will be on the lookout for him or any similar sockpuppets/related proxies in order to report him promptly to higher arbitration next time round or worse. Let's close this case now as it has somewhat turned into the longest running case (nearly 8 days now) on this page now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the above is proposal number 4

Topic ban on FAC and GAC until June only. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk)

Carried

User has been notified per [183]. The terms are:

• No editing of FA or GA administration pages
• 24 hour block if violated
• Can approach user in good standing - eg WikiProject rep - if own articles to be listed (I know this wasn't discussed, but it seemed a thoroughly reasonable exception)

I did not place a time limit on it - an AN/I consensus at some future time can do such if need be, if the user has a good record of behaviour at that point it's almost a given it'd be lifted, as the ban is intended solely to prevent disruption. Orderinchaos 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)